CalgaryNEXT Discussion pt. 2

[Funkhouser]

Originally Posted by New Era

On to CalgaryNext, I am in support of this project for some public funding. The extent of that public funding is what needs to be addressed. Why do I like CalgaryNext over the Braves stadium? Meeting needs, Public access and space. The city needs to do something with the west villiage. That has been an ongoing problem for 50 years. This is an opportunity to fix it and provide an anchor to that area. I also love the concept of the field house. This is a long time coming to Calgary and greatly needed. The central location is key as is the access to mass transit. This is a space for all Calgarians. The new arena is also a must. The reasons for the arena have been discussed at length, but the bottom line is it allows access to events that would bypass Calgary otherwise. There is a big benefit to the city and general public here. The sports teams get their needed facilities, which we all agree is due. Everyone gets what they need here.

You're Ken King aren't you?
Please read this thread: http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthread.php?t=117010

[mikephoen]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

I disagree. The poor renderings were merely a focus of ridicule, not at all the reason the concept was poorly received.

The concept was purely received because it:
a) Asked for too much public money for the inside-battery-limits facility itself
b) Ignored the outside-battery-limits infrastructure and tie-in costs which the city (i.e. the citizens) would have to bear.
c) Turned a dedicated fieldhouse with ample parking into a fieldhouse with poor parking and massive scheduling conflicts, all for the same amount of money.
d) Accelerated the development of the west village ahead of the east village filling out.
e) Took up a massive chunk of the prime riverfront land in the west village.
f) In doing the above, implying that they think we're all idiots.

I'll offer some counter points to your positions.

a) The amount of money asked for was an opening point in a negotiation, which I don't have a problem with personally. Presenting it in the way they did didn't do them any favors though. That was a big mistake.

b) The 'outside-battery-limits' infrastructure needs to be taken care of regardless of what is eventually done in the West Village. The creosote needs to be cleaned up, and the sooner the better. The various roadways in the area are all poorly designed and need to be fixed regardless of what eventually goes in. All of these costs are going to happen either way, so I don't think the Flames were disingenuous to not include it in the original proposal.

c) I don't think the scheduling conflicts would be 'massive', more like minor or very occasional. And there was enough parking for the fieldhouse needs in the proposal, just not as much as we are used to seeing for arenas in the past.

d) East Village is pretty far along already. Most of the desirable building locations are already under construction, and some are nearly complete. By the time this project is ready to go the East Village will be at a similar density as the beltline. The timing for West Village redevelopment is pretty close at hand, CalgaryNEXT only proposed moving it up a few years.

e) Again you use 'massive', when I think that's an exaggeration. It will take a piece of ground to build this on obviously, but there is plenty of room for other stuff in the West Village also. And two other desirable pieces of real estate will become available for redevelopment as well, with McMahon going away and the other fieldhouse location not being needed.

f) I don't think they implied we were idiots with their proposal. I think they implied that they don't know how to win people to their side, or make a presentation that gets people excited. The lack of details and 'wow factor' was the biggest mistake in the proposal in my opinion. They needed to get taxpayers excited about this thing, and they completely blew their one chance at that.

Finally, just in the interest of full disclosure, I am generally in favor of some public money for arenas and stadiums. In my opinion these provide just as much to a community as green spaces, libraries, and public art, and should get a share of the public money pie. The CFL stadium in particular needs public money. Canadian football is either culturally significant enough to warrant public money, or it will go away. There is no way to build a football stadium in Canada and make money with it.

[Erick Estrada]

Wow great post Mike.

[nik-]

A great post with a lot of "I don't think"

It's all assumptions

[mikephoen]

Originally Posted by nik-

A great post with a lot of "I don't think"

It's all assumptions

Are you saying the things you post are irrefutable facts? 'I don't think' and 'I think' are just polite ways to express opinions. Everything posted on both sides of most discussions is assumptions.

[nik-]

Fair enough, but that doesn't mean your post was a "great post"

Just more of the same.

[mikephoen]

Originally Posted by nik-

Fair enough, but that doesn't mean your post was a "great post"

Just more of the same.

It's a discussion board where we talk about a hockey team 24/7/365. Of course it's more of the same!

[nik-]

Also true.

[BigFlameDog]

Originally Posted by nik-

Fair enough, but that doesn't mean your post was a "great post"

Just more of the same.

EE thinks it's a great post...he is allowed to think it was a great post. You are allowed to think it's not.

(I also thought it was a great post but there have been a few for both sides in the last couple pages.)

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by mikephoen

The CFL stadium in particular needs public money. Canadian football is either culturally significant enough to warrant public money, or it will go away. There is no way to build a football stadium in Canada and make money with it.

