CalgaryNEXT project on pause, says Ken King

[Joborule]

I wouldn't rule out CSEC still getting a new football stadium built for them. Just because the fieldhouse likely (and should) get built in the foothills now, doesn't mean it can't be built to professional attendance capacity standards. Especially with all three levels of government indicating funding interests, and the possibly of having to host opening/closing ceremonies for the 2026 olympics if we're to win.

I say 'Plan B' is two plans. Plan 'a' is to build fieldhouse and renovate McMahon. Plan 'b' is to build the fieldhouse to CFL standards, and demolish McMahon. I think the latter may have a lot of pull based on costs, and the university's interest to free up the land for future development.

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

I think a lot of this hinges on the Olympic bid

This whole thing reeks plain and simple. The fact Nenshi is playing coy on the whole thing with an Olympic bid circling in the mist is enough evidence for me that the public is being kept entirely in the dark by both parties. I will be completely shocked if we don't hear the city is releasing an official bid in a few months and Calgary Next has been re-hashed as part of that plan.

It will be really sad considering the state of the economy but the Flames are going to be gifted another facility on the back of another Olympic games.

[ThisIsAnOutrage]

What's with all of the apologists for Ken King here? I don't think anyone is doubting that he's done good work in the past, but it's plain as day to see that he has been the front man for a complete C***-Up on this one. It's okay to admit it.

You don't need insider information to know everything has been botched. The whole CalgaryNext concept was a sales pitch, and the hallmark of a good sales pitch is that people are interested in what you're trying to sell at the price you're trying to sell it. Those are glaringly absent. The City, the people, and many of the fans have balked, scoffed, and been disgusted by the pricetag for the thing. The location has been roundly criticized, and renderings (leaving aside the question of how close to reality they would ever have been) have not drawn "oohs and aahs". The majority of fans in the CalgaryNext thread voted "No" to the project. It's failure, pure and simple.

And from Ken King himself, from the article in the OP:

“2017 should be the year that we drop the flag and actually get past the starting line and into the race and get some serious work done,”

There it is right there: zero progress has been made; not even past the starting line. Zero progress = failure.

On a more positive note, as someone who would like a new arena eventually, I look forward to seeing more productive talk about better ideas in 2017.

[Yoho]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

This whole thing reeks plain and simple. The fact Nenshi is playing coy on the whole thing with an Olympic bid circling in the mist is enough evidence for me that the public is being kept entirely in the dark by both parties. I will be completely shocked if we don't hear the city is releasing an official bid in a few months and Calgary Next has been re-hashed as part of that plan.

It will be really sad considering the state of the economy but the Flames are going to be gifted another facility on the back of another Olympic games.

If a significant percentage gets federal funding who cares? The heroine beers will taste that much sweeter knowing tax payers from Quebec, Ontario, and BC chipped in.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by ThisIsAnOutrage

“2017 should be the year that we drop the flag and actually get past the starting line and into the race and get some serious work done,”

There it is right there: zero progress has been made; not even past the starting line. Zero progress = failure.

Yeah, people who think there has been earnest work going on behind the scenes for the last 8 or 9 years are kidding themselves. Flames ownership could have got a project underway back in 2007 if they wanted to. But they didn't. The fact there won't be a new arena until 2023 or so is entirely on the Flames owners, and their unwavering desire to spend as little of their own money as possible. The timeline for this thing has always been entirely in their hands.

[Kavvy]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

He should be fired for not having a crystal ball? I don't think in 2007 he could have predicted the recessions and flood that clearly are the main reasons for the delay as well as the acquisition of the Stampeders which added the McMahon situation to his plate. The man may be the reason the team is still in Calgary so it's a mystery to me why there's such contempt for him amongst some fans.

He may be.

I may be 007 as well.

I may of saved 10 drowning kids, so why does anyone dislike me?

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

The Flames want to build a stadium and an arena. The scope of the project is much bigger than theirs.

That was a mistake. Again, this sort of facility doesn't exist anywhere else for a reason. It's trying to do too much.

Calgary needs a new arena. We all agree about that. The Saddledome has one service elevator to access the main concourses, and it has a sticker proudly announcing it passed inspection in 1983. It's a concrete toilet and needs to be replaced.

McMahon needs to be replaced or significantly upgraded. There are cost effective ways to do this. Ways that don't involve $2B hairbrained schemes on toxic land.

[Flash Walken]

Flames ownership still seems to love King. Like with Feaster, there is only so much blame an employee can take before you start looking at who hired them in the first place.

