Mountain Man
Senior Member
Wasn't the Olympics suggested by CSEC as a way to try and justify the public money for the arena? That's my recollection anyway...
I've read that Populous dropped the scope of this project when they assessed the cost, and dropped 200 square feet of space, which is how we ended up with the plaza. This project could have looked drastically different with olympics money.
As an example, Lockwood showed slides of Populous’ design for the BMO Center in Calgary, which will be completed early next year.
Populous had to take 200,000 square feet out of the building to make it fit the budget, “but the net sellable product was kept exactly what they needed,” he said. “We designed a very different product based on the trends in the industry and we created a very unique solution, but this is typically the job that we get when we show up from a master plan that doesn’t align with the cost.”
So true...it's why I pushed back on posters who reference master plans and concept designs when critiquing specific buildings upon design unveiling.....these are usually done by people who have no obligation to look at any of the functional purposes of those buildings....simply "here's how it fits in the neighborhood".Found the article I got this from:Future of Convention Centers: Outside the box design continues - VenuesNow
CRYSTAL BALL TIME: Greg O’Dell, left, president, venue management for Oak View Group, moderates a panel on “The Future of Convention Centers,” at thevenuesnow.com
Quote:
Instead of redoing the Big 4 right?So true...it's why I pushed back on posters who reference master plans and concept designs when critiquing specific buildings upon design unveiling.....these are usually done by people who have no obligation to look at any of the functional purposes of those buildings....simply "here's how it fits in the neighborhood".
Going vertical with BMO was a great decision, it achieved everything it needed, but within the existing footprint of BMO
The Big 4 is dated, but functional, unlike the Corral. Not to mention the issues building over and around the Big 4 would cause for StampedeInstead of redoing the Big 4 right?
From https://www.governing.com/archive/col-convention-center-promised-benefits-rarely-materialize.htmlPremier says she’s open to tax breaks to help hotels get built near BMO Centre
Premier Danielle Smith signalled Thursday that she's open to providing "broad-based programs" to developers.calgaryherald.com
How about removing the 4% Provincial Government Tourism Levy, and 3% Destination Marketing Fees from all hotels and short term rentals?What helps is certainty.
What is worse is promising tax breaks and then not doing it immediately.
The province may not realize but they just froze all hotel development.
Also I am sure the province will issue a report that calls on cities to put in tax incentives as the province has empowered cities to do so.
In a CRL the implementation of those types of incentives will destroy the tax differential needed to pay back the CRL funds.
Edit:
If hotels are not economic due to the current nightly average rate and occupancy, that tells me there is not a shortage. I do not think the government should be subsidizing hotel construction for many reasons but the most basic one is that it is effectively a transfer from existing hotels to their future competitors.
Now, perhaps something else could happen: a full air bnb ban accompanied by a hotel incentive, which would make the incentive a housing affordability measure.
Those are more of a collective action problem for hotels: they recognize marketing is required, but if they were to market independently they would need to spend more not less, due to free riders dropping out.How about removing the 4% Provincial Government Tourism Levy, and 3% Destination Marketing Fees from all hotels and short term rentals?
I wonder if part of the issue is the location of recently opened business hotels. Dorian/Courtyard, Residence Inn, Westley are not walking distance. And a few opened at the airport with the international expansion. Prices would definitely suggest there's no citywide shortage but not enough close to the convention centre. On the other hand, there's not much by BMO currently that it'd struggle to hit the necessary occupancy during smaller conventions or when there's nothing going on.If hotels are not economic due to the current nightly average rate and occupancy, that tells me there is not a shortage. I do not think the government should be subsidizing hotel construction for many reasons but the most basic one is that it is effectively a transfer from existing hotels to their future competitors.
Perhaps the province and city should have thought of that before going all in on the BMO.I wonder if part of the issue is the location of recently opened business hotels. Dorian/Courtyard, Residence Inn, Westley are not walking distance. And a few opened at the airport with the international expansion. Prices would definitely suggest there's no citywide shortage but not enough close to the convention centre. On the other hand, there's not much by BMO currently that it'd struggle to hit the necessary occupancy during smaller conventions or when there's nothing going on.
ObligatoryFrom https://www.governing.com/archive/col-convention-center-promised-benefits-rarely-materialize.html
“When projects fail and debt service mounts, consultants routinely conclude that the center needs a "headquarters hotel," which at the very least requires a large public subsidy. Sometimes the lack of developer interest results in the hotel being publicly owned. It's a classic example of finding yourself in a hole and continuing to dig.”
We should ask why this Herald article exists. Seems awfully convenient timing. Wasn’t the current $500M the subsidy sold as an investment to encourage private investment in hotels and such?
The place hasn’t been open a week and the province is already floating hotel tax breaks. Usually this entertainment district scheme waits a few years before trying to justify that further subsidy is needed.