[News] CalgaryNEXT Announcement. New arena details emerge.

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I'm a little stumped by the enthusiasm for "the city owns it" angle.

Like, umm, why wouldn't they? The city owns the land and going by today's announcement they/we'll be paying for something like 80% of this, if not more.

Who else would own it?

No. No they won't. Ownership pays $200MM. Users pay $250MM. New, currently unrealised taxes pay $240MM. City contributes already earmarked $200MM.

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by Cappy

That hasn't really been a huge issue. In the article last week they talked about the city paying 200 for the field house but also said the Flames would foot the bill for the rest. That was ok with most people (although many rightly raised the concern of the fact that it isnt funded and wants vs needs etc.)

The issue now is the city is contributing alot more for the project than the original project.

Nope.

[Southside]

Having seen the presentation and knowing the general concept and funding I am 100% on board. Assuming all 3 levels of government can come up with a plan to deal with the environmental cleanup, let's go.

[GGG]

At $10 per ticket with the flames getting 20k x 40 = 800k people her year plus 250k for the stamps So that's about 1 million tickets for the two main tenants or 10 million / year which covers the principle. So you likely cover the interest with the other events the arena would hold.

What that doesn't cover is maintenance which is going to be 10-20 million per year

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Or when they're easily insulted.

I think your taking the comment a little too literally just to stir the pot. Do you want to buy a house from a dishonest realtor? If I take issue with what I perceive as a dishonest pitch I'm not sure why you care. If you disagree with the statement I made address the statement. This isn't a try out for the Real Housewives of Calgary.

[Kjesse]

There is a lot of "good" in that proposal. This is a good start and making it a multi-use facility is thinking big. This is also likely an opportunity to kickstart the remediation of the grounds and another will not likely present itself within the next 50 years.

The part that turns me off the most is the conceptual arena interior. A huge lower bowl, and then 3 tiers of boxes, and then seats above that can't be seen.

The prices they will charge for those lower bowl seats will price people out of the market for seats even more so than the current design. The upper bowl will feel separated from the rest. And in terms of boxes, I have been in box seats many times but never to just enjoy the game. The price is such you are making it a business event where those you invite are more important than the game, or if you're invited, there's this undercurrent of being asked for business, even if your hosts are trying hard to avoid that. I have never truly enjoyed a game from a box. The best times I've had have been in the second bowl of the Dome.

Though so much has now been funded to other infrastructure, how can this happen? The ring road, the library, the ctrain, etc etc.. This would need to be funded as a full on community project but I'm concerned that it won't benefit the overwhelming number of Calgarians who will be paying for it.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by GGG

What that doesn't cover is maintenance which is going to be 10-20 million per year

The cost of building the facility isn't supposed to include maintenance. That comes out of general ticket revenues.

Originally Posted by Delgar

The part that turns me off the most is the conceptual arena interior. A huge lower bowl, and then 3 tiers of boxes, and then seats above that can't be seen.

That's a really bad rendering, not done to scale and clearly done by some clown who can't draw. If you look at the size of the rink at the bottom, then the lower bowl would seat about 40,000 people and the tiers of suites would be about 20 stories high. And from the upper bowl (except for the first row where you can lean over the rail), no part of the ice surface would be visible at all. These proportions are clearly not what the designers have in mind.

[GullFoss]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

At present, those taxes are nonexistent. They aren't going into the general tax pool because there is no development in the area to tax. Given that the land has been sitting there undeveloped for close to 50 years, it's difficult to see that changing on its own.

It would be easy to exaggerate the surplus revenues that will be generated by West Village development – i.e., after paying for municipal services to the area. That's why I consider the CRL rather hinky, and hope the city will negotiate that $240m figure downwards as much as possible short of cancelling the project. But those revenues will certainly be greater than zero, and with the present usage of the land, those revenues are zero for the foreseeable future.

Unless people are going to move to Calgary for the new stadium, the CRL is 100% a subsidy because...office space or condos being built on the west end would have simply be built elsewhere in the city instead. Elsewhere in the city, those taxes they pay would go into munciple funds

Example without new facilities: bob wants to buy a condo and buys in victoria park. He pay a $1000 property tax which goes to a municipal fund. City gets $1000 per year

Example with new facilities: Bob was going to buy a condo in victoria park but instead buys into the Flames condo on the west end. He pays $1000 in taxes to the CRL. That $1000 goes to pay off the loan used to pay for the arena. The city does not get $1000 per year.

