[zagox]

I know there's a lot of people attacking Gondek right now about this but I wonder if the outcome would have been ANY different had Farkas or Davison been elected Mayor? I doubt it

Farkas would have blown the thing up in a grander spectacle, probably with less emphasis on climate stuff and more talk about fiscal responsibility. Davison would have caved to any CSEC demands, probably offering to pay for not only for the solar panels and sidewalks but also put the city back on the hook for 50%+ of cost overruns. But I then he would have to take that worse deal back to Council and it would be voted down.

So I think we end up at the same place with all three options, the difference is more about the path to get there.

 

[Silence&Motion]

Between the top two contenders for the mayoralty, Gondek was the more "pro-arena" (having voted for the first deal, but not the second). IIRC, Farkas voted against both deals. Davison was the only candidate who actually promoted the arena deal as part of his mayoral campaign and got absolutely destroyed in the election.

This deal has minimal public support. The fact that Jason "Negative 45% Approval" Kenney voiced support for CSEC's side of the argument yesterday probably further tarnished it. Even with Calgary's entire columnist class pushing for it (how many pro-CSEC/pro-arena columns have come out in the last month?), CSEC's options are even narrower now than they were under Nenshi.

 

[Joborule]

Between the top two contenders for the mayoralty, Gondek was the more "pro-arena" (having voted for the first deal, but not the second). IIRC, Farkas voted against both deals. Davison was the only candidate who actually promoted the arena deal as part of his mayoral campaign and got absolutely destroyed in the election.

This deal has minimal public support. The fact that Jason "Negative 45% Approval" Kenney voiced support for CSEC's side of the argument yesterday probably further tarnished it. Even with Calgary's entire columnist class pushing for it (how many pro-CSEC/pro-arena columns have come out in the last month?), CSEC's options are even narrower now than they were under Nenshi.

Do we actually know that for certain? Social media is not a good gauge of support either.

When the original deal was announced, was there much animosity about it from the general public? When the revised deal this past summer came out, same question?

I figure by how little there was articles or any general noise that the public was against either deal, I would assume that majority of people were supportive of it, or apathetic. That's generally the case when it comes to the financial cost for any civic project isn't it? I wonder if there was any opinion polling done on this.

This didn't have the controversy the Peace Bridge had. And that was the case where the general public didn't really have an idea of what the cost for a generic bridge was in the first place. Now look at how much that bridge is appreciated, and no one is talking about the price tag.

No matter what happens in the end, and when this eventually does get built and operational, people won't care about how much it cost - as long as it doesn't become a Montréal Olympic Stadium clusterfuck.

 

[MichaelS]

I remember seeing a pretty even 50/50 split for support/opposition to the arena in 2019. The deal was so rushed, in closed sessions with few details put out, that it was difficult to even allow the public to gain a fully informed decision. I don't think support increased when the CSEC came back asking for even more money in 2021.

The amount of ink spent on this in the Herald, much of it seemingly getting some basic facts wrong, is amusing to see. I do think Gondek could have handled it a bit better, granting the special meeting of Council to have a more fullsome discussion with her council colleagues about it. This would have then allowed a more accurate picture of what happened to get out in the public view and be reported on, rather than just a few tweets and a press conference that was largely overlooked due to the timing right before Christmas.

I guess in the end, if she isn't bothered by all of the negative media, it doesn't really matter. Outcome is the same, with less time wasted. Who cares if the "journalists" at the Herald generate clicks at your expense.

 

[darwink]

Would any of them been in the position to control CPC enough to stop the conditions? With both of them promising tax cuts, would they have drawn from ever more reserves to keep the deal going?

 

[MichaelS]

Would any of them been in the position to control CPC enough to stop the conditions? With both of them promising tax cuts, would they have drawn from ever more reserves to keep the deal going?

Officially, no. I do wonder for a high profile project like this, how much arm twisting of CPC members / administration they could have exerted to remove some of the conditions.

But remember, most of these "new expenses" were the applicant teams own idea. I have spoken to a friend who was involved with the review of the arena DP. It was mentioned that CPAG actually tried to talk the applicant into a cheaper/more standard public realm material, to save costs and maintenance, but this was to be a showcase project, so no, only the best! When it got approved in November, we heard nary a complaint about the conditions. I think it wasn't until it was all settled and they actually started trying to cost it out, that they realized these would be an issue. So, it is not like a hypothetical Mayor Davison would have prevented the current situation. As pointed out above, he would just be probably much more willing to throw money at it.

