[darwink]

Little Caesars doesn't use just brick on the exterior. That arena has a mix of different facade types and colours to help mask the massing. Speaking of Little Caesars, I measured and that arena and it's parkade would fit in the new expanded footprint of this new agreement (excluding the plaza between the parkade and arena)

I'm surprised it would fit, given it is more like multiple buildings than a single one.

In any case, there is a lot of underground infrastructure beyond the obvious footprint:

source:

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

 

[artvandelay]

If we get anything like Little Caesars it will be a home run!

 

[Mountain Man]

Little Caesars doesn't use just brick on the exterior. That arena has a mix of different facade types and colours to help mask the massing. Speaking of Little Caesars, I measured and that arena and it's parkade would fit in the new expanded footprint of this new agreement (excluding the plaza between the parkade and arena)

I get why they did it, I just hate when a new building tries to create a fake historic street. Little Caesars looks amazing on the inside though, that atrium between the retail and arena is pretty cool!

 

[Colinfill]

I rather walk along the outside of Little Caesars than Rogers Place any day of the week

 

[adamyyc]

Faux historic facade aside (which still fits pretty well with the surroundings), anything close to Little Caesars would be welcome! The atrium/concourse space is awesome, and the outdoor street level retail is pretty well executed.

The increase to 10-acres should mean better execution. When you look at the previous footprint (dashed line) overlaid on the new footprint, it’s obvious how much better the new layout will be for event experiences inside and outside the building.

There is actually room for outdoor plazas, which should mean opportunity for outdoor gathering/viewing on game day.

Hopefully the new layout will mean wider concourses, because they seemed tight previously.

There is now room for retail on the north side, rather than a blank wall facing future mixed use on 12 Ave.

The indoor plaza on the south side (Stampede facing) of the building along 14 Ave is so much better than a parkade, and will give event goers an indoor space to congregate. I don’t think it will be as good as the atrium/concourse that encircles the rink at Little Caesars, but it will hopefully be a space that can be open all-year round, even when there isn’t an event taking place inside the main arena, and ideally can be used as a venue on its own (in addition to providing access to the community rink).

I’m not convinced the community arena is necessary, and it seems to me it’s more of a benefit to CSEC.

I also wish the parking structure could be built across the road on the other side of 5A St, as a stand-alone structure, and that there was more opportunity for plaza space and landscaping by centring the building on the lot, but at least the parkade is on the east side of the building rather than the more prominent south side.

I’m hoping that the mixed use area in the north east corner will also be used as a temporary outdoor plaza until plans materialize (i.e., CSEC decides to build offices). It could be an opportunity for use as a unique flex space in the interim.

Excited to see the next iteration of renderings, and hoping that we will see more unique touches this time, as opposed to the sterile version we saw previously.

 

[Duck Lightning]

I also wish the parking structure could be built across the road on the other side of 5A St, as a stand-alone structure, and that there was more opportunity for plaza space and landscaping by centring the building on the lot, but at least the parkade is on the east side of the building rather than the more prominent south side.

They'll be keeping the existing Saddledome parkade this time around so I don't see why they even need an attached parkade. And there's plenty of room to the east as you said to build any additional parking if needed and that can be connected via +15

 

[artvandelay]

Stampitecture > Swoopitecture (someone needs to tell CMLC this).

 

[haltcatchfire]

They'll be keeping the existing Saddledome parkade this time around so I don't see why they even need an attached parkade. And there's plenty of room to the east as you said to build any additional parking if needed and that can be connected via +15

Attached parkade seems slated for staff and VIP, but you’re right separated and connected by a +15 makes sense but that requires either more land or just shifting it for the sake of shifting it.

 

[O-tac]

I'm still not convinced this will even happen as is. There are still factors that could derail it. CSEC could throw another hissy fit should the NDP win and walk if there are too many questions about the insane level of taxpayer exposure. Likewise the UCP could pull a bait and switch as Cabinet still needs to approve it.

 

[thommyjo]

Edmonton actually has around 300,000 less people, much more than 60. You're thinking metropolitan area… but this is entirely a municipal matter. Alberta has no metropolitan areas that receive joint funding. Our metropolitan regional councils are funded by the constituent municipalities.

Yes & no. St. Albert is a different ballgame than airdrie. It’s more connected to and closer to the city centre than other suburban communities in the west & SW. 50% of the police force lives there. The majority of people there work & study in Edmonton. So the impact of homelessness & city funding is directly tied. The historical boundaries/municipal structures just are what they are. But st Albert is just another group of neighbourhoods (Stony plan/spruce you could argue are more independent). But Edmonton is more like 1.3-1.4 still. Barely smaller than Calgary.

Even at 1mil, the funding breakdown, if proportional, would need Edmonton to be 600-700k. It’s insanely unequal.

