New Edmonton Arena Construction will begin in March 2014

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

I've said this lots before so I'm sure I'm sounding very repetitve. But the city and province will benefit from a new arena facility, both directly and indirectly in revenue generation for both of them. Both direct and indirect job creation (the indirect much harder to quantify, such as business that thrive because of the existance of the Flames and other events at the facility) will benefit the province and city, as well as the cultural benefits of such a facility creates (again through the increased appeal Calgary will have by having an NHL franchise and a facility to support concerts etc...) which in turns makes the city a more appealing place for companies to set up shop and create jobs and revenues for the province.

Now, what I have no idea about is how much that benefit is worth, and I couldn't figure it out with out being close to the numbers. But, whether that worth 5% of the cost or 70% of the cost of the new rink, whatever it is, the City and Province should actually pay their share IMO, as they also reap the benefits of such a facility.

Studies have shown that the benefits you describe a re virtually zero. You have to remember that you can't compare building an arena to not building anything, you have to compare building an arena to building something else.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

Studies have shown that the benefits you describe a re virtually zero. You have to remember that you can't compare building an arena to not building anything, you have to compare building an arena to building something else.

Studies on anything like this will always have a certain angle on how they quantify benefits. I don't dissagree with you on the thoughts of Opportunity cost..........same could be said for anything that gets built. If you applied Opportunity Costs to everything the city or province does, I guarantee we'd never get another bridge built, never get any new green space or parks, maybe even never see another hospital built.

While I don't dissagree in principal, not much would happen around the world if that angle was taken to every project the province or city wanted to undertake. And you can always argue that every single dollar the province collects should go to the lowest common denominator, such as health care, or solving the homeless problem etc........ but as utopian as that might be, it's also not realistic.

[Fire]

Originally Posted by BigFlameDog

I am confused, the building was built that way specifically so there would be no obstructed views.....what is obstructing you? Beer goggles?

The hand railings cause some obstruction in many of the seats in the upper deck. Not sure if that is what he meant.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

Studies have shown that the benefits you describe a re virtually zero. You have to remember that you can't compare building an arena to not building anything, you have to compare building an arena to building something else.

Ok, let's compare the opportunity cost of green space. Or a skateboard park.

The fact is that most things that governments spend tax dollars on are bad investments. If they were good investments, private funds would have taken care of them already.

Tax dollars are typically spent (when they are not wasted), on things that enrich our lives or are needed, but do not generate their own revenues (or enough revenues to sustain themselves).

And to say that the money should be spent on health care and education is an empty argument. Yes, we need those things but does that mean that nothing else is worth spending money on? Every penny of tax dollars should go to them?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by flamesaresmokin

And this is somehow a problem that concerns Alberta tax payers?

I'd rather the province shoveled 100M dollars into a giant pile and torched it then hand it over to the Oilers/Flames on the preposterous notion that its going to benefit each city. We as taxpayers get to see our money used to line NHL owners pockets and also pay even more exorbitant prices to watch hockey under the premise of a having the privilege of going to a "state of the art" facility.

How about the benefit that money would have if it were invested or spent on health care/education.

I said that where exactly?

[WilderPegasus]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

Studies on anything like this will always have a certain angle on how they quantify benefits. I don't dissagree with you on the thoughts of Opportunity cost..........same could be said for anything that gets built. If you applied Opportunity Costs to everything the city or province does, I guarantee we'd never get another bridge built, never get any new green space or parks, maybe even never see another hospital built.

Bridges, parks and hospitals are not built to help the richest people in the country make more money. Nor are they rebuilt every 30 or so years.

[seattleflamer]

Originally Posted by valo403

It's really not that difficult of a concept. New rink = increased revenues.

This is pretty simple as well:

New rink paid for by taxpayers = increased revenues for private business man.

[BigFlameDog]

I can see that there would be boost in civic pride when a world class facility is built but not sure how you could possibly measure the value of that.

If the Flames were to build a multi-purpose rink/stadium as part of the east village revitalization I have to think there would be some economic impact.....again, not sure how you would measure it and not sure how government could help in a productive way.

[flamesaresmokin]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

I've said this lots before so I'm sure I'm sounding very repetitve. But the city and province will benefit from a new arena facility, both directly and indirectly in revenue generation for both of them. Both direct and indirect job creation (the indirect much harder to quantify, such as business that thrive because of the existance of the Flames and other events at the facility) will benefit the province and city, as well as the cultural benefits of such a facility creates (again through the increased appeal Calgary will have by having an NHL franchise and a facility to support concerts etc...) which in turns makes the city a more appealing place for companies to set up shop and create jobs and revenues for the province.