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

This whole thing reeks plain and simple. The fact Nenshi is playing coy on the whole thing with an Olympic bid circling in the mist is enough evidence for me that the public is being kept entirely in the dark by both parties. I will be completely shocked if we don't hear the city is releasing an official bid in a few months and Calgary Next has been re-hashed as part of that plan.

It will be really sad considering the state of the economy but the Flames are going to be gifted another facility on the back of another Olympic games.

Except that the Flames are proposing to pay $450,000,000.00 of the cost of CalgaryNEXT.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing

Except that the Flames are proposing to pay $450,000,000.00 of the cost of CalgaryNEXT.

Which only leaves an....$850 million shortfall. Goodie!

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Funkhouser

Nope, Calgary has a (justified) reputation of being extremely developer friendly. The zoning restrictions are limited, code is light, heritage preservation is non-existent, the city typically covers the cost of any related infrastructure and almost any derogation is negotiable. This project's failure to progress cannot be faulted on the city.

The Flames on the other hand developed a high risk concept in isolation and tried to engage the City at the same time as the public. If they had any idea what they were doing, they would have developed numerous concepts in collaboration with the city in order to determine what was an wasn't feasible, then engaged the public once a concept was more realistic.

if King did this in isolation, he deserves the axe. If not, his yes men also deserve the axe. Oiler level management...embarrassing.

Let's be clear. CalgaryNEXT has virtually zero to do with normal City approvals processes (which, by the way have been a challenge, but are going through sweeping changes and improvements).

CalgaryNEXT was not any sort of application. It was literally a letter of intent. The City of Calgary, because of its profile has processed it, but it has been fly by the seat of the pants, because there is not process for such a 'proposal'.

The Mayor's Office wrote the framework for evaluation report. It's an exceptionally rare event for the Mayor's Office to provide a report to Council. Then the Deputy City Manager in charge of Infrastructure Calgary wrote the subsequent evaluation report with the assistance of an arms length agency (CMLC). Normally an applicant pays for processing of a development application, based on the resources required internally within the City to go through the process. It is presumed no such application fee has been paid. The City is simply doing it on its time, which is fine. This, thus far, has nothing to do with planning and development approvals processes, or even standard requests for capital funding to support development. Given the nebulous nature of the proposal (or whatever you want to call it), it's actually remarkable how quickly the City has turned around reports, analysis and evaluation.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Yoho

If a significant percentage gets federal funding who cares? The heroine beers will taste that much sweeter knowing tax payers from Quebec, Ontario, and BC chipped in.

Will you sing the same tune when Toronto gets a bunch of crap for their summer bid and we have to pay for it???

Sure the precedent has been set but it's a terrible precedent.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

This whole thing reeks plain and simple. The fact Nenshi is playing coy on the whole thing with an Olympic bid circling in the mist is enough evidence for me that the public is being kept entirely in the dark by both parties. I will be completely shocked if we don't hear the city is releasing an official bid in a few months and Calgary Next has been re-hashed as part of that plan.

It will be really sad considering the state of the economy but the Flames are going to be gifted another facility on the back of another Olympic games.

I can say with absolute certainty (you can believe me if you like, I don't care) that CalgaryNEXT and any notion of bidding for an Olympics were developed completely independently of one another. Now as the Mayor said, it is "happy coincidence" that the two ideas at a high level could be mutually supportive, but that has very little to do with CalgaryNEXT as it stands now. Facilities such as a new arena, renovated or new stadium, and even a new fieldhouse could be important pieces to the puzzle, but that could easily be accomplished with Plan B too.

As a bit of a tidbit, there were very nearly efforts to go after 2022, after several people involved in the 1988 bid tried to convince City officials that we would have a very good shot based on the lukewarm response of the European frontrunning cities. They turned out to be right as favourites such as Oslo, Munich and others quickly dropped out. We might have won by default had we really gone for it, but there just wasn't enough time to discuss with the public, prepare a preliminary analysis and navigate COC. And then things like the flood happened and the idea died for 2022, but 2026 was still thought of as a prime target.

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Which only leaves an....$850 million shortfall. Goodie!

Fair comment, (outstanding amounts admittedly debatable both ways).
Mine was in response to the "Flames owners get gifted an arena" comment, which is not the case at all.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing

Fair comment, (outstanding amounts admittedly debatable both ways).
Mine was in response to the "Flames owners get gifted an arena" comment, which is not the case at all.

