[News] Tentative Agreement Reached! New Arena!

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

More details on cost overruns:
https://calgaryherald.com/news/local...box=1564167208

• Overruns on the event centre will be split 50/50
• If a overrun is caused by one party's request, then that overrun is 100% on that party (e.g. if Flames want gold plated fixtures in the luxury boxes, the Flames will have to pay for them)
• The 3000-5000 seat community rink will only be delivered if it can be fit within the $275 million contribution
  
• CSEC's contribution to the Saddledome demolition is capped at $1.5 million regardless of what the final cost ends up being

So basically it will be downgraded to a glorified community rink, ala Edmonton.

[getbak]

It's funny to see Corbella and Braid coming to bat for this deal...

https://calgaryherald.com/opinion/co...new-arena-deal

https://calgaryherald.com/news/local...ral-candidates

https://calgaryherald.com/opinion/co...-actually-work

https://calgaryherald.com/opinion/co...-city-hall-won



Even Rick Bell isn't slamming the deal, which for him is like overwhelming approval.

https://calgarysun.com/opinion/colum...-arena-critics

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by TheRealPepman

Would it be nice if city turns Saddledome into a multi-level indoor parkade with separate retail/communuty spaces at the current lower level/ticket office/Chrysler Club?

Keys: Demolish the interior, modify the exterior a la Key Arena and Oracle Arena + make sure city's skyline still looks fantastic and unique

I'm not an engineer, I but imagine there's be difficulties retrofitting the current structure for such a purpose. Essentially you'd be demolishing the existing building and building a look-a-like replica from scratch that could cost much higher than the average, utilitarian parkade.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Locke

We dont need more time. The people who hammered this out have spent thousands of hours on it. John Q. Taxpayer are going to have to let the people we elected to represent us make a goddamned decision.

I'm getting sick of 'Public Consultation.'

If the people elected to represent us cant make a decision on behalf of the people they represent then what is the point in having them?

I dunno, city council is one of the rare democratic institutions remaining where the process of "debate" can actually influence the decision of a council member. I'm not one to broadly disparage city council members (at least not on the number of hours they put it) - I don't think it's a stretch to say that most members of council not directly involved in the negotiation are going to be sufficiently versed in the details of this project to make an informed decision after one meeting, with 6 days to review documents and a few hours to review constituent feedback (yes, it's fun to crap on whiny NIMBY 'consultation', but it can be the only way to force parties to address inconvenient issues).

Through a prolonged and contentious negotiation like this, it seems like a near certainty that there are going to be a number of key details that were overlooked (either intentionally or not) in the interest of reaching agreement on the biggest components. IMO, until a deal is signed the city holds ~97% of the leverage, so now is the better time to iron out those final details than after we've signed a cheque.

For instance, the community arena seems to be one of the bigger 'public good' aspects of this project...to me, a prudent councillor would demand greater certainty on it for a yes vote (and probably a few other things to). If the Flames are incapable of making a few final concessions or withstanding another 6-8 week delay, then I'm not sure I want to partner with them in the first place.

I have faith in CMLC to do a good job here, but I'm afraid I don't share that optimism when it comes to CSEC.


What we're talking about here is akin to spending an extra hour and being prepared to stand up and walk while grinding out the final details of a new vehicle purchase. The parties have pretty much nailed down the make, model, colour, trim, financing, and are super close on the final purchase price, but now is the time to get a bunch of free oil changes/car washes and a few accessories thrown in while holding firm against the last-minute fees the dealer hadn't mentioned until this late stage. Hell, consultation delay should be considered a good tactic at this point "listen, if you throw in the trailer hitch and roof rack at ____ price we've got a deal, otherwise I'm not actually sure my wife is keen on red, so I'd better wait and talk it over with my wife when she gets back from visiting her mother next week". Not sure why y'all are so keen to sign on the dotted line without really reading any fine print and after sending your partner the equivalent of a text saying:

Spoiler!

