CalgaryNEXT Discussion pt. 2

[Kavvy]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Sorry not trying to ignore you

I'm certainly not going to try and school you on CRLs certainly not my area. If that's the case then for sure it has to be measured. If the arena creates more high end development and higher tax collection then it could go the other way. Certainly not going to profess to be the expert on that.

The other part though ... I wouldn't get hung up on "they want" from an opening proposal to get the ball rolling. The city has an opportunity here to counter which to me is smarter than suggesting the CSEC was wrong by double on costs and then mothballing the whole thing.

fair enough, I am no CRL expert, just what I read here. I am sure Bunk could call me out easily.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Parallex

Why would the city "counter"? The city doesn't want to build a stadium/arena megacomplex... the Flames do. It's up to the Flames to present a plan that the city deems worthy of investing public dollars.

Because they can? Because they should?

They have a blight on the west side of downtown. The Metro today has quotes from Sunalta disappointed that the momentum of dealing with an issue may be lost because of the dismissal of Calgary Next.

Not too savvy to just walk away from something that might tick the boxes of two or three city needs just for headlines in the Herald and to brag to your wife that "we showed those millionaires" when you eat their weaners and beans that night.

[Tyler]

I still don't really get the appeal of using a CRL for a stadium in that area.

If you're not going to tax the stadium, then that's a huge swath of land sitting there that will never be taxed. A CRL works a lot better if you use the whole area for business and residential units. This is how the original WV master plan was constructed and probably makes loads more sense than CalgaryNext

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Not too savvy to just walk away from something that might tick the boxes of two or three city needs just for headlines in the Herald and to brag to your wife that "we showed those millionaires" when you eat their weaners and beans that night.

To add to that, the facilities have a much wider appeal than some of the money spent by the city. We won't mention some of the ridiculous "art" projects that have gone on over the years. Let's just focus on the facilities.

I loved Jack Singer and the whole Art Commons project when it was built, but the reality is that space is for a very select group of people. That was built for rich people to go take in theatre, hear the symphony and watch the opera. It was great, but it was for a very specific niche market. Looking more broadly, the size of the available venues only bring in smaller acts, which is a major problem for the City itself. How many big acts bypass Calgary because there is not a suitable venue available to make the visit profitable? A lot. The only one who benefits from Calgary's lack of facilities is Edmonton. Calgary needs the facilities being promoted. Yes, they need some tweaks, but they are greatly needed and the central core is where they should be. Those big anchor tenants are the only way the site is going to be cleaned up and not left to be a blight. Trust me, I heard decades worth of proposals for the space only to have the cleanup costs scare away investors. The City needs to be involved in this just to get the site cleaned up. They may as well check off as many boxes as they can on their needs list.

[Ducay]

Ken King is probably glad right now that they never bothered with a Plan B

[TheScorpion]

nm, delete

[HotHotHeat]

Originally Posted by New Era

To add to that, the facilities have a much wider appeal than some of the money spent by the city. We won't mention some of the ridiculous "art" projects that have gone on over the years. Let's just focus on the facilities.

I loved Jack Singer and the whole Art Commons project when it was built, but the reality is that space is for a very select group of people. That was built for rich people to go take in theatre, hear the symphony and watch the opera. It was great, but it was for a very specific niche market. Looking more broadly, the size of the available venues only bring in smaller acts, which is a major problem for the City itself. How many big acts bypass Calgary because there is not a suitable venue available to make the visit profitable? A lot. The only one who benefits from Calgary's lack of facilities is Edmonton. Calgary needs the facilities being promoted. Yes, they need some tweaks, but they are greatly needed and the central core is where they should be. Those big anchor tenants are the only way the site is going to be cleaned up and not left to be a blight. Trust me, I heard decades worth of proposals for the space only to have the cleanup costs scare away investors. The City needs to be involved in this just to get the site cleaned up. They may as well check off as many boxes as they can on their needs list.

The post really checks off the CalgaryNEXT talking points.