Well $450 million is also not true either, they will recoup the ticket tax amount. The amount of straight cash homey that the Flames are putting into a $1.3 billion project is $200 million, meaning someone else is picking up $1.1 billion of the tab. Gifted sounds closer to being right than being wrong.

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Well $450 million is also not true either, they will recoup the ticket tax amount. The amount of straight cash homey that the Flames are putting into a $1.3 billion project is $200 million, meaning someone else is picking up $1.1 billion of the tab. Gifted sounds closer to being right than being wrong.

The ticket tax is out of the owners' pockets, based upon market prices.

If I can get $100.00 for a ticket, and that is all the market will bear, and I don't have to put any of it to the building, I get $100.00.
If I have to put $10.00 of that price to the ticket tax for the building, then only $90.00 goes to my pocket.

I know some disagree, but that, in my opinion, means it is out of the owners' pockets. If it is tacked on top of the ticket price so that it is $110.00, then the market could bear that $110.00, which is still $10.00 out of my pocket, as owner.

And, the reason it is called a ticket tax as opposed to a surcharge or not mentioned at all is for Hockey Related Revenue arguments.

Edit: PS: Are you calling me homey? ; )

[Senator Clay Davis]

The ticket tax will be tacked on lol. It's amazing to me that after we just saw Edmonton raise ticket prices at least 20% across the board that people think the Flames will what, keep prices the same out of the goodness of their hearts? The ticket tax will be factored into whatever they choose to raise ticket prices by. So maybe now they raise it by 25% instead of 20%. But they will never be eating that $250 million, they will earn it back one way or another. Their actual cash outlay in the end will only be $200 million.

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

The ticket tax will be tacked on lol. It's amazing to me that after we just saw Edmonton raise ticket prices at least 20% across the board that people think the Flames will what, keep prices the same out of the goodness of their hearts? The ticket tax will be factored into whatever they choose to raise ticket prices by. So maybe now they raise it by 25% instead of 20%. But they will never be eating that $250 million, they will earn it back one way or another. Their actual cash outlay in the end will only be $200 million.

Sorry, but that's not how it works. If the ticket tax is tacked on, it is still money out of their pockets. You can charge whatever the market will bear, and where you spend the money is your business. In this case, they are proposing to spend $450 million on the arena.

The argument can be made the initial $200 million isn't theirs because it comes from ticket prices, beer prices, merchandise, parking, etc. That makes it theirs, to spend as they see fit. In this case, they want to spend it on a new arena. Yes, the new arena will likely bring in new and higher revenues for them, but it is still their money that they are spending. They cannot just tack on an infinite amount to the ticket price, as the market will dictate what that amount is. They can, and do, set ticket prices already based upon what the market will pay, and will continue to do this with the new arena.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

I would advise to ignore what Estrada has to say on this one. He doesn't care if the city paid for all of CalgaryNEXT, plus waived collecting all taxes related, plus offered to cover all admin and op costs of running CalgaryNEXT. He doesn't care. He just wants this thing built no matter what. It's a purely emotional issue for him, logic and facts are meaningless.

Well yeah I want it built. Cities across North America are getting new professional sport facilities all the time so at the end of the day your logic and facts amount to little more than opposition bickering. You know, we know at the end of the day the facilities will get built. All this is right now is internet bickering about something we all have no control of.

[Calgary4LIfe]

The ticket tax funding shouldn't be a point of contention with people who are against CalgaryNext (or CalgaryPlanB). It works just like IamNotKenKing stated. It isn't coming from public coffers. It is coming from the pockets of the people buying a ticket to the game. I would expect an increase in ticket prices regardless if there is a ticket tax or not - I would imagine any new arena has increased ticket prices, and every arena that can sell tickets at an increased price will in fact increase prices. Supply and demand. Therefore, it does indeed completely get funded from the owners.

The contention is where that money is coming from up front, how fast it will be repaid, what the interest is on that amount, and what plans will have to be put on hold if the money is being borrowed from the city.

The CRL is definitely a bone of contention that I don't agree with. I would probably agree with it more if the owners were moving into real estate and bought up the adjacent land with the intent on developing it - then the CRL would still be covered by the owners in the long run (though where that money gets fronted from is still a concern).

With developers having to pay a CRL in the adjacent land, I think it would make it a little less appealing for them. It would perhaps also place some restrictions on what may go up in that location.

There are a lot of issues with the structure of the proposal, but the ticket tax is the least of my concerns. It is really the only funding portion that I don't have reservations about.