Arena Negotiation Discussion v2

[RM14]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

I think that it should be mentioned that the Flames do not own the seats. They manage the Saddledome, they don’t own it. If the seats are sold for a dollar or a thousand dollars that would effectively be a funding source for the city’s contribution.

However, they would have paid for the upgraded red seats and effectively donated them to the city?

[Travis Munroe]

I assume this is answered in the full version of the article but I see limited if any parking at all... financially it wouldn't make sense but if you have a stadium, mid sized arena and whatever else in the mix, you would require more parking than the current Saddledome!

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Zarley

PBA does have a solid reputation. It’s likely a very preliminary concept that was never intended to be released publicly.

Yeah - I know James Scott there. Great guy, no doubt they are very capable. Indeed, not something that should have been put out there publicly.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by RM14

However, they would have paid for the upgraded red seats and effectively donated them to the city?

IIRC when leasing, if you upgrade fixtures they become property of the building owner. In which case the answer would be yes. But the city/Saddledome Foundation paid for the 95 renovation that saw the original upgraded seats put in so it's more like the city donated them to the Flames anyway.



As a leasee, if you upgrade permanent fixtures and want to take it with you, you'd have to put the original back in or be on the hook for the cost of replacing it.

[marsplasticeraser]

My experience of PBA was the exact opposite. Very friendly, but compared to other landlords they were disorganized. Basic paperwork (rent, leases) was often wrong and always late. They were cheap though, but often too cheap.

Doing a large mixed use development like the field house seems like an enormous stretch for them as well. It’s not their expertise.

Originally Posted by Zarley

PBA does have a solid reputation. It’s likely a very preliminary concept that was never intended to be released publicly.

[RM14]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

IIRC when leasing, if you upgrade fixtures they become property of the building owner. In which case the answer would be yes. But the city/Saddledome Foundation paid for the 95 renovation that saw the original upgraded seats put in so it's more like the city donated them to the Flames anyway.

As a leasee, if you upgrade permanent fixtures and want to take it with you, you'd have to put the original back in or be on the hook for the cost of replacing it.

are you talking about the club seats in 95? majority of the lower bowl and the first few rows of the second bowl Olympic Legacy seats were replaced in about 2008 or so, the same time as our current scoreboard.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by RM14

are you talking about the club seats in 95? majority of the lower bowl and the first few rows of the second bowl Olympic Legacy seats were replaced in about 2008 or so, the same time as our current scoreboard.

I was talking about 95 because that was a city paid renovation. If they were changed after by the Flames/CSEC they'd still become property of the arena owner at the end of the lease.

[Bunk]

My conversation with CMLC CEO Michael Brown (also on the Event Centre Assessment Committee) talking all things Arena/ Event Centre (including that controversy about its title), Victoria Park and East Village.

The arena focused stuff is more the back half of the 45 minutes - but I think the whole thing is good to provide context of the entire east side redevelopment endeavour. I hope you have a listen!!

https://livewirecalgary.com/2019/01/...form=hootsuite

[Tyler]

Loved hearing about the downtown East vs West divide! Very interesting!

[woob]

Great episode, Bunk. Thank-you!

[powderjunkie]

That McMahon area rendering is just bizarre. Not that I hate every idea, but it looks like something I could have drawn in sketchup in a couple of hours...and in so doing I think I would have at least realized some shortcomings like parking. The practice field and facility seem to really fight against the area's topography, too. Making a practice field with a few thousand seats for Dinos games and B-level soccer might be neat.

The 6500 seat arena makes me wonder if this wasn't actually just mocked up to relate to the Olympics, and make it seem like a there was at least an early proposal? I suppose anyone who has never seen Sketchup before might think it is more professional than it is?

[Zarley]

Originally Posted by Bunk

My conversation with CMLC CEO Michael Brown (also on the Event Centre Assessment Committee) talking all things Arena/ Event Centre (including that controversy about its title), Victoria Park and East Village.

