Arena Negotiation Discussion v2

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Essentially if the CSEC wants/needs a new arena, and wants/needs public support then there are a few things that NEED to happen:

1. Demonstrate the need for a new arena

2. Demonstrate a ROI for the city

2B) Use a conservative econimic study rather than a liberal one, generally the liberal studies work, but Calgary appears to be more aware of the sales pitch so CSEC needs to under promise and over deliver here, the under promise needs to be beneficial.

3. Incorporate city needs into the plan (entertainment district, public access to gym/secondary ice surface, convention center space, I'm not from Calgary, and don't live there so that's up to Calgary, I'm just throwing out examples).

4. Demonstrate why a partnership with the city is better than building on their own. (Compare areas that had a partnership versus completely private, off my head I'm not certain of which places partnered and which were 100% private).

5. Demonstrate future proofing (build the shell ala MSG, if inverted bowl be sure that if that theory flops in the future you can fix it, this is a bit difficult as you're trying to plan for technology that hasn't been invented yet).

Treat the city as a business partner. If the ROI is there then why wouldn't the city partner?

To me it seems that the city and CSEC have taken a zero sum game approach. What benefits one is at the detriment of the other. That's the worst way to negotiate. What are the objectives of each side?

CSEC: maximize revenues by providing the best experience for players and fans.

Calgary: use taxpayer money effectively.

Those two sides are not at odds, yet it seems to me that they both sides are acting like they are.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Houston has more head offices than Dallas, a busier airport and tourist system too.

Granted.

Quick and easy way to quantify this (actually not as easy as I wanted because the Rockets live seating map is different than ticketmaster system). Same opponent game, Rockets tickets were 0-15% more expensive than Mavericks tix. Worth noting that Houston is coming off several strong years, including game 7 of conf. finals last year, compared to Dallas who missed the playoffs last 2 years. The teams are basically tied this year, though the future looks brighter for Dallas.


The other question I'm left to ask, is if Houston offers such a guaranteed license to print money, why have NHL teams appeared in these cities instead of Houston?

San Jose
Ottawa
Tampa Bay
Dallas
Anaheim
Denver
Phoenix
Raleigh
Nashville
Atlanta
Columbus
Minneapolis
Winnipeg
Las Vegas
Seattle

A simple answer to my question is there have been rich dudes willing to give it a shot in the cities listed above, but not Houston. But, why is that?

To be clear, I'm not saying any of the above are terrible markets (except maybe Phoenix and Atlanta), but if I owned a team I wouldn't choose any of those markets over Calgary (though I'd be equally content in San Jose, maybe Minneapolis or Denver - except being the 4th banana in those cities would counter the US dollar benefits).


Back to me previous question - assuming the Coyotes move to Houston (who I've demonstrated with real numbers was probably not a really good answer to this question, anyways):

what other cities have companies & people willing to pay more money for better suites & lower bowl hockey experiences than what is currently being paid at the Saddledome?



The moving threat is hollow. (I'll happily edit this statement if someone can argue a good answer to my question)

[Beatle17]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Granted.

Quick and easy way to quantify this (actually not as easy as I wanted because the Rockets live seating map is different than ticketmaster system). Same opponent game, Rockets tickets were 0-15% more expensive than Mavericks tix. Worth noting that Houston is coming off several strong years, including game 7 of conf. finals last year, compared to Dallas who missed the playoffs last 2 years. The teams are basically tied this year, though the future looks brighter for Dallas.


The other question I'm left to ask, is if Houston offers such a guaranteed license to print money, why have NHL teams appeared in these cities instead of Houston?

San Jose
Ottawa
Tampa Bay
Dallas
Anaheim
Denver
Phoenix
Raleigh
Nashville
Atlanta
Columbus
Minneapolis
Winnipeg
Las Vegas
Seattle

A simple answer to my question is there have been rich dudes willing to give it a shot in the cities listed above, but not Houston. But, why is that?

