[News] CSEC and City of Calgary agree to restart formal discussions on new arena

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

Wait until he hears about McMahon

It is kinda funny (in a sad way) how desolate our main sporting venues are compared to elsewhere.

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by Joborule

It is kinda funny (in a sad way) how desolate our main sporting venues are compared to elsewhere.

It's the Alberta Advantage.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Joborule

It is kinda funny (in a sad way) how desolate our main sporting venues are compared to elsewhere.

It's fuggin' embarrassing for a city of our size and wealth. The fact that McMahon is still used as a main sporting venue, while cities like Regina and Winnipeg have recently built new facilities, is just the salt in the wound as well.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

Not that hard, just have Italians build it.

Colosseum still standing after 1950 years

Yeah, well, having mild temperatures with minimal fluctuations and no roof kind of skews the stats in their favour.

You know what else the Italians built....

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Muta

It's fuggin' embarrassing for a city of our size and wealth. The fact that McMahon is still used as a main sporting venue, while cities like Regina and Winnipeg have recently built new facilities, is just the salt in the wound as well.

I dunno, I think it would be way more embarrassing to invest 9 figures for a venue used anywhere near capacity like 10 times a year.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

I dunno, I think it would be way more embarrassing to invest 9 figures for a venue used anywhere near capacity like 10 times a year.

Sure, but a) it's a bit more layered than that when it comes to revenue generation for these facilities (new design, technologies and location can attract new events and opportunities), b) if a private firm wants to help fund some or all of it and if a new stadium / development spurs surrounding investment and therefore increased tax revenue, and c) it doesn't take away the fact that McMahon is a 60+ year old crumbling joke.

[pokerNhockey]

Originally Posted by Muta

Sure, but a) it's a bit more layered than that when it comes to revenue generation for these facilities (new design, technologies and location can attract new events and opportunities), b) if a private firm wants to help fund some or all of it and if a new stadium / development spurs surrounding investment and therefore increased tax revenue, and c) it doesn't take away the fact that McMahon is a 60+ year old crumbling joke.

• I am not aware of anyone against private funding building a new stadium, the issue is the value of public funds subsidizing private interests
• the development thing has been resoundly debunked by basically all studies that are not paid for by proponents. Even if you accept this arguement for a new stadium, any increased investment in the surrounding area of a new arena would be offset by decreased investment in the surrounding area of the old arena.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by pokerNhockey

I am not aware of anyone against private funding building a new stadium, the issue is the value of public funds subsidizing private interests

This has always been a topic of contention and will continue to be. Not really news here.

Originally Posted by pokerNhockey

the development thing has been resoundly debunked by basically all studies that are not paid for by proponents. Even if you accept this arguement for a new stadium, any increased investment in the surrounding area of a new arena would be offset by decreased investment in the surrounding area of the old arena.

Link? Would be curious to see.

On a related note, the Stampede lands are being totally redeveloped under the Rivers District Master Plan (see here). The new arena is part of this plan, and I don't think the area will be experiencing 'decreased investment'. On the contrary, it will likely increase given all the new planned development.

[Freeway]

*Reads 10 pages of thread*

So yeah, meeting on Monday morning.

[pokerNhockey]

Originally Posted by Muta

Link? Would be curious to see.

this is a good summary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcwJt4bcnXs


The latter point about it offsetting should make intuitive sense. Using a bar as an example, people only have so much disposable income, and tend to spend to that level. If I go to a sportsbar to watch the game on the red mile, that means I don't go to the movies, or a different bar.



This was seen during the lockout in Calgary as well. Spending on entertainment didn't go down, but people went to their neighbourhood pub or the movies instead of a sportsbar to watch the game.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Freeway

*Reads 10 pages of thread*

So yeah, meeting on Monday morning.

Well yeah.

I mean...come on. We've been doing this song and dance for over a decade? We've got to take pleasure somewhere.

Mine comes from being sarcastic and glib and making preposterous suggestions like a bafflingly Egyptian themed pyramid.

If nothing else, alongside the decade of frustration the arena boondoggle has been its provided a decent degree of snarky entertainment.

Sometimes you just have to take what you can get.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by pokerNhockey

this is a good summary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcwJt4bcnXs

The latter point about it offsetting should make intuitive sense. Using a bar as an example, people only have so much disposable income, and tend to spend to that level. If I go to a sportsbar to watch the game on the red mile, that means I don't go to the movies, or a different bar.

This was seen during the lockout in Calgary as well. Spending on entertainment didn't go down, but people went to their neighbourhood pub or the movies instead of a sportsbar to watch the game.

