CalgaryNEXT project on pause, says Ken King

[Bunk]

I think there actually is an argument not to max out the ticket tax portion of the funding mix. That's in the interest of ensuring that events don't get so expensive that lower income Calgarians are totally priced out. Ideally a direct owner contribution would reduce reliance on ticket tax, but I wouldn't be totally shocked or upset if there was some public cash. I'm almost 100% land will be the primary public contribution, but perhaps some cash will be involved - maybe with this purpose in mind.

[Kavvy]

Originally Posted by Lanny's Moustache

Thanks for the bullet points, but I said most people, not all. A few do take more action than shaking their fist at an internet cloud.

Further, millions of dollars are wasted by the city and province every year. This won't change, It's politics. And millions of dollars are spent on projects you don't like. I've watched this forum get it's panties in a knot because money was being spent on outlying areas of the city at the supposed expense of those paying higher taxes living inner-city. Again, if you don't like how the city spends it's money try to do something about it or move somewhere that you completely agree with.

At the end of the day public funding will be spent. That's how these things work. How much and on what is yet to be determined but it is a fact when living in a city the size and with the things Calgary does. I, for one, am all for improving the city's infrastructure, beauty and amenities as that is what taxes are for.

If the Flames chose to hike ticket prices 60% like the Oilers then good luck to them selling out their shiny new building. I try to believe they are smarter than that but who knows what will happen. Having spoken to Ken King while in 2 other far more modern buildings than the Dome, and without any of the line-ups, choke points and short-pouring beer stands like the Coilers built, I get a strong sense that he knows what to and not to do. The hate here for him is laughable but expected based on the opinions people are so openly willing to share.

As for road cleaning, well that's just the city trying to "save" so they can waste elsewhere. I've had many discussions with city workers and those at city hall about it and what it comes down to is general political wasting not being called out by voters and generally apathetic citizens who bitch and moan then drive their SUV with 3 season tires into a ditch. So nothing actually gets done. I was unfortunately denied 3 times trying to start an actual snow removal business to serve at least my community that would clear roads of snow instead of poorly attempting to push it to the side and leave side streets to rot until spring. MY alderman hasn't received a vote from me in years. Yet he's still employed.

You're welcome. Your big blocks of text loose the reader. You also didn't respond to all my points and instead focused on the least relevant item I responded too - roads.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

I think the field house gets built. It's a needed public-purpose facility and can be used for 12 or so Stampeders games per year. The Calgary Sports and Entertainment Corporation were smart to tie that into their proposal.

Maybe tear down the also-antiquated Foothills Stadium and build it there. McMahon could be later torn down for a modern baseball park?

If the Flames pay 100% for the arena, there's almost no benefit to them to build a field house. So if it gets built it's all on the city.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

If the Flames pay 100% for the arena, there's almost no benefit to them to build a field house. So if it gets built it's all on the city.

Yes, they would be a tenant. Which isn't unusual for a CFL team.

[Lanny's Moustache]

Originally Posted by Kavvy

You're welcome. Your big blocks of text loose the reader. You also didn't respond to all my points and instead focused on the least relevant item I responded too - roads.

You decided to take personal issue with my post as a blanket statement. I don't have the time nor care to address everything YOU personally have done. I said most people and so far most people are doing exactly what I said. But keep yelling at that cloud.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

Yes, they would be a tenant. Which isn't unusual for a CFL team.

Exactly, they'd be a tenant. Not many tenants pay for their building.

[Kavvy]

lol nm not worth it

[Senator Clay Davis]

Ken did an interview with Global. Biggest thing from this is he thinks this whole thing will be resolved in Q1 2017 (1:24), though I'm guessing he means their Q1 since he says he hopes by April, May or June (2:50).

http://globalnews.ca/video/3149147/w...medium=twitter

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Ken did an interview with Global. Biggest thing from this is he thinks this whole thing will be resolved in Q1 2017 (1:24), though I'm guessing he means their Q1 since he says he hopes by April, May or June (2:50).

http://globalnews.ca/video/3149147/w...medium=twitter

Given KK's accuracy on this arena timeline - I will assume we're looking at 2019.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Bunk

I think there actually is an argument not to max out the ticket tax portion of the funding mix. That's in the interest of ensuring that events don't get so expensive that lower income Calgarians are totally priced out. Ideally a direct owner contribution would reduce reliance on ticket tax, but I wouldn't be totally shocked or upset if there was some public cash. I'm almost 100% land will be the primary public contribution, but perhaps some cash will be involved - maybe with this purpose in mind.

I'm sorry but what is your definition of 'lower income Calgarians'?

A night out to watch the Flames is not really too affordable now (at least I'd think) for lower income Calgarians. With the pending 50-60% price increase with a new arena, won't it basically be a pipe dream for low income Calgarians to see these guys live?

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

I'm sorry but what is your definition of 'lower income Calgarians'?

A night out to watch the Flames is not really too affordable now (at least I'd think) for lower income Calgarians. With the pending 50-60% price increase with a new arena, won't it basically be a pipe dream for low income Calgarians to see these guys live?

That's my point. Loading too much on a ticket tax will put games and events out of reach for more Calgarians. No magic threshold, but should be mindful of this consideration.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Freeway

I honestly think that CSEC thought that CalgaryNEXT was a solution to many of the problems that the city (and also CSEC) faced. Unfortunately, I think they dramatically under-estimated the costs of development and over-estimated the city's ability to kick in funds AND the public's willingness to do so.

I think you're right, but other circumstances have arisen to maybe swing a little more favour CSEC's way.

