artvandelay
Active Member
This is well drawn set.
Calgary Event Centre | 36.85m | 11s | CSEC | HOK
- Thread starter Meikkhaell
- Start date
Unknown User
New Member
I know the discussion has moved on but the second statement here is egregious to me. In what way are the Flames "players/staff/premium" users bankrolling the facility?
Regardless of the sell job from our wonderful politicians, the CSEC portion of the funding is:
- $40 million upfront
- $17 million annual lease payment, escalating 1% per year
That's it, that's all we get, from CSEC and the Event Center. No other operating revenue, no property tax, no parking fees.
The reason nobody cares when a private entity builds a private office building with a private parkade is that the public isn't subsidizing that to the tune of half a billion dollars (+ the $310M loan we are taking out on their behalf to fund their portion of the capital)
Look, I get it, you love the Flames, you want them to stay in Calgary, you see this deal as being the last best way of keeping them here and you are okay with your tax dollars being spent on it. Sure. Is it a "good deal" overall for Calgarians? Maybe? But it's disingenuous to state CSEC is doing us any favors in regards to funding this thing or that their design wants should outweigh the design wants of the public.
adamyyc
Active Member
I actually started responding to the “bankrolling” comment but decided to leave it unsaid. Suffice to say, I agree with you. The taxpayer is bankrolling this thing via the City and Province, and therefore, the design should reflect that. Give me a building that is inviting on all 4 sides, not one with a parkade wall.
Tothewest
Active Member
The conversation had steered towards the wealthiest of calgarians buying suites and premium, that's the reference to bankrolling, not the players and staff. You can disagree all you want, when you pay $500k a yr for one, you're going to get premium parking. They have it right now, the benefit isn't going to disappear while being expected to pay more.
We'll just agree to disagree on the rest, each party views its contribution through a different lense. CSEC claims they are contributing 50%, because the event center holds plenty of events that have nothing to do with CSEC teams. The city obviously had plans to build an event center irregardless of the flames or CSEC, so that the city can attract events. How were they paying for that then? Businesses view their ROI through monetary valuations, thus their investment payback is through tickets, sponsorships, premium, ect.. Cities dont operate like businesses, they collect taxes, and then invest those taxes in infrastructure and amenities council feels citizens will enjoy. There's no direct monetary payback in plenty of things the city invests in. In this case, the amenity has a private tenant which is investing in its share of the facility. To the tune of $700M+ over the 35 years, If you dont like how council unanimously spends it's money, vote them out when you have the chance.
Tothewest
Active Member
This is why the city hired CAA Icon, to represent the city's interest in something the average citizen and city knows nothing about. If they and the Flames agree that the EC needs X,Y,Z amenities to be world class, much like how we build state of the art LRT stations, bridges, libraries, ect... you can debate it of course, but ultimately, these are things EVERY modern facility has
Does the BMO lookin inviting on all 4 sides? Saddledome? You're house? Any tower of any kind? you're setting unrealistic expectations
Last edited:
Duck Lightning
Active Member
From what I remember (I cant find the file) the parking requirement under bylaw for a coliseum (as it's known in the bylaw) is roughly 10,000 parking stalls but no new parking was required because of relaxations triggered by transit. It made note that a 200 stall parkade would be required in the future once lands to the north had been developed. The exact parking stall count of the parkade in the previous deal was officially counted at 192 public stalls. It's also quite possible that the retaining of the Saddledome parkade this time around is meant to lessen the drop in parking revenue the Stampede will get from losing the stalls where the event centre is being built as the Saddledome land including the parkade is being transferred to the Stampede in exchange for the Event Centre land.
Also the reason why CAA Icon was brought on is obviously because CMLC was in way over their head last time around with design problems requiring multiple DP amendments, the project being constantly overbudget, and the overall distaste shown by CSEC in a city run agency with limited experience being the Development manager.
Also the reason why CAA Icon was brought on is obviously because CMLC was in way over their head last time around with design problems requiring multiple DP amendments, the project being constantly overbudget, and the overall distaste shown by CSEC in a city run agency with limited experience being the Development manager.
Last edited:
Duck Lightning
Active Member
Calgary Event Centre: City quells concerns about conflict of interest
The awarding of Calgary’s Event Centre project management contract went through a stringent purchasing process, the City of Calgary said, but that doesn’t mean some aren’t worried about a conflict …
livewirecalgary.com
Tothewest
Active Member
I do find some of these "stir the pot" sports business articles to be at least mildly funny, at least when it comes to this industryCalgary Event Centre: City quells concerns about conflict of interest
The awarding of Calgary’s Event Centre project management contract went through a stringent purchasing process, the City of Calgary said, but that doesn’t mean some aren’t worried about a conflict …
1) Finding a university professor for a key quote is so lazy, could be a career academic with zero industry experience
2) If you do even a little research into the arena/stadium "project management" field (key is project here, not construction), there really arent a lot of options. CAA, Legends, AECOM would be the only 3 i can find, at this scale. For a whole host of reasons, namely geography and current business, having only one of them bid shouldn't be surprising. If you're going to question a city on its bidding processes for an arena project manager, given its the EXACT same process, why not question them and dig into every transport, civic, athletic project. The rules don't change, it's law
3) I would actually openly support a project manager being the same company that helped a contract at this magnitude. It's such a small cost in comparison to the actually architecture/construction, and really has no bearing on total cost or subtrades given the plan all along was to probably use the same architect/construction team who would be ultimately responsible for selecting those. You hired them to build a relationship with both parties and thus got a deal, wouldnt the value in that relationship and trust serve the project well going into shovels?
artvandelay
Active Member
One look at the average salaries in media and academia tells you all you need to know.
Tothewest
Active Member
lol, valid. What concerns are being "quelled", when not one other news group is talking about it. It's just indicative of the lazy state of media now...writer has narrative, seeks problem to validate narrative, creates public outcry from a source who prequalifies his entire statement with "doesn't know the specifics of how the decisions was made"One look at the average salaries in media and academia tells you all you need to know.
. It's procurement for a public real estate project with a private tenant, why call a sports economist? Call a development expert
Urban4Lyfe
New Member
It's amazing and not at all a coincidence that a new user appears to defend the honor of CSEC.
badc0ffee
Active Member
Tothewest is not really a new member. They have been here commenting about the arena for a while. I won't speculate on their motives, but they actually seem to have some subject area expertise (e.g., the discussion about ramps for unloading trucks).
Last edited:
Tothewest
Active Member
lol, I couldn't give two shits about the arena tenant, but yes, bc the arena debate is BRAND NEW and thus someone who joined months ago to discuss an approved project 7 years-on MUST be a mole carrying water for CSEC? As i've said in many posts, seen enough sports facilities of all types as a fan over the years that I decided to add to the dialogue with things i've actually seen, versus lobbing in my own personal thoughts. Can also find me at the airport thread, feel free to question my motives there too
PS: that article posted by DuckLightning was questioning city procurement and had nothing to do with CSEC, but you're clearly bothered by what "side" people are on, so yes i'm on the "bad" team
Last edited:
artvandelay
Active Member
You can't fool us bruh - we know you're a corporate shill for those fatcats at CSEC and the Airport Authority.
The Familia
Active Member
Would be nice if they hung some banners or commissioned some murals for those walls in the last picture.