Flames to announce plans to announce arena plans in the... future...

[Sidney Crosby's Hat]

Originally Posted by TurnedTheCorner

Just spill the beans or don't say anything King. So goddamn sick of this "It's so far along", "It's been in the works so long" talk with *no* details. Is this ####ing thing just going to materialize one day and shock everyone? No. SO TELL US THE DETAILS OR STFU.

I'd be very surprised if any plans were announced ahead of the October civic election. Nothing puts you in City Hall's bad books more than creating an "election issue" for them.

[Flash Walken]

I know it's important to hate on vancouver as much as possible on this board, but, the downtown arena setup with the sky train and surrounding amenities is the way to go.

The flames ownership group strikes me as prudent folk.it makes so much sense to combine all your assets, concessions, storage, parking, equipment, etc. in a central location.

I mean, if you're real smart, you include a secondary ice surface for practice and public rental.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Sidney Crosby's Hat

I'd be very surprised if any plans were announced ahead of the October civic election. Nothing puts you in City Hall's bad books more than creating an "election issue" for them.

Nothing helps grease the wheels more than an easy public perception win during an election cycle.

Nenshi + flames/stamps/fancy arena development, that's a winning ticket.

[Tinordi]

Nenshi does not support public money paying for this arena. So sure, if the Flames are privately financing it, he'll probably support it.

[BurningSteel]

Dear Mr. King,

Please surround the new arena designs soley on the ice and quality of this ice. All other factors are secondary.

That is all.

A fan.

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by getbak

The area north of the Saddledome would be large enough for both an arena and stadium. I made this a few months ago...




Some people have mentioned that Calgary Transit wants to close the transit garage on the east side there, so if that were to happen, there would be lots of room for an arena, stadium, and other developments.

Yes and no. It's complicated, let's just say that.

I think that there is some desire within the organization to move away from the Victoria Park Transit Centre, but other segments of Calgary Transit don't want to. I think there is a certain line of thinking within Calgary Transit that having the centrally-located facility provides operational advantages that shouldn't be given up so easily. I personally disagree with that, especially when faced with the huge value that selling that land would bring.

Either way, any move would require at least one new facility to be built, and likely either an expansion to one of the other existing ones (likely Spring Gardens) or a second new facility. There is a huge garage space crunch right now and not only would you need to entirely replace the capacity of Victoria Park but provide enough room to handle the current and future demand which is not being satisfied right now. Funding and site acquisition/preparation for a new facility have been elusive.

I don't think you could count on the Victoria Park Transit Centre lands to be available on any sort of predictable time frame so as to be included in arena/stadium plans. Maybe if you kept it as an option for a stadium to be added as a possible later phase to the plan.

[Dr. Pepper]

Sorry for the thread bump, but I'm a little interested to go further afield in topics as the on ice play (aside from watching the up-and-comers) isn't as compelling as it once was, or will be... I found a very interesting article about how Stadiums don't bring economic benefit to cities. I have always thought this, and I was glad to hear Mayor Nenshi say that no public money would be going into one for the Flames - it's just bad policy. I'd love to see one built, but with private money. Anyhow, the article: http://blog.ounodesign.com/2013/02/0...ies-debt-scam/

[TurnedTheCorner]

Seems like a lot of conclusions and mudslinging from a blog based on a source that admits that "Very little Canadian sports economic research has been conducted, Matheson said, in part because many researchers in this field are south of the border, and because of the ease of access to data there."

I don't support the concept of 100% public funded arenas, but I don't support the concept of 0% public funded arenas either. Some kind of partnership between the arena owners and level(s) of government makes sense to me. I don't know what the exact numbers should be though.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by TurnedTheCorner

Seems like a lot of conclusions and mudslinging from a blog based on a source that admits that "Very little Canadian sports economic research has been conducted, Matheson said, in part because many researchers in this field are south of the border, and because of the ease of access to data there."

I don't support the concept of 100% public funded arenas, but I don't support the concept of 0% public funded arenas either. Some kind of partnership between the arena owners and level(s) of government makes sense to me. I don't know what the exact numbers should be though.

Agreed. That article seemed to come to conclusions easily based on speculation and aging sources of research. I'd wager to say that new stadiums (and especially comprehensive sporting experiences in strategic locations) do provide an economic benefit; doesn't mean, however,they should necessarily receive public funding... but not absolutely none either, IMO.

Location, amenities and connected non-sporting infrastructure are EVERYTHING to profitable sports developments. From my work in my field, I've noticed these three elements are very critical. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out that the arena for the Coyotes are in a rotten location overall - even moreso for a non-traditional hockey market where fans need to be persuaded consistently to make the trip and spend their hard-earned dollars.

