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

Do you support the proposal for the new arena?

  • Yes

    Votes: 103 67.3%

  • No

    Votes: 40 26.1%

  • Maybe

    Votes: 10 6.5%
  • Total voters
    153
What even is a Entertainment and Cultural District anyways? People on here talk about this like it's an actual thing rather than a marketing term.

There exist cultural districts that are places where a bunch of civic cultural assets like theatres and arts complexes and museums are in the same area, like the Place des Spectacles in Montreal. We have one of these already, and it's downtown around Olympic Plaza / Arts Commons / Glenbow; an 18,000 seat arena isn't necessarily that relevant.

There exist entertainment districts that have lots of nightlife; these usually grow organically over time since there is an economy of agglomeration ('Area X has a lot of bars, I'll go there with my friends' / 'Area X has a lot of foot traffic, I'll open up a bar'). West 6th in Austin, for instance. As I said, these grow organically often in former industrial, derelict or red light districts; there need to be small cheap places to rent, which enable 'weird' new ideas, which might become successful and cool, and then the area develops/gentrifies around that as underground places become successful establishments and eventually landmarks. To the degree that this happens in Calgary, it's on 17th and Stephen Ave (and maybe to a lesser extent on other high streets and little pockets like 10th Ave). Bylaws exist, IIRC, to prevent a full-fledged district from actually emerging here because of the bad experience with 'Electric Avenue' in the late 80s/early 90s. In any case, the existence of a massive arena and big institutional landlords is the opposite of what creates this sort of an entertainment district. There are a couple of counterexamples where there is a massive sports venue in an entertainment district -- Nashville in particular, maybe Toronto if you squint at the SkyDome. In these cases, the entertainment districts came first; both cities have key entertainment venues (the Ryman / the Royal Alex) that were old and established enough to be listed historic resources decades before the sports venues broke ground.

If it wasn't part of the promotion for the hockey arena Event Centre built entirely around an ice sheet and hockey dressing rooms, then who in the world would be saying "Calgary needs an Entertainment and Cultural District"? There are people who say we need a better hockey rink or better arena concert facilities -- I agree, although not at any cost. There are people who say we need better cultural facilities -- I agree as well, but those aren't a part of this project and belong in the actual cultural district. There are people who say we need better nightlife -- hey, I agree as well here, but these need to come organically to our high streets, especially with more density and better supports like encouraging outdoor dining via parklets. The only people who actually say "Calgary needs an Entertainment and Cultural District" in and of itself are people who want a cheque to build this district, although apparently $300 million isn't a large enough cheque. They would call it a "Magic Beanstalk District" if they thought it would get more support; it would be a more accurate name.
 
PrairiePeaks said:
Long time reader on Skyrise. Rarely post. I am a bit surprised at some of the hyper partisan rhetoric here. I see some contributors sticking to the facts (the ones we know of) and having constructive discourse. I enjoy reading those. Many, however, pretend to think they know what CSEC or Gondek is thinking, or hypothesize about what other people would have done, and then extrapolate that into a particular self-serving narrative. I get it's fun but its not particularly useful.

On this forum there should be consensus that not proceeding with an Event Centre/Arena is a negative outcome for Calgary. Lost development opportunities for the area, no real Entertainment and Cultural District, continued development limbo for the Stampede, etc etc the list of obvious points goes on. To pretend that Victoria Park will see capital investment on its own to further increase density in and around Downtown, and that an entertainment district will magically grow organically, without a new arena, is wishful thinking (to put it mildly).

Blame the side you want, have an apathetic "Whatever, the Flames don't do anything for the city (just check out the Flames Foundation webpage as one example to see the positive contributions they make to our community) or blame both sides (probably the most reasonable position). Regardless, this is a huge blow to the revitalization efforts of our downtown and the city as a whole. Pretending otherwise is disingenuous.
Click to expand...
I agree with PrariePeaks.
 
If development in the area were guaranteed, then it would already be an entertainment district! There has been talk about turning 4st into an entertainment district long before CSEC came forward with CalgaryNEXT. The Anchor development was supposed to be a Margaritaville for fuck sakes! A new arena would maybe help spur development, but it's certainly no guarantee.
 
ByeByeBaby said:
What even is a Entertainment and Cultural District anyways? People on here talk about this like it's an actual thing rather than a marketing term.