Haha well first of all, I wouldn't be using John Oliver as your primary source first and foremost; as much as I love Last Week Tonight and am a huge fan, he creates content based on the premise of comedy and cherry picks and chooses his stories, clips and delivery to support that. He's not wrong in his personal position, I just would put an asterisk next to anything that is primarily created as entertainment for ratings. HBO isn't the New York Times, The Economist, BBC or the Harvard Business Review.

Secondly, did you take a look at the report in the link I provided above? It is an economic impact analysis on the Rivers District completed by Ernst and Young, not by CSEC. It outlays the economic impact of a new stadium in replacement of an old one, in addition to other developments in that area. I think you should have a read through this, as it's a much more relevant and layered position and helps to understand how certain developments can be catalysts for success.

Each project in each city under each government is different, and the factors affecting each project differ uniquely from each other. If district developments around new sports facilities weren't a viable option to stimulate economic activity, then the jig would have been up a long time ago. That isn't the case, however, with many new sports stadia in North America being built withing such revitalization projects and residential and commercial development following suit. The Ice District in Edmonton has started to revitalize their downtown; perhaps ask the bars around there if having an arena is a bad thing (spoiler alert: it's not).

As for McMahon, it's a dump, and an embarrassing piece of infrastructure for a city such as ours, and I stand by that. How we end up paying for a replacement stadium is irrelevant to that point anyways - it'll still be dump until something new is built.

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by Locke

Well yeah.

I mean...come on. We've been doing this song and dance for over a decade? We've got to take pleasure somewhere.

Mine comes from being sarcastic and glib and making preposterous suggestions like a bafflingly Egyptian themed pyramid.

If nothing else, alongside the decade of frustration the arena boondoggle has been its provided a decent degree of snarky entertainment.

Sometimes you just have to take what you can get.

Frankly, I'm quite shocked that this thread didn't devolve into an endless rehashing of the pros and cons of CalgaryNEXT once it was brought back up.

We're evolving!

[Senator Clay Davis]

Anytime ye old NEXT is brought up I remind myself how insane it was that they thought they could throw together a PowerPoint in four minutes and we'd all just be on our knees ready to hand over the money based off that. One of the all-time worst misreads I've ever seen, legitimately hilarious to think about in hindsight.

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Anytime ye old NEXT is brought up,I remind myself how insane it was that they thought they could throw together a PowerPoint in four minutes and we'd all just be on our knees ready to hand over the money based off that. One of the all-time worst misreads I've ever seen, legitimately hilarious to think about in hindsight.

The concept for CalgaryNEXT? Great.

The delivering of that vision? Pathetic. A junior high student project would've been better than that ####.

For how much it'll cost for the contamination cleanup. You better have a strong ass pitch to get majority of the city supporting the costs for the project.

[pokerNhockey]

Originally Posted by Muta

Haha well first of all, I wouldn't be using John Oliver as your primary source first and foremost; as much as I love Last Week Tonight and am a huge fan, he creates content based on the premise of comedy and cherry picks and chooses his stories, clips and delivery to support that. He's not wrong in his personal position, I just would put an asterisk next to anything that is primarily created as entertainment for ratings. HBO isn't the New York Times, The Economist, BBC or the Harvard Business Review.

Secondly, did you take a look at the report in the link I provided above? It is an economic impact analysis on the Rivers District completed by Ernst and Young, not by CSEC. It outlays the economic impact of a new stadium in replacement of an old one, in addition to other developments in that area. I think you should have a read through this, as it's a much more relevant and layered position and helps to understand how certain developments can be catalysts for success.

Last Week Tonight is not my primary research, it is a good summary of the reality I have seen, and in that video he cites primary research you are welcome to go read if you don't trust his analysis. My primary research includes the knowledge I have gained in a Finance degree, CFA designation (as well as other finance designations) and MBA, as well as academic research from the Chicago Booth School of business for one, which is considered one of the premier economics schools in the world.

Academic research is emphatic that that benefits that are spouted in reports such as the EY one almost never come true, and any benefits are largely at the expense of other areas. For example, presumably an office tower is built to house office workers. A shiny new arena does not materially change the demand for office space, so that comes at the expense of other parts of the city. Just like the bar thing I referenced in my last post.

The EY report is paid for by the proponents of the district development (the rivers district development team wants to build stuff). The biggest problem is that things like this tend to move around where development is, not create new development. On a city wide basis you are rearanging teh economic deck chairs and robbing Peter to pay Paul.


