Arena negotiation discussion. UPD: Flames release their proposal

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by Flamenspiel

I think you could still use most of the Stampede parking lot in this plan. I usually use street parking, as long as you arrive early this is reasonable.

I have issues with relying on the LRT as Calgary public transit is very minimal. It usually entails a park and drive for most people, which defeats the purpose.

In the short-medium term, parking on the grounds should be suffice. In the long run, if Stampede and CMLC vision comes through, there shouldn't be much parking left on the grounds. It would look more like a park.

[stone hands]

Originally Posted by Flamenspiel

I think you could still use most of the Stampede parking lot in this plan. I usually use street parking, as long as you arrive early this is reasonable.

I have issues with relying on the LRT as Calgary public transit is very minimal. It usually entails a park and drive for most people, which defeats the purpose.

I live in mckenzie towne. Going to the dome already takes 30-45 minutes by car. Until there's a train that comes to the south east, I'll be driving there

[442scotty]

10 years from now they will still be talking and consulting and nothing will get done and when things do start to happen they will probably bring in some foreign design team with over the top artsy fartsy designs and we will overpay for weird crap! There now I feel better!

[getbak]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

The arena area doesn't look big. I'm not sure what they've set aside for parking given that it's on the current parking lot (remember a lot of critics of the west village plan commented on a lack of parking, too).

The arena space is between 12th Ave and 14th Ave north-south and between 4th St and 5th St east-west. If you use the Measure Distance tool on Google Maps, it's about 200m x 160m.

Rogers Place is about 175m x 150m (excluding the Community Arena and Casino, and the little dangly bit that crosses 104 Ave. Little Caesars Arena is about 185m x 155m.

The footprint of the Prudential Center in Newark, including the practice rink, is almost identical to the space in question in Calgary.


As for parking, the surface lots at Stampede Park will still be there, although not as close as they are to the Dome.

Also, this whole plan will see a bunch of new development between 9th and 12th Aves from 4th St to the river. I'd expect any new buildings going in there to include substantial amounts of public parking, which should easily make up for the parking lost at the arena site.

[Tyler]

Did some of you forget this brand new parkade they are building next to the Green Line LRT and walking distance to the new arena?



http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...gary-1.4500210

[getbak]

That's not going to be next to the Green Line. It's going to be on the surface lot south of City Hall (the road in the rendering is 3rd St SE).

It'll be walking distance to the new arena (about 550 metres), but there will likely be a lot of other parking closer too.

[FlamesFanTrev]

Originally Posted by Tyler

Did some of you forget this brand new parkade they are building next to the Green Line LRT and walking distance to the new arena?



http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...gary-1.4500210

Love this. 80 million for a 500 car parking garage. If all 500 spots are used fully for everyday for 20 years, its a break even enterprise at 22 dollars a day, excluding interest and inflation. And if every car is fully packed with ~4 people per car, it services 2000 Calgarians a day? Just how much money are these innovators that are using the building contributing?

So what your saying is that the city is funding a project that only a select minority of the cities tax payers will actually ever use, with a capital outlay that will essentially never be recouped during the whole life span of the asset, and the city is going to have to continually pay upkeep and repairs on? Why does this sound so familiar to me?At least tell me the roof is going to be structurally engineered to attract concerts.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by FlamesFanTrev

Love this. 80 million for a 500 car parking garage. If all 500 spots are used fully for everyday for 20 years, its a break even enterprise at 22 dollars a day, excluding interest and inflation. And if every car is fully packed with ~4 people per car, it services 2000 Calgarians a day? Just how much money are these innovators that are using the building contributing?

So what your saying is that the city is funding a project that only a select minority of the cities tax payers will actually ever use, with a capital outlay that will essentially never be recouped during the whole life span of the asset, and the city is going to have to continually pay upkeep and repairs on?
Why does this sound so familiar to me?

That space is also designed to be a tech / innovation incubation space, not just a parkade; it serves dual purposes and fits in with part of the East Village master plan. What do you have against this facility? That's about what something like that would cost.

Perhaps you prefer the parkade one block north of the new library. That might be more up your alley - cold, desolate, uninviting, derelict. Perfect for a redeveloping neighborhood!

