[News] New Arena - Plan B - Victoria Park

[Yoho]

Originally Posted by spetch

I agree with the bad return on investment part. I just don't agree with other posters saying that it's zero. I don't have a side one way or the other but if others keep telling me that my out of town money doesn't help them, I can gladly spend it in another town that it will benefit.

On a consistent basis? Sure you will...

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by goodyear

Moving is a hollow threat. Where ever they move to in the US, they'll be Phoenix 2.0 in less than 5 years.

I'm just annoyed that buffoon King would come out and actually say that. Here we are, days away from the playoffs and thousands of fans will be fuelling their passion while handing money to hand over and fist to CESC and he says that.

I thought the was a click bait joke story on April's Fool. So disappointing. F this guy

Sigh...

[albertGQ]

The Flames could play downtown calgary or downtown Seattle. Makes no difference to me. I can't afford to go to games now. It'll get worse with the new arena.

If the flames move, they may still be my favourite team. Or I might find a new favourite team. I'll live.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Yoho

On a consistent basis? Sure you will...

I see. So Calgary, just because it's Calgary, draws out of town dollars, but no where else does?

[Patek23]

This is the media sensationalizing something he said. Of course if the city is not willing to work with them on a new arena eventually the team would have to move. It's also something that is not going to happen. If I don't take my car in for oil changes eventually it's going to break down. That's not a threat to my car, it's stating a fact.

[Yoho]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

I see. So Calgary, just because it's Calgary, draws out of town dollars, but no where else does?

Who said just because it's Calgary? Relying on out of town $ is a bad buisness model.

You really think Lethbridge money makes any if all difference to the Flames?

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Yoho

Who said just because it's Calgary? Relying on out of town $ is a bad buisness model.

Then I misunderstood what you meant by this

On a consistent basis? Sure you will...

I thought you were mocking

[Travis Munroe]

Originally Posted by MarkGio

OK people coming to Calgary to spend money DOES NOT GIVE THE CITY money. The city doesn't get a penny of the sale. Feds get sales taxes and income .People can choose to spend their money on NFL games and massages in Banff and there's little, if any, effect on the city's revenue.

So your point is just terribad.

We agree to disagree on many things but this is a factual thing and the trickle down does give the city money in many different avenues. There are many arguments to be made but this is not one.

[FlamesAddiction]

I hate the fact billionaires often get to use public funds to home their sports teams, but it's not like my life or lifestyle is affected. If the alternative was to give me the money instead, I might care. But honestly, they will just find another way to waste it. Might as well build an arena with it.

[Travis Munroe]

The whole debate seems to be a spinning wheel.

There are people arguing about how the city should step up with some money and then other people arguing about how the flames should pay for most of it.

At the end of the day everyone is agreeing on the same thing with some minor variations. A poll on what % of tax payers money should go into the project would be interesting and I have a feeling that for the most part, everyone involved in the debate would be closer than we think!!

[MacFlame]

I've discussed this in another thread, noting that I certainly do not have an in-depth understanding of all of the issues with this project, but there are a couple of questions/comments that I have as it relates to this post.

Originally Posted by Bunk

Beyond the basic shortcomings of the dollars and cents of CalgaryNEXT, as a city-building endeavor, the plan is deeply flawed. The idea of an “arena district” is to leverage the activity of a central sports facility into an active and vibrant gathering place, including spin-off residential, hotel, retail, restaurant, bar, entertainment uses and public space. These uses need to be “on the way” from where you arrive to the arena.

Has the City proposed an alternative at this location? One that would not ensure that "these uses" are "on the way" when you arrive to the arena?

If not, why not? Why has that discussion not taken place?

Originally Posted by Bunk

All the supposed spin off uses were shoved to the side of this gargantuan monolith of a building.

Have you seen the building? I didn't think it was released yet? So why the negative comment about the building?

Originally Posted by Bunk

The West Village’s time will come. In fact, it stands a better chance without the arena/stadium than with it included.

So, why hasn't it happened yet? It's been quite a while, no?

Originally Posted by Bunk

I believe it is time to put the CalgaryNEXT proposal to bed, and focus on the so called “Plan B” with standalone arena on Stampede Park,

Why Stampede Park, specifically? Is there a reason that CSEC wants out of Stampede? If so, is it a valid reason? And, if so, why would/should the City dictate that the CSEC continue their business relationship with the stampede?

Seems like a pretty good deal for the Stampede, no?...have the City negotiate on your behalf. (or is the Stampede a business entity? I honestly have no idea)

Originally Posted by Bunk

renovated McMahon Stadium that could be tied to an Olympic bid

Wait, what? You had some really good points, but this....renovated..I don't know what to say. If you really feel that McMahon can be renovated, I'm not sure that I can get on board with the rest.

Originally Posted by Bunk

and Fieldhouse at Foothills Athletic Park, as originally planned.

Honest question...is your negativity with the this project tied to the fact that it changes council's original vision (and planning) for where a Fieldhouse and Stadium would reside? It's just a general feeling that I get when I see comments about one's "original plan" and how it should be adhered to.

Originally Posted by Bunk

A new arena on Stampede Park benefits from lower infrastructure and remediation costs, walkable access to all three (current and future LRT lines) and the downtown core, abundant parking inherent to the Stampede and could anchor a truly vibrant entertainment district, including helping make the Stampede a true 365 day a year destination it has longed to become.

But, you said that you wanted a hockey arena there only. You want the fieldhouse and football stadium on 16th ave.

There's already an arena there now. So, why isn't it a 365 day a year destination now? What other "entertainment" are you referring to if the hockey arena simply replaces the hockey arena?

I do not support public money going to private enterprise at all. I voted for Nenshi and support and share most of his opinions on municipal matters. However, from the onset, I've had the general sense that this project has irritated him (and others) because it simply challenged what their original vision was for all of the affected areas (stampede, west village, university, etc.). Based on this, I agree with you....it was dead on arrival.

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by kevman

Prove it. Google the subject and there are countless articles stating the opposite. I'd love to see the economic argument behind building a new stadium in Calgary with public funds. So would the city. You best believe council would pony up for a new stadium immediately if it was actually a good investment.

Let's call a spade a spade. As a fan you want a new stadium because it benefits you. That's a fine reason to support something, we all do it with roads, transit, schools etc., but it's time to stop hiding behind a false economic argument.

I can prove it by my known spending.
My entertainment spending would simply not exist, locally, at the same level.

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by spetch

The discussion isn't about flames money. It's about the money coming into the city from out of town as a result of the flames. Some people are out there saying there is zero economic factors which isn't not true at all. Is there enough money coming in to cover 1B hell no, but it isn't zero like some posters are saying.

Thanks. I think my point of money spent in the city (local discretionary spending) vs. money directly to the City coffers themselves (tax etc.) was misconstrued. I'm not saying my money goes to "The Municipality of the City of Calgary", but benefits the city (actual individual citizens and businesses) if spent locally as opposed to in other locales.

I don't think that fact can be debated.

[FireGilbert]

What happened to the Ken King threatens to move thread? Did it get merged with this one? That poster going off against refugees was interesting...

[MarkGio]

Originally Posted by Realtor 1

We agree to disagree on many things but this is a factual thing and the trickle down does give the city money in many different avenues. There are many arguments to be made but this is not one.

Then provide said facts?

[Torture]

Originally Posted by Bunk

I scribbled this thinking I might submit as an op-ed to a paper, but I don't think I'll do that, so I'll just post it here. A summary of my thoughts - most of which will already be familiar to most here:

--

Mayor Nenshi last week declared that Calgary Sports and Entertainment Corporation’s (CSEC) CalgaryNEXT proposal in the West Village district was ‘dead’. While some viewed this statement as somewhat presumptuous, the Mayor, I believe, was actually understating the situation. More correctly, the ill-fated CalgaryNEXT proposal was actually dead on arrival.

I will preface this commentary by stating that I am, what one would call, a hardcore Flames fan. I am a season ticket holder and would very much like to see a new arena built in the near future. I am currently in the land development industry, and was previously a Senior Policy Advisor in the Mayor’s Office up until early 2015. I was involved in the very preliminary discussions, but am not currently privy to any negotiations.

Discussion has continued about the merits of the CalgaryNEXT proposal. I have debated the merits of the current CalgaryNEXT proposal with other Calgarians, including recently on Twitter with local business leader and former Dragon, W. Brett Wilson.

To use the Dragon’s Den analogy, if CSEC was the inventor making the pitch on CalgaryNEXT, and the City and its citizens the Dragons – I’m afraid the inventor would leave the show disappointed. The product is faulty, the costs to produce are too high, the revenue model is uncertain, the “valuation” is unrealistic, and the proponent is not putting enough of their own skin in the game - transferring risk to the Dragons. The Dragons have analyzed the pitch, and despite promising to keep looking at the idea further, it seems pretty clear they are going to say “I’m out”.

Most fundamentally, the arena/stadium simply takes up too much of the land needed for high density taxable uses to pay back the high cost to remediate the land, build supporting infrastructure and partially finance the arena/stadium facility itself in the proposed Community Revitalization Levy (CRL) model. It also lacks the certainty of anchor commercial property to pay back debt, and being detached physically from the downtown core, this is a significant problem facing the economics of this proposal.

Beyond the basic shortcomings of the dollars and cents of CalgaryNEXT, as a city-building endeavor, the plan is deeply flawed. The idea of an “arena district” is to leverage the activity of a central sports facility into an active and vibrant gathering place, including spin-off residential, hotel, retail, restaurant, bar, entertainment uses and public space. These uses need to be “on the way” from where you arrive to the arena. In CalgaryNEXT, the primary point of entry is the Sunalta LRT – patrons were shipped directly into the arena/stadium complex on a bridge high above the street. All the supposed spin off uses were shoved to the side of this gargantuan monolith of a building. Commercial and entertainment uses are “out of the way” and so there would be no such urban vitality - it would all be internalized to the building. Further, the CalgaryNEXT plan relied on retaining the current alignment of Bow Trail. This sterilizes a large portion of the river frontage, which is the hook for what makes the area attractive from a real estate perspective.

The West Village’s time will come. In fact, it stands a better chance without the arena/stadium than with it included. Remediating the land slowly will likely be less costly than on a strict schedule to align with the urgency of an arena/stadium development, Bow Trail can be properly re-aligned, and more developable land for taxable uses will be available, making the balance sheet of a CRL more realistic.

I believe it is time to put the CalgaryNEXT proposal to bed, and focus on the so called “Plan B” with standalone arena on Stampede Park, renovated McMahon Stadium that could be tied to an Olympic bid, and Fieldhouse at Foothills Athletic Park, as originally planned.

A new arena on Stampede Park benefits from lower infrastructure and remediation costs, walkable access to all three (current and future LRT lines) and the downtown core, abundant parking inherent to the Stampede and could anchor a truly vibrant entertainment district, including helping make the Stampede a true 365 day a year destination it has longed to become.

There is a role for the public to play to be sure, and I believe Plan B is the best chance to construct a deal that works for the Flames and most importantly, the citizens of Calgary.

Quoting all of this because it shouldn't die on page 63. Well said Bunk. I think you should go down the editorial route!

Also - wtf is Brett Wilson's dog in this? He's fighting everyone he can about Calgary Next on twitter (incl me) lol..

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Realtor 1

A poll on what % of tax payers money should go into the project would be interesting and I have a feeling that for the most part, everyone involved in the debate would be closer than we think!!

No it wouldn't because that would ignore revenue. Who pays what is only part of the equation... the other part is who gets what.

[Bunk]

I've discussed this in another thread, noting that I certainly do not have an in-depth understanding of all of the issues with this project, but there are a couple of questions/comments that I have as it relates to this post.

Has the City proposed an alternative at this location? One that would not ensure that "these uses" are "on the way" when you arrive to the arena?

If not, why not? Why has that discussion not taken place?

They didn't get past the fundamental issues of the economics of managing a CRL which contributed to such a large facility. They never got to the point of a site redesign. It would be possible to dramatically improve the layout of the West Village site, but it would probably require re-aligning Bow Trail, which would have added further cost.

Have you seen the building? I didn't think it was released yet? So why the negative comment about the building?

The comment was about the concept design for the combined Arena/Stadium building that CSEC released for the West Village site.

So, why hasn't it happened yet? It's been quite a while, no?

The focus from the City has been on the East Village. They took on a lot of debt and need a lot of development activity to build out that area. There is a general sense that the east side should build out more before the City invests hundreds of millions to open up even more land for high density urban development (of which the demand is fairly limited in Calgary). The last thing our downtown area lacks is available development land - we have oodles to absorb.

Why Stampede Park, specifically? Is there a reason that CSEC wants out of Stampede? If so, is it a valid reason? And, if so, why would/should the City dictate that the CSEC continue their business relationship with the stampede?

The City owns the land, so if CSEC is looking for free land, there aren't that many suitable choices in the downtown area. I can't speak for exactly why CSEC would want to sever that relationship, but I'm guessing it has something to do with control of revenues. I think the City hopes it can broker something mutually beneficial moving forward with a new facility and other development.

Seems like a pretty good deal for the Stampede, no?...have the City negotiate on your behalf. (or is the Stampede a business entity? I honestly have no idea)

Stampede is not-for-profit. It is also what the City calls a "Civic Partner" much like the Zoo, Science Centre, Heritage Park, etc.

Wait, what? You had some really good points, but this....renovated..I don't know what to say. If you really feel that McMahon can be renovated, I'm not sure that I can get on board with the rest.

I was not enamored with an indoor stadium, I'd rather have an outdoor. This is my own personal opinion, but I think you could do a reasonably affordable renovation of McMahon, that added a roof-like structure (similar to what they did with BMO recently in Toronto), gutted and rebuilt the concourse and replaced all the seats.

Honest question...is your negativity with the this project tied to the fact that it changes council's original vision (and planning) for where a Fieldhouse and Stadium would reside? It's just a general feeling that I get when I see comments about one's "original plan" and how it should be adhered to.

No. If a combined facility made sense, or another proposition put forward made sense, I would support it. I just simply don't support CalgaryNEXT as presented. I've always liked the idea of a new arena district at Stampede. I am indifferent to the specific location of a fieldhouse, but I beleive a lot went into selecting foothills as the preferred (I think it has a lot to do with the U of C.)

But, you said that you wanted a hockey arena there only. You want the fieldhouse and football stadium on 16th ave.

There's already an arena there now. So, why isn't it a 365 day a year destination now? What other "entertainment" are you referring to if the hockey arena simply replaces the hockey arena?

Good question. The fieldhouse would go north of McMahon Stadium.

As for the Saddledome, it was not originally situated or designed to be integrated with much of anything. It couldn't be or feel any more isolated and hostile to its surroundings than it is. Take a look at some of the most successful arena districts - they are planned, designed and integrated into a larger whole, which does include all these other uses.

I do not support public money going to private enterprise at all. I voted for Nenshi and support and share most of his opinions on municipal matters. However, from the onset, I've had the general sense that this project has irritated him (and others) because it simply challenged what their original vision was for all of the affected areas (stampede, west village, university, etc.). Based on this, I agree with you....it was dead on arrival.

I don't think anyone had some big attachment to another idea when CalgaryNEXT came in that closed their mind. I think CalgaryNEXT in West Village is simply a square peg in a round hole.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Torture

Also - wtf is Brett Wilson's dog in this? He's fighting everyone he can about Calgary Next on twitter (incl me) lol..

Good ol' boys mutual back scratching club. Plus as a minority owner in an NHL franchise he has something of a vested interest in seeing this business model go unchallenged.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Torture

Quoting all of this because it shouldn't die on page 63. Well said Bunk. I think you should go down the editorial route!

Also - wtf is Brett Wilson's dog in this? He's fighting everyone he can about Calgary Next on twitter (incl me) lol..

Thanks!

Brett Wilson - I dunno with him. My own read is his bias is that business can do no wrong, and he's inherently cynical about government? He took a similar aggressive stance with Uber - basically get out of the way, they know best, City is only obstructionist and too slow. He tends to rather hastily take strong positions without really demonstrating an understanding of the facts. I dunno.