[News] Calgary, Alberta, & CSEC agree in principle to $1.223bn Event Centre + infrastructure

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Yeah, if the details come out that there’s a bunch of non-CSEC event revenue going to the city, including something like naming rights, it makes the deal better to me. Do I think they would have left those major benefits to the city out of the initial announcement? No, unless they’re saving them to announce with some other details that aren’t so flattering to provide some balance. But it’s not like I have any personal stake in the perception of this deal, so if it looks better than it is now that’s nothing but good to me.

I’ve said it before, but I really like the Rivers District. I’ve read through the plans and with or without an arena I think it’s going to be awesome. Do I think it requires an NHL team as the anchor? Absolutely not, so most of my view of this (aside from the POV that there’s just more urgent ways to spend the money atm) is how does this compare to something like a world-class concert hall, or theatre, or something more geared toward how it’s going to be used the other 250-300 days per year.

I think that’s missing from the discussion. Could the deal look better for this specific kind of deal? Yeah, I hope it does. But is this even the best project for this area in this category? I don’t know, I’d like some strong justification for that being true if we’re going to be stuck with a bad deal for it.

Exactly it does feel like the city is not being forthcoming with details and whether or not that’s justified I’m also not sure. I’m sure it is difficult culminating a deal with 4 negotiating parties let alone trying to thread the needle with public opinion on top of it too.

Revenue sharing is the biggest piece of the puzzle and cost sharing second. Seems like they have built a more realistic cost estimate this time though so cost overruns less important.

I’m not sure in my own mind what is a good “acceptable” deal, or what’s “fair”.

[Enoch Root]

I think an event centre is definitely the way to go as the core structure. Concert halls and theatres are great, for what they are, but they don't serve as ground zero for community gatherings very well.

Some people argue that they will never set foot in the events centre. I find that very unlikely. However, build a theatre and I think you can safely say that a very large segment of the population will in fact never enter it. Doesn't make it a bad thing to have, just not the best anchor for what they are trying to create.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Not that it matters, but they employ more than 50 in just the hockey ops department of the Flames.

Then add in, the Stampeders, the Wranglers, the Hitmen and the Roughnecks.

50 full timers seems like a lot. But you’re right, there’s some number of FY”T jobs created by all those organizations that is at least some factor in this whole thing. Although really this deal is Flames focused. CSEC would love nothing more then have enough demand for their arena and not have to use up dates on low attendance events.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

I'll grant it's not exactly as I paraphrased, but it's not remotely...remote:

But many people HAVE stated that they are against any money being spent on the arena. I was stating a fact, not mis-representing anything.

I was also trying to demonstrate to PepsiFree that he was doing exactly what he was accusing the 'other side' of doing.

[Infinit47]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Exactly it does feel like the city is not being forthcoming with details and whether or not that’s justified I’m also not sure. I’m sure it is difficult culminating a deal with 4 negotiating parties let alone trying to thread the needle with public opinion on top of it too.

Revenue sharing is the biggest piece of the puzzle and cost sharing second. Seems like they have built a more realistic cost estimate this time though so cost overruns less important.

I’m not sure in my own mind what is a good “acceptable” deal, or what’s “fair”.

There is next level politicking going on, so who knows why each party is doing what they are doing.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Yes, but primarily, and much more significantly, it is about the benefits of having an events centre, and a revitalized east village. The city isn't buying a pro sports team, they are buying/building an events centre.

Hard to separate having the Flames and having an events center. Without the Flames, does the city need an events center of this scale.

Revitalization is great for sure, but this is an inefficient way of spending money to achieve this. If it even does at all.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

50 full timers seems like a lot. But you’re right, there’s some number of FY”T jobs created by all those organizations that is at least some factor in this whole thing. Although really this deal is Flames focused. CSEC would love nothing more then have enough demand for their arena and not have to use up dates on low attendance events.

