[News] CalgaryNEXT Announcement. New arena details emerge.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Support for the Flames didn't collapse because of the young guns. We got the young guns because the Alberta economy collapsed and the economics of the NHL changed. I doubt the Flames will be in as bad shape as they were in the early 90s, but it's worth keeping in mind that corporate Calgary accounts for a big, big chunk of the seasons ticket base, and corporate Calgary is going to be hurting for the foreseeable future. Seasons tickets will be on the chopping block for a lot of companies looking to cut 20 or 30 per cent of their expenses.

FWIW I was offered season tickets in September last year and called the dome this week (missed both my windows this year as I was out of the country) and they have no tickets available below the PL right now

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by D as in David

I'm many pages behind in catching up in this thread so I hope I'm not reiterating comments already made.

I'm okay with the bolded part as long as the Flames are the ones taking out the financing.

I also wonder why the Flames don't just scrap the ticket tax altogether and just raise their prices instead? They'd get more credit for outright contributing more to the project than they might get for saying that their tickets aren't really that expensive once you take into account the ticket tax.

That would basically be a form of self-financing that would require coming up with the cash up front (i.e. pretty much equivalent to the $200M they're putting up). The benefit of the ticket tax structure is there is actually something set aside that can be borrowed against. That enables them to go try to find a third party lender instead of coming up with the cash themselves.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by mikephoen

Did they even break any laws/regulations when this happened 50+ years ago? I doubt the province can use modern laws to sue for something that predates the law itself.

I would agree with that assessment.

Which makes Notely looks like an even bigger god damn idiot with her statement.

[You Need a Thneed]

My thoughts in brief:

The concept:

I think the concept is great - though we haven't seen a lot of details. I think the interior renderings of the feildhouse are somehow making the space seem smaller than it actually would have to be. I don't see any reason to be believe that the facility in it's entirety would be fantastic. Ken King said they went to go look at the Vikings' new stadium. I think I could live with that if the roof was constructed like that.

The surrounding area:

I think it has to be essential that the Flames would have to work with the city to design the surrounding infrastructure so that it's going to work. Bow trail should be moved - both ways as tight to the CP tracks as possible. Perhaps tunnel it underground in some of the space occupied by the removed contaminated soil. If the area is going to be successful, the major road can't cut the area off from the riverfront. In part, because the surrounding development is also going to need access roads, and even more so, new underpasses (similar to the 4th St SE one) for vehicles underneath the CP tracks are going to have to be built. On top of that, the arena complex should be integrated as closely to pedestrian overpasses of the CP line as possible (you can't just rely on the redesigned Sunalta station one. People from the arena/stadium, as well as all of the surrounding development should be able to get to south of the tracks without feeling too inconvieniced.

Also, a pedestrian bridge across the river at around 19th St would be essential. 14th St would likely need to be redesigned in it's interactions with Bow trail, and whatever other new roads would have to go in.

Of course, the cleanup would need to be done, and roads and other infrastructure would have to be built to create developable land. All of this would would likely be built using a CRL similar to the one that fixed up the east village. However, the cost of all this would be on top of the $250 million that the Flames proposed for a CRL. Likely, you are looking at $500 million minimum for a CRL - which is a huge number (and likely still lower than it would actually be) The East village CRL will end up being successful, in part, because including the BOW tower in the CRL district guaranteed a large property tax increase all by itself. In the west village, a large chunk of the primest land would be taken up by a city owned (and non-property tax paying) sports facility. I just don't see how this CRL could support the large amount of money borrowed (without including a large area of Sunalta and the West Beltline.

A CRL will likely be used to get the West Village done, whether it includes an arena or not, but I don't think it can put in $250 million towards the facily alone.

I don't think starting the West village is going to compete too much with other centre city areas that are redeveloping. East village will be well on it way towards being done before any redevelopment is ready to start in West Village (hopefully). Eau Claire is hopefully underway by that time.

The way the proposal was presented was to just plunk down the facility in the middle of the area, and let the city and other developers figure out the rest. It simply can't and won't work that way. If it's going to work there (and it likely can) everything has to be planned together. There are barriers to transportation on all sides in that area, and they will have to be solved right from the start - and open on the same day as the sports facilty open, or earlier.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

People always leave out a very important factor in this: Ticket prices are 100% guaranteed to increase in a new building. To me there's no debate on that issue, the Flames are not keeping prices as is, and obviously a reduction is never happening. Particularly not when (in theory) it should be a top level team and not the Oilers.

