HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Calgary > Transportation & Infrastructure


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #3281  
Old Posted Nov 29, 2019, 5:14 PM
Mazrim's Avatar
Mazrim Mazrim is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 1,292
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cage View Post
The problem with the economic studies on sports venues is the assumption that entertainment dollars would be spent elsewhere in the same geographic region. If there was no new arena, the money would still be spent in Calgary.

This is partially because there are no studies on what happens to dollars spent on local entertainment when that entertainment is taken away. Does the person switch their season tickets from hockey to opera, or do they take the family to Mexico for an all-inclusive hotel.
I always figured if this was such a lucrative venture, and the amount of supposed financial benefit as significant as some claim, then they would jumping over each other to build new buildings themselves. Certainly if they are concerned with maximizing their profits, you'd think they would commission these studies and build these arenas themselves to relieve us of our spending money as much as possible.

That's why I'm so skeptical of the process. They know cities have been willing to fork over cash in the past so they keep doing it even when they can afford to do it all themselves.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3282  
Old Posted Nov 29, 2019, 5:56 PM
MalcolmTucker MalcolmTucker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 10,731
The secret is most arena projects are not lucrative, as you end up with a bunch of interwoven market failures that make it not work. The simple one is if you want to cover capital costs, less events use the space unless you have a market which will fill it from day 1 while covering the cost of capital. And as less events use it, the capital contribution from the remaining events goes up, causing less events. So if we want a facility like this while being in a market too small to make it economic, the gap has to be bridged.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3283  
Old Posted Nov 29, 2019, 9:44 PM
Corndogger Corndogger is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 5,098
Quote:
Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker View Post
The secret is most arena projects are not lucrative, as you end up with a bunch of interwoven market failures that make it not work. The simple one is if you want to cover capital costs, less events use the space unless you have a market which will fill it from day 1 while covering the cost of capital. And as less events use it, the capital contribution from the remaining events goes up, causing less events. So if we want a facility like this while being in a market too small to make it economic, the gap has to be bridged.
If CSEC had said they would pay 100% of the costs of CalgaryNEXT including clean up costs in the area would the city have agreed to let them go ahead? I don't think they would because they and the Stampede board would never agree to giving up complete control over such a facility. So at least in Calgary I don't see a 100% private facility ever happening.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3284  
Old Posted Nov 29, 2019, 10:21 PM
MalcolmTucker MalcolmTucker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 10,731
The Stampede Board doesn't have control over the Saddledome. Yeah, as a private facility I am 100% sure the city would have approved CalgaryNEXT. Even if the city was still on hook for land costs. It might have died due to outstanding reclamation issues, but would have been resurrected somewhere else but substantially similar.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3285  
Old Posted Dec 1, 2019, 10:04 PM
People_talking People_talking is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Calgary AB // Moncton NB
Posts: 19
I still maintain my stance that a new arena would bring more concerts, shows etc. to the city hence bringing more dollars to our economy through things like tourism and such. It'll also be nice to have some of the dirt lots in Victoria Park developed. I also have confidence that our city planners and councillors are smart enough to realize that both the arena and Green Line are important projects for the city and I'm fairly confident both will be built (if not started on construction) within the next 5-10 years.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3286  
Old Posted Dec 1, 2019, 10:19 PM
MalcolmTucker MalcolmTucker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 10,731
Quote:
Originally Posted by People_talking View Post
I still maintain my stance that a new arena would bring more concerts, shows etc. to the city hence bringing more dollars to our economy through things like tourism and such. It'll also be nice to have some of the dirt lots in Victoria Park developed. I also have confidence that our city planners and councillors are smart enough to realize that both the arena and Green Line are important projects for the city and I'm fairly confident both will be built (if not started on construction) within the next 5-10 years.
Whether it does or not, it does not change that the city makes $0 of revenue from on economic growth, unless the city raises its tax take, due to how municipal taxation works in Alberta.



I agree that both will be built.
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Calgary > Transportation & Infrastructure
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:39 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.