To be clear, I'm not saying any of the above are terrible markets (except maybe Phoenix and Atlanta), but if I owned a team I wouldn't choose any of those markets over Calgary (though I'd be equally content in San Jose, maybe Minneapolis or Denver - except being the 4th banana in those cities would counter the US dollar benefits).


Back to me previous question - assuming the Coyotes move to Houston (who I've demonstrated with real numbers was probably not a really good answer to this question, anyways):

what other cities have companies & people willing to pay more money for better suites & lower bowl hockey experiences than what is currently being paid at the Saddledome?



The moving threat is hollow. (I'll happily edit this statement if someone can argue a good answer to my question)

Look up Les Alexander. He wouldn't let another team in HIS arena. He js gone and the new owner wants a hockey team. Houston has aleays had a strong hockey base but no arena.

[powderjunkie]

^ good to know. It sounds like Phoenix to Houston may not be as imminent as first thought, though we'll have a better idea in 10 days.

That said, do my numbers not bear out that Houston is unlikely to be more profitable than Calgary?

The other question to factor into the hollow moving threat is: what other situations in the league are less tenable than Calgary in the 'dome for 20 more years? Phoenix, Florida, and Ottawa all seem like fair answers...

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Beatle17

Look up Les Alexander. He wouldn't let another team in HIS arena. He js gone and the new owner wants a hockey team. Houston has aleays had a strong hockey base but no arena.

This is the answer. Alexander controlled the arena and didn’t want the NHL. No more analysis required than that.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

^ good to know. It sounds like Phoenix to Houston may not be as imminent as first thought, though we'll have a better idea in 10 days.

That said, do my numbers not bear out that Houston is unlikely to be more profitable than Calgary?

The other question to factor into the hollow moving threat is: what other situations in the league are less tenable than Calgary in the 'dome for 20 more years? Phoenix, Florida, and Ottawa all seem like fair answers...

There is a lot more that goes into the profitability analysis. Houston has a new modern arena and a hockey team fills it with 40+ dates. For Fertitta, the prospective owner, owning an NHL team almost becomes gravy. I don’t think average ticket price comparison between the Stars and Flames tells you too much.

Now personally I think he has an issue with the cost of an NHL franchise and I haven’t seen anything that makes me believe he is ready to pay what the NHL believes is the going rate. Which basically amounts to the cost of building a new arena.

[powderjunkie]

I've never said I don't think Houston is profitable. The question is whether it's more profitable than Calgary.

Ticket sales, TV Deals, Sponsorships & Corporate Partnerships are all likely to generate less revenue in Houston's 15 year old building than Calgary's 40 year old building.

As you rightly argue, Houston is likely to have lower operating costs, though I think that has more to do with US dollar than anything else. Is this enough to offset the lower revenue? Maybe, maybe not, but it's pretty much impossible to claim it's a slam-dunk better situation than Calgary.

At the end of the day, you are also correct that acquiring the team is their biggest obstacle. Is there any doubt the cost to acquire the Flames is more than for the Coyotes, Panthers, or Hurricanes? How desperate is Fertitta to buy? Does paying a lot more for the Flames really get him a team sooner than pursuing the aforementioned teams?

Franchise value brings us full circle to the biggest benefit that is left out of the cost vs. benefit analysis between the city and CSEC. Murray gets an instant 9 figure bump in value with a new arena.


I haven't looked into this at all, so I'm interested to hear more details: Vancouver, Toronto, and Montreal are often trotted out as examples of how privately funded arena deals don't work because the teams were sold shortly after. Were the teams actually sold at a loss when all things are considered? Or, were they simply sold at the optimal time?

[Jay Random]

A good deal of what you say is City Hall propaganda, but I want to address this specifically:

Originally Posted by Bunk

Outside the core, there are roads sometimes reduced a lane, but the capacity of the road can easily handle volumes on the remaining lanes. There are really no examples of additional lanes that have caused any material delay for vehicles, especially after a short period of adjustment to new patterns.