Now...and heres the kicker. The city still needs to provide services to Bob and his kids, but their tax base per capita is lower. So everyone elses property taxes rise to make up the funding shortfall.

Call it what you want. Its a subsidy.

[Kjesse]

A CRL can be tweaked to result in a net benefit over the long term, but it is certainly always a subsidy in the first decade or so.

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

The cost of building the facility isn't supposed to include maintenance. That comes out of general ticket revenues.



That's a really bad rendering, not done to scale and clearly done by some clown who can't draw.

I agree, but since the Flames are the goose that lays the golden eggs, isn't it odd they spent so little on that aspect when going to the public?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

The cost of building the facility isn't supposed to include maintenance. That comes out of general ticket revenues.



That's a really bad rendering, not done to scale and clearly done by some clown who can't draw. If you look at the size of the rink at the bottom, then the lower bowl would seat about 40,000 people and the tiers of suites would be about 20 stories high. These proportions are clearly not what the designers have in mind.

That is a big assumption and currently unknown. The city will own the building and be responsible for it. In the past ticket Levy's were used for the maintenance of facilities. So now you are diverting that revenue stream to the capital costs. In the U.S. Some cities are responsible for renovations and maintenance and receive no revenues. We don't know right now.

In Regina they added a .5% property tax to build a maintenance fund to generate 200 million to cover expected maintenance. With the city owning a large liability these details which are intentionally left out will make or break the deal.

[curves2000]

There are a few more points I think some people left out in some of their arguments too.

No matter who actually ends up paying for the clean up (city, province, feds) there is only 1 taxpayer and the feds just coughed up major money for ring road/ South LRT.

The cost to build the $200 million fieldhouse also takes into consideration the costs of absorbing a CFL sized stadium. If the city needed to build the fieldhouse strictly for the citizens than I doubt the costs would be $200 mil. A basic facility for athletics doesn't require 30 000 seats, concessions, restaurants and massive HD scoreboards. A huge portion of the cost of building the field house is the CFL component to it of which the Flames benefit financially.

Just throwing a number out there but I can envision a quality facility in Calgary costing maybe $40 mil?? Remember the city owns the land so there isn't an acquisition cost .

I suspect we might be in this a little longer than people think. The costs with clean up, building a new massive project to improve Crowchild Trail / Bow Trail are going to be a billion or more. The Flames are going to delay putting money into the Dome for renovation and improvements. There are extensions, seat removal, walls being blown out etc that could be done to improve the "fan experience" for the short term. As per the Flames contract with the city for use of the Dome, its at the Flames expense.

The Canucks organization has just finished completing a massive upgrade project on Rogers arena to make it more modern, roomier and a better experience. That arena is smack in the middle of train stations, condo buildings, massive CFL stadium etc. Not much room to work with but they did it. Winnipeg also finished some modernization programs too. MLSE is looking at a massive project to upgrade ACC in Toronto for the NBA All-Star game, NHL All-Star game and more.

Long term we do need a brand new rink but the notion that an older barn can't be upgraded is horeshi** One of the biggest scams or misinformation being told out there is the fact that Calgary will have the oldest rink in North America very soon. This is not TRUE!! The NHL always says this but forgets to mention in NY M.S.G opened in 1968. They have had to invest hundreds of millions to upgrade and modernize but that's because it makes sense and it needs to be done. I believe in 10 years MSG has to be out of its existing location for improvements to the train station underneath and they just spent a billion on renos.

Here is a link to the Crowchild Trail improvements from a few years ago.
(http://www.calgaryherald.com/Crowchi...253/story.html

Cheers

[T@T]

Not impressed if this is the final design,
it looks like a grade 5 art class project.

[Calgary4LIfe]

I am not sure why people are so interested in the remediation costs as to how it affects the taxpayer.