"gonna buy a new sports car - cool with you? It's red. Remember we talked about this a few weeks ago and you said how it would be great for me to buy a monument to my diminishing masculinity instead of re-landscaping the backyard for the kids to enjoy? Wait...that wasn't sarcasm, was it? Oh, speaking of the kids, this car only holds 4 people and there isn't much trunk space, so I guess I won't be able to drive the boys to hockey practice anymore. Or take my turn in the carpool. Probably for the best since this car needs premium gas. But the sound system is awesome and it has a wireless phone charger. Did I mention it's red? Anyways, they're closing in 10 minutes, so if I don't hear back from you in the next 5 I think I'll just buy it, b/c otherwise I'd have to wait until next week since I'm busy with the boys tomorrow and you chose such an inconsiderate time for your Mom to have a stroke.

ps. do you know anything about whether the undercoating is actually worth it? I remember hearing that you should always buy it. Or wait...is it to never buy it? Oops, 4 minutes left. I'm sure the undercoating decision will take care of itself when the time comes."

[Roughneck]

My take, for what it’s worth, wall of text warning:




At the end of the day, this is only a good deal relative to Edmonton’s. Of the seven cities with NHL teams in Canada, it’s the second worst. So I think we should always be kept in mind when the powers that be keep patting themselves on the back for coming up with it.



- First off, I loathe the used-car salesmen tactics being used. ‘Buy now or this deal is gone!’ Please. The committee in charge of overseeing this deal cancelled three of the last four meetings only to reveal it a week before a prolonged council break? #### off. I get that the benefits of public consultation is limited for a project like this (how many would use the extra time in good faith in order to get more insight into the available specifics to make an informed decision, and how many would use the time not to learn more about it but just to kill it regardless of the details?) but this is just greasy. CSEC is offering up $175M more than they were the last time things were dire and gave up ticket tax to the city. You’re telling me that after all that now is when the deal is do-or-die? I know they want us to think that, but I just don’t see it. Powederjunkie’s post above sums that up rather well I think. Second, call it an arena. I know why CSEC wants it being called an event centre. I know why CMLC is calling it one. But stop it. People who support the project don’t care, and the people against really don’t like it so why keep doing it? There’s no benefit to public engagement by calling it anything other than an arena and only furthers to create opposition and won’t affect how people see the space. If you want public buy in, call it what people are calling it, worry about the definition later. The arena will have multiple types events in it, nobody is confused by that. Calling it an “event centre” is basically trying to convince people that your management company and anchor tenant doesn’t own two hockey teams and a lacrosse team.



- The big negative of the deal remains the city owning the arena. It creates another funding obstacle in 35 years when the renter will want/need some major upgrades to make it desirable to lease again (just like any office building downtown that needs to spend money updating their old buildings to attract tenants). The arena is a depreciating liability, not an asset and owning it shouldn’t be viewed as such. Present owning the building as a concession by the city. CSEC owning the building and being given a property tax exemption as long as the Flames are around instead would be preferable to this as it locks them in better than any lease ever would. But whatever the arrangement, putting up owning the arena as anything other than a bad thing is just following the pro sport arena procurement playbook and I’m disappointed it isn’t being presented that way.



- Yes, there is a difference between operating and capital, and the latter shouldn’t be cannibalized to make up for shortfalls in the former (though using operating surpluses to fund capital projects is certainly suitable). So I don’t really care about the optics of committing money to large luxury capital project amid operational cuts. If you have an issue with capital being spent on this project, present me with the opportunity cost of not spending it on other capital projects, not about capital cuts. $275M isn’t going to put a dent into the hurdles involved with the Green Line, so I don’t really see that. I don’t think I’d win enough people over saying that $275M being built on active transport infrastructure throughout the inner city would be a preferable use of money, so I’d rather see the city spend $275M even with no ROI on an arena than spending $275M on roads or other car-focused infrastructure. Since the latter is more likely than anything I’d want the money being spent on, I’m fine with that being put up for the arena even with inflated ROI projections.