I live in Brentwood. Brentwood Road, the service road for the shopping centre (and four new high-rise condo buildings with a fifth under construction), has been reduced from three lanes to two by the addition of bike paths. Formerly there were two westbound lanes and one eastbound. This made perfect sense, as there is no exit onto westbound Crowchild from Charleswood Drive, at the east end of the shopping centre; you have to go west and get onto Crowchild from Brisebois Drive. Now, with only one westbound lane, traffic is backed up at all hours of the day, and it is actively dangerous to try to get onto Brentwood Road from a side street – a thing that I have to do every day.

Meanwhile, traffic on those bike lanes is as close to zero as you can cipher it down. However, we still get cyclists ignoring the bike lanes and riding on the sidewalk, where they are a hazard both to pedestrians and to vehicles entering or leaving parking lots.

If you want another example: 10 St. N.W. used to be a major thoroughfare, carrying inbound traffic off of 16 Ave. downtown via the Louise Bridge. Now there is only one southbound lane between 16 Ave. and 5 Ave., destroying the road's usefulness as a commuter route. The bike lanes were installed against all common sense, as there is a perfectly good two-way dedicated bike path parallel to 10 St. and less than a block to the east. Congestion on 14 St., the only viable alternative route, has skyrocketed since 10th was ruined.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

There is a lot more that goes into the profitability analysis. Houston has a new modern arena and a hockey team fills it with 40+ dates. For Fertitta, the prospective owner, owning an NHL team almost becomes gravy. I don’t think average ticket price comparison between the Stars and Flames tells you too much.

Now personally I think he has an issue with the cost of an NHL franchise and I haven’t seen anything that makes me believe he is ready to pay what the NHL believes is the going rate. Which basically amounts to the cost of building a new arena.

A new franchise costs a lot more than a purchase, potentially. The latter is just a negotiation between owners, and doesn't involve a fee. So it depends on profitability.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

A new franchise costs a lot more than a purchase, potentially. The latter is just a negotiation between owners, and doesn't involve a fee. So it depends on profitability.

Any franchise sale accompanied by a move is going to involve a relo fee for the league. I don’t see how it couldn’t.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

A new franchise costs a lot more than a purchase, potentially. The latter is just a negotiation between owners, and doesn't involve a fee. So it depends on profitability.

No it's not. It's a negotiation between an owner, a potential owner and the league. The league's role being to acquire as much money as possible with a relocation fee, a fee which is rumoured to be very high these days.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

If you want another example: 10 St. N.W. used to be a major thoroughfare, carrying inbound traffic off of 16 Ave. downtown via the Louise Bridge. Now there is only one southbound lane between 16 Ave. and 5 Ave., destroying the road's usefulness as a commuter route. The bike lanes were installed against all common sense, as there is a perfectly good two-way dedicated bike path parallel to 10 St. and less than a block to the east. Congestion on 14 St., the only viable alternative route, has skyrocketed since 10th was ruined.

10 st bike lanes are especially well used. I don't know what bike path you're talking about? There's a very short section that essentially just runs up the steep hill and spits you into Rosedale (without even a mountable curb)? Useful if you live in Rosedale, but otherwise it's a bunch of stop signs to get you to somewhere you can wait 5 mins to cross 16 ave so you can ride into more stop signs?

I'll stick with 10 st nw thanks, whether there's a bike lane or not. Seeing as the average speed of cars is closer to 70 than the posted 50, I'm pleased to at least have the painted barrier.

The bottleneck is not between 16 and 5 ave, it's between 5 ave and Memorial. It's both a bike lane and improved sidewalk infrastructure that narrowed 10 st for that section, which came hand-in-hand with increased residential density in the area, which means fewer suburbanites competing with you for space on your commute.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

It's both a bike lane and improved sidewalk infrastructure that narrowed 10 st for that section, which came hand-in-hand with increased residential density in the area, which means fewer suburbanites competing with you for space on your commute.

Oh, well, as long as the OBJECT of the game is to prevent suburbanites from getting downtown. Here I thought we were citizens too.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Oh, well, as long as the OBJECT of the game is to prevent suburbanites from getting downtown. Here I thought we were citizens too.

Nailed it. You really distilled the main essence of my post .