[nik-]

Originally Posted by FlamesFanTrev

Love this. 80 million for a 500 car parking garage. If all 500 spots are used fully for everyday for 20 years, its a break even enterprise at 22 dollars a day, excluding interest and inflation. And if every car is fully packed with ~4 people per car, it services 2000 Calgarians a day? Just how much money are these innovators that are using the building contributing?

So what your saying is that the city is funding a project that only a select minority of the cities tax payers will actually ever use, with a capital outlay that will essentially never be recouped during the whole life span of the asset, and the city is going to have to continually pay upkeep and repairs on? Why does this sound so familiar to me?At least tell me the roof is going to be structurally engineered to attract concerts.

Because you're desperate to equate a parkade to an arena in the hopes that people will think "yeah! we should pay for it!"

[FlamesFanTrev]

Originally Posted by nik-

Because you're desperate to equate a parkade to an arena in the hopes that people will think "yeah! we should pay for it!"

Not at all. I don't think the tax payers should be on the hook for a new arena either. It would just be nice if we could drop the hipocracy a little bit.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by FlamesFanTrev

Not at all. I don't think the tax payers should be on the hook for a new arena either. It would just be nice if we could drop the hipocracy a little bit.

There are a lot of things a city pays for that don't make money or are only used by a small portion of the city. Most of them don't have TV deals or 19000 tickets to sell.

Lets drop the ridiculous comparisons a little bit.

[FlamesFanTrev]

Originally Posted by nik-

There are a lot of things a city pays for that don't make money or are only used by a small portion of the city. Most of them don't have TV deals or 19000 tickets to sell.

Lets drop the ridiculous comparisons a little bit.

Agreed. Its standard operating procedure for the city to pay for things that they feel will benefit the city, even at a loss. (Remember the giant red ball? Blue Hoop? They are really crushing it, by the way.) Generally, these projects have an intangible benefit that balances the deficit in the value equation. Does the parking structure with offices as have an intangible benefit? Yes. Do the Flames in Calgary provide an intangible benefit? Yes. The real question here in both these cases are whether the intangible benefit is worth the cost. So this is not a ridiculous comparison at all. The fact that there is private revenue involved in one project vs the other project being entirely publicly funded is not actually relevant to the the conversation. The question is, what is the intangible benefit worth to the city? If you can come up with a metric for that, in order to calculate it in dollars, then problem solved; the city should not pay 1 red cent more then that number, regardless of what project it is.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by FlamesFanTrev

The fact that there is private revenue involved in one project vs the other project being entirely publicly funded is not actually relevant to the the conversation.

It's also not true.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by getbak

That's not going to be next to the Green Line. It's going to be on the surface lot south of City Hall (the road in the rendering is 3rd St SE).

It'll be walking distance to the new arena (about 550 metres), but there will likely be a lot of other parking closer too.

I park at this surface lot now. It's a very manageable walk to the dome now, only will get shorter with new arena slightly north.

I also recall that a parking structure was part of the initial concept plans for the area within Stampede.

[FlamesFanTrev]

Originally Posted by Muta

That space is also designed to be a tech / innovation incubation space, not just a parkade; it serves dual purposes and fits in with part of the East Village master plan. What do you have against this facility? That's about what something like that would cost.

Perhaps you prefer the parkade one block north of the new library. That might be more up your alley - cold, desolate, uninviting, derelict. Perfect for a redeveloping neighborhood!

Alot of assumptions made here. I was mainly drawing a parallel between the hockey arena battle and the parking structure with offices. Maybe my intention was too covert for you? Put your parking structure wherever the hell you want. I am not going to be part of the <~2% of the poulation that will be gaining any "public benefit" from it.

As for what I have against the building, I actually feel, personally, that innovation should be left to the private sector that generally handles innovation more efficiently then the public sector. Thats my opinion, and before you ask or make insinuations, I have my name on 2 patents, so I do infact have some experience to draw on. Managed to come up with some pretty good ideas without a think tank or an incubation space. I have participated in the GOC SRED program, and have seen first hand how inefficently those development grants are handled. Otherwise, the forward thinking design of the building, that it can be converted to something else is..... Neat. Wish someone had come up with this re-new-vation concept before.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Bunk

I park at this surface lot now. It's a very manageable walk to the dome now, only will get shorter with new arena slightly north.