There are lots of reasons to build an arena, but economic benefits to the city have not been shown to be one of them.


Do you have any academic/non proponent research that suggests otherwise?

Originally Posted by Muta

As for McMahon, it's a dump, and an embarrassing piece of infrastructure for a city such as ours, and I stand by that. How we end up paying for a replacement stadium is irrelevant to that point anyways - it'll still be dump until something new is built.

I don't disagree with this point, but I don't see how that impacts whether or not there is a financial benefit to the city.

[GullFoss]

Originally Posted by Macindoc

I think you’re misunderstanding the primary issue with the Dome. It’s not so much “old” as it is “temporarily defying gravity”. Literally speaking, it won’t last.

Now that’s not to say that the roof is about to collapse any time soon, but without significant and very expensive mitigation, the rate of deterioration will continue to accelerate. Frankly, I’d be very surprised if it was still open to the public beyond its 50th birthday.

That's the narrative some are trying to spin, but I doubt it's true. As per the CBC, "The engineering reports note the problems with the concrete on the ring beam are of a superficial nature and do not present a structural concern for the roof itself."

The issue is revenue generation, not structural.

[driveway]

Economic study by The Reserve Bank of St. Louis

When surveyed, 86 percent of economists agreed that "local and state governments in the U.S. should eliminate subsidies to professional sports franchises."8 Perhaps economists just do not like sports? Actually, many economists love professional sports—including former Federal Reserve Chair Ben Bernanke, an ardent Washington Nationals fan.9 Rather, it is the provision of taxpayer money in the form of subsidies that economists generally oppose. In a 2017 poll, 83 percent of the economists surveyed agreed that "Providing state and local subsidies to build stadiums for professional sports teams is likely to cost the relevant taxpayers more than any local economic benefits that are generated."10

Berkeley Economic Review: The Economics of Sports Stadiusm

the subsidies have not created the local impact that they promised. To understand why, let’s consider the Atlanta Falcons’ new stadium, which cost $2 billion for construction—$700 million of which was paid by local taxpayers. While proponents may talk about a multiplier effect, several theoretical and empirical studies of local economic impact of stadiums have shown that beliefs that stadiums have an impact that matches the amount of money that residents pay are largely unfounded. ... the inescapable truth is that the economic impact of these projects on their communities is minimal, while they can be an obstacle to real development in local neighborhoods.

University of Chicago Booth Review: What Economists Think About Public Financing for Sports Stadiums

But do the economic benefits generated by these facilities—via increased tourism, for example—justify the costs to the public? Chicago Booth’s Initiative on Global Markets put that question to its US Economic Experts Panel. Fifty-seven percent of the panel agreed that the costs to taxpayers are likely to outweigh benefits, while only 2 percent disagreed—though several panelists noted that some contributions of local sports teams are difficult to quantify.

[Sylvanfan]

A Football stadium that can attract a Superbowl or National Championship game at least has these mega events to offset costs.

An arena where you'd have to grind away daily I would think is worse value for the tax payer.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by pokerNhockey

Academic research is emphatic that that benefits that are spouted in reports such as the EY one almost never come true, and any benefits are largely at the expense of other areas. For example, presumably an office tower is built to house office workers. A shiny new arena does not materially change the demand for office space, so that comes at the expense of other parts of the city. Just like the bar thing I referenced in my last post.

The EY report is paid for by the proponents of the district development (the rivers district development team wants to build stuff). The biggest problem is that things like this tend to move around where development is, not create new development. On a city wide basis you are rearanging teh economic deck chairs and robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Two things - firstly, did you read the report, or are you just dismissing it because you think it's wrong because it was commissioned by a municipal body? Secondly, is your position that development cannibalizes other areas of a city? If so, why is this is a bad thing? Universal urban growth is primarily based upon the movement and relocation of residential and commercial opportunities based into new and revitalized developments, homes, neighborhoods, towers, etc. These projects are what help keep a city growing, investment incoming, and jobs created. This growth is happening everywhere, all the time, all over the world, every day. I guess I'd just like to know why this is a bad thing... we live in a free market economy, so suggesting we are 'robbing Peter to pay Paul' is a bit myopic within this context. It seems you are suggesting there might be something fundamentally wrong with new development because of this.

Originally Posted by pokerNhockey

There are lots of reasons to build an arena, but economic benefits to the city have not been shown to be one of them.

Do you have any academic/non proponent research that suggests otherwise?

Again, assuming you have read it, are you suggesting that the information in the EY report is inaccurate? If so, where, specifically, does it go wrong within which particular data set or forecasting?