Caution needed when mulling arena district
Plan could be boon to city, or just a handout to Flames
It was never entirely clear to what extent the idea of a new arena was intertwined with the idea of hosting the Winter Olympics and Paralympics, if at all. But it seems clear that the former idea is in no way jeopardized by the demise of the latter — quite the opposite, potentially.
Many Olympic proponents — and even many skeptics — saw the Games as a potential source of civic pride; an opportunity to feel excited about something after a recent dearth of such emotions. Such sentiments could prove to be fortuitous to the cause of a new arena and entertainment district.
The opportunity to cater to the appetite for such a vision, as well as the opportunity to be seen to be addressing downtown’s woes, might prove to be too tempting for city council. However, pitfalls abound. City council needs to proceed with caution.
It seemed obvious that despite the impasse last year between the city and the owners of the Calgary Flames, the arena issue was never truly dead. Spurred by a push from Coun. Jeff Davison, there has been considerable movement behind the scenes in getting the two sides talking once again.
In the aftermath of last week’s plebiscite, Davison declared his intention to push forward on the “vision for a new event centre and cultural entertainment district,” suggesting that such a project could generate up to $3 billion in private investment and $100 million in annual tax revenue for the city. Those numbers are surely music to council’s ears, especially given the budget numbers presented last week.
But are such numbers too good to be true? Quite possibly. What would be the city’s cost in bringing about this vision and from where will this money come? That’s not at all clear.
The new arena would be the centrepiece of the Rivers District Master Plan, which is a concept the city has already committed a great deal toward. If Calgary were to mirror the approach taken in Edmonton, it’s probably quite likely that this district could thrive.
Just last week in Edmonton, they celebrated the topping off of the 69-storey Stantec Tower, a key part of the arena district. But is this what we envision for Calgary? Given the persistently high downtown vacancy rate, and the looming addition of even more capacity via the 60-storey Telus Sky building, such an approach would only exacerbate our existing problems.
The emphasis on “cultural and entertainment” in the branding of the district implies the city’s belief or preference that office space not be a component of such a vision. The city’s public presentation on the Rivers district emphasizes shops, restaurants and other places to gather.
The lofty predictions about new tax revenue, however, stem from the assumption that this is all new business that wouldn’t otherwise exist. Of course, there are many businesses on 17th Avenue that directly benefit from hockey games and other Saddledome events. These businesses may just move to a new arena district or end up being the roadkill of the new businesses lucky enough to land there.
This may also not be the sort of development that the Calgary Flames envision. The Flames are certainly envious of what their Edmonton counterparts have managed to pull off. Moreover, the Flames had reportedly previously demanded approval over development in Victoria Park and the option to buy and develop land around the arena.
All of that said, the possibility still exists that, if done right, an arena district could complement the development in the East Village and build upon the excitement created by the new downtown library. Addressing the vibrancy and appeal of downtown is a not insignificant piece of the how-to-fix-downtown puzzle.
The possibility, though, also exists that this could be a massive handout to the Calgary Flames and could simply shuffle around existing businesses — without any significant benefit to the city’s bottom line.
Hopefully, the urge to fill the void with another feel-good idea doesn’t leave the city blind to its financial risks.