I, personally, do not mind my tax dollars going to sporting infrastructure - but that is also because I place value on it and the development and growth of sport is important to me. I will be the first to admit that that is not the opinion of everybody, and I'm probably in the minority.

[Ozy_Flame]

Pretty sure you can ask a company like Populous what they think the model should be to get the best value. This is a company that has a stronghold on stadium design around the world, has been involved in designing facilities and stadiums in the past 10 Olympic games, and has designed 1/3 of all NHL team arenas. Not to mention there is a host of talent in North America that can comment on P3 partnerships.

[Buster]

I watch sports. A lot.

I'm a fan of the Flames and the Stampeders.

I do not support public spending on professional sports facilities. It's a classic misallocation of capital...disguised as "infrastructure".

Market forces should determine the viability of a project like this: tickets prices should include the cost of financing a building. If that happened, the net result would be a decline in player salaries as a larger portion of the total gate of the building would need to be utilized on the Capex...and less on the players.

I'm fine with that. Public funds should not be needed to subsidize an industry as profitable as professional sports.

[gargamel]

If public funds are going towards an arena, it should have at least as many seats as the one it's replacing. It really isn't fair to expect a city to pay to make the games less accessible its residents.

[Street Pharmacist]

Public funds are used for many things to improve quality/richness of life like museums, art, playgrounds, and parks. Economic ROI is difficult to quantify as things like desirability and quality of life are not easily tested. For example, take all of Calgary's parks, architecture, etc and put bland billings in place. Likely a better ROI on those buildings, but probably not the best spend of the money.

As other posters have said, I support some public money, but far from 100%

[The Ditch]

We should just pay for the arena with 100% public money, because the owners, they're barely scraping by and I heard that the city will always recoup that money times five on paying for private individuals sports arenas. Just think of all the money that people will suddenly stop spending if there is no new arena, it would collapse our economy.

[TurnedTheCorner]

^^^ The calm voice of reason.

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

I can't wait for the Naheed Nenshi arena.

Then you'll be waiting for several years, or forever.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Public funds are used for many things to improve quality/richness of life like museums, art, playgrounds, and parks. Economic ROI is difficult to quantify as things like desirability and quality of life are not easily tested. For example, take all of Calgary's parks, architecture, etc and put bland billings in place. Likely a better ROI on those buildings, but probably not the best spend of the money.

As other posters have said, I support some public money, but far from 100%

While we do use public funds to enhance quality of life, NHL teams differ in a couple important aspects from Heritage Park or the Calgary Philharmonic:

* They're private, profit-generating businesses owned by billionaires.

* The salaries paid to the employees are enormous.

I think you'd have a tough time securing public funding for the Calgary Philharmonic if it was a private, profitable business owned by Mannix family, and the musicians were all paid $2-7 million a year.

[TurnedTheCorner]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I think you'd have a tough time securing public funding for the Calgary Philharmonic if it was a private, profitable business owned by Mannix family, and the musicians were all paid $2-7 million a year.

It would go over huge with the 1,000+ passionate members of the CPIA (Calgary Philharmonic in Amphitheaters) forums though. Well, some of them.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

While we do use public funds to enhance quality of life, NHL teams differ in a couple important aspects from Heritage Park or the Calgary Philharmonic:

* They're private, profit-generating businesses owned by billionaires.

* The salaries paid to the employees are enormous.

I think you'd have a tough time securing public funding for the Calgary Philharmonic if it was a private, profitable business owned by Mannix family, and the musicians were all paid $2-7 million a year.

The also differ in a few other fashions.

-They are enjoyed by a much larger portion of the population than the CPO.
- They have a much larger impact on other businesses in the city than the CPO for example. Can't remember the last time I heard from a bar or restaurant owner complain that they were hurting cause the CPO wasn't performing.

Also, the arena serves other purposese other than housing an NHL franchise. The Saddledome has already proven it's self to be antiquated in regards to bringing in world class music acts and other such things, that have nothing to do with NHL hockey. This city needs a new arena if we don't want to continue to miss out these.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the city should be fronting the majority of this bill, just that there is a role for them to play in the rink, as the city needs this new rink IMO, not just for the Flames.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

-They are enjoyed by a much larger portion of the population than the CPO.
- They have a much larger impact on other businesses in the city than the CPO for example. Can't remember the last time I heard from a bar or restaurant owner complain that they were hurting cause the CPO wasn't performing.

First, that much larger segment of the population who enjoys the Flames over the CPO pay handsomely to get a ticket or watch TV creating TV contract revenue. The argument against funding arts compared to funding professional sports is silly. They are in different economic galaxies.

Second, people don't stop spending money because they can't spend it by the Saddledome. They just spend it somewhere else.