The arena focused stuff is more the back half of the 45 minutes - but I think the whole thing is good to provide context of the entire east side redevelopment endeavour. I hope you have a listen!!

https://livewirecalgary.com/2019/01/...form=hootsuite

Great interview Bunk! The possibility of an arena in Victoria Park is more exciting to me after listening to this.

[Roughneck]

I still can’t buy into the ‘event centre’ argument myself. Seems to be causing more of a hurdle than anything. Internally call it an event centre if that’s what you want to plan for with all the benefits mentioned, but I still think it’s been detrimental to the process.

That said the talk of how major amenities of the arena should be ‘facing outward’ and the siding off of ‘celebration spaces’ does make me excited for why I was happy to have CMLC a part of this process in the first place. They are the big picture of how the arena is a part of a cultural district rather than a cultural district being put to serve an arena.

I was generally pro (city giving money to an) arena before CalgaryNEXT, then I became very anti-public lonely to an arena. If CMLC is at the helm I’m back closer to the former because I’m excited with what they could do with one.


Tl;dr pretty darn good interview.

[InglewoodFan]

Rick Bell column

Looks like Davison is starting to push for limited public engagement on any potential deal. "Call your councillor" is his solution. Which is kinda laughable given how much time and effort is burned up on public consultation on things like bike lanes which are 1% of the cost.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by InglewoodFan

Rick Bell column

Looks like Davison is starting to push for limited public engagement on any potential deal. "Call your councillor" is his solution. Which is kinda laughable given how much time and effort is burned up on public consultation on things like bike lanes which are 1% of the cost.

I can’t think of anything else in EV where CMLC has consulted the public, and the area is almost certainly better off becasue of it.

If any deal is a fair deal, CMLC shouldn’t be bound by public influence.

[Matty81]

Politicians are accountable in elections, typically get license to govern between those and make these kinds of decisions, don't see this as much different. Dunno much about cgy politics but here public debate only kicks in if they want to borrow a significant sum of money they don't already have on hand and they need to go through something called an alternate approval process, not sure if that will be the case here, hope not selfishly as a flames fan as it would be sure to attract lots of people campaigning against it, seems to be the norm with any public expenditure lately.


Glad to see there seems to be momentum building.

[Bunk]

https://livewirecalgary.com/2019/02/...-coun-davison/

Calgary event centre proposal could come within next two months: Coun. Davison

Calgarians could see a potential Calgary event centreproposal by early spring, according to the councillor leading the city’s eventcentre assessment committee.

Events Centre Assessment Committee chair, Ward 6 Coun. Jeff Davison, told LiveWire this week that his personal timeline to get a deal done with the Calgary Sports and Entertainment Corporation (CSEC) – owner of the Calgary Flames – would be within the next 60 days...

[Jimmy Stang]

The best time within that window, from a PR perspective, is that nice little spot at the end of the regular season and before the playoffs start. People are excited for hockey, the media is hungry for it, and if both parties want a nice reception that's when I would expect to hear something. Or in that final week of the regular season.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

I can’t think of anything else in EV where CMLC has consulted the public, and the area is almost certainly better off becasue of it.

If any deal is a fair deal, CMLC shouldn’t be bound by public influence.

EV projects either have a definite ROI (even if it is via CRL) or genuine+accessible public benefits. I think there probably was plenty of consultation, and it was also a situation of transforming the seediest area of downtown (ie. pretty hard to argue with spending some money to do this, even if you aren't totally in favour of every detail).

Not sure what you mean by fair deal...the impossibility of defining 'fair' is the very crux of the issue. To be honest though, I'd probably trust CMLC in determining 'fairness' about as much as anyone

[Freeway]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Stang

The best time within that window, from a PR perspective, is that nice little spot at the end of the regular season and before the playoffs start. People are excited for hockey, the media is hungry for it, and if both parties want a nice reception that's when I would expect to hear something. Or in that final week of the regular season.

And let's be completely honest here: everybody involved knows April 8-10 is the best window for the public pitch, too.