[News] CSEC and City of Calgary agree to restart formal discussions on new arena

[Jordan!]

Ok, can anyone logically answer to me how either side will get a better deal than the last one?

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Jordan!

Ok, can anyone logically answer to me how either side will get a better deal than the last one?

Well, Arizona's newest deal is a better one than anything prior, no?

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by Jordan!

Ok, can anyone logically answer to me how either side will get a better deal than the last one?

A better deal will be in the eye of the beholder, but I think it safe to say that if the deal is firm and more clear on how costs are split, it will be a better deal.

[Jordan!]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Well, Arizona's newest deal is a better one than anything prior, no?

What does that have to do with anything? The situations are nowhere near the same, nor are the deals. The Coyotes aren't looking for Tempe to pay half up front either.. just sales taxes and a break on property taxes. The Flames owners want a fat Handout from the people of Calgary

The reason the last deal died was due to costs, costs will 100% be higher for both sides.

What a waste of time, and money.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Are you a season ticket holder?

I did not like seeing all the divisional teams 8 times a year, plus playoffs, while only seeing the other half of the league once a year, and once every 2 years at home. It sucked. Virtually everyone was against it, and they finally corrected it.

There is no way they go back to that.

Not a season ticket holder so I can't speak from that aspect and obviously I understand the interest and desire to see all the teams and all the players. I also see the interest and the importance of establishing divisional rivalries and when I weigh these two options against each other the divisional is more interesting and valuable to me.

[Boreal]

Originally Posted by Jordan!

Ok, can anyone logically answer to me how either side will get a better deal than the last one?

They figure out how to share the costs of shortages & inflation. Everything else was theatre & egos.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Jordan!

What does that have to do with anything? The situations are nowhere near the same, nor are the deals. The Coyotes aren't looking for Tempe to pay half up front either.. just sales taxes and a break on property taxes. The Flames owners want a fat Handout from the people of Calgary

The reason the last deal died was due to costs, costs will 100% be higher for both sides.

What a waste of time, and money.

The point was that new deals can be better - that is actually the point of making new deals. And the new deal for Tempe, for example, looks to be a good one.

But you come here with nothing but negative comments about Calgary, and the Calgary arena negotiations, over and over. And then you are surprised when people crap on Arizona.

Try adding to the conversation, and then people will engage you more.

[Frequitude]

Remind me again, what was the city's exposure on the last deal? $287.5M + whatever the refused sidewalks and solar panels would have been?

Can't wait to see the new number and how Gondek will respond to questions on it.

[smiggy77]

Originally Posted by Flames_Gimp

you mean city will demand flames pay for sidewalk costs and climate incentives. Does any other business have to pay for sidewalks?

Calgary based developer here - I can definitely say that the city does tend to push on as much as possible to the developer (rightfully so from a taxpayers perspective - development should pay for development).

When it comes to sidewalk costs, its not out of the realm that offsite upgrades are required if your development either damages existing infrastructure or would cause strain on existing infrastructure that there is a need to upgrade current infrastructure.

The city is also very strong on their climate initiatives and does have a framework they've been developing over the years to hit climate action goals, so its not totally out of the ordinary.

The concern here (which I can understand from CSEC's perspective) is that this development has been in the works for 10 years, with the DP being approved in 2021. With a dynamic project of this scale, its surely going to take time and there needs to be a precedent set early on at which point you're designing to a current standard. This is standard practice during a BP since building code constantly changes, your submission date usually means this is the standard you have to meet of the time because you can't move a goal post when it comes to construction.

Where the situation really broke down though is through the DP process (which would have taken maybe 5 years), offsite upgrades and climate initiatives would have been discussed and negotiated. In this case, the DP was approved but the City also has the ability to tag on "Prior to Release" conditions (PTRs), which means you need to address additional conditions after a DP is approved to actually release it into your hands.

These climate initiatives and sidewalk upgrades were tagged on at the 11th hour as a PTR condition with no prior warning (I received this from what I believe is a credible source in the industry). With the level of costs associated, it was clear it was a political request and not something city staff just decided to throw in, which would understandably rub the CESC team the wrong way.

