[News] Ken King: Flames' owners no longer pursuing new arena with City of Calgary

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by New Era

It's not hyperbole. The plan Nenshi has outlined is a hot mess. Seriously, he has a business incubation facility in the middle of the "entertainment" district. He has historical ruins kitty corner from the arena. And then he has the CP mainline running right through the middle of it all! Who the hell dreamed this up? You need to go check out some of the other arenas and stadiums around the continent. There are some awesome entertainment districts around, and none of them have a business incubator or train tracks in the middle of them.

Specific examples, please.

I go to Shibuya and Shinjuku in Tokyo quite often, entertainment districts, and there are massive tracks right through both those districts that transport tens of thousands of people per day. Yoyogi National Gymnasium - a huge arena - is right in Shibuya too, next to train tracks.

Also, do you even realize that a master plan is not the same as the equivalent of a high-level infographic from Nenshi's campaign? I don't have to remind you of this, right?

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by New Era

Because the Flames job is entertainment, and the city of Calgary's job is governance.

The Flames job is getting people into the building. It doesn't matter to them whether people hang out and spend time around the arena. What happens outside the arena has little to do with the flames bottom line.

In fact, more drinking at a bar across the street means less heroin beer inside

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by New Era

Maybe we should spin this another way. Would you be happy if the city fronted the whole nut, then the Flames paid some number ($15M) each year as a lessee, with the Flames getting all revenues from related to the events at the arena?

Let's be honest, the Flames don't want that either because then the city gets full control over the specs and design of the arena.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Great, except that arena will be needed to be planned and financing in place BEFORE any announcement of a winning bid.

Also, why would they want to build a new arena and not have an anchor tenant both before and after any Olympics?

I'm not too familiar with the process, but could the city not submit a bid and say the arena was contingent on getting the bid?

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I'm not too familiar with the process, but could the city not submit a bid and say the arena was contingent on getting the bid?

Doubtful because the arena would have to be OK'd by the IOC (shudder).

Now one thing that the Calgary bid may have going for them is that they may be bidding unopposed. In that case the IOC would have no choice but to award on good faith that the arena is up to snuff.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Specific examples, please.

Well, LA's is the best I've been to. LA Live I think is the gold standard for the all encompassing bar and entertainment district around the stadium. Westgate in Glendale is pretty decent, and downtown Phoenix has some great potential. Columbus looked interesting, but I didn't get a chance to spend much time around it. Cincinnati's Riverfront was great, all thought it was a take in the game and do a quick walk rather than spend a ton of time there. Places that I like that aren't traditional are Tampa's setup. Harbor Island is great and they are doing their best to create a Tampa Live around Amalie Arena and Channelside. The best there is Ybor City, but its not really part of that district, although you can take street car from the aquarium there, which is very cool. The place I would like to see Calgary try and replicate, which isn't a true entertainment district as they currently are being built, it Atlanta's Buckhead district. It is obviously more organic in its development and probably more like Calgary would like the Victoria Park redevelopment to go. Very cool.

I go to Shibuya and Shinjuku in Tokyo quite often, entertainment districts, and there are massive tracks right through both those districts that transport tens of thousands of people per day. Yoyogi National Gymnasium - a huge arena - is right in Shibuya too, next to train tracks.

Can't speak for Tokyo, or Japan in general, as I've never been. Are they moving industrial chemicals and freight through that area, or are these like light rail tracks. I think we can agree that there is a big difference between those two.

Also, do you even realize that a master plan is not the same as the equivalent of a high-level infographic from Nenshi's campaign? I don't have to remind you of this, right?

Sure, it's a high level plan, but it is still all over the road map. In a winter city, that much ground to cover kind of defeats the purpose. I'll be interested to see how it develops because right now, the concept is brutal on paper.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I'm not too familiar with the process, but could the city not submit a bid and say the arena was contingent on getting the bid?

Yes, most venues are only planned with construction being contingent upon winning the bid. Very few cities are going to spend the money needed for ski jump towers or an indoor speedskating track without the Olympics as a driver.

However, it's always good to have venues beyond the planning stages because it shows a commitment and it's more likely that everything in the plan will actually get built.

It's long been said that having the Saddledome already under construction was a major factor in the IOC awarding the 1988 Games to Calgary.

[MonaTone]

Found in the comments of the below reddit post... needed to share.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Calgary/com...y_great_again/

[Ace]

Originally Posted by jammies

That would be relevant if 100% of the money you currently spend on the Flames recycled directly into the local economy. But it doesn't.