My own sentiments is that remediation is needed, regardless if this area becomes CalgaryNEXT, a bunch of condos, a greenspace, or even absolutely no development. Am I correct? With contamination now being found across the river (and I can assume, all the way down the river to 'x' - no idea if creosote will be soluble or be able to drift for that length all the way to the ocean), it sounds like it is just spreading, and the eventual costs will only increase.

Also, I would expect more people being affected (and increased illnesses) related to the spreading contamination, not to mention the wildlife (seeing as the Bow is a major river that flows right into the Hudson Bay, IIRC) that would probably be negatively affected with time.

To me, remediation is something that should have happened decades ago. Yes, there will be an impact on taxpayers here in Calgary. Even if the money will be 100% federally allocated (which I really doubt), that money will be pulled from other areas that also require funding. Either way, people somewhere will feel the sting of the remediation costs.

I just don't think it is really justifiable adding the cost of the remediation to the cost of the project and then basing a decision on the total dollar value. For me, this project will cost everything that KK said it would, + infrastructure costs (which I am really keen on getting a good estimate on before deciding if this project is viable or not), but remediation is something that should happen regardless of any development.

What I did get the most apprehensive about is hearing that the costs of remediation may be much lower than previously thought. To me, it kind of sounds like there is some shortcut (containment that may eventually fail 'x' amount of years down the road? Only partial remediation? Other??) instead of cleaning it up completely. I haven't gone through all 84 pages of this, but I haven't seen anyone else be concerned about it, so perhaps I am overthinking it or don't know enough about it (and I really don't know what is involved in remediating the area, or creosote in general). Maybe there really are more recent advancements and techniques that make the cleanup much more cost-effective, but I just want the city to make sure that corners are not cut, and the cleanup occurs to the highest level possible.

I don't want to hear about people being sick or the creosote spreading because corners were cut 10, 20 or 30+ years from now.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

Unless people are going to move to Calgary for the new stadium, the CRL is 100% a subsidy because...office space or condos being built on the west end would have simply be built elsewhere in the city instead. Elsewhere in the city, those taxes they pay would go into munciple funds.

I assure you, riverfront condos aren't going to be built in Springbank or Silverado or Saddle Ridge. If you take that development and transfer it to a different part of the city, you've instantly got lower property values – which means that Bob is paying lower taxes while using the same amount of civic services. The idea is to sell expensive inner-city property to people with more money than brains, and soak them for tax moneys without having to raise everyone else's mill rate.

Now, the complaint about CRL revenue not going into general funds is legitimate. I have said as much myself. There ought to be some percentage of holdback to cover normal services, such that the CRL does not result in a net drain on the city's treasury. Can anybody tell me whether, in fact, 100% of taxes on new development under a CRL go into the CRL's own fund? Or is there some allowance to pay for services actually used by the ratepayers, as common sense says there ought to be?

Originally Posted by curves2000

The cost to build the $200 million fieldhouse also takes into consideration the costs of absorbing a CFL sized stadium. If the city needed to build the fieldhouse strictly for the citizens than I doubt the costs would be $200 mil.

From what I understand, $200 million was the city's own figure for what it had planned. So yes, if the city built the fieldhouse strictly for the citizens, that was how much they were planning to spend.

I suspect we might be in this a little longer than people think. The costs with clean up, building a new massive project to improve Crowchild Trail / Bow Trail are going to be a billion or more.

The Crow/Bow thing needs to be done whether anything is ever built in the West Village or not. To include it as part of the cost of this project is flatly dishonest.

One could say the same thing about remediation. In principle, from all that I've heard, Domtar should be on the hook for those costs, but some gormless bellend at City Hall set things up so as to indemnify them. So Joe Taxpayer is on the hook for cleaning up the land – again, whether anything is built there or not, since the creosote is already seeping into other neighbourhoods.

The Flames are going to delay putting money into the Dome for renovation and improvements. There are extensions, seat removal, walls being blown out etc that could be done to improve the "fan experience" for the short term. As per the Flames contract with the city for use of the Dome, its at the Flames expense.

There's basically no return on that. The problem with the Dome is that it is pretty much a fixed structure and there is no room inside for major changes. You can't just gut the interior and rebuild inside the same shell, as they've done with Madison Square Garden. One big difference between the Saddledome and a modern arena design is that modern arenas are built with the capacity for future renovation in mind.