 

[darwink]

Officially, no. I do wonder for a high profile project like this, how much arm twisting of CPC members / administration they could have exerted to remove some of the conditions.

But remember, most of these "new expenses" were the applicant teams own idea. I have spoken to a friend who was involved with the review of the arena DP. It was mentioned that CPAG actually tried to talk the applicant into a cheaper/more standard public realm material, to save costs and maintenance, but this was to be a showcase project, so no, only the best! When it got approved in November, we heard nary a complaint about the conditions. I think it wasn't until it was all settled and they actually started trying to cost it out, that they realized these would be an issue. So, it is not like a hypothetical Mayor Davison would have prevented the current situation. As pointed out above, he would just be probably much more willing to throw money at it.

Couldn't they have just gone through an amendment via CPC - started based on current approvals with a comfort letter from the mayor that they would throw their full support behind amendments at CPC?

 

[PrairiePeaks]

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.

 

[Silence&Motion]

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.

Why should there be consensus that not proceeding is a negative outcome? On what basis do you claim that this is a "huge blow" to revitalization efforts of "the city as a whole", let alone the downtown, when all of the evidence we have points to sports arenas never providing the benefits that are initially claimed?

I was one of the 24 people who voted against this proposal in the thread's poll right from the very beginning. This whole thing has been textbook 1980s-style terrible urban planning, from the way it was hastily put together in private, to the absolute turd of the design that was eventually produced. I have zero confidence that a sterile big box would have had anything but a negative impact on the Rivers District. Furthermore, the public should absolutely not be subsidizing a for-profit corporation.

 

[MichaelS]

Agreed. To state that the arena would have 100% ensured redevelopment of Victoria Park is pretty wishful thinking. And based on the pace of development that was occurring in Victoria Park prior to this annoucmenent in 2019, I don't think the area needed much further incentive to spur growth. Remember, the single largest residential project in the province's history (Hat Elbow River) was approved just a month or two before it was even announced that there would be a new arena deal for the Stampede grounds in 2019. How many proposals/DPs have we seen for the area since? What about the hotel RFP that was so hyped up as a sign of said spurred development, that was supposed to happen on the Cowboys Casino parking lot? Didn't that get quietly shuttered, so they could "focus" on Stampede Trail developments?

To claim there was a consensus on the benefits of this project is definitely a biased, partisan stance.

 

[MichaelS]

Couldn't they have just gone through an amendment via CPC - started based on current approvals with a comfort letter from the mayor that they would throw their full support behind amendments at CPC?

I am actually not 100% sure on this part, so if another forumer knows, feel free to add to what I am about to write.

But, I think it would require a whole new DP. The approval, and subsequent conditions attached to it, were given the standard legally required advertising period to allow any member of the public to lodge an appeal if they felt it was necessary. To change the conditions, would require a new approval and a new advertising period. Perhaps some very concerned citizens were okay with the project because of the conditions, so chose not to appeal. If those conditions were removed, they need to be given the opportunity to lodge an appeal.

Now, again, due to the high profile nature, could the mayor/council unofficially influence the SDAB?.....

 

[JonnyCanuck]

I beg to differ with the conclusion/opinion of some that sports arenas/facilities do not spur economic development around them. There are all kinds of examples around North America where this has happened. Just to name a few....
Ice District in Edmonton
Rogers Centre/Skydome in Toronto
L.A. Live in Los Angeles
The Battery in Altlanta

I believe the only reason that further economic development (residential & commercial) of east Victoria Park has not taken place sooner is that developers have been waiting to see what is moving forward with
1. Arena/Event Centre
2. BMO expansion (now underway)
3. Calgary Stampede expansion - as a year round destination

If all three of these were a go, together with close proximity to East Village, Victoria Park would be a huge magnet for development. I can't think of another location in the city where it would be bigger.

 

[O-tac]

Reading this article I feel a bit alarmed about the fate of other projects that were tied to development levies from Vic Park. Can anyone attest to the veracity of what Braid claims here? I'm still in the fuck Edwards camp but Gondek stonewalling councilors isn't good either.

