[News] CalgaryNEXT Announcement. New arena details emerge.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Bunk

The problem here is simple real estate pro-forma arithmatic.

You have a piece of land that has a lot of infrastructure and environmental challenges and cost to do any sort of redevelopment.

You have a financial mechanism, a CRL, that could potentially pay for such costs and could be recouped if the development reaches its full potential (very high density residential and commercial across the site).

The arena/stadium here add two complications: a) it adds $240m to an (already substantial) CRL, and; b) reduces the developable area of the site for taxable uses to pay back the loan.

I feel like someone mentioned this basic issue to the Flames a number of years back, yet here we are...

--

"Edmonton used a downtown revitalization levy to pump $120 million into the Oilers arena, donating city land and related amenities like an LRT connection and “winter garden.”

Nenshi’s office has warned against this kind of move.

“If they proposed West Village, they’d be nuts,” policy analyst Bunk wrote to his colleagues in January 2013. “We told them two years ago the challenge with this site … The business case only makes sense if you can fully build it out at very high density. An arena sucks up a huge (piece) of land, leaving a lot less to pay back a CRL (community revitalization levy).”

In another e-mail, Bunk suggested West Village shouldn’t be opened up for at least a decade, lest it “cannibalize market demand” for East Village."

http://calgaryherald.com/sports/hock...e-flames-arena

I'm guessing by April I could be saying "I told you so"

Exactly my thoughts, probably shaped by you in the first place.

The CRL as proposed, is a nonstarter. You can't create a CRL for $240 million + cleanup + infrastructure upgrades, take up essentially the entirety of the best redevelopable land (which doesn't pay any property taxes), and make it work.

Honestly, I dont think a CRL (of any dollar amount) works for a building of this size on that piece of land. Perhaps if it was just an arena, leaving some developable land that can pay taxes.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

And yet the city and province remain at a complete stalemate. Large projects make good catalysts. But let's here the city's proposal to jump start the area in another way.

The question is when does Calgary need to bring on substantially more urban land supply for development? Without West Village on stream we still have probably 10-15 years more building in East Village to go, about 50-75 vacant or underutilized sites in the Beltline, a half dozen sites in the Downtown West End, sites that could support 15-20 more towers in Eau Claire, more large sites in Mission, Erlton, Westbrook, Bridgeland, and so on.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Kavvy

How dense does this land have to become to replace the missing development that is the massive footprint of an arena to make a CRL feasible?

Complete guess, but what, does the footprint take the place of 2 full size condo buildings plus a small park?

Now, take the East village as an example as an successful CRL experiment. Subtract the CRL value of 2 high rises, subtract arena debt, contentment clean up, and potential traffic realignment - how does the math add up to use CRL?

What did I over simply (as I am sure I did)?

It is impossible to guess - and it is all guesses.

The bigger issue, IMO, is: where is the city's appetite to clean up the area in order to open the door for these developments that they claim will come with or without the arena?

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Bunk

The question is when does Calgary need to bring on substantially more urban land supply for development? Without West Village on stream we still have probably 10-15 years more building in East Village to go, about 50-75 vacant or underutilized sites in the Beltline, a half dozen sites in the Downtown West End, sites that could support 15-20 more towers in Eau Claire, more large sites in Mission, Erlton, Westbrook, Bridgeland, and so on.

It comes down to catalysts, and how much of a multiplier you think it is.

[Scary Eloranta]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

I really wish that the Flames would drop the stadium/fieldhouse component and just build the arena/events center elsewhere.

As a Stamps season ticket holder I could almost argue the other way. McMahon is WAY worse than the Dome, however, I'd still love to see both get replaced somehow. Preferably in my lifetime.

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by Scary Eloranta

As a Stamps season ticket holder I could almost argue the other way. McMahon is WAY worse than the Dome, however, I'd still love to see both get replaced somehow. Preferably in my lifetime.

Sorry I disagree.

An arena/events center will have much more impact on the city than a stadium used for around 12 games a year.

[Schraderbrau]

Originally Posted by Weitz

As stated above if you can't get beer food and use the washroom during the intermission you are doing something wrong.

