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

[Zevo]

Ya, I don't think I've ever heard of anybody moving to a city because of art. Culture is many things that include both art and entertainment I would think.

[monkeyman]

So, I guess you'll be moving to Edmonton once their new arena is done then?

[Calgary4LIfe]

Personally I think having a new facility is beneficial to the community. It allows for a lot more usage than what the Dome currently is able to service. More concerts (so many people have to go up to Edmonton to hear some of their favorite acts), trade-shows (comes in very handy when you can section-off a new building with that kind of capability), conventions and whatever other things that just aren't coming to Calgary. Whatever area around the new facility instantly becomes a 'hotspot' that helps out (hopefully) the nightlife in Calgary as well.

There are many perks. Should the public money go into financing this building? I think so - a lot of Calgarians will benefit from this in many ways (jobs, tourism dollars, taxes, increased culture, increased 'quality of life' in a way). How much is the question. I would absolutely HATE to see the city throwing money at the new building like Edmonton did. That, to me anyways, is a disgusting abuse of taxpayer's money.

I, for one, think that the city should continually throw money into the 'beautification' of the city. I enjoy living in a nice city that is visually appealing with lots of things to do. If some of my tax dollars go towards this, I am fine with it. It is an improvement in my own quality of life. Just don't go crazy subsidizing the vastly wealthy owners, but I do think it is fair to subsidize some (how much I don't exactly know, but I do think that it is fair to subsidize the owners for providing something that a large number of Calgarians can enjoy, and adds to the city's over-all appeal, not to mention increased revenue streams).

The smart thing to do is make another Olympics bid (IMO).

[cam_wmh]

Originally Posted by Zevo

Ya, I don't think I've ever heard of anybody moving to a city because of art. Culture is many things that include both art and entertainment I would think.

Limited social group then.

I've had friends move to L.A, & Vancouver for acting/motion picture/digital media, and a girl pal moved to New York for Broadway.

"oh but that's not the art I was thinking of"

[_Q_]

Originally Posted by monkeyman

So, I guess you'll be moving to Edmonton once their new arena is done then?

Definitely not.

But say someone living in Regina who's a huge hockey fan was offered a job in Calgary and a job in Edmonton. Assuming he has no affiliation to either team (say he's a Canucks fan for example) you know he'll take Edmonton's new facility into serious consideration when making the choice of which job he takes.

[Locke]

"I dont know, I've never seen the Flames' new building..."

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by JayP

This is quite the stretch. People move to cities because of their world class culture all the time (which art is a big part of). I've never heard someone moving cities because the local sports team built a new building.

Yeah, it's a stretch - but it's part of it.
Culture, architecture, art, food, entertainment - the cosmopolitan nature of a city - are all part of the appeal. I I spent the last 6 months working in Montreal, and it is easily the most fabulous city I have ever lived in (though that's a short list), and the Bell Centre is not exactly one of the reasons why it is. But the Habs are certainly a big part.
And that Montreal lost the Expos because they couldn't come up with a new facility is still a big black mark on the image of the city, at least according a large majority of those who live there. Despite crumbling bridges/overpasses, and the highest taxes anywhere, a recent poll suggests 80% of business and 69% of the population supports at least some public money for a new stadium to bring the Expos back.

[underGRADFlame]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

The whole reason to build the new arena is so the owners can make more money.

The current arena is old but its not falling apart. They could still use it. Why fund something that is only being put in place to make the owners more money.

From a selfish perspective, the whole reason to build a new arena, is so I can have a nicer environment to enjoy my leisure time, and expand the options on what I spend my time doing. A new building allows different acts to come to town that at the moment pass Calgary by. So if some of my tax dollars go to it I'm fine with that.

Using your example, why is the city building a new library? The current one is usable, even though it's old, undersized and outdated... But it's usable.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by underGRADFlame

From a selfish perspective, the whole reason to build a new arena, is so I can have a nicer environment to enjoy my leisure time, and expand the options on what I spend my time doing. A new building allows different acts to come to town that at the moment pass Calgary by. So if some of my tax dollars go to it I'm fine with that.

Using your example, why is the city building a new library? The current one is usable, even though it's old, undersized and outdated... But it's usable.

Again - no one is making money from the library. If the city wants to spend money on it than that's a completely different debate.

If someone owned the library and made money off it, then they should build a new one. Since no one makes money off it, it falls to to the city to build it or not have a library (or have an old outdated one)

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

These 'public palaces' are in the National Hockey League.
But we should tell the whole story of these 100% privately funded Canadian facilities, because outside of the ACC, they are not outstanding success stories.

Bell Centre - Montreal
Molson funds construction of the $400 million Bell Centre, which opens in
1996. By 2001, Molson, seeking to “refocus on its core brewing business”, sells the team to American George Gillett.

GM Place - Vancouver
Arthur Griffiths spent approximately $180 million to build GM Place.
Having overextended himself funding the construction, he is forced to sell
a majority interest in the team to John McCaw

Scotiabank Place - Ottawa
Rob Bryden borrowed $184 million to fund construction of the Corel
Centre (now Scotiabank Place). His development company subsequently
declared bankruptcy and he lost control of the Senators to current owner,
Eugene Melnyk.

