[News] New Arena - Plan B - Victoria Park

[RM14]

Originally Posted by troutman

If that means a collection of franchise chain restaurants, no thanks. A "fun urban district" planned from the top-down, is bound to be lame. Better if the community surrounds the new arena with entertainment options organically.

Can't wait for Calgary's very own Bubba Gump & Margaretaville district named "SO-EV-VIC-PA" or something trendy!

Spoiler!

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by troutman

If that means a collection of franchise chain restaurants, no thanks. A "fun urban district" planned from the top-down, is bound to be lame. Better if the community surrounds the new arena with entertainment options organically.

This is certainly an issue. Cannot wait for that Margaritaville we were promised

[Barnes]

Dinner at Guy Fieri's Diarrhea Factory before the game, drinks at Toby Keith's I love This ####ing Bar and Grill after.

[powderjunkie]

Can we really be a world-class city without a Hard Rock Cafe?

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Can we really be a world-class city without a Hard Rock Cafe?

We had one and it failed.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Can we really be a world-class city without a Hard Rock Cafe?

Thats in the very definition.

'Do you have a Hard Rock Cafe? You do? Sorry about your luck you're off the list...'

[Zarley]

Originally Posted by nik-

This is wrong. The City funded a study on the feasibility of the location and the provided an alternate option at another site. The Flames dug in their heels with "There is no Plan B".

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Did they not say all of those things?

Between the report, and the transcript of the council meeting where it was discussed, I'm pretty sure all of those points were explicitly stated (in addition to other reasonable concerns).

I don't see how council could have even arrived at the conclusions stated without an analysis first?

There's a lot more stuff here

From attachment 4 - page 18:

NSFW!

I feel like people have been affected by the newspaper headlines written after this meeting. CNext was 'torpedoed' (to borrow a word from a headline) thoughtfully, analytically, meticulously, respectfully, and professionally - by both administration and council. King & Co. are entitled to disagree as they wish (and there are parts of the analysis worthy of debate), but the City went above and beyond in 'showing their work'. I may be wrong, but I don't think Nenshi's snark really picked up until after King seems to have stubbornly buried his head in the sand to all of the analysis and tried to play the spin game first.

I hate to belabour this subject but the "analysis" prepared by administration on CalgaryNext is not properly done (and I've mentioned this in this thread several times before with a detailed explanation as to why). If administration was truly interested in preparing a fair financial analysis of the project, they would have hired qualified consultants to pro forma both scenarios (with and without CalgaryNext) and compare them - similar to what is being done right now for the Olympic bid facilities. I don't think administration is capable of preparing a proper analysis without outside expertise.

As illustrated by Bunk's comment, the mind of the mayor's office long before the project was introduced (which admittedly King and the Flames botched immensely).

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Table 5

I wouldn't hold your breath. Sports hasn't been about the plebes for a while now. It's all about maximizing revenue and catering to the high-margin fans.

That's part of why a lot of us are not that excited about subsidizing the entertainment of a bunch of rich people with our public tax dollars.

Beyond just this, what fascinates me the most about people who are advocating the city must contribute to this is that the Flames are guaranteed to increase the price of tickets, with 20% as the likely minimum increase. Stop and think about that for a second: There are people who are advocating that a for profit, private business (that is already profitable) should receive government funding, with (I would hope) the full knowledge that said private business will turn around and significantly increase the cost, despite the fact that the actual experience itself of watching hockey will not fundamentally get better.

What other business in the world would people actually willingly accept that, much less advocate for it? Sports really does strange things to us, it makes it quite irrational at times. Imagine Husky asking for money for a new office complex, then turning around and raising gas prices 20%. Or a property management company getting new digs partially paid for by government and raising rents 20%? People would be apoplectic, politicians would be biting the dust. Yet with sports….not so much. It’s a fascinating phenomenon. I fully get it from the rich fan’s perspective, but anyone who is an average fan who is pushing for public funding…I really don’t get it.

The Flames are simply looking to make more money here, and so people who think their priority will be considering the upper bowl fans are in for a very rude awakening. Also, saying “well they hopefully will learn from Edmonton” kind of ignores that they haven’t learned anything from Edmonton up to this point in the process, so why start now? If they wanna fully fund it themselves and design a pleb free arena with 40% price increases, more power to them. But the city should be looking out for the average Calgarian first and foremost, and the average Calgarian won't benefit anywhere near as much from this new building as the rich fans (and even richer owners). And that's a big problem here for many of us against public funding.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by Zarley

I hate to belabour this subject but the "analysis" prepared by administration on CalgaryNext is not properly done (and I've mentioned this in this thread several times before with a detailed explanation as to why). If administration was truly interested in preparing a fair financial analysis of the project, they would have hired qualified consultants to pro forma both scenarios (with and without CalgaryNext) and compare them - similar to what is being done right now for the Olympic bid facilities. I don't think administration is capable of preparing a proper analysis without outside expertise.

As illustrated by Bunk's comment, the mind of the mayor's office long before the project was introduced (which admittedly King and the Flames botched immensely).

You seem to be under the impression that the City's position was based strictly on economics. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Whether you acknowledge it or not, the City has a long term development plan for the city and had/had one in place that never contemplated building an entertainment facility.