 

[ByeByeBaby]

Our arena deal is already bringing attention to the city from big media markets elsewhere:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1653490038561439745

The Numbers Don’t Lie. Voting YES on Props 301, 302 & 303 will create the First Privately funded arena + district in Arizona history. NEW Jobs, NEW Revenues at NO COST to You or the City of Tempe. #VoteYES

Maybe Tourism Alberta can start a 'come see the chumps' campaign?

To be fair, it's not like Flames ownership has a rabid, hockey loving fanbase as diehard and willing to support their team as much as the Arizona Coyotes has to fund their arena from.

 

[Surrealplaces]

Our arena deal is already bringing attention to the city from big media markets elsewhere:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1653490038561439745

The Numbers Don’t Lie. Voting YES on Props 301, 302 & 303 will create the First Privately funded arena + district in Arizona history. NEW Jobs, NEW Revenues at NO COST to You or the City of Tempe. #VoteYES
View attachment 473966View attachment 473967

Maybe Tourism Alberta can start a 'come see the chumps' campaign?

To be fair, it's not like Flames ownership has a rabid, hockey loving fanbase as diehard and willing to support their team as much as the Arizona Coyotes has to fund their arena from.

I haven't researched all the comments in that Twitter thread, but it looks like the 'no' vote people are complaining that there are hidden costs in the yes vote, and that it will cost taxpayers in the end.

 

[CalgaryTiger]

I think it's a zero taxes but also zero in revenue from land sales. Granted I think the site in Tempe is an old land fill so there is that. Would be funny if 301 and 302 passed but not 303.

Proposition 301 — Amending the General Plan​

Resolution No. R2022.170

Title: A resolution of the City Council of the city of Tempe, Arizona, amending the General Plan 2040 for approximately 34.43 acres located at 53 S. Priest Drive and owned by the city of Tempe.

Description: Voters will approve or reject the City Council’s amendment to the General Plan 2040 Land Use Map from “Commercial” to “Mixed Use” and Residential Density Map adding “High Density – Urban Core” (more than 65 dwelling units per acre) for 34.43 acres at 53 S. Priest Drive facilitates a mixed-use project with a professional sports franchise and entertainment district.

→ What a yes or no vote means

Proposition 302 — Rezoning the property​

Ordinance No. O2022.56

Title: An ordinance of the City Council of the city of Tempe, Arizona, amending the city of Tempe zoning map, pursuant to provisions of zoning and development code part 2, chapter 1, section 2-106 and 2-107, relating to the location and boundaries of districts.

Description: Voters will approve or reject the City Council’s decision to rezone city property at 53 S. Priest Drive to MU-4 RSOD, Mixed Use District and add a Planned Area Development Overlay on 46.27 acres facilitates a mixed-use project with a professional sports franchise and entertainment district.

→ What a yes or no vote means

Proposition 303 — Entering an agreement with Bluebird Development LLC​

Ordinance No. O2022.57

Title: An ordinance of the City Council of the city of Tempe, Arizona, authorizing the mayor to execute a development and disposition agreement with Bluebird Development LLC, for the project known as the Tempe Entertainment District located at the northeast corner of Priest Drive and Rio Salado Parkway in Tempe, that also establishes policy regarding referenda involving professional sports franchises.

Description: Voters will approve or reject City Council’s decision to approve a development and disposition agreement which allows the city to sell property at 53 S. Priest Drive to Bluebird Development LLC to facilitate the development of a mixed-use project with a professional sports franchise and entertainment district.

 

[ByeByeBaby]

I haven't researched all the comments in that Twitter thread, but it looks like the 'no' vote people are complaining that there are hidden costs in the yes vote, and that it will cost taxpayers in the end.

The Tempe deal isn't great by any means; the owner is on the way sketchy side even for a professional sports owner -- they got kicked out of Glendale for not paying rent. There's around $500M in eventual public funding that Tempe's giving up, partly through site-specific sales taxes but mostly through a TIF-like mechanism where area property taxes pay for the development, which is in addition to the arena ~1800 residences, 500 hotel rooms, 300k sqft office, 100-200k sq ft retail. Some of any TIF funding is robbing Peter to pay Paul; you're funding it on taxes based on new development, but if you'd get the development somewhere anyways, you're just giving up the taxes. Tempe has a bit of an incentive in that the Valley is a multi-city metro area and if they get development that Mesa or Scottsdale would have gotten instead, they benefit -- although the net effect to the region overall is negative.

One bigger difference is that part of what the city gets in Tempe is the remediation of a landfill site. The city would do better if they did the TIF and the remediation and built non-arena stuff there on their own, but it's not a complete subsidy and it's not purely arena money. The only thing stopping our arena site from being developed here is the Stampede board's reticence, and our foreign owner's gluttonous ability to hold out for more of our public money.

 

[darwink]

that there are hidden costs in the yes vote, and that it will cost taxpayers in the end.

It is true. It looks like the Seattle deal, which if you dig is close to 100% government funded over time, even though the initial costs are incurred by 100% a corporation.

It is funny how you can spin it. Tempe's deal is probably 'worse' than ours, but to many looks 'better'.