Low attendance events still cover some costs - unless they are virtually empty, making the staffing a negative on its own, having almost any event is better than a unused building. More is better, though in a city Calgary's size, they aren't going to have enough demand for daily events, like the bigger cities have.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Hard to separate having the Flames and having an events center. Without the Flames, does the city need an events center of this scale.

Revitalization is great for sure, but this is an inefficient way of spending money to achieve this. If it even does at all.

Well yeah, without the largest tenant, there is less demand for the building. But that doesn't change the fact that the city is spending the money on an events centre and infrastructure, not on the Flames.

Wat would be a better idea for revitalization?

[Infinit47]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Well yeah, without the largest tenant, there is less demand for the building. But that doesn't change the fact that the city is spending the money on an events centre and infrastructure, not on the Flames.

Wat would be a better idea for revitalization?

The city of Glendale has reported revenue going up for the arena after the Coyotes left, for what that is worth.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I think an event centre is definitely the way to go as the core structure. Concert halls and theatres are great, for what they are, but they don't serve as ground zero for community gatherings very well.

Can you explain why?

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Can you explain why?

I thought I already did. An event centre is good for hosting events - which bring people to the area. Concert halls and theatres don't serve that purpose as well, and tend to serve a more distinct subset of the population. Again, they're fine, and welcome for the city. But if you're trying to revitalize the downtown, and increase traffic in the area, an events centre is going to do a better job of it. Trade shows, Stampede events, etc. Bringing the Wranglers here just added 40-50 more events - lower cost events that opens up the centre to more people.

[Enoch Root]

Having the events centre within 2 blocks of the Bell Centre should increase traffic there as well.

[Brendone]

Interesting take from ChatGPT

If all development in a city required a plebiscite, it would significantly change the city's growth and development patterns. A plebiscite is a direct vote in which all the people of a city or country can participate to decide on a specific issue or proposal. In this scenario, any proposed development project would need to be approved by the majority of the citizens through a vote.

Here are some possible effects and characteristics of a city where all development required a plebiscite:

1. Slow growth: The plebiscite would introduce an additional layer of decision-making, which could slow down the growth and development of the city. It would also take longer to implement the decisions made by the plebiscite, as the city's administration would need to wait for the results of the vote before proceeding with any development project.

2. High civic engagement: Since every development project would be subject to a plebiscite, citizens would need to be more involved in the city's governance and decision-making. This could lead to a higher level of civic engagement and participation in the democratic process.

3. Decentralized decision-making: The plebiscite would allow citizens to make decisions on individual development projects, which could lead to a more decentralized decision-making process. Each neighborhood or community could have more say in how their area is developed, and this could lead to a more equitable distribution of resources across the city.

4. Focus on sustainability: The plebiscite could force citizens to prioritize sustainable development projects based on their needs and priorities. This could result in more effective development as the citizens would have a direct say in how the city is developed.

5. Possible NIMBYism: A plebiscite could also result in NIMBYism (Not In My Backyard) as citizens may be reluctant to approve development projects in their neighborhoods, even if they are necessary for the city's growth and prosperity. This could lead to underfunding of important infrastructure projects or public services.

In summary, a city where all development required a plebiscite would be characterized by slow growth, high civic engagement, decentralized decision-making, focus on sustainability, and possible NIMBYism.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Infinit47

The city of Glendale has reported revenue going up for the arena after the Coyotes left, for what that is worth.

Which is an argument FOR the events centre, not against it (i.e. events centres can generate money in many ways). Specifically to your example, Phoenix is a city of more than 4.5M, and there are a lot of uses for the building, with the Coyotes, and their poor attendance, actually being a lesser usage.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

It's possible some of that stuff hasn't been agreed on 100% yet and the agreement in principle just covers the big picture. They could also be gaging public response before solidifying those details.

I think it was a unanimous agreement in city council due to the large lump sum infrastructure investment from the province, so the money the city is kicking in for the arena is traded off. Provinces typically help municipalities with infrastructure costs, but not always targeted and all at once like that. It would be hard for a city council to turn that down.