- So what are the public benefits? We’ve seen the $400M over 35 years they’re putting out, how much of that is tangible and how much is just fluff? We know arenas and stadiums don’t generate new spending, they just direct it. So it really comes down to what is the public benefit to the accelerated uplift of Victoria Park? All the city focus has been on the Rivers District when it comes to revitalization so the arena would help do what it’s supposed to: direct accelerated development in the area they want it to. Is this type of ‘destination and place building’ worth a -$50M NPV? What if it’s even less? Now if you take what CMLC says at face value this NPV is based on their lower model for accelerated uplift of Vic Park (10% rather than their 25 and 35%). I’m sure there’s an argument to be made that the value created with Victoria Park uplift will result in higher values (and therefore a greater ROI) than similar investment in other areas, but I’m not sure how valid such arguments would be (I’ll leave that to the economists and development nerds out there). But knowing it’s their conservative model does help paint the risk in a better light, and I do believe Vic Park is a ‘rising tide raises all ships’ situation when it comes to the East Beltline (Victoria Crossing or whatever the hell it is), Ramsay, Erlton, etc. not to mention the East Village as it eliminates the ‘blight at the end of the road’ that discourages development.



- CMLC being the lead is a good thing. The only group I have less faith in to do something good for the public realm than CSEC is the Stampede Board, so having neither of those groups take the lead on such an important space is absolutely a public benefit, and one it is hard to highlight in a city that loves the Flames and loves the Stampede. So not only are they in a much better position than anybody to help ensure an entertainment district and destination can hit the mark, the Central Library showed they can keep a marquee project on point. The arena is an important part of the Rivers District Redevelopment Plan so if there is a price to pay to let them take this by the reins it is an intangible benefit with a real cost, but one well worth paying. The idea of including street facing retail and business is such a ‘duh’ concept it kind of angers me it is so rare for an otherwise intrusive piece of infrastructure. Bunk’s podcast with Michael Brown ( https://livewirecalgary.com/2019/01/...d-corporation/ ) and other snippets talking about districts only furthered to put my mind at ease about how the arena will fit in the Victoria Park plans (but I did hate the pushing of the ‘event centre’ moniker regardless of how eloquently he justified it). If you don’t want to listen (I highly encourage you to), an example would be Roger’s Place and Club 99, and how it just follows the arena problem of everything being internal, and how great would it be if something like that instead opened externally and became part of the district, and not just the arena. I get we like to knock on Edmonton, but I think it was simply the most recent example of the clash between district development and arena and stadium building that exists everywhere, not just at Rogers Place (though anytime you can bash Edmonton and the Oilers you should take the opportunity). Being a place that can change that old thinking is rather exciting, and I do hope for an arena that doesn’t dominate the space like it does in so many other places because I feel that misses the mark. The arena should be a background fixture in the overall space, rather than a monolith. Similar to all of this, the lack of talk about parking is a good thing, even though many people might not see it that way. Less parking means more walking, and more walking means better spaces. By ensuring the rest of the neighborhood becomes the star of this project provides a public benefit to people who may never attend an event in the arena.



- Is it as good a deal as there was to be had? I don’t think it is. I think it’s a tolerable deal in the current landscape, but nothing more. I think if it were a good deal, there wouldn’t be the high-pressure sales tactics for a deal purposefully presented at the 11th hour to avoid further scrutiny into the numbers. I don’t feel Davison should be viewed as something of a hero for rescuing a deal when it represents the city giving up some significant concessions from their previous position, and certainly not presenting it in such a way to avoid a reasonable amount of time to review the deal. More engagement also allows for some reasonable questions to be asked, mainly: how did the Saddledome’s demolition all of a sudden become half the cost? Why wasn’t the community arena given more priority? So far the worst answer I’ve seen for a question was with regards to why the ticket tax wasn’t higher (seeing as Edmonton’s is 9.5%) which was ‘that’s all CSEC was willing to concede.’ Well no #### that’s what they’d say, paint a better picture than that. With my above paragraph about the public realm, is public realm spaces adequately represented in the projected cost of the arena so that any overruns here (if any) are part of the 50/50 split? If the city owns the building, why shouldn’t the city get all the naming rights revenue for the outside of the building and the operator can control all the internal? I’m sure there are answers for all of this (a couple of them might even be good ones), but to me this kind of stuff would be considered an important part of engagement and reasonable discourse, rather than just opening up to dissenters wanting to kill the deal.



