Arena Negotiation Discussion v2

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Hockey arena with 70 year life, as an NHL arena? Other than MSG, which has been totally rebuilt, I can’t think of any. Which ones are you referring to? If you’re thinking about arenas like the original Boston Garden, that’s a different era. And millions upon millions were poured into those old arenas after they were built so the payback calculation doesn’t work.

All we are hearing is that the Saddledome is the oldest NHL arena and needs replacing. It’s 35 years old.

Not just rebuilt, but to the tune of 1 BILLION dollars.

http://www.espn.com/new-york/nba/sto...ion-renovation

[soreshins]

50-70 year life is pure fantasy. 30-35 years is a good guess.

[Jay Random]

There is, in fact, no reason at all why a well-designed NHL arena should not be able to last 50 years – or 70, for that matter. The Saddledome was designed by people who foolishly thought that everything had already been invented, and several of the key components of the building cannot be upgraded at any price. For instance, there is no getting rid of the poured-concrete monstrosity that is the concourse.

MSG and the ACC/Scotiabank Arena have the right idea: build a big-ass empty box with massive load-bearing capacity, and then fill the space with freestanding components that can be removed and replaced at will.

(Yes, MSG cost a billion dollars to renovate. That's chiefly because (1) they had to do the whole job without disrupting Pennsylvania Station immediately downstairs, and (2) everything costs more to build in New York.)

[Strange Brew]

Expecting the owners/taxpayers to look at a 60/70 year payback is like taking out a 30 year loan on a car.

I’m not even sure the NHL will be around in 70 years. Certainly not in its current state.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by soreshins

50-70 year life is pure fantasy. 30-35 years is a good guess.

Big part of it depends on who owns the arena. We are already seeing teams have naming rights deals and lifecycle improvement plans that go well into the 40+ range.

Having a more modern arena design means the big hurdles facing ‘revenue optimization’ are already sorted out: suite infrastructure, multiple concourses, and other structural items that make long term renovations much more manageable to achieve it. The Saddledome was built 8 years too early to be a part of that major design change hence why renovating it isn’t really in the cards.

A long term lease will increase the chance of ‘we need a new arena’ talk after 30-35 years, but a $100M facelift by the owners would be much more palatable than a new arena would be if it meant another long term lease would be agreed.

I’d say the post 1990 arenas are closer to the 70 mark than the 30 mark, IMO. Save the ones with unsustainable locations (Kanata).

[powderjunkie]

Is there really any real reason the Saddledome can't work for another 20 years? I see only 2 minor reasons:

1. Of course there are revenue generation limitations, butI would simply argue that these are factored into the CSEC's sweetheart deal to exploit the existing resource. If the city invests to improve these, then we deserve more returns from them.

2. Patron experience could always be improved, but IMO improvements are going to be marginal, and not without unforeseen drawbacks. There will always be around 18000 people who want to arrive, pee, buy food/beer, and leave at the same time. Of course design changes can make this better, but other than the priciest seats, we're talking about a 2 minutes to pee instead of 4, and 5 minutes to buy beer [for more money] instead of 8.


IMO both of the above are very minor issues in the grand scheme of things. I'm a little concerned at how much the city has been driving the bus on this, but I hope it is still possible for them to drive a hard-line take-it or leave-it proposal for CSEC. The arena will be a key catalyst for revitalizing the entertainment district, but I hope CMLC and city council can remember that the latter is not fully reliant on the former.


The first step I would really like to see before moving on to this actual project, is the agreement and immediate implementation of a 'facility improvement fee' on all tickets for Saddledome events. This would be in perpetuity and additional to a 'ticket-tax' for the new arena project. Whatever money is generated before a final agreement on funding this arena can go to it. After that, the money builds up in anticipation of the next arena project, whether it's 30, 50, or 70 years. This could have, and should have been done immediately after the 04' cup run, when the team's future was re-stabilized.