The reported Olympic bid being one to maybe get some civic dollars into an arena and now:

The final decision (RE: World Cup) is expected to be made in January, and the 2026 World Cup - which has Canada, the United States, Mexico, and Colombia declaring interest in bidding for the competition - would likely be the first tournament to see 48 teams in the event of a favourable result.

http://www.thescore.com/intfr/news/1...team-world-cup

So that might influence some more willingness regarding the Fieldhouse/Fields part of the project.

If CSEC put a facility together for both of those events I could see civic pursestrings somewhat loosened.

And I'll reiterate, I'm not against some public money going into it, but a reasonable amount. Like an investment, we want our money back with some interest.

Commercial Buildings are a depreciable asset and the City, unlike the Team (Flames/Stamps) dont have the potential benefit of the appreciation of their asset over time.

Originally Posted by jammies

I'm only in favour of "Calgary, love it or leave it!" if we can expel all those against the Peace Bridge and downtown bike lanes too. Don't like the way the city is spending your taxes? Move! Completely reasonable.

PS: Oh, and Locke can be driven out, too - that guy was born to live in Airdrie. AIRDRIE! LIKE A PEASANT!

Never! I'd die first!

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Bunk

I think there actually is an argument not to max out the ticket tax portion of the funding mix. That's in the interest of ensuring that events don't get so expensive that lower income Calgarians are totally priced out. Ideally a direct owner contribution would reduce reliance on ticket tax, but I wouldn't be totally shocked or upset if there was some public cash. I'm almost 100% land will be the primary public contribution, but perhaps some cash will be involved - maybe with this purpose in mind.

Supposing the city were to subsidize entertainment for low income Calgarians (which I find pretty questionable in itself), is it going to regulate prices as well to ensure that its contribution isn't just pocketed by the owners?

There's got to be better ways that accessibility can be accomplished (i.e. targeting the funds to low income people) or even better things to do with the money.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Bunk

I think there actually is an argument not to max out the ticket tax portion of the funding mix. That's in the interest of ensuring that events don't get so expensive that lower income Calgarians are totally priced out. Ideally a direct owner contribution would reduce reliance on ticket tax, but I wouldn't be totally shocked or upset if there was some public cash. I'm almost 100% land will be the primary public contribution, but perhaps some cash will be involved - maybe with this purpose in mind.

Do you believe that the current ticket price is set below the rate at which the market will pay for tickets? I don't +/- a few dollars all events charge what they believe they can sell the tickets for outside of maybe Garth Brooks.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by SebC

Supposing the city were to subsidize entertainment for low income Calgarians (which I find pretty questionable in itself), is it going to regulate prices as well to ensure that its contribution isn't just pocketed by the owners?

There's got to be better ways that accessibility can be accomplished (i.e. targeting the funds to low income people) or even better things to do with the money.

I believe what Bunk is saying here is that hockey games are largely unaffordable for many Calgarians already. For the city to give the Flames organization money for a new arena KNOWING the flames will be raising ticket taxes even further to help fund that arena makes attending flames games even more financially impossible for Calgarians than already exists.

Why should the city give money to Flames ownership when Flames ownership is specifically saying they are going to use that money to help raise average ticket prices?

From the perspective of the city it probably makes more sense to give more money if that means negating a ticket tax.

Honestly, it's just another example of how horribly out of touch this entire project is.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by SebC

Supposing the city were to subsidize entertainment for low income Calgarians (which I find pretty questionable in itself), is it going to regulate prices as well to ensure that its contribution isn't just pocketed by the owners?

There's got to be better ways that accessibility can be accomplished (i.e. targeting the funds to low income people) or even better things to do with the money.

All I'm basically saying is be careful what you wish for loading a significant portion of the financing on a ticket tax specifically.

[Kavvy]

Mostly nothing news maybe? But this is the thread for it.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...osts-1.3918929

The owners of the Calgary Flames are estimating the costs of a stand-alone fieldhouse will be substantially higher than the city has projected.

The Flames organization wants to build an arena and stadium complex dubbed CalgaryNext, which would feature a fieldhouse, west of downtown.

However, the city is also considering a new arena near the Saddledome, renovating McMahon Stadium and building a fieldhouse at Foothills Athletic Park.

A fieldhouse — primarily for amateur sports — is the top item on the city's unfunded capital projects list. It estimated a couple of years ago the facility could cost $202 million.

$260M estimate

The Flames owners estimate if it's not part of CalgaryNext, the stand-alone costs of a fieldhouse could hit $260 million.

"I have no doubt in my mind that Calgary can financially cover the costs of a standalone fieldhouse," said Murray Sigler with Sport Calgary, a non-profit primarily funded by the city.

"I have no doubt that the largest measure of those will be from the user fees and they'll be reasonable user fees. The capital costs will drive what those are."

Sigler said he wants to see an updated budget for a stand-alone fieldhouse, acknowledging costs could have changed since the $202 million estimate.

City council will discuss a report on the CalgaryNext project early in 2017 as well as what it calls Plan B options for a new arena and other sports facilities.

[Senator Clay Davis]

I believe this is what is known as a last gasp Hail Mary attempt to save CalgaryNEXT. Now try and convince the public they'll be going $60 million over budget with a standalone fieldhouse, so do CalgaryNEXT instead. Sad, and pathetic, but the surest sign yet CalgaryNEXT is pretty much dead. If they had any hope of getting it done they wouldn't need to try this.

[Muta]

But he's right. If all facilities get built regardless, integrating a fieldhouse into a larger project can save some money rather than having the fieldhouse built separately. Parking infrastructure, utility infrastructure, peripheral infrastructure upgrades, property acquisition costs (in some cases)... these are all money saving opportunities.

[Bill Bumface]

The only opportunity with a field house combo football stadium is an opportunity to have the worst football stadium constructed in the last few decades.

There are few, if any, successful examples of combining sporting facilities with a good result. It's always a compromise.

But hey, maybe we can have our very own Big O!