- All in all, meh. I always knew the deal would look more like this than one I’d prefer, so I’m not really taken aback by this. After the CalgaryNEXT mess I became more opposed to any public money being involved out of spite, because I felt it was a tactic to convince people it was a real thing (it wasn’t) so that Plan B seemed like a compromise. It looks like CSEC was somewhat successful with this, given how often I hear people talk about CalgaryNEXT as anything other than a waste of everybody’s time. But I also am rather fatigued with the negative cloud over the city, and that will persist with or without an arena regardless of funding. So if this helps give something optimistic people look forward to, that also has a benefit to it.




TL; DR: I don’t think it’s a great deal, but whatever. Defining public benefit isn’t as easy as dollars out vs dollars in. Arena > Event Centre. Give active transport infrastructure the same standard of engagement as this and we’ll be a better city.





As an aside, I thought this was a very good twitter read for anybody interested in the project, for or against.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...300119554.html

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

I dunno, city council is one of the rare democratic institutions remaining where the process of "debate" can actually influence the decision of a council member. I'm not one to broadly disparage city council members (at least not on the number of hours they put it) - I don't think it's a stretch to say that most members of council not directly involved in the negotiation are going to be sufficiently versed in the details of this project to make an informed decision after one meeting, with 6 days to review documents and a few hours to review constituent feedback (yes, it's fun to crap on whiny NIMBY 'consultation', but it can be the only way to force parties to address inconvenient issues).

Through a prolonged and contentious negotiation like this, it seems like a near certainty that there are going to be a number of key details that were overlooked (either intentionally or not) in the interest of reaching agreement on the biggest components. IMO, until a deal is signed the city holds ~97% of the leverage, so now is the better time to iron out those final details than after we've signed a cheque.

For instance, the community arena seems to be one of the bigger 'public good' aspects of this project...to me, a prudent councillor would demand greater certainty on it for a yes vote (and probably a few other things to). If the Flames are incapable of making a few final concessions or withstanding another 6-8 week delay, then I'm not sure I want to partner with them in the first place.

I have faith in CMLC to do a good job here, but I'm afraid I don't share that optimism when it comes to CSEC.


What we're talking about here is akin to spending an extra hour and being prepared to stand up and walk while grinding out the final details of a new vehicle purchase. The parties have pretty much nailed down the make, model, colour, trim, financing, and are super close on the final purchase price, but now is the time to get a bunch of free oil changes/car washes and a few accessories thrown in while holding firm against the last-minute fees the dealer hadn't mentioned until this late stage. Hell, consultation delay should be considered a good tactic at this point "listen, if you throw in the trailer hitch and roof rack at ____ price we've got a deal, otherwise I'm not actually sure my wife is keen on red, so I'd better wait and talk it over with my wife when she gets back from visiting her mother next week". Not sure why y'all are so keen to sign on the dotted line without really reading any fine print and after sending your partner the equivalent of a text saying:

Spoiler!

"gonna buy a new sports car - cool with you? It's red. Remember we talked about this a few weeks ago and you said how it would be great for me to buy a monument to my diminishing masculinity instead of re-landscaping the backyard for the kids to enjoy? Wait...that wasn't sarcasm, was it? Oh, speaking of the kids, this car only holds 4 people and there isn't much trunk space, so I guess I won't be able to drive the boys to hockey practice anymore. Or take my turn in the carpool. Probably for the best since this car needs premium gas. But the sound system is awesome and it has a wireless phone charger. Did I mention it's red? Anyways, they're closing in 10 minutes, so if I don't hear back from you in the next 5 I think I'll just buy it, b/c otherwise I'd have to wait until next week since I'm busy with the boys tomorrow and you chose such an inconsiderate time for your Mom to have a stroke.

ps. do you know anything about whether the undercoating is actually worth it? I remember hearing that you should always buy it. Or wait...is it to never buy it? Oops, 4 minutes left. I'm sure the undercoating decision will take care of itself when the time comes."