This 'facility improvement fee' can be duplicated for other purely 'entertainment' venues in the city that are likely to ask for public money for future reno/replacement (McMahon, Art Commons, Jubilee, Stampede venues, etc.). For these most discretionary of expenditures, users should be forking out a few quarters (toonies for the Dome) every visit to help cover future capital costs. I delineate these venues/event-types from others like museums, rec centres, zoos, etc. in the value they bring to society - an opera, hockey game, or concert bring varying degrees of cultural value, but IMO users should bear a greater burden of sustaining these, as compared with Glenbow Museum, Heritage Park, or Repsol Centre, which bring more accessible and tangible educational and health benefits to society.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Is there really any real reason the Saddledome can't work for another 20 years? I see only 2 minor reasons:

1. Of course there are revenue generation limitations, butI would simply argue that these are factored into the CSEC's sweetheart deal to exploit the existing resource. If the city invests to improve these, then we deserve more returns from them.

2. Patron experience could always be improved, but IMO improvements are going to be marginal, and not without unforeseen drawbacks. There will always be around 18000 people who want to arrive, pee, buy food/beer, and leave at the same time. Of course design changes can make this better, but other than the priciest seats, we're talking about a 2 minutes to pee instead of 4, and 5 minutes to buy beer [for more money] instead of 8.


IMO both of the above are very minor issues in the grand scheme of things. I'm a little concerned at how much the city has been driving the bus on this, but I hope it is still possible for them to drive a hard-line take-it or leave-it proposal for CSEC. The arena will be a key catalyst for revitalizing the entertainment district, but I hope CMLC and city council can remember that the latter is not fully reliant on the former.


The first step I would really like to see before moving on to this actual project, is the agreement and immediate implementation of a 'facility improvement fee' on all tickets for Saddledome events. This would be in perpetuity and additional to a 'ticket-tax' for the new arena project. Whatever money is generated before a final agreement on funding this arena can go to it. After that, the money builds up in anticipation of the next arena project, whether it's 30, 50, or 70 years. This could have, and should have been done immediately after the 04' cup run, when the team's future was re-stabilized.

This 'facility improvement fee' can be duplicated for other purely 'entertainment' venues in the city that are likely to ask for public money for future reno/replacement (McMahon, Art Commons, Jubilee, Stampede venues, etc.). For these most discretionary of expenditures, users should be forking out a few quarters (toonies for the Dome) every visit to help cover future capital costs. I delineate these venues/event-types from others like museums, rec centres, zoos, etc. in the value they bring to society - an opera, hockey game, or concert bring varying degrees of cultural value, but IMO users should bear a greater burden of sustaining these, as compared with Glenbow Museum, Heritage Park, or Repsol Centre, which bring more accessible and tangible educational and health benefits to society.

Are you a STH?

My tickets cost $10k for the pair (and some people pay double that), rising at about 5% per year. Which is my choice to pay, obviously.

The experience, for that $10k, includes way over-crowded concourses, ridiculous bathroom lines, freezing cold water in the bathrooms, terrible concessions, small seats with too little leg room, and little to nothing in the way of restaurants and other establishments around the rink for before and after.

I would not say those are minor issues. If you are a STH and feel that way, that's fine. But I get tired of people who aren't - who watch games for free and feel they deserve a team - telling me those aren't big deals.

If you want people to buy tickets and support having a team here, you have to offer them reasonable value for their money. And when I compare the experience at the Saddledome to that of any other rink I have been to, well there is no comparison. It's embarrassing.

[the-rasta-masta]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Are you a STH?

My tickets cost $10k for the pair (and some people pay double that), rising at about 5% per year. Which is my choice to pay, obviously.

The experience, for that $10k, includes way over-crowded concourses, ridiculous bathroom lines, freezing cold water in the bathrooms, terrible concessions, small seats with too little leg room, and little to nothing in the way of restaurants and other establishments around the rink for before and after.

I would not say those are minor issues. If you are a STH and feel that way, that's fine. But I get tired of people who aren't - who watch games for free and feel they deserve a team - telling me those aren't big deals.

If you want people to buy tickets and support having a team here, you have to offer them reasonable value for their money. And when I compare the experience at the Saddledome to that of any other rink I have been to, well there is no comparison. It's embarrassing.