For example, the Flames' scouts are paid with money earned here, but live and work elsewhere. So a portion of your season ticket money leaves the city for that. Johnny Gaudreau buys an island for his mom? That money, much of it originally derived from ticket holders in Calgary, is now exported. And so on - the money you are paying into the Flames gets redistributed locally at a certain efficiency, and likely not a particularly high one.



So you would be less locally efficient with your cash, by now prioritizing travel, but others would offset that by being more locally efficient - or so the studies say. You theoretically shifting your habits to travel instead of season tickets is therefore still just one data point and not conclusive evidence of anything.



PS: You know what else the Flames spend millions and millions a year on? Travel. Way more money than you'll ever spend, waving its little moneyhands goodbye.

But the flames also generate give or take 30,000,000 a year in income taxes. Unfortunately the Feds/province takes this (nothing for the city), but there is still only one tax payer so ultimately having an NHL team easily covers capital costs. Now "Alberta" and Canada already have this money and it's only an issue if the team could actually leave the Province/country.

[Barnes]

Originally Posted by New Era

It's not hyperbole. The plan Nenshi has outlined is a hot mess. Seriously, he has a business incubation facility in the middle of the "entertainment" district. He has historical ruins kitty corner from the arena. And then he has the CP mainline running right through the middle of it all! Who the hell dreamed this up? You need to go check out some of the other arenas and stadiums around the continent. There are some awesome entertainment districts around, and none of them have a business incubator or train tracks in the middle of them.



Because the Flames job is entertainment, and the city of Calgary's job is governance. I'll give the reins to the interest running a team in the top hockey league on the planet and keep it out of the hands of government, thank you very much. Not that either has risen to the top of their respective areas of expertise of late, but I think they should focus on their core competencies and try and get better at each. Plus, I don't think you want to start listing off the failures of the city of Calgary. I don't think photon would appreciate the stress placed on the database.

Honestly, stop. The Victoria Park ARP and the greater Rivers District Development Plan is there for you to read. The Victoria Park Master Plan has been in the works long before 'Plan B' and the CSEC were one of the many stakeholders who signed off on that plan along with land owners like Remington, the Stampede, Vic Park, Inglewood and Ramsey Community Associations. Yet, they still tried to push forward with a West Village proposal.

The CMLC has already earmarked $150 million in infrastructure improvements to Victoria Park. Tying the mixed use Beltline to the Stampede, through the entertainment, arts and cultural district, East Village, and CBD.

The Rivers District Development Plan's entertainment, arts and cultural aspects has the benefit of already having in place the Glenbow, NMC, Central Library, Arts Commons, new public spaces, Fort Calgary, convention and exhibition space, a casino, condos and hotels.

All of it stewarded by the CMLC who has proven track record. You were impressed by CalgaryNEXT's promise of an entertainment district which are nothing more then blue and yellow cubes that may one day amount to a Bubba Gump Shrimp Company and a Toby Keith's I love this Bar and Grill at best.

But you saw an infographic on the Mayor's website.

If you like what you saw at L.A. Live, the only place to duplicate that is Victoria Park. Period.

[Ducay]

I think we can agree Victoria Park is our best shot, but to New Era's point - it is hardly a shot at recreating LA Live. The CP line in and of itself is a barrier to flow and natural movement, and I've yet to see a proposal that somehow brings the two halves together.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Ducay

I think we can agree Victoria Park is our best shot, but to New Era's point - it is hardly a shot at recreating LA Live. The CP line in and of itself is a barrier to flow and natural movement, and I've yet to see a proposal that somehow brings the two halves together.

There's a ton of space in Victoria Park itself to be a substantial arena-centred entertainment district. Compare the scale of land between 14th ave and the CPR tracks including Railtown (Remington) and the Victoria Bus Barns). Humongous - did you not see my MS Paint plan!?!? Cultural stuff will be mostly north of the tracks linked by 4th street.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by Ducay

I think we can agree Victoria Park is our best shot, but to New Era's point - it is hardly a shot at recreating LA Live. The CP line in and of itself is a barrier to flow and natural movement, and I've yet to see a proposal that somehow brings the two halves together.

17th Ave is also going to be extended into the park and tie into Stampede Trail, so access won't be restricted to one point (from downtown).

Potentially there could be access from Riverwalk or an improved pathway system as well.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

[Barnes]

Originally Posted by Ducay

I think we can agree Victoria Park is our best shot, but to New Era's point - it is hardly a shot at recreating LA Live. The CP line in and of itself is a barrier to flow and natural movement, and I've yet to see a proposal that somehow brings the two halves together.

