Scotia Place | 36.85m | 11s | CSEC | HOK

[1875]

RIP

 

[CBBarnett]

It is hard to envision what the entire district will look like when all is finished. The rendering above is one perspective. Other than the event centre, nothing else is finalized. Retail, residential and other attractions are dependent on private developers including the Stampede board. The Stampede had their own plan for an entertainment district which included the property where the event centre will be located. The original plans have changed. For sure, the area will eventually fill in around the event centre. It might look like an LA Live or a Dundas Square, it might not. We won't know until it is all finished. My concern is that the earliest construction will start is 2021, from the sounds of it. Will this take away from the completion of East Village? There is only so much development $$$ to go around for a city the size of Calgary.

Assuming it is indeed successful at attracting investment at all (above what would be happening anyways). Concerns to not finish East Village are justified - with or without the arena. Calgary's centre city has a history of mega-deals and major projects always leaving holes open. Eau Claire and the Downtown West aren't "complete" either and they have been at the tower building game for decades. Victoria Park will be as well.

I prefer smaller, mid-scale and pedestrian-oriented development for this reason. Bankview and Marda Loop were never "not complete" it is always just evolving and changing into a different state of "completeness". Same with Hillhurst-Sunnyside and the western portion of the Beltline. Mega-projects and mega-dollars breed "incomplete" neighbourhoods through huge timelines, complex financial models and the strange political nature of mega-projects (which the arenas saga is giving us yet another example of). Victoria Park's destruction from a functioning neighbourhood to a weird empty wasteland with big dreams and the occasional 40 storey tower is the result of many successive attempted mega-projects and mega-events all with cozy public and private involvements (Stampede, City, Flames etc.)

Hopefully this time around will be different, but if neighbourhood development and "completeness" was a metric to evaluate a proposed plan, every single party involved in Victoria Park's various big dreams for the last 50 years would have been fired several times over for their consistent and ongoing failure.

 

[Zoom]

I'm onboard with the whole thing. Originally I was against the arena when it was under the old proposal. This seems fair to me, and a win overall. I'm not sure how the district will turn out, bit at least it has a chance to progress into something. If they build a few smaller individual low rise buildings around it, it has a chance of being something decent.

 

[Travisty]

The big issue I have with the arena is the city putting up 50% of the cost, and only getting 2% of the ticket sales.There is a need for an arena but essentially the Flames get 100% of the revenue, a private company. The River district tax dollars that will be generated as a byproduct of the arena and shouldn't have be negotiated or leveraged in the deal with the Stampede/Flames. The majority of that land in the district is owned by the city. Just my thought. Anyways, been a long time observer but finally signed up a couple of days ago.

 

[Habanero]

I have mixed feeling s about it. I would rather they didn't leverage the Rivers district tax dollars, but it's the chicken before the gg thing. Without the new arena the rivers district likely sits idle for decades. Keep in mind that the city isn't getting 2% profit from the ticket sales, but rather 2% revenue, so it's actually not bad. Gate share before any cost factors is usually pretty low as you're guaranteed an income even if the concert or hockey game loses money.

The big issue I have with the arena is the city putting up 50% of the cost, and only getting 2% of the ticket sales.There is a need for an arena but essentially the Flames get 100% of the revenue, a private company. The River district tax dollars that will be generated as a byproduct of the arena shouldn't have be negotiated or leveraged in the deal with the Stampede/Flames. The majority of that land in the district is owned by the city. Just my thought. Anyways, been a long time observer but finally signed up a couple of days ago.

 

[ByeByeBaby]

What seems to be most criticized so far, to not quote the 400 million dollars of estimated benefits in today's dollars - despite their return as a cash-flow over the next 35 years - would fail any introductory finance class' first quiz. I am excited to see if they will admit to why they did their math incorrect over the coming days.

I suspect so that they could put out a benefit number bigger than the cost number, and hope nobody notices in the entire week given for debate and response. We're supposed to invest $275 million based not on financial statements, but a single page infographic. I wouldn't buy a new fridge with documentation this flimsy. Given even the most generous terms, like a 2% discount rate, and impossible assumptions, like all revenue streams begin immediately once the arena opens, the "benefits" of the City's $275 million investment is around... $275 million. Once you account for actual real world discount rates (say 5%, although you could use higher) and the fact that the largest revenue stream, incremental taxes, will ramp up gradually over time, the benefit of the $275 million investment is probably more like $160-180 million. So at the same time that the City is cutting $60 million in services to residents, we're agreeing to throw away $100 million, for the benefit of a British billionaire.

I continue to be appalled by the concept of private naming rights on buildings built with substantial public input. The City of Calgary is spending $275 million on this project -- how does whatever bank or media company get to put their name on it for a contribution less than 10% of that? People don't like paying taxes because they don't appreciate the benefit, and then the big showy things that could be pointed to (from this to the National Music Centre to the programs and buildings at the University of Calgary) as investments made with taxes get renamed so that companies get the glory. It's penny wise and pound foolish.

 

[goodcitywhenfinished]

Is the design for the event center final? Who is the architect?

 

[Patrick.1980]

Is the design for the event center final? Who is the architect?

One of the renderings came from Rosetti. I don't know if they are already chosen to do this or not.