You are either a Jedi Master or have a key to a special washroom at the dome that no one knows about.

[Scary Eloranta]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Sorry I disagree.

An arena/events center will have much more impact on the city than a stadium used for around 12 games a year.

Unless the stadium has a translucent roof. Love that idea BTW, just not the ugly ass concept the Flames showed us last August (shudder).

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

That assumes the unique opportunity of property next to an arena/stadium and riverfront won't create demand in addition to the current demand for property.

You can't tell me with a straight face that there won't be restaurants/bars/hotels/other businesses that will only exist because of the arena.

And demolition costs? How much are we talking about in present day value for something that will happen 30-40-50 years after the building is complete?

But unless the project brings in "new" demand to the City, all that is being accomplished is relocating demand from other parts of the City. This would have the effect of removing tax revenues from the City's general revenue that are not otherwise encumbered by a CRL.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Scary Eloranta

Unless the stadium has a translucent roof. Love that idea BTW, just not the ugly ass concept the Flames showed us last August (shudder).

I couldn't even tell if the arena was incredible/pretty or ugly. That's what frustrated me so much about the renderings - "This events centre is something has never been done before, it will shock the hockey world, as you can clearly see by this basic computer rendering that loosely resembles a standard hockey arena".

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by D as in David

But unless the project brings in "new" demand to the City, all that is being accomplished is relocating demand from other parts of the City. This would have the effect of removing tax revenues from the City's general revenue that are not otherwise encumbered by a CRL.

I am sorry what is your point? You are just summarizing the conversation Conroy4Mayor and I are having.

He said that the CRL would be just relocating property tax dollars. I said it is if you assume that the arena won't generate any new demand.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

It is disappointing that the proposal didn't include a gathering area such as those you mentioned.

However, I think it is also pretty narrow-mined to suggest no one will 'go out of their way to go to the bars'. The majority of people going to the games would be parking somewhere downtown (likely where they already park for work) and walking to the game for some number of blocks. Going to bars and restaurants before and/or after is a desirable and consistent aspect of a downtown location. And every central arena/stadium sees this affect.

Suggesting Calgary wouldn't is hard to accept.

There is a pretty big gulf between downtown (especially the heart of it where most people work) and the proposed location at Sunalta Station. In reality, it really isn't "downtown".

In all likelihood if it were built in this form in this location, people would gather at Stephen Avenue before the game, grab a bite and a drink there and hop on the C-Train a block over and get to the game (kind of like today), rather than it creating any new activity near or around the facility.

What I was getting at is as designed, the bars and restaurants would either be on 10th Avenue (maybe that's fine?), or they would be east or west of the actual arena/stadium, several hundred metres away from the station and no apparent way to actually get there by foot from the station. Ideally, you'd want these uses en route from the origin (either LRT or downtown) to the destination.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Bunk

There is a pretty big gulf between downtown (especially the heart of it where most people work) and the proposed location at Sunalta Station. In reality, it really isn't "downtown".

In all likelihood if it were built in this form in this location, people would gather at Stephen Avenue before the game, grab a bite and a drink there and hop on the C-Train a block over and get to the game (kind of like today), rather than it creating any new activity near or around the facility.

What I was getting at is as designed, the bars and restaurants would either be on 10th Avenue (maybe that's fine?), or they would be east or west of the actual arena/stadium, several hundred metres away from the station and no apparent way to actually get there by foot from the station. Ideally, you'd want these uses en route from the origin (either LRT or downtown) to the destination.

Maybe. Lots of assumptions there, considering we're still talking about conceptual drawings.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Maybe. Lots of assumptions there, considering we're still talking about conceptual drawings.

And isn't that the real problem at the heart of the entire matter. The flames are asking for a tonne of cash from the city and province (not including infrastructure and remediation costs) and their drawings are hot garbage.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

And isn't that the real problem at the heart of the entire matter. The flames are asking for a tonne of cash from the city and province (not including infrastructure and remediation costs) and their drawings are hot garbage.

Yup. The drawings aren't helping the debate, that's for sure.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

It comes down to catalysts, and how much of a multiplier you think it is.