As for your assertion that the City should have paid Consultants to review a development proposed by a third party, well that's just plain nuts.

Flames to the City ....

CSEC wants to build a massive sports complex in WV. We know the City has no plans to develop this land in the immediate future but it should would be wonderful if you could speed things up for us. After all, the 'time value of money' isn't really a thing is it? What's the difference if you spend your share of costs today, versus 10 years (or whatever timeline the WV was planned for) from now? Sure it might take 10 years or more to build out the rest of the WV and that our facility won't be contributing anything in the way of property taxes until that time, but that shouldn't be an issue, right?

We should also mention that in addition to site remediation, you'll likely need to do a ton of infrastructure upgrades, road re-alignments, etc. Again, we know you had no immediate plans to do this work and the CRL won't cover those costs, but this facility is so awesome, I'm sure it's not an issue. Sorry we didn't provide any Consultancy report or a detailed project proposal but you're welcome to spend your money on that work if you think it is necessary. We believe our project is so super awesome that Council will approve it on receipt. God Bless The Calgary Flames

[Lord Carnage]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

Flames to the City ....

It's trash like your make-believe quote that just inflames the discussion, while bringing absolutely no useful value.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Zarley

I hate to belabour this subject but the "analysis" prepared by administration on CalgaryNext is not properly done (and I've mentioned this in this thread several times before with a detailed explanation as to why). If administration was truly interested in preparing a fair financial analysis of the project, they would have hired qualified consultants to pro forma both scenarios (with and without CalgaryNext) and compare them - similar to what is being done right now for the Olympic bid facilities. I don't think administration is capable of preparing a proper analysis without outside expertise.

As illustrated by Bunk's comment, the mind of the mayor's office long before the project was introduced (which admittedly King and the Flames botched immensely).

I don't think anybody has claimed the city's report was of PHD defensible calibre, but it didn't need to be. It's a 30000 foot look, to decide whether it's worth exploring in far more detail. Whatever you want to say about the report, it's hard to argue that it's any less valid than what the Flames brought to the table (going all in with qualified consultants in response to the Flames napkin high-level proposal would have been crazy).

You do know the mayor =/= administration, right? He's also only 1 vote on council. The people writing the report may well have known the mayor's position and had that influence them a bit. You can characterize the mayor's position as 'no public money no matter what' if you want, but I suspect the report writers would have seen it as I do: 'make sure it makes sense, and is a fair deal for the city'. Is that in incorrect/unfair prejudice for the writers to have?

Put another way, it was the Flames job to demonstrate why the idea would work. In a perfect world, administration would ask themselves 'will this work or not?' - but even if their mindset was 'let's demonstrate why this will not work', IMO it is undeniable that they did a better job of proving that case than the Flames did theirs.


Is there anything in particular in the report you disagree with?

[Freeway]

FWIW, the mayor's position has never been "no public money no matter what."

[trew]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

The Flames are simply looking to make more money here, and so people who think their priority will be considering the upper bowl fans are in for a very rude awakening.

I started to realize this when the first interior renderings came out:

Spoiler!

If the plan is actually going to be a larger lower bowl and four levels of boxes and restaurants, then the second level could be as high up as the press level is currently..

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by Freeway

FWIW, the mayor's position has never been "no public money no matter what."

He may not have said "no matter what" but he was very forthright about his opinion that they shouldn't get public money
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...nshi-1.2667916

"I've said many, many times that I don't believe in public funds going after private money," said Nenshi. "As soon as they buy the land I would be happy to expedite the development process."

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

He may not have said "no matter what" but he was very forthright about his opinion that they shouldn't get public money
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...nshi-1.2667916

Yes, but that also says that public money can go to public benefit, which he has repeatedly stated the Flames must demonstrate (which isn't actually that hard to do IMO).

[getbak]

I didn't know Eric Francis was writing advertising now: http://calgaryherald.com/sports/hock...-its-heart-hub

[Yoho]

Originally Posted by getbak

I didn't know Eric Francis was writing advertising now: http://calgaryherald.com/sports/hock...-its-heart-hub

"Or the Flames will eventually leave, providing economists with a case study on how to dismantle a city."

Bravo Eric, Slow clap...

[monkeyman]

Francis got one thing right "Calgary’s leadership needs to boldly steer people in the right direction". What he fails to recognize is, that's exactly what the city is doing by rejecting CalgaryNext and steering the conversation toward the East village. The delay is and always was with the Flames.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Lord Carnage

It's trash like your make-believe quote that just inflames the discussion, while bringing absolutely no useful value.

I agree, it's totally a make believe quote. The Flames went to the public first, not the city.

Where's the accuracy longsuffering?

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by getbak

I didn't know Eric Francis was writing advertising now: http://calgaryherald.com/sports/hock...-its-heart-hub

I was once a fairly strong supporter of public funds for the new rink but have slowly been swayed against it reading the news clips and this thread. That article is supposed to pump people up to get our local government to step up with funds but it has the opposite effect for me. Wilson stating that Flames ownership providing $200M is a "donation" is ridiculous. These same owners are due to profit handsomely from a new building.

At the end of the day I feel the city needs a new building. I am still not opposed to some public funds but the majority of that cash needs to come from the Flames.