The Canucks organization has just finished completing a massive upgrade project on Rogers arena to make it more modern, roomier and a better experience. That arena is smack in the middle of train stations, condo buildings, massive CFL stadium etc. Not much room to work with but they did it. Winnipeg also finished some modernization programs too. MLSE is looking at a massive project to upgrade ACC in Toronto for the NBA All-Star game, NHL All-Star game and more.

Right. Rogers Arena, MTS Centre, and ACC are all modern designs. The Saddledome isn't, and there's no way to retrofit it to that extent. You would have to tear it down and start over.

Long term we do need a brand new rink but the notion that an older barn can't be upgraded is horeshi** One of the biggest scams or misinformation being told out there is the fact that Calgary will have the oldest rink in North America very soon. This is not TRUE!! The NHL always says this but forgets to mention in NY M.S.G opened in 1968. They have had to invest hundreds of millions to upgrade and modernize but that's because it makes sense and it needs to be done. I believe in 10 years MSG has to be out of its existing location for improvements to the train station underneath and they just spent a billion on renos.

Again, MSG is designed with a structure that allows the interior to be completely gutted and replaced. (This may have been partly luck. The fact that it's built on top of a major rail terminal means they had to do a lot of things differently than was usual in the 1960s.) The Saddledome wasn't.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Hackey

I think your taking the comment a little too literally just to stir the pot.

you're*

Do you want to buy a house from a dishonest realtor?

No, but I'm not naive enough to think a salesmen won't deliver his pitch in a way that benefits him so I buy his product. I don't get insulted when the last realtor I dealt with fudged or sweetened up his words to get the deal done.

That's business, that's life son. Need to toughen up a little if a salesmen selling insults you.

[Southside]

Originally Posted by Delgar

I agree, but since the Flames are the goose that lays the golden eggs, isn't it odd they spent so little on that aspect when going to the public?

Part of the hold up on renderings King explained is that they still have 2 potential configurations for the actual seating design. One is a patent pending new design that may, or may not work. I know that will leave you wanting more, but KK said it's revolutionary design and that as plans move forward a choice will be made.

[Addick]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

At present, those taxes are nonexistent. They aren't going into the general tax pool because there is no development in the area to tax. Given that the land has been sitting there undeveloped for close to 50 years, it's difficult to see that changing on its own.

Although regeneration may not occur without the use of a CRL-like tool, a CRL is still a subsidy. The MGA may not currently allow for it but a property tax surcharge could accomplish the same goal without diverting property taxes and creating the need for subsidization.

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

Unless people are going to move to Calgary for the new stadium, the CRL is 100% a subsidy because...office space or condos being built on the west end would have simply be built elsewhere in the city instead. Elsewhere in the city, those taxes they pay would go into munciple funds

Example without new facilities: bob wants to buy a condo and buys in victoria park. He pay a $1000 property tax which goes to a municipal fund. City gets $1000 per year

Example with new facilities: Bob was going to buy a condo in victoria park but instead buys into the Flames condo on the west end. He pays $1000 in taxes to the CRL. That $1000 goes to pay off the loan used to pay for the arena. The city does not get $1000 per year.

Now...and heres the kicker. The city still needs to provide services to Bob and his kids, but their tax base per capita is lower. So everyone elses property taxes rise to make up the funding shortfall.

Call it what you want. Its a subsidy.

This example assumes Bob's condo is brand new in both cases, which is not necessarily the case.

[JohnnyT]

Originally Posted by curves2000

Long term we do need a brand new rink but the notion that an older barn can't be upgraded is horeshi** One of the biggest scams or misinformation being told out there is the fact that Calgary will have the oldest rink in North America very soon. This is not TRUE!! The NHL always says this but forgets to mention in NY M.S.G opened in 1968. They have had to invest hundreds of millions to upgrade and modernize but that's because it makes sense and it needs to be done. I believe in 10 years MSG has to be out of its existing location for improvements to the train station underneath and they just spent a billion on renos.

MSG is going no where and I don't see how this argument is valid or what this argument even is. Are you suggesting the flames put this 900 million into the saddledome instead?