There exist cultural districts that are places where a bunch of civic cultural assets like theatres and arts complexes and museums are in the same area, like the Place des Spectacles in Montreal. We have one of these already, and it's downtown around Olympic Plaza / Arts Commons / Glenbow; an 18,000 seat arena isn't necessarily that relevant.

There exist entertainment districts that have lots of nightlife; these usually grow organically over time since there is an economy of agglomeration ('Area X has a lot of bars, I'll go there with my friends' / 'Area X has a lot of foot traffic, I'll open up a bar'). West 6th in Austin, for instance. As I said, these grow organically often in former industrial, derelict or red light districts; there need to be small cheap places to rent, which enable 'weird' new ideas, which might become successful and cool, and then the area develops/gentrifies around that as underground places become successful establishments and eventually landmarks. To the degree that this happens in Calgary, it's on 17th and Stephen Ave (and maybe to a lesser extent on other high streets and little pockets like 10th Ave). Bylaws exist, IIRC, to prevent a full-fledged district from actually emerging here because of the bad experience with 'Electric Avenue' in the late 80s/early 90s. In any case, the existence of a massive arena and big institutional landlords is the opposite of what creates this sort of an entertainment district. There are a couple of counterexamples where there is a massive sports venue in an entertainment district -- Nashville in particular, maybe Toronto if you squint at the SkyDome. In these cases, the entertainment districts came first; both cities have key entertainment venues (the Ryman / the Royal Alex) that were old and established enough to be listed historic resources decades before the sports venues broke ground.

If it wasn't part of the promotion for the hockey arena Event Centre built entirely around an ice sheet and hockey dressing rooms, then who in the world would be saying "Calgary needs an Entertainment and Cultural District"? There are people who say we need a better hockey rink or better arena concert facilities -- I agree, although not at any cost. There are people who say we need better cultural facilities -- I agree as well, but those aren't a part of this project and belong in the actual cultural district. There are people who say we need better nightlife -- hey, I agree as well here, but these need to come organically to our high streets, especially with more density and better supports like encouraging outdoor dining via parklets. The only people who actually say "Calgary needs an Entertainment and Cultural District" in and of itself are people who want a cheque to build this district, although apparently $300 million isn't a large enough cheque. They would call it a "Magic Beanstalk District" if they thought it would get more support; it would be a more accurate name.
Click to expand...

its called the rivers district, it currently includes the stampede grounds, the convention center, the arena and a casino and its a couple blocks from
the music center.

a new arena probably brings with it a hotel and more street front. the cmlc plans are for the remainder of vic park to be mostly residential.

i get the argument that an entertainment district is best grown organically but youre running with alot of loose facts and rhetoric about what the goal is here with this rivers district.

i find it ironic that while promoting an inner city revival the powers that be have more or less sunk the entire neighbourhood and significantly hindered the success of all the investments made or planned for the area.

id like to see the same level of scrutiny applied to the city building expenditures made on the south leg of the greenline. exactly why do people who made a decision to live 30km from downtown need my taxes to pay for a $3 ride to an part of the city that has no merit or priority in their lifestyle choice. meanwhile my 5 min bus ride into the city costs the same $3.

how many people with their hair on fire over using taxpayer dollars for this building dont pay taxes? or how many are living in areas where a $5bn road helps them get from their home to costco in 5mins.

the city isnt going to get an arena for $300mm on their own, neither is CSEC.

i truly hope for the betterment of the city this deal eventually gets done and we can enjoy the further build out of what should be a great inner city.
 
I think it would help to remember that the cultural and entertainment district will STILL HAVE AN ARENA. The exact same number of arenas as has always been planned. It is just a block south of where the planned one was supposed to go. Yes, it doesn't have much for retail at the ground level, but neither did the surface parking lot the plan called for at its location.
 
1875 said:
id like to see the same level of scrutiny applied to the city building expenditures made on the south leg of the greenline. exactly why do people who made a decision to live 30km from downtown need my taxes to pay for a $3 ride to an part of the city that has no merit or priority in their lifestyle choice. meanwhile my 5 min bus ride into the city costs the same $3.

how many people with their hair on fire over using taxpayer dollars for this building dont pay taxes? or how many are living in areas where a $5bn road helps them get from their home to costco in 5mins.
Click to expand...
Thankfully we live in a democracy where people's ability to participate in the political process is not based on their wealth (and, by extension, the amount of taxes they pay).