But it doesn't. It really, really doesn't. CFL fans can come after me all they want, the CFL is a second tier professional sport. It doesn't deserve the money because it's never going to generate enough of a return on building it. The CFL, like the NFL, is also primarily a TV sport that will always make more money through the TV deal than asses in seats. It will not go away if the existing teams are playing in the same stadiums for the next 50 years, because TV will keep it making money.

More than there's no way to make money building a CFL stadium, there's no financially viable reason for the team to need a new stadium. It won't change the bottom line very much for the Stamps, who won't benefit like the Flames who will get more corporate boxes and will charge higher ticket prices. The CFL can't afford to increase ticket prices because demand for its live product is not that high (IMO CFL ticket prices are already too high). And corporate boxes in an "amateur sports facility"? Hmmm....

In general I find the notion of an "amateur sports facility" having a professional sports tenant just odd. And it obviously will affect availability. I seriously doubt the team will be the ones adjusting its schedule to fit in with the amateur facility, it'll almost certainly be the opposite.

[mikephoen]

Originally Posted by BigFlameDog

EE thinks it's a great post...he is allowed to think it was a great post. You are allowed to think it's not.

(I also thought it was a great post but there have been a few for both sides in the last couple pages.)

I should point out that I also thought Frequitude's original post was well thought out. I didn't agree with a lot of his points, but I like when the discussion can be civil and presented by both sides without a lot of hyperbole.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by BigFlameDog

EE thinks it's a great post...he is allowed to think it was a great post. You are allowed to think it's not.

(I also thought it was a great post but there have been a few for both sides in the last couple pages.)

Of course EE thinks it's a great post, he's one of the biggest CalgaryNext cheerleaders on this site.

A guy who's right leaning on most topics here, seemingly, just clamouring for some sweet sweet taxpayer corporate welfare. A corporation which will then likely turn around and jack our tickets a good 20% as a thank you.

Hilarious.

[mikephoen]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

But it doesn't. It really, really doesn't. CFL fans can come after me all they want, the CFL is a second tier professional sport. It doesn't deserve the money because it's never going to generate enough of a return on building it. The CFL, like the NFL, is also primarily a TV sport that will always make more money through the TV deal than asses in seats. It will not go away if the existing teams are playing in the same stadiums for the next 50 years, because TV will keep it making money.

More than there's no way to make money building a CFL stadium, there's no financially viable reason for the team to need a new stadium. It won't change the bottom line very much for the Stamps, who won't benefit like the Flames who will get more corporate boxes and will charge higher ticket prices. The CFL can't afford to increase ticket prices because demand for its live product is not that high (IMO CFL ticket prices are already too high). And corporate boxes in an "amateur sports facility"? Hmmm....

In general I find the notion of an "amateur sports facility" having a professional sports tenant just odd. And it obviously will affect availability. I seriously doubt the team will be the ones adjusting its schedule to fit in with the amateur facility, it'll almost certainly be the opposite.

McMahon does somewhat meet the needs of the CFL team I guess. It's a crappy venue to watch anything in though. I couldn't imagine trying to take a young kid to a game and trying to deal with those bathroom lines. For me, I would like to see the city have a new stadium that could better accommodate not just the Stamps, but also events like the Women's World Cup that passed Calgary by, and also bigger concerts that need a major stadium. McMahon draws in none of these other events that would be of interest to lots of Calgarians.

McMahon is 55 years old, and by the time a new stadium is ready it would be at least 60. That's a pretty reasonable term of use. The city should be able to budget for a new large stadium every 50 to 60 years, that doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

[Frequitude]

Good response. Thanks. My thoughts are summarized below. They're getting a bit down the road of debating the actual content of the proposal (which I'm happy to do now!) but just understand that the point was mainly to summarize why the presentation was not well received (i.e. that it was not because of a lack of sizzle...it was the content).

Originally Posted by mikephoen

a) The amount of money asked for was an opening point in a negotiation, which I don't have a problem with personally. Presenting it in the way they did didn't do them any favors though. That was a big mistake.

That makes total sense if it were negotiations with the city directly. Except it was a presentation to the public, so they were basically treating the public like a counterparty to be negotiated with. Big mistake, as you've highlighted. The point of the post was to highlight why the proposal was poorly received by the public, not that it would have been a poor tactic to submit a "first offer" behind closed doors to the City.

Originally Posted by mikephoen

b) The 'outside-battery-limits' infrastructure needs to be taken care of regardless of what is eventually done in the West Village. The creosote needs to be cleaned up, and the sooner the better. The various roadways in the area are all poorly designed and need to be fixed regardless of what eventually goes in. All of these costs are going to happen either way, so I don't think the Flames were disingenuous to not include it in the original proposal.