Ticket price increases in new buildings across North America have ranged from 10% to 40% just moving to a new building. Could it affect demand? I actually doubt it, Calgary even in a down time is still a rich city in the NHL landscape. If its a playoff team or Cup contender, demand is not going anywhere but up.

So if fans will accept ticket price increases of 10-40% just moving to a new building (which in virtually all cases they have), I don't think adding a $10 ticket surcharge is going to have much effect on demand. It might hurt the Hitmen, but not the Flames.

I think one can expect the surcharge to be a % of ticket price, so it might not affect the Hitmen.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by mikephoen

Did they even break any laws/regulations when this happened 50+ years ago? I doubt the province can use modern laws to sue for something that predates the law itself.

From what I heard on the radio the other day, there were contamination and remediation laws on the books back when the lumber treatment plant deal was signed. But the mayor/councilor who agreed to the deal waived that requirement.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by mikephoen

Did they even break any laws/regulations when this happened 50+ years ago? I doubt the province can use modern laws to sue for something that predates the law itself.

Imperial was forced to pay for the cleanup of the land in Lynnview over 25 years after they closed their refinery there. I don't understand all the legalities of what happened in that situation, but based on what's on the government's web page about the Creosote site, it does seem like there could have been recourse against Domtar if they still conducted business in Alberta.

[Frequitude]

Could you include the lease agreement payments into the CRL?

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

I think the interior renderings of the feildhouse are somehow making the space seem smaller than it actually would have to be. I don't see any reason to be believe that the facility in it's entirety would be fantastic. Ken King said they went to go look at the Vikings' new stadium. I think I could live with that if the roof was constructed like that.

I agree the renderings likely made it feel smaller. They were brutal and did not sell the idea well at all. Viking's stadium is like 75,000 capacity though so quite significantly bigger. If there has to be a fixed roof I do like the idea of the see through roof though. Hopefully the way they design it ensures there isn't a ton of shadows on the field. That is my one concern with the see through roof but I'm sure there are people paid to worry about that.

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Interesting article on CRLs that was on CBC a few months ago (not sure if posted here).

Mentions that they can be very beneficial, but also risky. Depends on the tax profitability of the area going up. In comparison, East Village is looking at $750 million in CRL, and the Edmonton district is looking at over $900 million.

I guess the question is: Does a clean area suddenly ripe for development around a public-use complex gain the city $250 million in property taxes? Riverfront property is VERY valuable, and VERY chic in Calgary. Property values would be high in West Village.

http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/canada/cal...tory/1.3079392

I question this somewhat. As mentioned previously, it is an isolated area surrounded by a concrete monolith, Bow Trail, the rail lines and a river. Oh, and Crowchild bridge a few hundred feet to the West at about the same elevation as the penthouse suites.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by D as in David

I question this somewhat. As mentioned previously, it is an isolated area surrounded by a concrete monolith, Bow Trail, the rail lines and a river.

People will pay insane prices for that last point alone. Also for proximity to downtown, which the West Village has in spades.

As for Bow and Crowchild: You should check out Diamond Cove some time. Surrounded on three sides by Bow Bottom Trail, Deerfoot, and a massive interchange; yet somehow the developers sold estate houses at highway robbery prices. Needless to say, there are no diamonds, and since there is no coastline, the idea of a cove is beyond ridiculous.

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by heep223

I initially thought this as well, but somebody made a great point earlier. The ticket price is the ticket price as dictated by market demand. It's not like the market is going to set ticket prices and then add another $10 tax. So really that money is coming out of ownership's pocket.

The Flames should then add in the GST and Ticketmasters' take to their total. And while they're at it, add our transportation costs to and from, babysitting fees, etc. Hell, anything I spend at the facility (food, heroin beer, 50-50 tickets) while at the event contributes to their equity contribution!

Don't get me wrong, I think the ticket tax absolutely should be part of the funding. I just think it is a little disingenuous for the Flames to take credit for all of it.

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

People will pay insane prices for that last point alone. Also for proximity to downtown, which the West Village has in spades.

As for Bow and Crowchild: You should check out Diamond Cove some time. Surrounded on three sides by Bow Bottom Trail, Deerfoot, and a massive interchange; yet somehow the developers sold estate houses at highway robbery prices. Needless to say, there are no diamonds, and since there is no coastline, the idea of a cove is beyond ridiculous.