Now, what I have no idea about is how much that benefit is worth, and I couldn't figure it out with out being close to the numbers. But, whether that worth 5% of the cost or 70% of the cost of the new rink, whatever it is, the City and Province should actually pay their share IMO, as they also reap the benefits of such a facility.

I suggest you read the material provided by Tinordi and other posters earlier in this thread and in other threads relating to this topic. There are numerous academic studies that have proven that these giant arenas don't come close to outweighing the cost of investment by taxpayers.

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthr...=120452&page=5

I'm not sure where you're coming from with the cultural angle either. I didn't realize that having a new arena so kesha or nickleback can come to town once every year improved Calgary's culture. If you or anyone else is remotely concerned about the cities culture you should be lobbying for these public funds to go directly to the arts.

[flamesaresmokin]

Originally Posted by valo403

I said that where exactly?

I don't recall quoting you. It was a question.....indicated by the use of a question mark.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by flamesaresmokin

I don't recall quoting you. It was a question.....indicated by the use of a question mark.

You don't recall quoting me? You mean in the post where you quoted me?

Mr. Coffee asked a question, I answered it. The question and answer had absolutely nothing to do with the issue of how the construction of an arena was funded, yet you attempted to pull my answer into that realm.

[flamesaresmokin]

Originally Posted by valo403

You don't recall quoting me? You mean in the post where you quoted me?

Mr. Coffee asked a question, I answered it. The question and answer had absolutely nothing to do with the issue of how the construction of an arena was funded, yet you attempted to pull my answer into that realm.

I was responding to your post with a question. Nowhere did I claim you said something you didn't.

[JayP]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

Studies on anything like this will always have a certain angle on how they quantify benefits. I don't dissagree with you on the thoughts of Opportunity cost..........same could be said for anything that gets built. If you applied Opportunity Costs to everything the city or province does, I guarantee we'd never get another bridge built, never get any new green space or parks, maybe even never see another hospital built.

While I don't dissagree in principal, not much would happen around the world if that angle was taken to every project the province or city wanted to undertake. And you can always argue that every single dollar the province collects should go to the lowest common denominator, such as health care, or solving the homeless problem etc........ but as utopian as that might be, it's also not realistic.

I call BS. Go through some of the peer-reviewed research Tinordi posted earlier in this thread and explain exactly what's wrong with how they quantify benefits. Or better yet - find any peer-reviewed research that backs the other side of the argument.

This idea that a new building will jump start the economy and provide a big economic benefit seems logical, but what seems logical isn't always right. Research done by people a lot more versed in this subject than anyone on here is unanimous in the belief that the perceived economic benefit of new stadiums is non-existent.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by flamesaresmokin

I was responding to your post with a question. Nowhere did I claim you said something you didn't.

You were responding to my post with a question that had absolutely no tie to what I was discussing, and you did so in a manner that made it quite clear as to how you were attempting to paint my answer (to what was a completely unrelated question). I made no comment that even remotely addressed the issue of public or private financing, so why the need to drag other discussions into the quagmire that that issue has become?

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by flamesaresmokin

I suggest you read the material provided by Tinordi and other posters earlier in this thread and in other threads relating to this topic. There are numerous academic studies that have proven that these giant arenas don't come close to outweighing the cost of investment by taxpayers.

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthr...=120452&page=5

I'm not sure where you're coming from with the cultural angle either. I didn't realize that having a new arena so kesha or nickleback can come to town once every year improved Calgary's culture. If you or anyone else is remotely concerned about the cities culture you should be lobbying for these public funds to go directly to the arts.

I've read those posts, and they are simply not a slam dunk. As I mentioned earlier, they depend on the perspective taken and how benefits are quantified. I'm not saying that those studies are any less valid than a study that would suggest an arena build is a profitable measure, all I'm saying is I guarantee you can skin that cat in many different fashions.

As for the culture comment, I enjoy the fact you picked Nickleback and KE-$-HA as your extreme examples. Neither of those artists are my favourite either, but I won't bother to argue with you over the fact that just because you don't like them doesn't mean they don't provide culture. Also, many other events, including other artists can be held at arena facilities, maybe even ones that you consider culture.

For me, anything that helps provide the people of this province with more options of things to do and see (even if it simply more One Direction and Lincon Park concerts) is good for the cultrural vibe, quality of life and appeal of this city. And that too has benefit outside of any other financial benefits an arena brings forward. And I do support other cultural areas getting some government funding as well, I just happen to know for a fact, none of those other areas will drive as much income into this city and will be enjoyed by as large a segment of this cities population as the sports events and concerts an Arena will bring, and that is a fact.

[JayP]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

I've read those posts, and they are simply not a slam dunk. As I mentioned earlier, they depend on the perspective taken and how benefits are quantified. I'm not saying that those studies are any less valid than a study that would suggest an arena build is a profitable measure, all I'm saying is I guarantee you can skin that cat in many different fashions.