- The city supports the arts! Why not hockey?!
- We keep missing out on concerts!
- Edmonton is beating us
- This is our only chance to cleanup WV!

Well done.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by The Ditch

There are better ways to use the land than letting the Flames increase their profits and valuation of the team, if you subscribe to the theory that it has to be cleaned up, put something there that's beneficial to the city, and more beneficial to the citizens of Calgary, it's ridiculous to go, welp ya gotta clean it up anyways better spend all this money for a private company

Originally Posted by Bingo

And I don't have a problem with that. Just leave the spin out of it, it's not helping.

Originally Posted by Parallex

No, I'm just correct.

If/when some other redevelopment option comes up the city should again include the cost of all the externalities in any analysis. Because just like with CS&E's proposal they'll be part of the actual cost. It's not disingenuous at all.

Originally Posted by Torture

Right, but the Flames are asking the City to move their plans up.
The city probably wouldn't be developing West Village for another 20 years without CalgaryNext.

Originally Posted by saillias

What kind of development can be placed there without cleanup and land remediation? Another creosote plant that's what. It's clearly the most economical option for WV.

Agree that the land must be cleaned up sometime but what the stadium/arena supporters continue to overlook is that virtually any other development will generate tax revenue from the WHOLE site.

The Flames' proposal would have a substantial portion of the whole redevelopment area not contributing any property taxes!

That opportunity cost should be included in the economics from the City's side.

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

At the present moment, playing the first two periods at the Saddledome and then building an arena in Carstairs to exclusively play the third period would be a better idea than CalgaryNEXT.

May I make a recommendation? Start using logic and thought before you post.
Think about what you are going to post, re-read it, and delete it. Then start over.

[TheScorpion]

Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing

May I make a recommendation? Start using logic and thought before you post.
Think about what you are going to post, re-read it, and delete it. Then start over.

Whoosh. It was a joke.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

Agree that the land must be cleaned up sometime but what the stadium/arena supporters continue to overlook is that virtually any other development will generate tax revenue from the WHOLE site.

The Flames' proposal would have a substantial portion of the whole redevelopment area not contributing any property taxes!

That opportunity cost should be included in the economics from the City's side.

Well at least that would be a cost directly related to the difference between Calgary Next and another project which I would find refreshing!

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Because they can? Because they should?

Well I'll grant they can, but they shouldn't. They should be open to receiving proposals until one comes that they deem acceptable. Clearly this isn't one and it should be on King and company to revise their proposal.

The city basically just handed them a rather large document extensively detailing their issues with it... it's up to King and Co. to address those issues with a revised proposal.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Parallex

Well I'll grant they can, but they shouldn't. They should be open to receiving proposals until one comes that they deem acceptable. Clearly this isn't one and it should be on King and company to revise their proposal.

The city basically just handed them a rather large document extensively detailing their issues with it... it's up to King and Co. to address those issues with a revised proposal.

That's like the old couple in the Shuswaps that lists their house every summer for $100K more than it's worth and then whine at the golf course that they can't sell it.

Good plan though.

Every negotiation is an opportunity. A counter is a constructive way for the city council, our representatives, to use that opportunity in our best interests. To cross your arms, misrepresent costs, and then wait for the other side to counter their own proposal is not the best way to get things done.

I'm sure the Sunalta residents love your wait and see approach though.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

The post really checks off the CalgaryNEXT talking points.

- The city supports the arts! Why not hockey?!
- We keep missing out on concerts!
- Edmonton is beating us
- This is our only chance to cleanup WV!

Well done.

Thank you. And what a great job you did addressing those issues. Let me add a few more details to this for you..

- The city supports the arts! Why not hockey?!

This isn't just about hockey. This is about building multi-use facilities that will draw events to Calgary. This is about finally having a field house, Calgary being the last major Canadian city to have one. Ask any performance athlete the importance of these facilities and having them to train at. This is a facility that has been a long time coming to Calgary, and it is greatly needed. This is a facility that will draw hundreds of thousands of visitors a year, which greatly outpaces the attendance of any other facility in Calgary.