I don't think arena's and stadiums themselves are motivators for people to want to, say, live near them. It's the complimentary uses and spaces that they can inspire that are the amenities people actually would want to live near. These being vibrant public spaces, entertainment uses, restaurants, shops, pubs and so forth.

One of the biggest flaws in this plan, in its current form, is that it doesn't seem to do much if any of that. Ken King himself said "this is not LA Live". Why, not? It should be!

Because the decision was made to not do anything with Bow Trail the arena/stadium, is on its own island, and other development is on another island. They don't really mutually benefit from one another at all.

The size of the complex itself is a problem too in my opinion. You have a very large and monolithic structure with a lot of blank walls and little activity on any edge. It would actually be not a pleasant thing to live beside at all. Convention Centres also tend to have this problem.

If you look at the most successful of these types of arena/stadium districts, the sports facilities are sort of at the edge, with the primary facade/entrance facing and stitched into the urban fabric very thoughtfully. They feel very much a part of the community and city.

Petco Park in San Diego, Columbus Arena District, At&T Park in San Francisco, LA Live, and even the Edmonton Arena District are all good examples of this. Contrast with the isloated monolith that is CalgaryNEXT. If the project HAD to be here, I'd actually consider moving it to the extreme west side of the site, realign bow trail and have everyone walk from the LRT through the community to get to the complex, which would more appropriately be a bookend.

Spoiler!

[Crumpy-Gunt]

Originally Posted by Schraderbrau

You are either a Jedi Master or have a key to a special washroom at the dome that no one knows about.

A special washroom with beer and pizza.

I'm totally against billionaires and millionaires begging for ALL taxpayers money. Most the people I know have never and probably will never go to a sports game or concert in the city. I know..they are boring but at the end of the day if the money will be taken from everyone, then it can't just be for sports fans and athletes.

To me that's just stupid. If I were the mayor I would laugh at Ken King and tell him to get out of my office because I have serious things to deal with.

Yeah the dome sucks, it could be way way way better. But the flames shouldn't expect all citizens to help them, and then use terms like our beloved season ticket holders, or important fans, or purple fans or whatever stupid term they use to endear themselves to the season ticket holders.

Families are homeless in our city, people are losing their jobs etc etc and this fat cat wants a few hundred million for an entertainment complex. It's times like these I wish the communists won. Not really.. But almost.

[N-E-B]

Originally Posted by Schraderbrau

You are either a Jedi Master or have a key to a special washroom at the dome that no one knows about.

I made a similar claim to Weitz so here's my routine:

EDIT: some secrets are best left unknown.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Schraderbrau

You are either a Jedi Master or have a key to a special washroom at the dome that no one knows about.

I always go to the ones with one door that have like 60 stalls. Takes no more than 5-7 mins. Then find a concession with a small line and get my beer and food and return to my seat.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Bunk

I don't think arena's and stadiums themselves are motivators for people to want to, say, live near them. It's the complimentary uses and spaces that they can inspire that are the amenities people actually would want to live near. These being vibrant public spaces, entertainment uses, restaurants, shops, pubs and so forth.

One of the biggest flaws in this plan, in its current form, is that it doesn't seem to do much if any of that. Ken King himself said "this is not LA Live". Why, not? It should be!

Because the decision was made to not do anything with Bow Trail the arena/stadium, is on its own island, and other development is on another island. They don't really mutually benefit from one another at all.

The size of the complex itself is a problem too in my opinion. You have a very large and monolithic structure with a lot of blank walls and little activity on any edge. It would actually be not a pleasant thing to live beside at all. Convention Centres also tend to have this problem.

If you look at the most successful of these types of arena/stadium districts, the sports facilities are sort of at the edge, with the primary facade/entrance facing and stitched into the urban fabric very thoughtfully. They feel very much a part of the community and city.

Petco Park in San Diego, Columbus Arena District, At&T Park in San Francisco, LA Live, and even the Edmonton Arena District are all good examples of this. Contrast with the isloated monolith that is CalgaryNEXT.

I agree - it should be!

What I want to see is the city negotiate some of these key elements into the project, instead of saying 'this doesn't have them' or 'we aren't interested.

I want to see discussion that improves the idea, not 'no'.