I don't know. I brought my Dad up to Edmonton for the last Flames/Oilers game, and we were both in shock at the lack of concourse concession options (at least at the 2nd deck concourse), as well as bathroom and beer lines that were arguably worse than some I've experienced at the Saddledome. Oh, and the seats were smaller and much tighter.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by the-rasta-masta

I don't know. I brought my Dad up to Edmonton for the last Flames/Oilers game, and we were both in shock at the lack of concourse concession options (at least at the 2nd deck concourse), as well as bathroom and beer lines that were arguably worse than some I've experienced at the Saddledome. Oh, and the seats were smaller and much tighter.

Okay, yes, I agree that the rink in Edmonton is largely a fail in that regard. All that money spent, and they solved none of the major issues for patrons. Total fail.

It did help revitalize the area (which is obviously a MAJOR goal), so I'll give it credit for that. But for patrons? Meh.

I expect better from Calgary. And will not continue as a STH if it doesn't happen.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by the-rasta-masta

I don't know. I brought my Dad up to Edmonton for the last Flames/Oilers game, and we were both in shock at the lack of concourse concession options (at least at the 2nd deck concourse),

That should provide the motivation to work a little harder and make a bit more money so you can join the Tier 1 fans and their decadent dining options on the first concourse.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Okay, yes, I agree that the rink in Edmonton is largely a fail in that regard. All that money spent, and they solved none of the major issues for patrons. Total fail.

It did help revitalize the area (which is obviously a MAJOR goal), so I'll give it credit for that. But for patrons? Meh.

I expect better from Calgary. And will not continue as a STH if it doesn't happen.

rasta-masta makes my point perfectly. People seem to expect that a new arena will be like waving a magic wand that fixes all of the problems. Assuming our arena will be a lot better than Edmonton's is simply naive. I expect we will do better and not make the exact same mistakes as them. But, I can guarantee, that it will also mean a few other things go awry and are as bad or worse than currently.

I am not an STH, and when I go to games/concerts, I am just not bothered by lineups or the busy concourse (but I am also not a sheep and know how to avoid any total BS). For me, I am able to get into the building 5 minutes before event-start and get to my seat without any trouble. I have a place to sit and whatever view I chose to purchase is fine.

I'll ask you a question: if these problems are so bad, why do you keep renewing your STs?

It doesn't matter to me whether you want to call the problems minor or major, but I will remain steadfast that the improvements to the problems will be minor, for one simple reason:

There will always be around 18000 people who want to arrive, pee, buy food/beer, and leave at the same time.


For the best 2-3000 seats, these situations are already okay, and will still get a little bit better. For the remaining 15000, the situations currently suck, and will just suck a little bit less.

For me, there are so many other things in this city that currently suck and could suck a little bit less at the cost of a few hundred million dollars.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

rasta-masta makes my point perfectly. People seem to expect that a new arena will be like waving a magic wand that fixes all of the problems. Assuming our arena will be a lot better than Edmonton's is simply naive. I expect we will do better and not make the exact same mistakes as them. But, I can guarantee, that it will also mean a few other things go awry and are as bad or worse than currently.

I am not an STH, and when I go to games/concerts, I am just not bothered by lineups or the busy concourse (but I am also not a sheep and know how to avoid any total BS). For me, I am able to get into the building 5 minutes before event-start and get to my seat without any trouble. I have a place to sit and whatever view I chose to purchase is fine.

I'll ask you a question: if these problems are so bad, why do you keep renewing your STs?

It doesn't matter to me whether you want to call the problems minor or major, but I will remain steadfast that the improvements to the problems will be minor, for one simple reason:

There will always be around 18000 people who want to arrive, pee, buy food/beer, and leave at the same time.


For the best 2-3000 seats, these situations are already okay, and will still get a little bit better. For the remaining 15000, the situations currently suck, and will just suck a little bit less.

For me, there are so many other things in this city that currently suck and could suck a little bit less at the cost of a few hundred million dollars.

You're wrong. People have only so much patience.

A large number of people did not renew this year. And a much larger number (including me) considered it. With each passing year, more people will stop renewing if the value isn't there.

