There are varying studies. Granted, lots of positive ones are commissioned and therefore may be biased. But have you considered Feng and Humphreys (2008)?
That is probably true - but doesn't really apply to the Calgary situation as the current arena is basically in the same spot as where the new one would be.
Didn't read the whole thing - but does it talk about what happens in the location where the old arena used to be? Detroit moved their baseball and football stadiums relatively recently - the new area is relatively built up while the old areas are falling apart. Everything just shifted to the new location.
Don't you know? This was all part of Ken King's genius plan. AND IT WORKED!!!
Quote:
Sure enough, something good came out of the Calgary Flames aggressive declaration that they’ve stopped their pursuit of a new arena.
The cause was forwarded by way of a hastily-called vote by city council Wednesday to release details of the team owners’ last offer and the city’s most recent counter-proposal to build a $550-million arena next to the Saddledome.
Progress.
Fact is, had Flames President and CEO Ken King not dropped a bombshell Tuesday by calling the mayor out on the frustratingly slow negotiating process, Calgarians wouldn’t be privy to the transparency such documentation is about to provide.
__________________
Turn up the good, turn down the suck!
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to getbak For This Useful Post:
Question to all. Would you support an arena and entertainment district outside the core?
The furthest outside the core (in a location where there'd be room for an arena) that I'd be supportive of is Fire Park.
Although, earlier today I thought of a piece of property that's large enough to hold CalgaryNext, adjacent to major transportation routes, already owned by the city, and soon in need of major redevelopment: Midfield Mobile Home Park.
__________________
Turn up the good, turn down the suck!
The Following User Says Thank You to getbak For This Useful Post:
The furthest outside the core (in a location where there'd be room for an arena) that I'd be supportive of is Fire Park.
Although, earlier today I thought of a piece of property that's large enough to hold CalgaryNext, adjacent to major transportation routes, already owned by the city, and soon in need of major redevelopment: Midfield Mobile Home Park.
I thought of Fire Park as well. Could leverage the Zoo LRT.
Thinking way outside the box, what are the tax laws for partnering with First Nations on land leases and then revenues generated on that land?
There are varying studies. Granted, lots of positive ones are commissioned and therefore may be biased. But have you considered Feng and Humphreys (2008)?
Thanks for the paper. I note that the author acknowledges the overwhelming evidence on the neutral to negative effects on the easily measurable metrics of the economics of an arena.
My response is that I keep saying that arenas have value - but the value is not worth what its input to the economy is.
Using the author's own (imo optimistic, but let's go with it) model, they suggest that nationwide arena has generated $222 million of housing value by 2008. The arena itself in 2008 dollars would be approximately $200 million to construct.
So basically in the most optimistic of scenarios, where an arena (and NHL team) did not exist in the first place, you would obtain a gain of approximately 1.1x for your money.
Not awful, but now consider the Calgary situation. An arena already exists - the vast majority of the intangible benefit due to the proximity to the stadium has already been realized. By the latest releases, the City is proposing to subsidize the Flames to the tune of 50-75 million dollars from carrying financing. If again, we assume the best case scenario, and we are going to get $222 million out of it, then yeah, I can see that making some sense (3x for your money). Even if we say we cut the gains in half due to the fact we already have an arena, you MIGHT be able to make the math work with some positive assumptions.
But consider the original scenario of CalgaryNEXT. The City of Calgary contributes a billion dollars to the facility and area, and we're hoping to get, in a best estimate, $250 million of gain in property values but we lose a similar amount of property value for the houses around the Saddledome.
In the Vic Park scenario, it makes a lot more sense. Note that the authors discuss this exact scenario:
Quote:
In addition, the estimated dollar value of the intangible benefits generated by Nationwide Arena is biased up because the facility is located in downtown Columbus and we are unable to disentangle the effect of proximity to downtown Columbus from the effect of proximity to Nationwide Arena
in this setting. In addition, nationwide Arena is the primary element of a long term, far reaching, integrated urban redevelopment program. Few sports facilities in North America have been designed and built this carefully.
This suggests that working with the City on an integrated redevelopment program is the ONLY possible way a public subsidy to an arena makes sense. I note that Columbus' arena is privately funded, with the City providing the amenities, zoning, and "vision" to that area. If Calgary gets the same deal that Columbus got, I would be ecstatic.
The latest developments and the City's stance where they provide a smaller public subsidy on the financing side, but work on developing the area around the arena makes an extreme amount of sense to me, and it would seem that the author of the paper puts Columbus' model of the arena district in his model.
Thanks for the paper though. I can somewhat see a correlation between housing prices and "intangible value". Imo it is somewhat weak, but I would say that if you add the intangible value of this study to the studies talking about tangible value, the net gain is really a wash at best.
Last edited by Regorium; 09-13-2017 at 08:41 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Regorium For This Useful Post:
I’m honestly shocked seeing so many people in Calgary and flames fans fighting this. The Flames ARE Calgary
That simply isn't true any longer (if it ever was).
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Makarov For This Useful Post:
I’m honestly shocked seeing so many people in Calgary and flames fans fighting this. The Flames ARE Calgary
And the Coyotes are NOT Glendale/Phoenix, yet Arizona might actually make two disastrous stadium deals to keep them. Far be it from us to enjoy our firefighters, libraries, and prompt ambulance services.
Don't you know? This was all part of Ken King's genius plan. AND IT WORKED!!!
He might have a bit of a point. Look if nenshi gets reelected with 70+ of the vote the flames know they can't push him too hard but if he gets less than 50 the flames know there actually might be appetite for public dollars.
The Flames charity work is great but it gets brought up an absurd amount of time. Virtually every big employer does something community wise and either through their employees or corporate donations add a ton to the community.
If you're going to base who gets handouts based on who does the most for the community - then you should be supporting the companies who employee the most people around town as they are keeping people from needing charity funding to survive.
My point was, Kerr likely feels there's more to this than just losing his job.
Ive listened to the guy, he's more than passionate about his charity work.
My point was, Kerr likely feels there's more to this than just losing his job.
Ive listened to the guy, he's more than passionate about his charity work.
Yup and he also feels passionately about sports as a key part of a city.
I don't think his opinion is much to do with the fact he would perhaps lose his job. It is an authentic reflection of deep feelings he has for sports.
I'm actually more likely to vote for Nenshi now than I was a week ago. Sure, he's a preening blowhard who personifies some of the worst traits of social media culture. But between him and a person like Murray Edwards, it's no contest. I'll vote Nenshi just to spite Edwards and his ugly tactics.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
The Following User Says Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post: