CalgaryNEXT Discussion pt. 2

[Mr.Coffee]

If I was the Flames... I'd be pretty tempted to shelve the whole shibang until a bit of a recovery.

This town is hurting. Badly. So many people, and so many businesses and so many communities are hurting. They are bleeding money, losing jobs, facing homelessness, building debt levels. People are scared, uncertain, stressed.

And then we have these guys coming in and being like 'hey city contribute hundreds of millions for us to build a nice new building for NHL players so they have comfier stalls to sit in before they hit the ice'?

If the city has extra money, reduce property taxes this year.

The timing of this could not be worse, and the Flames handling of this has been an unmitigated disaster, start to finish. Hey Realtor1, did they finally unveil a picture of what this will look like beyond what my 3 year old could draft with her crayons?

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Realtor 1

Off the top of my head

- Madona
- One Direction
- Taylor Swift
- Rhianna (not 100% on this one)


It is not just the small percentage of hotel tax. It is that hotel room actually being booked or that restaurant being eaten at. In the grand scale, such a project would make inner city business more successful which translates to a long chain of positive economics for the city.

That's all nice, but again I'll argue that a nice little bump for Earl's, or a multi-national hotel group doesn't necessarily translate into as much local benefit as we might hope. I don't dispute that there may be some missed opportunities here, but I think it's possible that dumping a half billion out of a helicopter into this city might have more impact.

Also important to remember that AEG and Live Nation are used to booking these mega-acts in only a few PNW and Western Canadian cities. A new building is no guarantee that they will actually come here. I'm sure they would try doubling up YEG and YYC a few times, but if the numbers aren't strong enough you can bet it will return to an either/or situation.

The other thing to consider if this whole missed-opportunities thing is meant to be such a factor, is that a west arena could spell the end of Stampede-time concerts (usually ~5/year), which tend to include some country acts...which probably have a stronger 'one-night-visit' draw for rural Albertans. This of course depends greatly on what happens with the 'Dome. Calgary is an anchor date for many of those shows (i.e. among the first dates booked for a tour, with other venues scheduled around it). It's a very complicated and interesting relationship, as Stampede (actually a subsidiary of Stampede) manages those bookings...Stampede essentially gets to run the 'Dome for those 10 days, and I'm not sure it's a typical 'tenant' situation. All very speculative, but no more than the potential benefits.

[Reneeee]

Anytime Calgary can book somebody not named Keith Urban, Dierks Bentley or Brad Paisley is a win in my books. I am all for less hicks ville and more respect worldwide. The fact that I'd rather Calgary be known as the city where Cool Runnings is filmed rather than due to the Calgary Stampede speaks volumes

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Funkhouser

I know cirque du soleil skips the saddledome due to infrastructure issues

What infrastructure issues could the Saddledome have that are resolved by hosting it in a tent?

[Funkhouser]

Originally Posted by ken0042

What infrastructure issues could the Saddledome have that are resolved by hosting it in a tent?

The tent shows are rigged differently then the arena shows as the weight can be supported equally around the edges of the tent. Arena shows do not have this option and need to support their infrastructure from the ceiling/scoreboard. The Saddledome's ceiling/roof cannot support enough weight and the scoreboard is too low to allow for this.

I would assume the same thing occurs for a number of large tours with major stage shows.

(Note: none of these issues justify a new arena in my mind, just clarifying the limitations of the existing arena)

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

If I was the Flames... I'd be pretty tempted to shelve the whole shibang until a bit of a recovery.

If the city chips in, it will get more bang for its buck during a recession. The owners get more bang for their buck during a recession. If it were shovel-ready, this would be a great time to build it and put some people to work.

[BACKCHECK!!!]