- We keep missing out on concerts!

You do. Let me tell you, it is awesome to live in a city that is on every act's road map. I get to see every artist I want and don't have to drive two and a half hours, or more, to see them. You may not want to go to them, but there are plenty of people that do. The fact that Calgary claims to be a "world class city" but can't host a major entertainment act certainly flies in the face of that "world class" claim. You want to be a world class city you better be able to host world class events, which Calgary cannot.

- Edmonton is beating us

It isn't that Edmonton is beating Calgary, it is that Calgarians have to leave their city to go take in a show that should be coming through the city. This seriously doesn't resonate with you as being a problem? Hey, maybe the City of Calgary should halt all expansion to the airport and just become a regional airport. I mean, you can drive to Edmonton if you want to take a flight to someplace of importance, right?

- This is our only chance to cleanup WV!

Well, history sure seems to support this claim. Some of us have watched this whole story unfold for a very long time, likely what is your entire life. This has been a problem for almost half a century and there is no end in sight. How many failed proposals do there have to be before you wake up and realize that the only way this land is going to get cleaned up is through a public works project? You can sit there and act all smug, but you obviously don't know anything about the history of Calgary or that particular tract of land. Go back and do some research to see all the proposals there were through out the years to have that land developed, but see developer after developer scared off by the remediation costs. In 50 years, throughout all the boom times when people were making more money than god, there has not been one interest to step up and propose a project that could reasonably make money at that location. So yes, this may be the only chance to clean up the west village in our lifetimes, because no one else has made it go in the past 50 years!

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by Parallex

Well I'll grant they can, but they shouldn't. They should be open to receiving proposals until one comes that they deem acceptable. Clearly this isn't one and it should be on King and company to revise their proposal.

The city basically just handed them a rather large document extensively detailing their issues with it... it's up to King and Co. to address those issues with a revised proposal.

Isn't that exactly what is happening?

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Bingo

To cross your arms, misrepresent costs, and then wait for the other side to counter their own proposal is not the best way to get things done.

I guess we've come full circle because we're right back to "misrepresentation" and I still think it's pretty clear that the cities representation of the costs is far far far better then CS&E representation (or lack thereof) of the costs.

The city gave them a highly detailed report which is more then sufficient. If CS&E wants to use that report to make a revised proposal more power to them but the City should be concerned with getting the right deal not the right now deal.

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

Isn't that exactly what is happening?

Yes. And it's the right way to go about it.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Bingo

That's like the old couple in the Shuswaps that lists their house every summer for $100K more than it's worth and then whine at the golf course that they can't sell it.

Good plan though.

Every negotiation is an opportunity. A counter is a constructive way for the city council, our representatives, to use that opportunity in our best interests. To cross your arms, misrepresent costs, and then wait for the other side to counter their own proposal is not the best way to get things done.

I'm sure the Sunalta residents love your wait and see approach though.

It's really not a misrepresentation. It's the bill. The fact that a portion of the bill will have to be paid at some other completely undetermined date regardless of what is developed there doesn't change the fact that this is the actual cost of developing CalgaryNEXT. It's considerably less disingenuous to include the cost of something that will be eventually paid anyway, at some point, than it is to just totally ignore those numbers when presenting a price of a project.

[Tyler]

Gee, who would have a better idea of actual costs on a project this size?

Engineers, hydrologists and infrastructure experts or the former editor of the Calgary Sun

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

Whoosh. It was a joke.

No, not "whoosh". It was just dumb, and contributed absolutely nothing to the conversation, other than to make people not want to read what you post.

If you want to be taken seriously, nonsensical comments should be removed/limited, not the norm.

[TheScorpion]

Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing

No, not "whoosh". It was just dumb, and contributed absolutely nothing to the conversation, other than to make people not want to read what you post.

If you want to be taken seriously, nonsensical comments should be removed/limited, not the norm.

Well, then I guess I respectfully apologize. I didn’t mean it so nonsensically.