And no, the other post doesn't make your point. Your point was that the current arena is good enough. No it isn't. And don't try to tell STHers that it is. They are dropping real and significant coin so that we all have a team to watch. If they stop doing that because the arena sucks, then yes, it is a very big deal.

Does that mean a new arena will automatically cure all these issues? No of course not. We have to ensure that if money gets spent on a new arena, that these issues (among others) do in fact get addressed (or it will have been a waste of money).

But dismissing the issues, and suggesting the current arena is good enough, is flat out wrong.

[Joborule]

With the inverted bowl concept, I think concessions and washrooms will be accommodated greatly, because one bowl is essentially going to be split into three separate levels, which should each have their own amenities.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

You're wrong. People have only so much patience.

A large number of people did not renew this year. And a much larger number (including me) considered it. With each passing year, more people will stop renewing if the value isn't there.

And no, the other post doesn't make your point. Your point was that the current arena is good enough. No it isn't. And don't try to tell STHers that it is. They are dropping real and significant coin so that we all have a team to watch. If they stop doing that because the arena sucks, then yes, it is a very big deal.

Do you think the arena experience is a really, really significant factor in renewal rates? The economy and on-ice product seem a lot more likely to be the culprit. It's worth noting the arena experience is relatively consistent over the years, while the other two factors are much more variable...it seems like an awfully big stretch to attribute renewal decreases to a building that has not changed, when both the team and economy have been poor. Assuming the on-ice stays strong through a decent playoff run, do you not think STH's will return next season, even if the economy remains unchanged or gets worse? If the Flames are smart, they'll sell this year's playoff & 2019-20 season packages together, and bring back a great many that they lost. For anyone with the means and interest, the building is not going to be the thing that holds them back.


And yes, I will give you credit for accurately identifying my point, that the current arena is good enough. My other point is, that if today's arena isn't good enough, tomorrow's arena won't be, either.

Put another way, if you ignore the on-ice product and anything not directly related to the building and it's logisitcal operation, an average grading of today's arena experience probably comes in around a C- for most people. I think it is highly unlikely that this grade will go any higher than a C+ for most people with a new building, even if you don't factor in the increased prices. For the 15000 cheapest seats in an arena, there is simply a ceiling to how 'enjoyable' the process of entering, competing for food & bathrooms, sitting shoulder to shoulder with others, and leaving is going to be. The only way to make it a lot better would be dropping to ~7000 'first-class' seats at twice the cost (and maybe 0-3000 cheaper seats for the unwashed masses); this might not have been totally insane a few years ago, but obviously not tenable now, nor is it a good look if you're trying to get public money).

It's a little bit like flying...look at the new airport terminal. It's a little cleaner and more aesthetically pleasing than the old one, and does have quite a few improvements...but there are just as many new problems with it. The overall experience of getting from your house to the airplane door is not noticeably improved. We can complain all we want, and of course there are plenty of things they could have done better, but at the end of the day you're going to be herded through various procedures like cattle, then wait in a holding pen before getting into your metal tube.


What gives you confidence that CSEC will lead us to a venue that is significantly better than Edmonton's new arena or the Saddledome?

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Joborule

With the inverted bowl concept, I think concessions and washrooms will be accommodated greatly, because one bowl is essentially going to be split into three separate levels, which should each have their own amenities.

Is it confirmed that's the concept they want to go with or is it just an option? I'm much more interested in a venue that's well laid out for the fans than a new building like Rogers Place that's all about bells and whistles with fan access to services kind of an afterthought.

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Is it confirmed that's the concept they want to go with or is it just an option? I'm much more interested in a venue that's well laid out for the fans than a new building like Rogers Place that's all about bells and whistles with fan access to services kind of an afterthought.

Not official yet, but news over the past year has been that's the preferred structure, and the Rossetti concepts were used in CMLC latest East Village presentation.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Is it confirmed that's the concept they want to go with or is it just an option? I'm much more interested in a venue that's well laid out for the fans than a new building like Rogers Place that's all about bells and whistles with fan access to services kind of an afterthought.

Seems to be the leading option at the very least.