Time value of money. Yes, it needs to be done eventually, but all signs seem to indicate that the Flames proposal would force it to happen at least a decade earlier than otherwise planned. Assuming a decade of acceleration and a discount rate of 5%, that's about a 60% increase in net present cost to the city. And I think a decade and 5% is a pretty good middle of the ground assumption.

Originally Posted by mikephoen

c) I don't think the scheduling conflicts would be 'massive', more like minor or very occasional. And there was enough parking for the fieldhouse needs in the proposal, just not as much as we are used to seeing for arenas in the past.

Fair enough, but they're not inconsequential. If they'd asked for, say, $150M of the $200M in consideration of the fact that the public would be receiving a less available facility. But they didn't. They asked for the whole amount in return for a lesser product. As for parking, surely there would be a parking impact when the arena is in use, but that's just an assumption.

Originally Posted by mikephoen

d) East Village is pretty far along already. Most of the desirable building locations are already under construction, and some are nearly complete. By the time this project is ready to go the East Village will be at a similar density as the beltline. The timing for West Village redevelopment is pretty close at hand, CalgaryNEXT only proposed moving it up a few years.

You might be right here. Not my area of expertise and perhaps I stepped out on a limb. But I seem to remember those more well versed in city planning stating on here that this was the case (Bunk?).

Originally Posted by mikephoen

e) Again you use 'massive', when I think that's an exaggeration. It will take a piece of ground to build this on obviously, but there is plenty of room for other stuff in the West Village also. And two other desirable pieces of real estate will become available for redevelopment as well, with McMahon going away and the other fieldhouse location not being needed.

The point is not quantity of area, its quality of area. Specifically, high value river front area. The arena does take up a massive amount of available riverfront. An acre of land up Crowchild is not the same as an acre of land beside downtown on the river.

Originally Posted by mikephoen

f) I don't think they implied we were idiots with their proposal. I think they implied that they don't know how to win people to their side, or make a presentation that gets people excited. The lack of details and 'wow factor' was the biggest mistake in the proposal in my opinion. They needed to get taxpayers excited about this thing, and they completely blew their one chance at that.

Sorry, I just don't agree. I think they treated the public like idiots by trying to sell us that a) now = later when it comes to both infrastructure costs and the need to build out the west village, and b) that a standalone fieldhouse = a football stadium fieldhouse

Originally Posted by mikephoen

Finally, just in the interest of full disclosure, I am generally in favor of some public money for arenas and stadiums. In my opinion these provide just as much to a community as green spaces, libraries, and public art, and should get a share of the public money pie. The CFL stadium in particular needs public money. Canadian football is either culturally significant enough to warrant public money, or it will go away. There is no way to build a football stadium in Canada and make money with it.

I completely agree, especially the part that in Canada public money needs to go into CFL stadiums whether you like it or not. Heck, I don't even hate the inside-battery-limits part of the proposal and have argued as much on here (i.e. that ticket tax = Flames money being invested). But the outside-battery-limits infrastructure costs is where you lose me. I'd like to see them toss in an amount reflective of the time value of money acceleration of those costs.

[mikephoen]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

Good response. Thanks. My thoughts are summarized below. They're getting a bit down the road of debating the actual content of the proposal (which I'm happy to do now!) but just understand that the point was mainly to summarize why the presentation was not well received (i.e. that it was not because of a lack of sizzle...it was the content).


That makes total sense if it were negotiations with the city directly. Except it was a presentation to the public, so they were basically treating the public like a counterparty to be negotiated with. Big mistake, as you've highlighted. The point of the post was to highlight why the proposal was poorly received by the public, not that it would have been a poor tactic to submit a "first offer" behind closed doors to the City.

Time value of money. Yes, it needs to be done eventually, but all signs seem to indicate that the Flames proposal would force it to happen at least a decade earlier than otherwise planned. Assuming a decade of acceleration and a discount rate of 5%, that's about a 60% increase in net present cost to the city. And I think a decade and 5% is a pretty good middle of the ground assumption.

Fair enough, but they're not inconsequential. If they'd asked for, say, $150M of the $200M in consideration of the fact that the public would be receiving a less available facility. But they didn't. They asked for the whole amount in return for a lesser product. As for parking, surely there would be a parking impact when the arena is in use, but that's just an assumption.

You might be right here. Not my area of expertise and perhaps I stepped out on a limb. But I seem to remember those more well versed in city planning stating on here that this was the case (Bunk?).

The point is not quantity of area, its quality of area. Specifically, high value river front area. The arena does take up a massive amount of available riverfront. An acre of land up Crowchild is not the same as an acre of land beside downtown on the river.