I'd like to see you break down exactly what's wrong with the methodology of each of these research papers. It's pretty easy to throw out a baseless claim like that - back it up somehow. Either provide counter research or break down what's wrong with those. It's pretty hilarious that you attempt to discredit the research and then go on to claim in the very same post that a new arena is somehow going to entice more corporations to set up shop in Edmonton. What a reach.

[quote]As for the culture comment, I enjoy the fact you picked Nickleback and KE-$-HA as your extreme examples. Neither of those artists are my favourite either, but I won't bother to argue with you over the fact that just because you don't like them doesn't mean they don't provide culture. Also, many other events, including other artists can be held at arena facilities, maybe even ones that you consider culture.

For me, anything that helps provide the people of this province with more options of things to do and see (even if it simply more One Direction and Lincon Park concerts) is good for the cultrural vibe, quality of life and appeal of this city. And that too has benefit outside of any other financial benefits an arena brings forward. And I do support other cultural areas getting some government funding as well, I just happen to know for a fact, none of those other areas will drive as much income into this city and will be enjoyed by as large a segment of this cities population as the sports events and concerts an Arena will bring, and that is a fact.

Except Edmonton and Calgary already have arenas that provide almost the same service. Sure we miss out of the odd concert here or there because their set-up is too elaborate, but it's a very small percentage. Certainly not enough that it's much of argument in favor of building a new arena for.

[flamesaresmokin]

Originally Posted by valo403

You were responding to my post with a question that had absolutely no tie to what I was discussing, and you did so in a manner that made it quite clear as to how you were attempting to paint my answer (to what was a completely unrelated question). I made no comment that even remotely addressed the issue of public or private financing, so why the need to drag other discussions into the quagmire that that issue has become?

No, I'm pretty sure it was a question.

[flamesaresmokin]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

I've read those posts, and they are simply not a slam dunk. As I mentioned earlier, they depend on the perspective taken and how benefits are quantified.

And I do support other cultural areas getting some government funding as well, I just happen to know for a fact, none of those other areas will drive as much income into this city and will be enjoyed by as large a segment of this cities population as the sports events and concerts an Arena will bring, and that is a fact.

I don't know how its a fair argument to call numerous articles into question while calling your statements "fact" with absolutely nothing to back it up.

If you support funding for culture and the arts, surely you must realize that by tossing a few hundred million at the two NHL teams arenas, its going to strip funding from going directly to these areas (where it does the most good).

Large stadium concerts make up a ridiculously small amount of a cities culture scene. If this is what defines Calgary or Edmonton I cringe to see where the province is headed.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

I've read those posts, and they are simply not a slam dunk. As I mentioned earlier, they depend on the perspective taken and how benefits are quantified. I'm not saying that those studies are any less valid than a study that would suggest an arena build is a profitable measure, all I'm saying is I guarantee you can skin that cat in many different fashions.

As for the culture comment, I enjoy the fact you picked Nickleback and KE-$-HA as your extreme examples. Neither of those artists are my favourite either, but I won't bother to argue with you over the fact that just because you don't like them doesn't mean they don't provide culture. Also, many other events, including other artists can be held at arena facilities, maybe even ones that you consider culture.

For me, anything that helps provide the people of this province with more options of things to do and see (even if it simply more One Direction and Lincon Park concerts) is good for the cultrural vibe, quality of life and appeal of this city. And that too has benefit outside of any other financial benefits an arena brings forward. And I do support other cultural areas getting some government funding as well, I just happen to know for a fact, none of those other areas will drive as much income into this city and will be enjoyed by as large a segment of this cities population as the sports events and concerts an Arena will bring, and that is a fact.

Laugh.

Utterly baseless

The studies I posted are just the tip of the iceberg in the litany of reviews by independent economists concluding that public arena investments are a colossal waste of money.

Their methodology is spot on and the reason they have published these papers is to roundly discredit and attack the baseless methodology used by the sporting industries and related parties who publish "economic impact analysis" reports that are not worth the paper they're printed on.

Unless you're smarter than a canon of economic literature I'd stop throwing out baseless claims.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by flamesaresmokin

I don't know how its a fair argument to call numerous articles into question while calling your statements "fact" with absolutely nothing to back it up.

If you support funding for culture and the arts, surely you must realize that by tossing a few hundred million at the two NHL teams arenas, its going to strip funding from going directly to these areas (where it does the most good).

Large stadium concerts make up a ridiculously small amount of a cities culture scene. If this is what defines Calgary or Edmonton I cringe to see where the province is headed.

How does funding to "culture and the arts" (quoted as that term could mean virtually anything) do "the most good"? Relative to what? How do you quantify doing the most good?