This negotiation you speak of took place already over thousands of man hours. It wasn’t Ken King and Barry Munro sitting at a table for 15 minutes once a week only discussing the total dollar amount until they came to a $275m - $275m split and then calling council with 5 minutes to go looking for the green light.

The negotiation is done. Council is the wife getting the summary of the deal and the whole contract with a week to read it. Approve it or deny it. You don’t need two months to tell your friends and get their opinion because you can’t make your own decisions without outside perspective.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

The negotiation is done. Council is the wife getting the summary of the deal and the whole contract with a week to read it. Approve it or deny it. You don’t need two months to tell your friends and get their opinion because you can’t make your own decisions without outside perspective.

I agree you don’t need two months, but you certainly need more than a week. The only reason two months is on the table is because revealing the deal was left until there was conveniently so little time for it before a lengthy council break. We’ve waited years to hear about an actual deal but they couldn’t wait five weeks to announce it to give a bit more time before councillors have to vote on it?

I don’t buy it.

[Bunk]

I’m trying to remember a formal public consultation on the funding portion of a capital project. Design, sure, that happens all the time, but funding? Not really. I suppose this is different because of the nature of CSEC in the mix, but it’s not like we strike funding deals with private partners (say developers) and governments for projects and there is a bunch of feedback and a public hearing before ratification on that as a normal matter of course.

[oldschoolcalgary]

seems like ppl wanting to validate their own confirmation bias to me...

the reality is those against the arena will continue to be against the arena two weeks from now or 2 months from now. Those for the arena will, barring some nefarious clause buried deep in the contract language, will still be for the arena.

its an odd thing that people, with no expertise in finances, believe that an extra couple of weeks is going to make a difference, when ppl who are experts in this have already negotiated a deal that they think is fair to the City and to the Flames ownership.

its not a perfect deal, for either side, hence it is probably a decent compromise - exactly what you aim for in a negotiation...

[powderjunkie]

I suppose I just don't understand the blind faith/optimism that they just miraculously dialled the deal in perfectly this time after messing the bed so badly several times before.

The sudden urgency simply doesn't jive with the decade plus slow-game the Flames have been playing on this.

Originally Posted by oldschoolcalgary

its not a perfect deal, for either side, hence it is probably a decent compromise - exactly what you aim for in a negotiation...

I dunno, when I hold a lot more leverage than my counterpart I want the deal to be a lot closer to perfect for me than for the other guy...

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

I suppose I just don't understand the blind faith/optimism that they just miraculously dialled the deal in perfectly this time after messing the bed so badly several times before.

The sudden urgency simply doesn't jive with the decade plus slow-game the Flames have been playing on this.



I dunno, when I hold a lot more leverage than my counterpart I want the deal to be a lot closer to perfect for me than for the other guy...

There's no such thing as a miraculously dialed perfect deal. There's two sides that start extremely far apart and negotiate and negotiate and negotiate and negotiate until both sides say, ok I think we can live with that.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Bunk

I’m trying to remember a formal public consultation on the funding portion of a capital project. Design, sure, that happens all the time, but funding? Not really. I suppose this is different because of the nature of CSEC in the mix, but it’s not like we strike funding deals with private partners (say developers) and governments for projects and there is a bunch of feedback and a public hearing before ratification on that as a normal matter of course.

Arena and stadium deals are somewhat unique I think. There’s been a plague across North America of greasy deals of public dollars for private benefit, and it’s different from say, partnering with developers for a new community or project. How often does the city partner with a developer to build a luxury condo or luxury tower the city pays for but the development company gets to manage and collect the profit on? Typically when there’s partnership with private partners for development it’s in the form of upzoning incentives or waiving levy fees rather than putting up cash and taking on long term liability of the property, no? I imagine if there is it’s at least for low income initiatives or the most hard done by aspects of the city, not for the most privileged?