Braid: Kenney blasts city for losing arena deal; a new councillor faults Gondek

The mayor let the crucial week pass with no effort to solve the problem. Arguably, she did not have that authority.

calgaryherald.com

 

[CBBarnett]

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.

Consensus is boring and not realistic in most urban development things, particularly unrealistic for questionable deals that involve huge public funding sources to benefit private, for profit industries. The closest thing this forum gets to consensus is on a statement like "I find new buildings kind of interesting, sometimes". It's not a punchy tagline for the website, but it's probably as good as we will get. Sorry to disappoint!

Reading this article I feel a bit alarmed about the fate of other projects that were tied to development levies from Vic Park. Can anyone here attest to the veracity of what Braid claims here? I'm still in the fuck Edwards camp but Gondek stonewalling councilors isn't good either.

Braid: Kenney blasts city for losing arena deal; a new councillor faults Gondek

The mayor let the crucial week pass with no effort to solve the problem. Arguably, she did not have that authority.

calgaryherald.com

The article is assuming that development will be triggered by the arena - this is of course the claim all along by CSEC. It's being regurgitated as fact here with no acknowledgement that all research and economic studies point to the opposite being true in most stadium projects. This "arena = development" assumption has been central to the debate from way back in CalgaryNext days and is conveniently forgotten here (again) that this is far from a fact, guarantee or law of urban development.

A thought exercise for the Braid here - if we were so concerned about funding public infrastructure projects from levies based on uncertain development, a good way to reduce risk would be to redirect $300M dedicated to the arena to those other projects. 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. Who knows - getting rid of the publicly-owned land in the area that could fit an arena might actually resolve the Stampede-CSEC-city stakeholder uncertainty that's likely partially to blame for much of the development potential being choked out of the in the area the past few decades.

Once again I look at Vic Park as it is - if all it took was having an arena, event spaces and a convention centre in cluster to generate redevelopment - and therefore levies - Victoria Park would have redeveloped already. If the CSEC and the Stampede were such great urban development stakeholders with great vision and great execution - again, Victoria Park would have redeveloped already.

The rest of the inner city has transformed over the same period adding tens of billions of private investment, tens of thousands of units, and all in areas with no weird arena deals.

 

[O-tac]

Consensus is boring and not realistic in most urban development things, particularly unrealistic for questionable deals that involve huge public funding sources to benefit private, for profit industries. The closest thing this forum gets to consensus is on a statement like "I find new buildings kind of interesting, sometimes". It's not a punchy tagline for the website, but it's probably as good as we will get. Sorry to disappoint!


The article is assuming that development will be triggered by the arena - this is of course the claim all along by CSEC. It's being regurgitated as fact here with no acknowledgement that all research and economic studies point to the opposite being true in most stadium projects. This "arena = development" assumption has been central to the debate from way back in CalgaryNext days and is conveniently forgotten here (again) that this is far from a fact, guarantee or law of urban development.

A thought exercise for the Braid here - if we were so concerned about funding public infrastructure projects from levies based on uncertain development, a good way to reduce risk would be to redirect $300M dedicated to the arena to those other projects. 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. Who knows - getting rid of the publicly-owned land in the area that could fit an arena might actually resolve the Stampede-CSEC-city stakeholder uncertainty that's likely partially to blame for much of the development potential being choked out of the in the area the past few days.

Once again I look at Vic Park as it is - if all it took was having an arena, event spaces and a convention centre in cluster to generate redevelopment - and therefore levies - Victoria Park would have redeveloped already. If the CSEC and the Stampede were such great urban development stakeholders with great vision and great execution - again, Victoria Park would have redeveloped already.

The rest of the inner city has transformed over the same period adding tens of billions of private investment, tens of thousands of units, and all in areas with no weird arena deals.

Thanks. Very true about other areas redeveloping sans expensive Billionaire owned arena projects. Seeing the temper tantrum that Edwards threw, and to be honest Gondek also seemed to throw a tantrum in venting on Twitter about it, I'm not sure how the stake holders will come together to make this work any time soon. Hopefully more Brad Lamb types take an interest in the area (though seeing how his Orchard project went nowhere maybe someone else).