But a lot can change between concept and execution.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Do you think the arena experience is a really, really significant factor in renewal rates? The economy and on-ice product seem a lot more likely to be the culprit. It's worth noting the arena experience is relatively consistent over the years, while the other two factors are much more variable...it seems like an awfully big stretch to attribute renewal decreases to a building that has not changed, when both the team and economy have been poor. Assuming the on-ice stays strong through a decent playoff run, do you not think STH's will return next season, even if the economy remains unchanged or gets worse? If the Flames are smart, they'll sell this year's playoff & 2019-20 season packages together, and bring back a great many that they lost. For anyone with the means and interest, the building is not going to be the thing that holds them back.


And yes, I will give you credit for accurately identifying my point, that the current arena is good enough. My other point is, that if today's arena isn't good enough, tomorrow's arena won't be, either.

Put another way, if you ignore the on-ice product and anything not directly related to the building and it's logisitcal operation, an average grading of today's arena experience probably comes in around a C- for most people. I think it is highly unlikely that this grade will go any higher than a C+ for most people with a new building, even if you don't factor in the increased prices. For the 15000 cheapest seats in an arena, there is simply a ceiling to how 'enjoyable' the process of entering, competing for food & bathrooms, sitting shoulder to shoulder with others, and leaving is going to be. The only way to make it a lot better would be dropping to ~7000 'first-class' seats at twice the cost (and maybe 0-3000 cheaper seats for the unwashed masses); this might not have been totally insane a few years ago, but obviously not tenable now, nor is it a good look if you're trying to get public money).

It's a little bit like flying...look at the new airport terminal. It's a little cleaner and more aesthetically pleasing than the old one, and does have quite a few improvements...but there are just as many new problems with it. The overall experience of getting from your house to the airplane door is not noticeably improved. We can complain all we want, and of course there are plenty of things they could have done better, but at the end of the day you're going to be herded through various procedures like cattle, then wait in a holding pen before getting into your metal tube.


What gives you confidence that CSEC will lead us to a venue that is significantly better than Edmonton's new arena or the Saddledome?

lol, okay let's agree to disagree on that

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

There is, in fact, no reason at all why a well-designed NHL arena should not be able to last 50 years – or 70, for that matter. The Saddledome was designed by people who foolishly thought that everything had already been invented, and several of the key components of the building cannot be upgraded at any price. For instance, there is no getting rid of the po+ured-concrete monstrosity that is the concourse.

MSG and the ACC/Scotiabank Arena have the right idea: build a big-ass empty box with massive load-bearing capacity, and then fill the space with freestanding components that can be removed and replaced at will.

(Yes, MSG cost a billion dollars to renovate. That's chiefly because (1) they had to do the whole job without disrupting Pennsylvania Station immediately downstairs, and (2) everything costs more to build in New York.)

That's a good point and not one that I thought of before. The new arenas are being built in a fashion that makes renovating and re-purposing easier.

The hockey-nostalgic in me likes the poured concrete, but it serves no practical purpose anymore. I can't see why a new arena can't last 50 years nowadays. It's hard to imagine the designs can keep changing at the rate they have in the past 35 years.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Are you a STH?

My tickets cost $10k for the pair (and some people pay double that), rising at about 5% per year. Which is my choice to pay, obviously.

The experience, for that $10k, includes way over-crowded concourses, ridiculous bathroom lines, freezing cold water in the bathrooms, terrible concessions, small seats with too little leg room, and little to nothing in the way of restaurants and other establishments around the rink for before and after.

I would not say those are minor issues. If you are a STH and feel that way, that's fine. But I get tired of people who aren't - who watch games for free and feel they deserve a team - telling me those aren't big deals.

If you want people to buy tickets and support having a team here, you have to offer them reasonable value for their money. And when I compare the experience at the Saddledome to that of any other rink I have been to, well there is no comparison. It's embarrassing.

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

don't try to tell STHers that it is. They are dropping real and significant coin so that we all have a team to watch. If they stop doing that because the arena sucks, then yes, it is a very big deal.

First tier fan believes Calgary taxpayers should kick in for the building but don't deserve to be heard unless they're STH. You're not related to Kevin Lowe are you?