What would the feedback have been if the city tried to partner with Brookfield to be a building partner for Brookfield Place and put up 50% of the building cost?

[Steve Bozek]

If Oiler fan-boy Staples doesn’t like it, it must be a good deal.

[The Familia]

Let’s just get this started. At what point do we just finally move on and actually get something built? It has been analyzed and debated for years now. The deal is what it is. It’s not the best, it’s not the worst, and as others have mentioned, is probably fair in the end. 2 weeks or months will not change anything so why bother wasting time. Let’s go!!!

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by The Familia

Let’s just get this started. At what point do we just finally move on and actually get something built? It has been analyzed and debated for years now. The deal is what it is. It’s not the best, it’s not the worst, and as others have mentioned, is probably fair in the end. 2 weeks or months will not change anything so why bother wasting time. Let’s go!!!

Connor McDavid?

Is— is that you?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Freeway]

Would the development tie into any of the city's long-term development plans? The entire justification from council of not bothering for a longer period of debate is that the arena ties into several ongoing redevelopment plans - I think five or six specific ones - that already had public engagement.


The only piece they didn't have engagement on was the price tag. The aspect of "Hey, do we want to have a new arena in Victoria Park?" has already had engagement. The dollar amount of public contribution to it is, really, the only "new" information here.

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

I suppose I just don't understand the blind faith/optimism that they just miraculously dialled the deal in perfectly this time after messing the bed so badly several times before.

The sudden urgency simply doesn't jive with the decade plus slow-game the Flames have been playing on this.


I dunno, when I hold a lot more leverage than my counterpart I want the deal to be a lot closer to perfect for me than for the other guy...

Originally Posted by Roughneck

What would the feedback have been if the city tried to partner with Brookfield to be a building partner for Brookfield Place and put up 50% of the building cost?

I don't think i am blindly optimistic... more like tempering my cynicism...

I was against the first two proposals, but as with all negotiations, they build on one another, the messing up, was part of that process, that unfortunately was publicly put on display rather than being negotiated behind closed doors. I was also against the Olympic bid.... This proposal on the other hand seems solid.

the fact this is the third proposal (that we know of) actually does make me more positive than compared to coming to terms on their very first kick at the can.

i have a very simple view of it.

The saddledome is close to obsolete...a 36 year life span is not insignificant. A city of calgary's size needs an arena of some sort. Cities like Winnipeg (pre jets), Hamilton, Quebec City all have new arenas and they didn't even have a team at the time of construction (wpg) or still don't have a team.

Calgary can partner up with the Flames, split it 50/50 and have a guaranteed tenant for 35 years. Add to this, that the CMLC is involved, and they have a proven track record for doing good things. And also the Stampede.

Its the knee jerk reaction that some ppl have that the government is out to screw us with every decision, that parties aren't acting in good faith... Cynicism is fine, if they deserve it... but whats the last big capital project that ended up being a white elephant for the city?

P3 partnerships have existed for decades, and no one is upset with them... The city has partnered up with plenty of developers in the past on capital projects like rec centers and schools...

like i said, its not a perfect deal for either side... but its one that's pretty fair too. The land option is one thing that i am not a fan of, but is it a deal breaker? not for me.

[Fuzz]

The Saddledome needs to be turned into a water park. I know, totally not cost effective, but it'd be fun!

[White Out 403]

https://www.thebeaverton.com/2019/07...l-billionaire/

[getbak]

I saw this hilariously awful rendering from Global of what the skyline would look like without the Saddledome...

https://twitter.com/user/status/1154904429767905280

Apparently, not only will the Saddledome be torn down, but so will the Corral and the entire BMO Centre and the Casino. Good news though, for some reason, the Enoch Sales house will be rebuilt and put in the middle of the BMO Centre land. Unfortunately, it looks like it will be rebuilt to the state it was in before it burned down.

Of course, this also ignores the fact that the new arena (and the BMO Centre expansion) will become a significant part of the skyline before the Saddledome is demolished.