I also recall that a parking structure was part of the initial concept plans for the area within Stampede.

A surface lot in place of the Saddledome (but also demolishing the parkade next to the Dome)...




No matter what they do around the Stampede Grounds, there will always need to be a significant amount of surface parking just so they have somewhere to put the Midway during the Stampede.

[FlamesFanTrev]

Originally Posted by Parallex

It's also not true.

Its totally true! The flames ownership has rightly or wrongly insinuated that the financial position in this market is untenable and unsustainable. Regardless of what your views on this are, if there is intangible benefit to the city and its citizens to keep the flames here, then there is a dollar value that makes keeping the flames here palatable for those intangibles. When the city was making a bid to have amazon headquarter here, you don't think there were concessions offered? That these concessions would have a dollar value that would be offset by intangibles?

A new arena is going to get done, and it will be subsidized using public dollars. Again, I am not supporting tax payers being on the hook for the building, but its going to happen. The powers that be just haven't agreed on the value of the intangibles yet.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by FlamesFanTrev

Its totally true!

No, it isn't... specifically this part...

The fact that there is private revenue involved in one project vs the other project being entirely publicly funded

Is the parking on Platform going to be free? If it isn't then how is that not akin to the user fee/ticket tax which CSEC continually claims is a private contribution to the construction of the building? As you said... It'd be nice if we could drop the hypocrisy a bit.

The truth is that it isn't (a contribution to the construction of the building)... it's just a dubious bit of rhetoric to dress-up the fact that CSEC preferred lease agreement is a complete rip-off of taxpayer money (and it makes zero sense for the city to agree to that lease agreement).

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by FlamesFanTrev

Alot of assumptions made here. I was mainly drawing a parallel between the hockey arena battle and the parking structure with offices. Maybe my intention was too covert for you? Put your parking structure wherever the hell you want. I am not going to be part of the <~2% of the poulation that will be gaining any "public benefit" from it.

As for what I have against the building, I actually feel, personally, that innovation should be left to the private sector that generally handles innovation more efficiently then the public sector. Thats my opinion, and before you ask or make insinuations, I have my name on 2 patents, so I do infact have some experience to draw on. Managed to come up with some pretty good ideas without a think tank or an incubation space. I have participated in the GOC SRED program, and have seen first hand how inefficently those development grants are handled. Otherwise, the forward thinking design of the building, that it can be converted to something else is..... Neat. Wish someone had come up with this re-new-vation concept before.

Can't tell if you are a frustrated taxpayer or Brett Wilson. Or both.

[FlamesFanTrev]

Originally Posted by Parallex

No, it isn't... specifically this part...



Is the parking on Platform going to be free? If it isn't then how is that not akin to the user fee/ticket tax which CSEC continually claims is a private contribution to the construction of the building? As you said... It'd be nice if we could drop the hypocrisy a bit.

The truth is that it isn't (a contribution to the construction of the building)... it's just a dubious bit of rhetoric to dress-up the fact that CSEC preferred lease agreement is a complete rip-off of taxpayer money (and it makes zero sense for the city to agree to that lease agreement).

Really cherry picking from my argument there. No worries. I can see your all heated up over this, and its probably way harder to read everything through. The simple fact is, if its not worth it, don't pay it (which I have said a few times now). But to say that its worth $0.00, all or nothing isn't reasonable or realistic from either side. There will be concessions made by the city, and the flames will kick in more money up front so they don't have to share the revenue. But there will be public dollars for private business. That is a fact. That there is revenue involved is clouding the issue at heart. That is, what is the dollar value that makes it work for both sides?

As for the CSEC, corporations are always going to corp. Don't take it personally, they are asking for the moon, so it dosen't seem so bad when they only take the stars. Pretty standard procedure really. Your paying for the increase of infrastructure to the electrical grid in the oil sands, on every electric bill. Your also paying for innovation grants through your taxes to private companies that are monetizing their innovations, with no repayment apparatus in place. Believe it or not, corporations are getting your tax dollars EVERYDAY. Get over it.