Sorry, I just don't agree. I think they treated the public like idiots by trying to sell us that a) now = later when it comes to both infrastructure costs and the need to build out the west village, and b) that a standalone fieldhouse = a football stadium fieldhouse

I completely agree. Heck, I don't even hate the inside-battery-limits part of the proposal and have argued as much on here (i.e. that ticket tax = Flames money being invested). But the outside-battery-limits infrastructure costs is where you lose me. I'd like to see them toss in an amount reflective of the time value of money acceleration of those costs.

Good post, and I don't really disagree with enough of it to respond in depth. I don't think we're really that far off in our takes on the whole thing. I'm pretty sure if you and I were to just sit down and negotiate this thing, it could all be done in a reasonable way and reasonable time frame. Maybe even nik- would think we came up with a fair solution!

[nik-]

My fair solution is the city funding a fieldhouse at a location that's more conducive to amateur sports usage and the Flames sorting out their issues with the Stampede board and building their new arena there at their own expense. Or at another location if they desire, also at their own expense.

Then they can maximize revenue all they want.

[EldrickOnIce]

^ For me, this argument gets murky at the 'at their own expense' part.
Do the Flames pay all infrastructure costs including roadways/ramps and transit stops? Is that at their own expense as well?

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by mikephoen

McMahon does somewhat meet the needs of the CFL team I guess. It's a crappy venue to watch anything in though. I couldn't imagine trying to take a young kid to a game and trying to deal with those bathroom lines. For me, I would like to see the city have a new stadium that could better accommodate not just the Stamps, but also events like the Women's World Cup that passed Calgary by, and also bigger concerts that need a major stadium. McMahon draws in none of these other events that would be of interest to lots of Calgarians.

McMahon is 55 years old, and by the time a new stadium is ready it would be at least 60. That's a pretty reasonable term of use. The city should be able to budget for a new large stadium every 50 to 60 years, that doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

It's nowhere near as bad a venue as people make it out to be. It's just cramped with a concourse built for 10,000 people and not 35,000. If they could ever just fix that I think most people would be fine with McMahon. But I suppose this comes back to fundamentally what does a stadium need to be for a CFL team? To me being bare bones is perfectly fine, remaking McMahon as is with better concourses basically. It doesn't need to be much more than that.

As to "other events", I always find that extremely overblown. Calgary gets skipped a lot because it's Canada's 4th choice city after Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal. Bigger concerts will still skip here even with CalgaryNEXT because Edmonton offers a bigger stadium to make more money for acts, and they can actually play outside there like their concerts are configured to do. Still think Calgary gets skipped more than people will like (I also feel the same about the arena).

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

^ For me, this argument gets murky at the 'at their own expense' part.
Do the Flames pay all infrastructure costs including roadways/ramps and transit stops? Is that at their own expense as well?

I think providing support infrastructure is perfect fine. Last thing anyone wants is a New England situation where there's only one way in and out of Gillette Stadium and going to the venue is a massive pain.

[sun]

Originally Posted by New Era

The reason the whole CalgaryNext concept was so poorly received was because there was no disco ball. Had the presentation been made with much better renderings it would have been better received. If the presentation had 3D holograms and sharks with "lasers" this would have been a slam dunk and it would have been a rush to get shovels into the ground. It is amazing how little imagination people have and how they can't visualize what the bigger concepts look like. I think the Flames over-estimated the sophistication of their audience and that put them behind the eight ball.

Not enough sharks with lasers. We saw how the needle moved when the latest renderings came out. The support would be there with a better presentation.

Putting aside your patronizing tone for a minute... The Flames "over-estimating" the "sophistication of their audience" was a huge, critical error. They're trying to sell taxpayers a nice new building. Does Toyota overestimate the sophistication of their audience when they try to get them to buy a new Lexus? No, they spend a metric butt-tonne of money to make people think they can't live without them. They don't just snap a couple of shots with their blackberries and list the cars on kijiji.

The hard numbers can be debated until the oilers make the playoffs, but KK effed up big time on the sales job. He should have removed the choice by making it emotional, not rational. He didn't need laserbeams, but something professional would have certainly helped. Just because you seem to be above the power of advertising doesn't mean the rest of us are.

Those who have sold things understand this just as those who have negotiated things understand that KK's initial request was higher than what he was expecting to receive.

[jmac98]

The news this morning was talking about road construction proposals for Crowchild around the Bow. Discussion of a tunnel, etc. I didn't catch a lot of it as my kids tend to sense when I'm trying to listen to something and their little radars go off telling them to start talking mindlessly, but I wonder how this impacts the arena plan if in fact that's still plan A or whatever. Im sure its all in its infancy, but do believe some road access rework was part of the plan for Calgary Next as well. If the city is looking for solutions without the arena proposal determined, I wonder where that slots into things. Again, it's in its infancy all the same, but just found it curious I guess. Wondered how this factors in if at all.