Everyone is worried about concerts skipping Calgary.
Isn't a concert just a way of exporting Calgary money out of the city?
I assume most concerts make far more than they cost to put on, and are a net outflow of money from the city.
Attracting concerts is good from a quality of life standpoint, but I would be shocked if they are economically beneficial for the city.
This is the multiplier effect in action. When someone says it is better for a city to throw money out of a helicopter than invest it in a new stadium, this is what they refer to.
The multiplier effect for a stadium is very close to 1:1.
This is exacerbated when owners seek "entertainment districts" which result in concentrated spending in the area around the stadium where the owners have an interest.
What about the out of town people who are dropping $150 on a room and another $150 on dinner/drinks? That's the found money.
No it isn't, at least not necessarily as large as you would think.
Let's take someone from Lethbridge who comes to the new arena to watch Garth Brooks. Sure, that guy stays in a hotel, he eats at a restaurant, and buys the concert ticket. Lets assume its 500 bucks.
So that guy, lets call him Gerry, is out $500.00 but the city has now benefited from $500.00 that Gerry wouldn't have spent here... or maybe he would have!
We have no idea what Gerry does with his money if he doesn't go to concerts. Maybe he goes to Calgary every few weeks? maybe he like restaurants and spends the money there? maybe he buys products from companies that manufacture, sell, or distribute the product from Calgary.
These are all the relationships that could be (and usually are) at play with substitution effect.
Im not denying that out of town money is feeding into the city due to events like these, but i cannot imagine it is a ton of money - enough to justify spending hundreds of millions of dollars on it.
Everyone is worried about concerts skipping Calgary.
Isn't a concert just a way of exporting Calgary money out of the city?
I assume most concerts make far more than they cost to put on, and are a net outflow of money from the city.
Attracting concerts is good from a quality of life standpoint, but I would be shocked if they are economically beneficial for the city.
Presumably the company that owns an arena would charge a huge fee to hire the venue out to the concert promoter, who recoups the cost through ticket sales and merchandise, a cut of which is also presumably given to the company who owns the arena. Money for concessions, alcohol, food and whatnot tends to go straight to the company which owns the venue as well. These big concert promoters aren't generally walking away with the biggest cut of the profits from gigs like that. The venue makes a good chunk of money.
No it isn't, at least not necessarily as large as you would think.
Let's take someone from Lethbridge who comes to the new arena to watch Garth Brooks. Sure, that guy stays in a hotel, he eats at a restaurant, and buys the concert ticket. Lets assume its 500 bucks.
So that guy, lets call him Gerry, is out $500.00 but the city has now benefited from $500.00 that Gerry wouldn't have spent here... or maybe he would have!
We have no idea what Gerry does with his money if he doesn't go to concerts. Maybe he goes to Calgary every few weeks? maybe he like restaurants and spends the money there? maybe he buys products from companies that manufacture, sell, or distribute the product from Calgary.
These are all the relationships that could be (and usually are) at play with substitution effect.
Im not denying that out of town money is feeding into the city due to events like these, but i cannot imagine it is a ton of money - enough to justify spending hundreds of millions of dollars on it.
That's a bit of a stretch to say the out of towner would of spent that money in the city anyways. Not impossible, but very very unlikely.
I can use use an actual example that I know was fact. 10 people that I am aware of went to Garth. 2 couples stayed at the Fairmont $300x2. 8 of us went to Ruth's Chris for supper ($700) and 2 others went to the melting pot (no idea their cost say $75). Breakfast/coffee/gas on the way out for the 4 of us that stayed over ($160)
That is $1535 that was not going to Edmonton businesses if it wasn't for the concert.
Things can be spun anyway. I don't have a say cause I am an out of towner, all I can give is my thoughts. I know I will be giving up my seats after next season. 20ish% of the reason being the dome/parking which CalgaryNext was gonna make even worse
I think it is largely semantics but I think that's a little narrow
"A partnership is an arrangement where parties, known as partners, agree to cooperate to advance their mutual interest"
That would apply here
That is a pretty broad definition but I'm sure it's technically correct. I just think the term partnership is more beneficial to a sports team owners than it is to city taxpayers. Maybe the Flames should better articulate how they will advance the interest of the average taxpayer? KK espousing the benefits of environmental cleanup at West Village sure came across as self serving.
But I'm not exactly impartial in this. I find the idea of public money going towards private enterprise, beyond what could result in a likely economic return rather distasteful. If pro hockey can't survive in a city like Calgary without public subsidy then wtf?
This is starting to get ridiculous. There are now basically 3 threads with two poorly-formed polls (one better than the other, mind you) covering basically the same thing. Could some threads be merged or closed entirely please? Should just be a single thread as it's basically the same central discussion.
West Village Plans, Contamination, etc.
There seems to be a lack of context regarding the issue of contamination and some of the argumentation coming out of it.
First, it should be said that land being contaminated to some degree is actually more common than many people think. The West Village land is among of the most sizable and prominent but there are plenty of other examples in the city (spoilered for length):
Spoiler!
