darwink
Senior Member
The flames are paying to use it the arena and the payments wont pay back the capital. convention centre clients are paying to use it and the payments wont pay back the capital.
What’s the difference?
- Thread starter Meikkhaell
- Start date
What’s the difference?
DougB
Active Member
Convention Center clients likely won't be able to capture a capital gain from the facility. The valuation of CSEC will rise by hundreds of millions. The City should have received an equity stake in CSEC to participate in that increase valuation.
trtcttc
Active Member
It’s also not just the Flames, with the new arena, they’re able to host more high-profile non-hockey events as well. All of which goes to the CESC
darwink
Senior Member
sure the convention centre clients do, they select the facility which most benefits themselves each year or two years. That it is a transaction which happens 15 times a year for 35 years versus once doesn’t mean value is not created. It is just spread out so much that it is harder to get worked up about 525 companies getting a subsidy of $1 million each and it going directly to their bottom line and valuation versus 1 company getting a subsidy of $525 million.
MichaelS
Senior Member
I've been seeing videos of the Vegas Sphere online... If we are going to give a major subsidy to an arena, let's really lean into it and use a couple billion of that surplus to do a sphere here.
boreal96
New Member
ugh not a fan of the sphere but that's just me.
trtcttc
Active Member
It's a great design for Vegas. They've got pyramids, mini New York, mini Eiffel Tower, Roman style palaces, etc. It's meant to be an area with weird buildings and attractions. For us, it'd just look so out of place with the city that surrounds it. Not to mention the purpose of the sphere is the massive screen on the outside. No way we could do that here unless no one in the surrounding area needs to sleep.
haltcatchfire
Senior Member
Isn’t the main purpose of the sphere that it’s an 18,000 seat amphitheater?
MichaelS
Senior Member
And isn't the main purpose of the area our new arena is going to be an entertainment district, not necessarily a place where you are assured a quiet, good night's sleep....
CalgaryTiger
Senior Member
You don't need to do the sphere here. Just do a cool screen or screens. The Olympic plaza changes are a big opportunity. So is the event centre and stampede trail.
Mountain Man
Senior Member
If we make the public face of the new arena a giant LED screen like the Sphere has, that would definitely be cool, though I'm curious how well it can handle the 100 degree temperature swings a surface in the sun can experience.
trtcttc
Active Member
But you could seat 18,000 in a traditional theatre. The reason they did the sphere is to have the wraparound screens inside/outside, which just doesn't look as nice if the thing is not spherical.
I don't think Calgary is trying to build a Vegas style entertainment district, where it's a single use. Most cities are trying to revitalize downtowns by building mixed-use communities, which inherently involves people living (and sleeping) nearby.
badc0ffee
Active Member
I'm still not clear on the concept of an entertainment district in a city like ours. The cities that can make it work are either large enough to already be a tourism destination/population centre, or grew it organically like Austin, Nashville or New Orleans.
Not only is Calgary not that large, it's also isolated. I can't imagine that many people coming in from out of town (beyond like Alberta and Saskatchewan) for sports and concerts. But maybe I'm wrong.
I can see the need for hotels near the convention centre and for something like the Stampede. But this development would definitely also need a local residential population to be viable.
Not only is Calgary not that large, it's also isolated. I can't imagine that many people coming in from out of town (beyond like Alberta and Saskatchewan) for sports and concerts. But maybe I'm wrong.
I can see the need for hotels near the convention centre and for something like the Stampede. But this development would definitely also need a local residential population to be viable.
Urb
Active Member
You are missing one crucial detail - we have the oldest and most visited national park in Canada on our doorstep. Generally, tourists fly to Calgary and leave immediately for the mountains. The tourist stream is already established, we just need to figure out a way to keep them here for a few days before heading west.
MichaelS
Senior Member
I feel it is a missed opportunity to not lean into the western theme hard for our urban design on the Stampede Grounds. Everything from 12th Avenue through to the 17th Avenue connector. Make the grounds feel like a bit of a theme park, with wooden plank sidewalks and swinging saloon doors. Put in a big cowboy bar (either move Cowboys over to front the street, or see if Ranchmans wants to move onto the grounds, etc...) a cafe that serves mini donuts and deep fried oreos and turkey legs year round, etc... Basically, allow tourists to get a taste of Stampede, even if they can't make it for the actual 10 days in July.
Another "high street" of patterned concrete and the odd retail shop (or none at all in the case of the BMO centre) will not be much of an enterainment district, as it will look exactly like 2-3 other districts in every other city already. Why not lean into the thing that is unique to Calgary, and may be something that actually creates some interest for out of towners to come check out.
Another "high street" of patterned concrete and the odd retail shop (or none at all in the case of the BMO centre) will not be much of an enterainment district, as it will look exactly like 2-3 other districts in every other city already. Why not lean into the thing that is unique to Calgary, and may be something that actually creates some interest for out of towners to come check out.