Montreal - Molson rebought the team in 2009 for $500-$550 million after selling it in 2001 for $185 million, so they seem to be ok with everything.

Vancouver - the owner was forced to sell to McCaw, it wasn't like he wanted out. He just couldn't sell a portion of the team so the minority owner took over.

Ottawa was a mess from the get-go, so I agree there. It was a questionable market and they built the arena in the middle of nowhere.

[Zevo]

Originally Posted by cam_wmh

Limited social group then.

I've had friends move to L.A, & Vancouver for acting/motion picture/digital media, and a girl pal moved to New York for Broadway.

"oh but that's not the art I was thinking of"

That would be for work then, wouldn't it? My son moved from Vancouver to Toronto for the same thing but it was strictly job opportunity based. He does enjoy the occasional Blue jay game though.

[Sidney Crosby's Hat]

Originally Posted by _Q_

Really?

If I was offered a job in a city with world class sports facilities and a city with none, I would chose the city with the sports facilities 10 times out of 10.

I have to agree with this. If I had a job offer in, say, Norfolk (population 1.7 million) and one in Nashville (population 1.7 million) I would take Nashville 10 times out of 10 due to the sporting options.

[Incogneto]

Originally Posted by JayP

This is quite the stretch. People move to cities because of their world class culture all the time (which art is a big part of). I've never heard someone moving cities because the local sports team built a new building.

One of the reasons I came to Calgary in 2001 (from Manitoba) and not Winnipeg is that I grew up a Flames fan. I became a season ticket holder 2 years later, and have been ever since.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Sidney Crosby's Hat

I have to agree with this. If I had a job offer in, say, Norfolk (population 1.7 million) and one in Nashville (population 1.7 million) I would take Nashville 10 times out of 10 due to the sporting options.

Norfolk has 1.7 million people?

I don't think this is a real valid comparison, as, you'd pick Nashville over Norfolk for a variety of other reasons as well.

Also, which city is better off, the one that spend 500 million dollars to and attracts several tens of thousands more residents, or the city that doesn't spend that money and doesn't swell their tax base by 10-50k? That's the real question.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Norfolk has 1.7 million people?

I don't think this is a real valid comparison, as, you'd pick Nashville over Norfolk for a variety of other reasons as well.

Also, which city is better off, the one that spend 500 million dollars to and attracts several tens of thousands more residents, or the city that doesn't spend that money and doesn't swell their tax base by 10-50k? That's the real question.

Wikipedia has three population listings for them, usually you only see two.

Independent City: 248k
Urban: 1.047m
Metro: 1.67m

Looks like a beautiful city from the Wikipedia pics. Either way, it looks like that typical American thing where there's a bunch of small cities close together and they call it a "metro area" and give it some huge population. Actual Norfolk appears to be about 248k.

It is one of nine cities and seven counties that constitute the Hampton Roads metro area, officially known as the Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC MSA

I get taking in smaller outlying communities and calling it metro like we do here in Canada quite often, but they seem to take that to the extreme in lots of places in the States.

[monkeyman]

Originally Posted by InCoGnEtO

One of the reasons I came to Calgary in 2001 (from Manitoba) and not Winnipeg is that I grew up a Flames fan. I became a season ticket holder 2 years later, and have been ever since.

Did you ever consider not moving here because they played out of the lowly saddledome? Did it even weigh into your decision?

[the2bears]

Originally Posted by flameswin

I get taking in smaller outlying communities and calling it metro like we do here in Canada quite often, but they seem to take that to the extreme in lots of places in the States.

If by "they" you mean the census bureau then I'm not sure it's "extreme", though, as there is a fairly strict definition of "metro". Of I recall it's something along the lines of the percentage of workforce that commute to/from the locations included in the count.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by flameswin

Wikipedia has three population listings for them, usually you only see two.

Independent City: 248k
Urban: 1.047m
Metro: 1.67m

Looks like a beautiful city from the Wikipedia pics. Either way, it looks like that typical American thing where there's a bunch of small cities close together and they call it a "metro area" and give it some huge population. Actual Norfolk appears to be about 248k.



I get taking in smaller outlying communities and calling it metro like we do here in Canada quite often, but they seem to take that to the extreme in lots of places in the States.

Interesting, thanks.

I've never been down there but read that many of these townships etc. combine is as a result of sprawl along highway systems. Growth is larger around the main highways and so that's how these cities expand and connect.

[Phil Russell]

Countries define urban spaces differently. Urban populations are actually difficult to define in most cities. In fact, Calgary is unusual in that it is a single municipality. The majority of big cities (contiguous urban areas) have multiple municipalities. This is the case for a "city" like Norfolk. The city itself may be quite small but it is part of a larger and contiguous urban area, called a municipal statistical area (MSA) that is much larger. That's the 1.67 million figure.

[EldrickOnIce]

Even in Canada, Calgary is unique in that respect.

Municipalities, then metropolitan areas by population (2011)
Toronto 2.62 M --> 5.58 M
Montreal 1.65 M --> 3.82 M
Calgary 1.10 M --> 1.21 M
Vancouver 603 K --> 2.31 M