- Parts of the current Quarry Park development are contaminated, mainly the parts where there is surface parking, as that was all you could economically do with those areas. Doing more with these areas would have meant doing costly cleanup.
- The former Hub Oil site at 17th Avenue and 60th Street SE. There was an explosion at the Hub Oil refinery in 1999, and this combined with the refinery actually operating has left the soil contaminated. There had been plans to put a "cap" (bring in new dirt over top of the contaminated dirt) on the existing site and having buildings with slab-on grade construction (minimal digging and building underground). This hasn't come to pass yet.
- The land that Deerfoot Meadows now sits on was contaminated to some degree if I recall correctly. At the very least the land was relatively difficult to build on. Again, not much else you could do economically other than surface parking lots and slab-on-grade buildings.
- Lots of sites in the SE industrial areas are contaminated and won't be able to have other uses when the Green Line LRT goes through and development pressures follow. An example is the former dry waste landfill in Ogden. In some cases, the cleanup may be economical, in many cases it won't be.
- The other strongly rumoured sites for the new stadium/arena project were probably contaminated too. Firepark (former tire plant at Memorial Drive and Deerfoot Trail) certainly is contaminated. The Railtown lands at 4th Street East and 11th Avenue SE, being former CPR lands for years and used for their operations, would almost certainly require some cleanup.
- Extending the discussion a bit, there are lots of sour gas wells that are relatively close to existing development in the city, most prominently in the far NE. Some have been eventually dealt with, others have inhibited what can be built and when.
It's very common for cities in general to have prominent areas be contaminated too. Basically, old industrial sites, especially near railways or ports are prone to being contaminated. As central areas of a growing city (that naturally followed industrial growth around these areas) become more valuable and attractive for high-intensity commercial and residential uses, the impetus to clean up these areas grows and becomes viable at some point. This is hardly a Calgary-specific issue.
Examples from other cities include the Quarry Lands in Toronto, Rock Bay in Victoria, the site of the former Sir John Carling Building and future hospital in Ottawa. Edmonton is just taking on a giant site of their own with the closing of the Municipal Airport. That's just Canada, examples abound elsewhere.
There is a lot of nuance with Calgary's West Village. First of all, the City already has various renewal projects going in other blighted or otherwise underdeveloped areas. Namely, East Village (with City involvement through CRL). Furthermore, other otherwise underdeveloped areas of the inner city have and will see significant private development, particularly Beltline, Hillhurst/Sunnyside, Bridgeland, Mission, Inglewood.
Given this, "holding back" with West Village is purposeful and strategic. First, opening up West Village now would cannibalize the demand for development in these other areas, leaving them half (or less)-finished, which is not ideal. West Village has a few key characteristics:
- Connectivity: It is hemmed in by the Bow River and its escarpment, interchanges, major roads and a rail line. Adjacent neighbourhoods or properties aren't significantly hindered, cut off or having their redevelopment stunted if it sits as-is for awhile.
- Containment: the contamination is not worsening, and it is reasonably well contained.
- No existing permanent population: No one is currently living in West Village, so there's much less duty of care to improve the area or entice development so it fills with amenities right now.
- It is of the size and nature that, once cleanup commences, it is important that development follow in earnest and the neighbourhood will approach a "completed" feel relatively quickly. This can happen only under the right conditions. Those conditions are: not competing with other nearby developments of a similar nature (i.e. East Village, Beltline); site is ready during or approaching the up side of a building cycle economically; and given the heavy inputs for the CRL (cleanup) are maximally offset by the outputs (increased property taxes from the developable land).
The last point especially is what sinks the CalgaryNEXT concept.
I'm not sure this has been mentioned yet (the City of Calgary West Village Area Redevelopment Plan has been posted already), but how this came about is that the City was originally going to bid on the 2017 World Expo and use the West Village as the main site for pavilions, etc. When it was decided not to bid, the ARP was created instead as during the process, many of the above points became became apparent as opportunities, etc.
Politics, etc.
For those wanting the politics to end from the City "side" (although I do wonder why there are sides in this, when it's frankly a bad deal for the City and there's only one entity with a need here), need to realize that this sort of proposition is inherently political and that the CSEC is playing politics too in a bad way. First of all, it is proposing using public money. Second piece of evidence is that 960 interview. Also, what we know about the timeline (roughly) is:
- CSEC starts to get serious about their vision and has a few meetings with City officials and the mayor. They are told West Village is a bad idea, based on the above, and that the City would be hesitant to support it, at best.
- CSEC goes ahead with West Village vision anyway, meanwhile mayor and coucilors put out not so subtle hints that there is no appetite for the Edmonton deal.
- CSEC holds a bad public presentation about their ill-advised West Village vision before submitting anything formal to the City in terms of either a land use application, development permit or business proposition.
The presentation is CSEC trying to jump past any formal engagement about the specific project with the City to try to garner emotional support from the populace. That's playing politics.
Then of course there is that 960 radio interview.
---------------
Personally, the veiled threats to leave in that radio interview is it for me. Was going to buy a Flames jersey for an upcoming birthday for someone, and also get some playoff tickets to take someone to their first playoff game. Those are now off the table after this.