Have you considered that the worsening congestion might have more to do with population growth? Or the adoption of google maps, so more people now know about this route? Or what your commute might look like without people living in Lido, Pixel, St John on 10th, Ezra, or any of the other med-high density buildings in the area (with several more coming soon)? This is honestly the weakest part of my argument that I wouldn't have bothered including if I'd known it was the only thing you'd pay attention to...

Seriously though, if the southbound stretch from 5 ave to 3 ave was still two lanes would it make much difference? How many more cars make it through the 2 Ave + Kensington Rd + Memorial Dr quagmire? Does it not bottleneck again when Louise Bridge drops from 3 lanes to 2? I don't drive that route at rush hour, so I honestly don't know?

You live in Brentwood...have you considered that you might face a lot less aggravation if you hopped on the train? Maybe not as convenient if you live closer to John Laurie Blvd, but you might still be amazed at the difference in your mood if you added a 15 minute walk / 5 minute bike ride to/from the train station every morning and afternoon...From where you live the city has provided several viable methods for you to get into downtown - the fantastic bike lanes you're bitching about being one of them.

[Bunk]

No change is without zero tradeoff. I think part of the issue with retrofitting streets is it feels like something is being “taken away”. I drive 14th everyday - it’s really not a big deal. I do think volumes have increased somewhat. But if it means people can get to work safely, it’s a trade off I’m willing to make. But if you look for example in the Centre city, I think 8th ave, 7th street, 5th street and 12th ave (besides the one lane jog) have worked out well. Actual travel delays have been minimal, and it has really done a good job increasing cycling numbers, especially women, who now feel safe enough to ride. I don’t know enough about Brentwood to comment. 10th? How does one cross 16th Ave on a route other that 10th? Also, 10th is so congested now at Kensington, Memoral, Louise, not sure what good fitting more cars down the hill would do.

The reason to invest in pedestrian, cycle and transit in the bigger picture is that if you create a city that one can only get around by driving it’s bad for everyone, especially drivers. Single occupancy vehicles are incredibly space inefficient. The more you can provide options to spread that mode share across all modes, the better. Calgary’s been pretty pragmatic about it.

[monkeyman]

I think 8th ave is a #### show now with the retro fit bike lanes, not only on the roadways but on the walking portion. It used to be a nice walking road, now you have bikes ripping past you.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by monkeyman

I think 8th ave is a #### show now with the retro fit bike lanes, not only on the roadways but on the walking portion. It used to be a nice walking road, now you have bikes ripping past you.

It really is not. The lanes are a bit narrower, which slows traffic speed, there is street parking where it matters (loading zones, hotels, daycares - including my own kid’s). Travel lane volumes are the same.

Stephen Ave, 90% of bike volume is at morning and evening rush hour, when pedestrian volumes are extremely low. Bike volumes are very low when pedestrian volumes at lunch are high. There is about 4 times the space as the river pathways where bikes and pedestrians also mix. It works just fine.

[GGG]

Since this is now the bike lane / Arena thread

The bike lanes on 10th were installed in 2011. In 2009 and 2010 you had 15000 cars per day.

In 2015 and 2016 you had 15000 cars per day
In 2017 this dropped to 13,000 cars per day

In 2005 there was 17000 cars per day. So what caused the drop in traffic on 10th st between 2005 and 2009? Did something change between 2016 and 2017 on those bike lanes?

Traffic data from http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation...flow-maps.aspx

[jayswin]

The true effects of the recession/new reality of Calgary's downtown working population started to take over?

[rage2]

Originally Posted by GGG

Since this is now the bike lane / Arena thread

The bike lanes on 10th were installed in 2011. In 2009 and 2010 you had 15000 cars per day.

In 2015 and 2016 you had 15000 cars per day
In 2017 this dropped to 13,000 cars per day

In 2005 there was 17000 cars per day. So what caused the drop in traffic on 10th st between 2005 and 2009? Did something change between 2016 and 2017 on those bike lanes?

Traffic data from http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation...flow-maps.aspx

I stopped using 10th and took an alternate route. Lots of coworkers did the same.