Yeah, the previous deal only covered the 2 blocks where the arena would sit and any infrastructure improvements in the greater Victoria Park area would still be the city's responsibility 100% (minus whatever they could scrounge from the other levels of government).

The 4th Street Underpass opened in 2011 at a cost of $70 million. In today's money, that likely puts the similar 6th Street Underpass (formerly 5th Street under the old plan) well over $100 million. So, that's a big cost being picked up by the province that needs to be built whether the arena is there or not.


According to the CMLC website, since 2007, they have spent almost $400 million on infrastructure projects in the East Village, and I believe that's entirely money from the city (offset by the CRL). Victoria Park will probably be similar by the time it's fully built out. Getting the province to kick in $300+ million is a big deal, and I assume why it was a 15-0 vote to approve.

Of course, a good deal for the City of Calgary doesn't necessarily make it a good deal for Calgary taxpayers since the money being offset from the city is instead coming from the province -- and we pay those taxes too.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I thought I already did. An event centre is good for hosting events - which bring people to the area. Concert halls and theatres don't serve that purpose as well, and tend to serve a more distinct subset of the population. Again, they're fine, and welcome for the city. But if you're trying to revitalize the downtown, and increase traffic in the area, an events centre is going to do a better job of it. Trade shows, Stampede events, etc. Bringing the Wranglers here just added 40-50 more events - lower cost events that opens up the centre to more people.

You didn’t, I’m asking for specifics with some facts behind them, if you’ve got them.

The BMO centre is across the street and currently undergoing a massive renovation and improvement, so they don’t need another space to hold trade shows and Stampede events.

What “events” outside of a hockey game couldn’t be handled by the combination a large scale concert hall and the BMO centre?

Or a much smaller scale arena and one or two of the above, for that matter?

We don’t need a new events centre to host AHL or WHL hockey, after all. Certainly not one that costs $1.2b. You were just in Vegas, weren’t you? How many hockey arenas did they build before they were put on the map?

[Infinit47]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Which is an argument FOR the events centre, not against it (i.e. events centres can generate money in many ways). Specifically to your example, Phoenix is a city of more than 4.5M, and there are a lot of uses for the building, with the Coyotes, and their poor attendance, actually being a lesser usage.

I think it highlights how important non hockey revenue sharing should be for the city.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

50 full timers seems like a lot.

You can look at the Hockey Ops page on the Flames website: https://www.nhl.com/flames/team/hockey-operations

There are 66 people listed, including the Wranglers staff. Of those, not all of them (especially the scouting staff) live and work in Calgary, and many (like the team dentist and doctors) are not likely full-time.

There's another 14 people listed on the Executives page (only Peter Hanlon is on both pages). These people are likely full-time and well-paid, and they'll all have staff working under them.

This doesn't include all the people who work in the ticket office, or the building operations and maintenance staff, who would be full-timers.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

You didn’t, I’m asking for specifics with some facts behind them, if you’ve got them.

The BMO centre is across the street and currently undergoing a massive renovation and improvement, so they don’t need another space to hold trade shows and Stampede events.

What “events” outside of a hockey game couldn’t be handled by the combination a large scale concert hall and the BMO centre?

Or a much smaller scale arena and one or two of the above, for that matter?

We don’t need a new events centre to host AHL or WHL hockey, after all. Certainly not one that costs $1.2b. You were just in Vegas, weren’t you? How many hockey arenas did they build before they were put on the map?

This is becoming such an overused and annoying post style.

YOU brought up the notion that a theatre or concert hall could serve a similar purpose. YOU provide some facts to back that up.

Event centres are FAR more popular for this purpose, for good reason. City council certainly wanted an event centre, and stated so, on numerous occasions. Then voted unanimously to approve this project. Prove them all wrong. Bring us some specific facts!

[442scotty]

There should be a poll to see how many people think the rink will actually be built this go round