My personal perspective is that of course with a complex project like this and the city technically being a "owner" on the project while being the approving authority, it's going to be very messy, but its the reality of such a high profile project.

I also think that offsite upgrades, climate initiatives, etc., is the responsibility of the development industry as they'll always profit at the end. The issue here is that the "real estate developer/asset owner" in all this is the City, while CESC is just an entertainment company operating the facility but also providing the guarantee cap for the city by agreeing to incur construction costs beyond a certain number, which makes this even more complex.

To me, the deal for the taxpayer is great for a world class facility where the land and the asset is owned by us. Also, while CESC might get operational revenues, we do get our lease payment, giving us a guaranteed return (similar to any commercial real estate venture). The carrot on top of this entire deal is any increases of costs will be borne by CESC, protecting us from supply chain or inflation issues. I'd hate for the renegotiation to lose that piece of it.

[Jordan!]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

The point was that new deals can be better - that is actually the point of making new deals. And the new deal for Tempe, for example, looks to be a good one.

But you come here with nothing but negative comments about Calgary, and the Calgary arena negotiations, over and over. And then you are surprised when people crap on Arizona.

Try adding to the conversation, and then people will engage you more.

You in particular have a super defensive reaction to anything I have to say.. I was asking a question and you made it something about Arizona this or that.. and you PM me in a harrassing fashion weird things about Glendale that you have no idea about. You need to go outside more dude..

How is my asking a question negative about Calgary? Both sides have made this worse on themselves. It's obvious. The last deal was a fair deal ruined by politics. The City will try to put more onus on CSEC this next round in the name of politics too. The City doesn't want a 50/50 split, they want Murray Edwards and CSEC to cover more of the costs and if you want to make this about Arizona then maybe the City of Calgary will want the Flames to pay for it in full like the Coyotes will be doing. City of Tempe isn't paying anything up front outside of remediating the land which the Coyotes have offered to cover for them. If CSES wants a 50/50 split, that day is done in my opinion.

[DionTheDman]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

Not a season ticket holder so I can't speak from that aspect and obviously I understand the interest and desire to see all the teams and all the players. I also see the interest and the importance of establishing divisional rivalries and when I weigh these two options against each other the divisional is more interesting and valuable to me.

The extra games didn't do anything to foster new rivalries. It just got boring seeing the same teams again and again. IMO rivalries come from playing in playoff series, where the stakes are higher. Think Colorado/Detroit, or Vancouver/Chicago.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

A better deal will be in the eye of the beholder, but I think it safe to say that if the deal is firm and more clear on how costs are split, it will be a better deal.

Yeah, was going to say, to the parties, who cares. For the public, a clearer deal with fewer outs is better.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Hockey_Ninja

I’m not gonna hold my breath until I see an official agreement

Oh sweet summer child...don't start there.

I think we've already had two of those and we're still at 'Square 1.'

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by smiggy77

These climate initiatives and sidewalk upgrades were tagged on at the 11th hour as a PTR condition with no prior warning (I received this from what I believe is a credible source in the industry). With the level of costs associated, it was clear it was a political request and not something city staff just decided to throw in, which would understandably rub the CESC team the wrong way.
.

The PTRs were fully reviewed in concert with the applicant, understood and supported. As for things like Solar Panels, this is something the architects themselves highlighted at Calgary Planning Commission. To suggest it was something unilaterally imposed upon the applicant (not something the City has the ability to do under current policy) is just wrong. The attribution of cost between City and Development with the roadway and sidewalks was at issue when the project collapsed.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Jordan!

How is my asking a question negative about Calgary?

You don't even seem aware of what you post...

Originally Posted by Jordan!

Ok, can anyone logically answer to me how either side will get a better deal than the last one?

Originally Posted by Jordan!

What a waste of time, and money.

You are not worth spending any more time on. This is my last post on the matter.

[Zarley]

Originally Posted by Table 5

• Parkade - Every day I bike by this imposing monstrosity and it’s cheap metal siding and unfinished concrete. The whole projects feels like something we’d have done in the 70s. In a couple of decades, we’ll be calling for this thing to be demolished in favour of a real building.

To expand on this, the initial brief for Platform parkade was that it was to be designed to be converted to another use in the future assuming parking demand will decline over time. Inexplicably, they chose to build the building with sloped slabs meaning the chance this is ever converted to an office or residential use is near zero.