Yeah the tracks are problematic but they aren't going anywhere. CMLC did a fantastic job with the 4th st underpass. City Hall is a barrier to natural flow between downtown and the EV as well, that's why these types of grand visions that take usage and all stakeholders into account are so important. So we don't get development that causes problems in the future. Cough... CalgaryNEXT.... Cough.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Cappy

Some people don't care for the flames, or think that the city shouldnt pay for it. Not really because it affects them financially

Fair enough. But why isn't that their last word on the debate? It seems to me that nothing more than that needs to be said on their position. Is it yours? You don't seem to post about anything else.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Barnes

If you like what you saw at L.A. Live, the only place to duplicate that is Victoria Park. Period.

Thanks for the information. It does present a much better picture than has been promoted by either side in the argument. For anyone else interested here is the plan that Barnes is referring to.

http://www.calgary.ca/CS/CPB/Documen...ation_plan.pdf

It is closer to Buckwood than LA Live, which I think it better for Calgary and much cooler. I don't think current state is anywhere near where this plan is promoting, even after a decade. It is still decades away from implementation, regardless of when an arena goes in. There is so much work to be done, and no cash to do it. While this is a much better vision, what do you think the likelihood of this happening is in the next 20 years? Where is the money coming for this? Or are the relying on "build it and they will come" type strategy with private development?

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Table 5

The conversation at this stage of the game is not about whether we need an arena or not...both the Flames and City (and most of us) agree that we do. The debate really is about the level of corporate welfare that we as tax payers should be willing to give to a private enterprise to have those things.

Yes, that is the crux of the conversation. So let's do some math as a starting point, in order to understand what it is we are talking about. Because frankly, $200M sounds like a lot of money, and is difficult to relate to.

Let's assume the city contributes 1/3, or $200M to a new arena. And let's assume they aren't getting paid back - they are ponying up for a full third of the cost. Now, I am pretty sure that they don't actually have $200M lying around to throw into the kitty, and even if they did, why use that when they could borrow the money? So they would most likely finance it, amortizing the cost over 20 years. The province would raise the capital on their behalf in the debt markets. And the province can borrow on a 20 year term right now for roughly 3.25%. So what does that mean?

Annual principal paydown: $200M / 20 years = $10M per year.

Interest cost: $200M x 3.25% = $6.5M per year (it actually declines each year, but we'll ignore that fact for simpler math)

Total annual cost to the city: $10M + $6.5M = $16.5M per year

Assuming there are 1.1M people living within the tax boundaries of Calgary, that means that the annual cost would be $15.00 per person, or $60 per year for a family of 4. Obviously some pay less, children pay nothing, and others pay more, but that is the average per person, if we include all Calgarians.

So is $15 per year something you can live with? Or does it need to be $10? Or $5? Or $0?

Yes, there are other things like infrastructure upgrades. But some of them need to happen anyway (so no additional cost). And also, there are revenue generators for the city, like increased property taxes from hotels and the surrounding businesses. So let's call those things a wash.

$15 per person per year. That's what the city's contribution would cost us, based on the 1/3 contribution model (with no payback).

[Roughneck]

Better chance Amazon comes to town than we recreate LA Live.

[edslunch]

This doesn't seem so hard. Flames want 1/3 city money given, city wants it loaned. Split the difference and city pays part in hard cash/land/infrastructure and part as loan.

[Flame On]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Yes, that is the crux of the conversation. So let's do some math as a starting point, in order to understand what it is we are talking about. Because frankly, $200M sounds like a lot of money, and is difficult to relate to.

Let's assume the city contributes 1/3, or $200M to a new arena. And let's assume they aren't getting paid back - they are ponying up for a full third of the cost. Now, I am pretty sure that they don't actually have $200M lying around to throw into the kitty, and even if they did, why use that when they could borrow the money? So they would most likely finance it, amortizing the cost over 20 years. The province would raise the capital on their behalf in the debt markets. And the province can borrow on a 20 year term right now for roughly 3.25%. So what does that mean?

Annual principal paydown: $200M / 20 years = $10M per year.

Interest cost: $200M x 3.25% = $6.5M per year (it actually declines each year, but we'll ignore that fact for simpler math)

Total annual cost to the city: $10M + $6.5M = $16.5M per year

Assuming there are 1.1M people living within the tax boundaries of Calgary, that means that the annual cost would be $15.00 per person, or $60 per year for a family of 4. Obviously some pay less, children pay nothing, and others pay more, but that is the average per person, if we include all Calgarians.

So is $15 per year something you can live with? Or does it need to be $10? Or $5? Or $0?

Yes, there are other things like infrastructure upgrades. But some of them need to happen anyway (so no additional cost). And also, there are revenue generators for the city, like increased property taxes from hotels and the surrounding businesses. So let's call those things a wash.

$15 per person per year. That's what the city's contribution would cost us, based on the 1/3 contribution model (with no payback).

Sold!
(I live in Cochrane suckas!)