 

[Social Justice]

RIP
View attachment 195966

I really hope the city can find a way to keep the Saddledome.

It's an iconic building in Calgary.

 

[Atticus]

It's a shame, but probably unavoidable. They'll be looking to get everything they can out the new arena. Someone mentioned making it into the world largest skate park, or X games facility or something. Who knows.

I really hope the city can find a way to keep the Saddledome.

It's an iconic building in Calgary.

 

[MichaelS]

I suspect so that they could put out a benefit number bigger than the cost number, and hope nobody notices in the entire week given for debate and response. We're supposed to invest $275 million based not on financial statements, but a single page infographic. I wouldn't buy a new fridge with documentation this flimsy. Given even the most generous terms, like a 2% discount rate, and impossible assumptions, like all revenue streams begin immediately once the arena opens, the "benefits" of the City's $275 million investment is around... $275 million. Once you account for actual real world discount rates (say 5%, although you could use higher) and the fact that the largest revenue stream, incremental taxes, will ramp up gradually over time, the benefit of the $275 million investment is probably more like $160-180 million. So at the same time that the City is cutting $60 million in services to residents, we're agreeing to throw away $100 million, for the benefit of a British billionaire.

I continue to be appalled by the concept of private naming rights on buildings built with substantial public input. The City of Calgary is spending $275 million on this project -- how does whatever bank or media company get to put their name on it for a contribution less than 10% of that? People don't like paying taxes because they don't appreciate the benefit, and then the big showy things that could be pointed to (from this to the National Music Centre to the programs and buildings at the University of Calgary) as investments made with taxes get renamed so that companies get the glory. It's penny wise and pound foolish.

The Net Present Value of this deal for The City was said to be a negative $47 million during the presentation to Council late last night, but that number was going to be cofirmed.

 

[Mountain Man]

One of the renderings came from Rosetti. I don't know if they are already chosen to do this or not.

I think they submitted a proposal, or were engaged to do some preliminary work so CSEC could get some numbers and all that.

 

[haltcatchfire]

If you want more details than the infographic seek them out.

https://pub-calgary.escribemeetings.com/FileStream.ashx?DocumentId=99772
https://pub-calgary.escribemeetings.com/FileStream.ashx?DocumentId=99773
https://pub-calgary.escribemeetings.com/FileStream.ashx?DocumentId=99774
https://pub-calgary.escribemeetings.com/FileStream.ashx?DocumentId=99775

I suspect so that they could put out a benefit number bigger than the cost number, and hope nobody notices in the entire week given for debate and response. We're supposed to invest $275 million based not on financial statements, but a single page infographic. I wouldn't buy a new fridge with documentation this flimsy. Given even the most generous terms, like a 2% discount rate, and impossible assumptions, like all revenue streams begin immediately once the arena opens, the "benefits" of the City's $275 million investment is around... $275 million. Once you account for actual real world discount rates (say 5%, although you could use higher) and the fact that the largest revenue stream, incremental taxes, will ramp up gradually over time, the benefit of the $275 million investment is probably more like $160-180 million. So at the same time that the City is cutting $60 million in services to residents, we're agreeing to throw away $100 million, for the benefit of a British billionaire.

I continue to be appalled by the concept of private naming rights on buildings built with substantial public input. The City of Calgary is spending $275 million on this project -- how does whatever bank or media company get to put their name on it for a contribution less than 10% of that? People don't like paying taxes because they don't appreciate the benefit, and then the big showy things that could be pointed to (from this to the National Music Centre to the programs and buildings at the University of Calgary) as investments made with taxes get renamed so that companies get the glory. It's penny wise and pound foolish.

 

[DougB]

It's a shame, but probably unavoidable. They'll be looking to get everything they can out the new arena. Someone mentioned making it into the world largest skate park, or X games facility or something. Who knows.

Use it to build indoor Funtier World. Long term Calgarians will understand the reference.

 

[Alex_YYC]

I find the name rights thing cheesy, but if it helps fund a project I can live with it. I wonder if the naming rights trend will eventually die off? It seems everything has naming rights, so much now that most people don't even notice anymore.

I suspect so that they could put out a benefit number bigger than the cost number, and hope nobody notices in the entire week given for debate and response. We're supposed to invest $275 million based not on financial statements, but a single page infographic. I wouldn't buy a new fridge with documentation this flimsy. Given even the most generous terms, like a 2% discount rate, and impossible assumptions, like all revenue streams begin immediately once the arena opens, the "benefits" of the City's $275 million investment is around... $275 million. Once you account for actual real world discount rates (say 5%, although you could use higher) and the fact that the largest revenue stream, incremental taxes, will ramp up gradually over time, the benefit of the $275 million investment is probably more like $160-180 million. So at the same time that the City is cutting $60 million in services to residents, we're agreeing to throw away $100 million, for the benefit of a British billionaire.

I continue to be appalled by the concept of private naming rights on buildings built with substantial public input. The City of Calgary is spending $275 million on this project -- how does whatever bank or media company get to put their name on it for a contribution less than 10% of that? People don't like paying taxes because they don't appreciate the benefit, and then the big showy things that could be pointed to (from this to the National Music Centre to the programs and buildings at the University of Calgary) as investments made with taxes get renamed so that companies get the glory. It's penny wise and pound foolish.