Also, the initial vision called for 'active edge' frontage on 9th Ave, with retail space opening to a generous streetscape with trees and a wide sidewalk. Instead we have have a series of angled steel poles blocking view into these units, a 2' concrete barrier, and a sidewalk devoid of any trees.

Not to mention that the cost of this project was extremely high for what it is. Granted, they had to beef up the steel extensively to span the LRT tunnel beneath.

Originally Posted by Table 5

• BMO - It’s fine. There’s only so much you can do with a huge-ass conference centre, but I was hoping for it to be less of a monolith from a pedestrian perspective. Renderings from high above look great, but at street level, I expect this to be another cold and imposing monster of a building. As it’s coming together, you can also see the surfacing has been VE’d down quite a lot (https://skyrisecities.com/forum/thre...2#post-1862405).

I'm sure it will function well as a conference centre, but the big issue with BMO is its interface with the surrounding area. The city is making a huge investment to connect 17th to the Stampede grounds and this building is designed with a massive monolithic brick wall as its 'front door' to the city. You can see it on the left side of this photo.

They should have located some retail program at the SW corner of the building (a Stampede Store? relocated Cantina?) or have glass along that frontage at the very least.

I hate being this negative because CMLC has done a good job overall, It's just a lack of attention to detail from them of late.

[Manhattanboy]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Agreed. There was never a doubt that it will get done, the problem was always that, the longer it took, the more the costs would rise, and the less likely we were to get a great building.

Calgary deserves - and can afford - a great building, an iconic building. But the way these negotiations have been going, with each failed iteration, the more stripped-down and bland the final result is likely to be.

My fear is that we end up with a really bland building that we have to pay for and live with for the next 30 years, and then no one will be happy - not the people who don't want any public funding, and not the people who did want a new building and are willing to pay the premiums to get something to be proud of.

100% this. Obviously a balancing act but I really think the City needs to find a way to invest to create something special.

Sure things like underground parking would be great (as a selfish STH who would pay for preferred parking) but I would love to seen an indoor community rink included which could somehow be open and connected to the main arena. Imagine public skating or minor hockey going on at the same time as a Flames practice. After practice the players walk down the breezeway to join in the pubic skate or mingle with the kids.

Make the building a truly iconic space for conferences, trade shows, community events and other public functions. Make it the "living room" of downtown Calgary.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

But the way these negotiations have been going, with each failed iteration, the more stripped-down and bland the final result is likely to be.

Frankly I think the last version is the most stripped down it can be... with the exception of the parkade. Take away anything else and you may as well just say "well why bother?" and cancel the whole thing.

[Beatle17]

Originally Posted by #-3

I typed a big long reply, but decided some of it might be privileged market info I don't really want to share.

But basically it comes down to Construction costs have not dropped as much as material, because there are still too many active projects.

Material costs are actually slightly on the up trend at the moment, because of a weaker relative Canadian dollar and mills being busy enough not to panic and race to the bottom with prices.

CAA certainly would not be the ones buying the material nor would their contractors be anywhere near ready to buy, you don't really send an order to the mill saying, "I'd like some steel please" you have to at least loosely define what product category so they know what line they are selling the capacity for, what grades so they know what input material they need to buy...

Gee, I didn't know this since I only sold steel for 40 years. Thanks for the heads up. I doubt they will be purchasing steel from any Canadian mill but what would I know.

[La Flames Fan]

Originally Posted by Zarley

I already said on the last page - Platform parkade, BMO centre expansion, and the Rivers district master plan (ARP for Victoria Park).

The only one of those done is Platform. It's a parkade (also convertible to residential in the future). What don't you like about it?

What's wrong with the master plan?

Originally Posted by Zarley

To expand on this, the initial brief for Platform parkade was that it was to be designed to be converted to another use in the future assuming parking demand will decline over time. Inexplicably, they chose to build the building with sloped slabs meaning the chance this is ever converted to an office or residential use is near zero.

"Designed by Kasian and 5468796 Architecture, the building design allows for conversion of the space into commercial and/or residential uses through considerations that make it unique among parking structures"

It is convertible.