Originally Posted by Realtor 1

Enjoyed a breakfast event with the COO at the saddledome this morning. He says that regardless of NEXT the city acknowledges a strong need for a field house and it will happen. What would something like this cost if the city built their own?

the 240 million revitalization levy is only going to be hitting those who choose to live/own businesses in close proximity to all the project offers.
250 mill ticket tax is only for those who want to enjoy the product
200 mill from the flames organization
and the 200 mill from the city (minus whatever they would be spending to build their own....)

so my question is if the city were to build a 50-75 million dollar facility without NEXT, the actual amount being asked from taxpayers is 125-150 million of the 900 or so million.

Now take into account whatever comes from being a tourist exporter to tourist importer and it makes even more sense. (his words after speaking of at least 7 high profile concerts lost last year due to the saddledomes roof load allowance)

The more I hear the more in favor of the project I am. I do not like the designs however the concept makes more than enough sense to me

I've been saying from the beginning that there is certainly scope within this proposal to be a good deal for everyone.

But the devil is in the details.

And given the paucity of details so far, there is still plenty of scope for this proposal to be a billion dollar boondoggle.

A billion dollar boondoggle with no parking.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by SebC

If the city chips in, it will get more bang for its buck during a recession. The owners get more bang for their buck during a recession. If it were shovel-ready, this would be a great time to build it and put some people to work.

The issue with using the economy as an argument in this case. 5 years full steam was a timetable given.

If the economy isn't back to normal levels in 5 years, i doubt anyone involved in the project is looking forward to the payments.

If the economy does rebound, well construction costs and savings are no longer relevant.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Cappy

The issue with using the economy as an argument in this case. 5 years full steam was a timetable given.

If the economy isn't back to normal levels in 5 years, i doubt anyone involved in the project is looking forward to the payments.

If the economy does rebound, well construction costs and savings are no longer relevant.

They would be bidding on (pricing) the work now

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by Realtor 1

Enjoyed a breakfast event with the COO at the saddledome this morning. He says that regardless of NEXT the city acknowledges a strong need for a field house and it will happen. What would something like this cost if the city built their own?

the 240 million revitalization levy is only going to be hitting those who choose to live/own businesses in close proximity to all the project offers.
250 mill ticket tax is only for those who want to enjoy the product
200 mill from the flames organization
and the 200 mill from the city (minus whatever they would be spending to build their own....)

The vast majority of CRL projects fail - the boastful numbers that developers present really don't materialize (similar to "multiplier effects" and other such BS talking points). The Bow being part of the East Village is the only way that the CRL is on track in that project. Even then, it's a huge chunk of property tax that the city doesn't get to see, and makes all of our taxes higher.

Ticket tax for a couple decades - imagine 20 years from now, the west arena is a piece of crap and the Flames don't sell out. The city is stuck with payments that it can't make. Why should the city be the one to front this risk? The Flames should take on the loan, and take on the levying of the users for the tax.

The fieldhouse is earmarked, but it hasn't been funded. It won't be funded for the near future. If the Flames said "Look, we'll chip in for the fieldhouse, reducing your costs if you'll help us get this built," then it's somewhat of a consideration. Consider that they expect the City to not only build their fieldhouse full-price, they expect them to IMMEDIATELY drop all other priorities and front the cash.

You literally get more multiplier effect of throwing a billion dollars out of a plane, because at least it's 1 to 1. A stadium has been proven to not even return its investment ever (ie. less than a 1 to 1 ratio). Why would the city want this aside from emotional pride?

If you do believe in corporate welfare, then we will just have to agree to disagree. Developers (and real estate agents) are generally all about governments subsidizing their work, so I wouldn't be surprised.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

They would be bidding on (pricing) the work now

up to 5 years out, without any sense of the schematics or scale of the project?

Doubtful.

[Cappy]

http://www.660news.com/2016/03/17/st...tre-expansion/

Stampede Board looking to get a massive expansion underway.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Cappy

up to 5 years out, without any sense of the schematics or scale of the project?

Doubtful.

The discussion was about starting now, due to the economy. Of course they don't actually have schematics at the moment, but the point of the discussion (which you contributed to) was the benefits of starting now (i.e. in a recession).

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

The discussion was about starting now, due to the economy. Of course they don't actually have schematics at the moment, but the point of the discussion (which you contributed to) was the benefits of starting now (i.e. in a recession).

But thats the problem (that I was contributing to). We are far too early in the process to start right now.

Infrastructure spending is a very long process, and countless economist point to infrastructure stimulus packages as ineffective in their intended goals. Unless those dollars are going to "shovel ready projects", the timing of that cash flow is usually too late to catch traction during a recession.

http://business.financialpost.com/ne...nomy-after-all

Also, I don't have any numbers on this, but if the project was ready to be built this year, would that effectively contribute to the economy in Calgary?

Many projects that were planned during the recession (Brookfield, Telus, condos) are in the process of construction employing many of the people who would benefit from this type of stimulus. It's not like petroleum engineers, oil analysts are going to be benefiting from the construction.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

The problem with that math is that the CRL needs to cover much more than just the building. Add another $250 million (approx)for other infrastructure upgrades
, and it becomes $500 million. Now you are left trying to pay back $500 million with only a small chunk of land left, and all of the best land gone used by the building and not paying property tax. It doesn't work.

Yeah, that's the biggest issue with the Flames proposed funding model. I don't inherently object to the city entering into a PPP with CS&E... but there has to be some mutual ownership to justify using CRL funds directly for the complex.

[taffeyb]

I only caught the last 3 minutes of an interview with Ken King on AM770 today. Ended at 4 pm. He mentioned a "Plan B". The organization was willing to listen to a "Plan B" as they want others to listen to their "Plan A". So...what is this "Plan B" or was it just rhetoric? Anyone listen to the interview?

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

If I was the Flames... I'd be pretty tempted to shelve the whole shibang until a bit of a recovery.

This town is hurting. Badly. So many people, and so many businesses and so many communities are hurting. They are bleeding money, losing jobs, facing homelessness, building debt levels. People are scared, uncertain, stressed.

And then we have these guys coming in and being like 'hey city contribute hundreds of millions for us to build a nice new building for NHL players so they have comfier stalls to sit in before they hit the ice'?

If the city has extra money, reduce property taxes this year.

The timing of this could not be worse, and the Flames handling of this has been an unmitigated disaster, start to finish. Hey Realtor1, did they finally unveil a picture of what this will look like beyond what my 3 year old could draft with her crayons?

The best time to build infrastructure is when times are bad and costs are lower. Not only does it help the local economy and provides jobs when most needed, but it makes the whole building cheaper.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by taffeyb

I only caught the last 3 minutes of an interview with Ken King on AM770 today. Ended at 4 pm. He mentioned a "Plan B". The organization was willing to listen to a "Plan B" as they want others to listen to their "Plan A". So...what is this "Plan B" or was it just rhetoric? Anyone listen to the interview?

Plan B? There is no plan B. Ken King has been saying for months that there is no plan B.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Cappy

http://www.660news.com/2016/03/17/st...tre-expansion/

Stampede Board looking to get a massive expansion underway.

Interesting; I imagine this must include a Hall F (cowboys tent location; still not sure why they phased in one hall at a time, you have to think it's a lot more expensive and means much more time under construction).

The Corral/Boyce won't exactly double the size of BMO as the article claims, so they must be going bigger south or north.

The fun thing will be to see how they actually role out this proposal.

[sureLoss]

King says Flames now open to a "Plan B."

http://www.newstalk770.com/2016/03/1...sc_ref=twitter

But President and CEO Ken King tells Calgary Today on News Talk 770 he didn’t want to talk about a “Plan B” initially because he didn’t want it to compete with “Plan A” in the West Village.

“But others have now talked more seriously about an alternative and I’ve said ‘let’s put it right beside what we’re doing here’ and let’s evaluate them both,” King said on Thursday. ”We have to have an open mind about Plan B because we’ve asked everyone else to have an open mind about Plan A.”

Doesn't sound like the Flames will bring forward a "Plan B", but are willing to listen (maybe just to shoot down) to alternatives others might suggest.