There is a fundamental difference between public funds going toward transportation infrastructure and being used to subsidize the business interests of a for-profit corporation. Furthermore, the Greenline has gone through years of transparent consultation and planning. The arena deal came together hastily, in private, and rammed through council with little debate. The fact that it has fallen apart is a clear demonstration of how poorly planned it was from the beginning. This is why no elected official, save Jeff Davison, wanted to touch this thing with a 10-foot poll.

In my view, the City and CSEC should go back to the drawing board, come up with a realistic plan, and actually try to build some public support around the idea (which might include putting it up for a vote).
 
imo both csec and the city are (clearly) bad actors othewise the shovels would be in the ground. that being said this project isnt getting any cheaper, supply chains and carbon taxes are the new normal so shelving it for a couple years isnt the answer.
 
PrairiePeaks said:
Blame the side you want, have an apathetic "Whatever, the Flames don't do anything for the city (just check out the Flames Foundation webpage as one example to see the positive contributions they make to our community) or blame both sides (probably the most reasonable position). Regardless, this is a huge blow to the revitalization efforts of our downtown and the city as a whole. Pretending otherwise is disingenuous.
Click to expand...
Here's another webpage to check out on the Flames Foundation:

Charity watchdog urges donors to think twice before giving to Calgary Flames Foundation​

Charity Intelligence reviewed the Flames' financial statements for the 2017 fiscal year, ranking the club's charity the worst of eight foundations attached to professional Canadian sports teams when it comes to getting the most bang per donated buck.
Click to expand...
The Flames Foundation mostly runs golf tournaments and the like for the good ol' boys to network; about 13 cents on the dollar of those go to charitable activities. The bulk of their charitable activity comes from 50/50 sales, which is stretching the definition of charitable activity; it's really the proceeds from running a lottery. It's embarassing to try to justify $300 million on a few million in charity per year; I'd happily do much charity as the Flames Foundation for half that much money.

1875 said:
how many people with their hair on fire over using taxpayer dollars for this building dont pay taxes? or how many are living in areas where a $5bn road helps them get from their home to costco in 5mins.
Click to expand...
The only one in this discussion who doesn't pay taxes is Murray Edwards, who has moved (twice) to other countries to avoid paying taxes here, and CSEC, who don't pay property taxes on the Saddledome and wouldn't pay property taxes on the new arena either.
 
ByeByeBaby said:
Here's another webpage to check out on the Flames Foundation:

The Flames Foundation mostly runs golf tournaments and the like for the good ol' boys to network; about 13 cents on the dollar of those go to charitable activities. The bulk of their charitable activity comes from 50/50 sales, which is stretching the definition of charitable activity; it's really the proceeds from running a lottery. It's embarassing to try to justify $300 million on a few million in charity per year; I'd happily do much charity as the Flames Foundation for half that much money.


The only one in this discussion who doesn't pay taxes is Murray Edwards, who has moved (twice) to other countries to avoid paying taxes here, and CSEC, who don't pay property taxes on the Saddledome and wouldn't pay property taxes on the new arena either.
Click to expand...
If your position is that the team doesn’t add value to the city and contribute significantly to the fabric of our community then fine. I think most reasonable would disagree.

And it’s been rightly pointed out that Charity Intelligence isn't a very credible organization with a slew of its own issues.
 
CBBarnett said:
This would allow the remaining land to have lower levy contribution rates and we could sell of the surplus city land in the area - thus generating more levies/taxes in the future.
Click to expand...
This is not how property taxes or community revitilization levies (not levies as you would conventionally think of them--they're payments in lieu of conventional taxes, tax increment financing, or TIF) work.
 
PrairiePeaks said:
If your position is that the team doesn’t add value to the city and contribute significantly to the fabric of our community then fine.
Click to expand...
Adding intanigible value I agree. And important enough to justify a higher public investment in a public facility than we would in a facility for just concerts, the WHL, and Lacrosse (look at Saskatoon's upcoming proposal for how much that will cost).

But value in a measurable, economic sense? Nope. Net negative.

That doesn't mean it is bad. We count on governent support to pay for many things that have a cost, that won't be covered by the market.
 
O-tac said:
Saw Gondek's press conference saying they have interest from other parties and are looking at other ways to move forward. Seems like wishful thinking.
Click to expand...
What other partners are gonna offer $300M to get a build? And how is CSEC is not going to be involved since they would be the primary tenant no matter what; that takes up majority of the days in the venue?

Just back to the political dance with these two.

days-of-our-lives.jpg
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top