I will cheer on the Flames, but am going to seriously curtail any money I spend on them until CSEC smartens up and stops using the "we're leaving" bluff. It's insulting.
Last edited by frinkprof; 04-01-2017 at 04:58 PM.
The Following 24 Users Say Thank You to frinkprof For This Useful Post:
- CSEC starts to get serious about their vision and has a few meetings with City officials and the mayor. They are told West Village is a bad idea, based on the above, and that the City would be hesitant to support it, at best.
- CSEC goes ahead with West Village vision anyway, meanwhile mayor and coucilors put out not so subtle hints that there is no appetite for the Edmonton deal.
- CSEC holds a bad public presentation about their ill-advised West Village vision before submitting anything formal to the City in terms of either a land use application, development permit or business proposition.
The presentation is CSEC trying to jump past any formal engagement about the specific project with the City to try to garner emotional support from the populace. That's playing politics.
Then of course there is that 960 radio interview.
This about sums up the 'why no counter-offer from the city' part of the debate, I'd say.
The Following User Says Thank You to Roughneck For This Useful Post:
I don't pretend to understand all of the ins and outs of these complex (IMO) deals, but two things that have always stuck out to me from the initial presentation given be CSEC.
1.) If I make the assumption that the Flames leave because they can't get a new arena, does the city end up kicking in money to build an arena after the team is gone to attract concerts, events, etc? Do City's even do that sort of thing? If so, why are they unwilling (is that even true?) to kick in any money now?
2.) Having said that....Why such a hefty price tag? Google tells me that a new arena in Winnipeg cost ~185M. Is it is as nice as Edmonton's? My guess is no ( I've never been there), but why does it matter? Do we really need an arena that cost a billion or more? I don't need a nicer arena to enjoy a hockey game. Really, I just want shorter lines to the urinals. Would I pay a ticket tax for shorter bathroom lines? Depends on how many beer I had (but yes, probably yes..only half kidding), but Calgary tax payers shouldn't be on the hook for my beer consumption.
I don't pretend to understand all of the ins and outs of these complex (IMO) deals, but two things that have always stuck out to me from the initial presentation given be CSEC.
1.) If I make the assumption that the Flames leave because they can't get a new arena, does the city end up kicking in money to build an arena after the team is gone to attract concerts, events, etc? Do City's even do that sort of thing? If so, why are they unwilling (is that even true?) to kick in any money now?
2.) Having said that....Why such a hefty price tag? Google tells me that a new arena in Winnipeg cost ~185M. Is it is as nice as Edmonton's? My guess is no ( I've never been there), but why does it matter? Do we really need an arena that cost a billion or more? I don't need a nicer arena to enjoy a hockey game. Really, I just want shorter lines to the urinals. Would I pay a ticket tax for shorter bathroom lines? Depends on how many beer I had (but yes, probably yes..only half kidding), but Calgary tax payers shouldn't be on the hook for my beer consumption.
gonna to keep things simple:
1) the City has never said No, flat out, for the use of public monies...However, the CalgaryNext proposal is very big in scale including creosote clean up and a field house for the the stampeders/public use...
the City has always had the position that public monies should go towards the public's good... how "Public Good" is defined is one of the biggest questions.
2) a new arena in East Village would be less... potentially <500 million... price is dependent on what's all going into it... so Rogers might have required more infrastructure in Edmonton.. plus money for the new Ice District maybe? ...
there's tons more info on the board, but that's a quick and dirty answer to your questions... i am sure others will add on other points
Last edited by oldschoolcalgary; 03-31-2017 at 08:28 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to oldschoolcalgary For This Useful Post:
Calgary Flames will move without a new arena, says Ken King
Threat of losing a big league team can sway opinion against spending tax dollars, explains author
By Andrew Brown, CBC News Posted: Apr 01, 2017 4:00 AM MT Last Updated: Apr 01, 2017 4:00 AM MT
Calgary Flames president and CEO Ken King says the team will move if it can't strike a deal for a new arena.
"There would be no threat to move, we would just move, and it would be over. And I'm trying my level best to make sure that day never comes frankly," King said during an interview on Sportsnet Fan 590 in Toronto on Wednesday.
"If people smarter than us in more powerful positions than ours don't feel that we're a critical piece of the social, economic and cultural part of our city then who are we to argue with that?"
Screw King and the Flames organization if they want to do that. Calgarians are better than this type of crap blackmail... cause by saying stuff like that in public, that is a threat.
Unless this is an April Fools joke
Last edited by keenan87; 04-01-2017 at 09:00 AM.
The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to keenan87 For This Useful Post:
My guess is either April fools or it's a reporter spinning something that was said in a way that benefits their article. There is no way it takes 3 days for us to hear about this if it was an actual threat to actually move
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to cznTiburon For This Useful Post:
I believe that quote is real. It's been talked about a bunch in the other arena threads. KK has been hinting at the move threat in a number of different interviews.
However I do believe it was taken a bit out of context. I think they specifically asked if the Flames would threaten to move, a la the dirty Oilers, if the city didn't play ball.