Very familiar with Diamond Cove. We'll have to agree to disagree. No biggie.

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

Just to clarify the above, I don't think that's quite right. Doesn't a CRL just slice off the incremental tax base over and above the current one. So we're not forfeiting 20 years of taxes we're getting now. And it's not quite accurate to say that we're forefeiting 20 years of this incremental tax base becase it doesn't exist. Now, it might one day exist regardless of the new arena, but its fair to say that the arena will accelerate development. That's why it needs to be measured based on the present value of accelerating that new tax base.

It comes from everyone else in the sense that if the exact same building was built on the other side of the street (or miles away) from the CRL area, the additional tax base for this building would all go into general revenues without any (or much fewer) additional infrastructure costs.

The only way it doesn't take away from the rest of Calgarians is if the money would only make its way to Calgary because of the Event Centre.

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by heep223

I completely disagree with the bolded above. Would you pay $200 to go watch the Flames vs. Coyotes on a Tuesday night? As a STH with decent seats, both in price and location, I can tell you it's extremely difficult to sell this game even below STH cost. There's always a price at which the market won't bear.

You do raise a good point though that in a monopoly, there's a distortion in the market and no doubt we see this distortion in ticket prices. Though I would also point out that while the Flames clearly have a monopoly on the pro hockey market - they compete with all other forms of entertainment in our city.

I will continue to believe in the theory that a ticket tax is a burden on the Flames, until someone can convince me otherwise

Well, you bought the ticket, didn't you?

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by D as in David

Well, you bought the ticket, didn't you?

Yeah, but I didn't. I looked at the price, and said, ‘That's too much. I'll spend my money on something else.’

The Flames are a monopoly only if you are silly enough to think that the market they are competing in consists solely of professional hockey in Calgary. In point of fact, they're in the entertainment business, and as such, are competing with hundreds of other providers – most of which, by the way, are not local businesses. Most of the money I do spend on entertainment winds up going out of town, and the majority of it out of the country. Books, music, movies, games, travel – virtually all of it comes from places very far away from Calgary. And that's just to mention some of the things that I myself happen to buy, which barely scratches the surface of the options that are competing with CSE's products.

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Yeah, but I didn't. I looked at the price, and said, ‘That's too much. I'll spend my money on something else.’

The Flames are a monopoly only if you are silly enough to think that the market they are competing in consists solely of professional hockey in Calgary. In point of fact, they're in the entertainment business, and as such, are competing with hundreds of other providers – most of which, by the way, are not local businesses. Most of the money I do spend on entertainment winds up going out of town, and the majority of it out of the country. Books, music, movies, games, travel – virtually all of it comes from places very far away from Calgary. And that's just to mention some of the things that I myself happen to buy, which barely scratches the surface of the options that are competing with CSE's products.

Sorry, I must have misread your original post. I thought you were suggesting you were a STH and, as a result, had paid for the ticket as part of your season tickets.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by D as in David

Sorry, I must have misread your original post. I thought you were suggesting you were a STH and, as a result, had paid for the ticket as part of your season tickets.

No, you were on target because you were replying to heep223. My point is that not everybody made the same decision he did. Most Calgarians choose to spend their money on other things.

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

No, you were on target because you were replying to heep223. My point is that not everybody made the same decision he did. Most Calgarians choose to spend their money on other things.

[Simanium]

Originally Posted by D as in David

I'm many pages behind in catching up in this thread so I hope I'm not reiterating comments already made.

I'm okay with the bolded part as long as the Flames are the ones taking out the financing.

I also wonder why the Flames don't just scrap the ticket tax altogether and just raise their prices instead? They'd get more credit for outright contributing more to the project than they might get for saying that their tickets aren't really that expensive once you take into account the ticket tax.

Having a ticket tax is advantageous to both the ticket payers and the Flames. If the Flames simply increase ticket prices this would be hockey related revenue which would have to shared with NHLPA as per the CBA. Also, revenue collected from ticket sales is taxable to the Flames, so when you factor that in with the revenue sharing with the players, tickets prices would have to increase by a lot more than simply adding a ticket tax (non taxable and not hockey related revenue). As an example tickets prices would need to be increased by about $25 to have the net equivalent of a ticket tax of $10/ticket.