Thursday, April 26, 2007
Sixteen Candles
Looks like there were two more articles in today's Edmonton Journal on the proposed Oilers arena, in addition to one yesterday that I didn't bother talking about (Tyler also did a quick post a couple days ago; here is the link). I don't know if I'll ever get to retire to my Homely House in the Misty Mountains, at this rate. The first is from Paula Simons, who after getting this fiasco all started with a suggestion from "anonymous backers" in November, has now decided she isn't too sure about the idea (she put the cart before the horse, and now she's closing the barn door after the horse is already out). The second is from Gary Lamphier, who is defensively going on the offensive after arguing that a new arena would really help get poor people out of his way. Some of the highights:
Downtown sports stadiums and hockey arenas are springing up all over North America. They have been for more than a decade, in fact. Why? Because it makes much more economic sense to build such complexes in the city centre than in the 'burbs, or on the periphery of the core, where the spinoff benefits to restaurants, bars, shops and hotels are limited.
I'd suggest that stadiums have been going up because team owners have been holding cities hostage, that the city centres he talks about were already economically and socially viable before a stadium arrived, that the research done on the economic spinoff from stadiums shows it to be grossly overrated, and that really lazy sports writers and columnists who like to stay buddy buddy with teams have been using their bully pulpits to convince citizens of the cause without actually doing the hard work necessary to support their claims. But that's just me.
Talk to urban planners in cities like Vancouver, or Denver, where downtown sports palaces have helped rejuvenate city neighbourhoods and spur development. "Generally, having BC Place Stadium and General Motors Place downtown has been very positive for Vancouver," says Michael Gordon, senior downtown planner for the City of Vancouver.
You mean the senior downtown planner for the City of Vancouver thinks that the idea likely developed by the downtown planners for the City of Vancouver was a good one? OH. MY. GOD. That is just unbelievable. What a completely reliable and unbiased source. Here's my money!!!
When I tell him some Edmontonians fret that there won't be enough parking for a downtown arena, he points out that GM Place doesn't have much parking, either. And it's worked out just fine. In fact, it's been a plus. "If anything, that's encouraged people not to drive to the arena, but to park somewhere downtown. And they're that much more encouraged to go and have a bit to eat before a game, or to go to the bar afterwards and have a drink with their friends."
Hmmm. What a concept. A downtown core with actual nightlife. Ya' think there might be a message in that for Edmonton?
Yes, and I think the message might be that no one should ever listen to a word Gary Lamphier says, ever again. First off, Edmonton does have a nightlife. So does its downtown. I've stated this already, but I'm sick and tired of people like Lamphier complaining that Edmonton isn't exactly the same as other cities around the country and the world. Like downtown Edmonton resembles the opening scene of Omega Man. Downtown development is coming along fine, and there are other areas in this city where people go for entertainment. Has he stated why we need downtown to be thriving, when a twenty-five minute walk away there is already a vibrant scene? Sure, you could make the argument that more is better, but that doesn't mean it's worth spending $400 million+ on a building that will be empty for most of the year. That's a lack of imigination, which can be added to his lack of factual evidence.
Secondly, Vancouver. Here's why a lack of parking at GM Place might not be a problem. One, a SkyTrain station exists on the site. The SkyTrain was built for Expo 86, and stretches from the downtown waterfront (where it meets with the SeaBus going into North Vancouver) to Surrey. It is the "world's longest automated light rapid transit system". It would be great if we had an LRT line like that, but unfortunately we'd rather buy a hockey arena for Cal Nichols. Secondly, Vancouver has a regular bus system vastly superior to ours. Large parking depots exist around the lower mainland, where people can take buses on superlanes into the downtown area or to the SkyTrain lines. Again, non-existent here. Lastly, I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that people don't mind walking to Canucks games in January because it isn't MINUS THIRTY F***ING DEGREES OUTSIDE. I'd walk from Abbotsford to GM Place in November if the seats were good enough. Sure I'd break a sweat, but I wouldn't die from hypothermia. But unless Lamphier is planning on setting up some sort of system where I can rest in the belly of a Tauntaun on my way from Whyte Ave. to City Hall, I suggest he stop telling us how irrelevant downtown parking is (I haven't even broached the population density question, or the fact that downtown Vancouver has a much larger work population).
Yes, it can happen here too. The only thing that might stop us is our own myopia.
Okay, this enrages me. The guy advocates building an arena to chase away the impoverished and homeless, and we're myopic? Has he even considered any other plan? Have you seen it in print? Has he given any statistical evidence proving the economic benefit of a downtown arena? Has he shown that these other downtown cores he likes to talk about were impoverished areas before arenas appeared? Here are a whole bunch of questions I have for Lamphier, and anyone else who is supporting this plan. Some of them have been asked already, by me and others, but let's do it all over again.
1. The assumption of a downtown arena is that people will loiter and patron the bars and restaurants in the area before or after the game. Do we have hard, factual, evidence of this? I don't mean speculation and guessing, but hard numbers. Furthermore, do we know if people are already doing this or not, and if there will actually be a positive net economic impact on the region, or if you'll just be moving business from one area to another?
2. With the Mayor announcing the "arena feasibility committee", and the City Manager (the head of the city bureaucracy) serving on the committee, is this an endorsement by the City of Edmonton for this concept. If so, was it approved by City Council?
3. How much, if any, city money is going to be spent supporting the work of this "arena feasibility committee"?
4. Why has the Edmonton Journal not disclosed, while discussing this issue, that it has a financial stake in the Edmonton Oilers?
5. Why is the Edmonton Journal not asking the Mayor why he's skipped past the step where we actual discuss whether a new arena is needed, and are now on the step where discuss where it goes and how to pay for it?
6. Why is the Edmonton Journal not discussing the conflict of interest inherent with having three members of the Oilers organization on the committee, along with two members of Northlands?
7. Why has the Edmonton Journal not quoted a single opposing voice to this proposition in any of the articles it has published on the issue?
8. If the feds actually turn over the downtown land to the City or to Northlands, or whoever administers the new arena, what is this entity going to pay in terms of taxes or rent to the City of Edmonton? If it's subsidized below market value (as the Oilers' deal at Rexall now is), what is the opportunity cost in terms of revenue that the City is giving up by using this land for a hockey arena and not for other purposes?
9. What's the traffic impact going to be on the area? This needs to be examined both from the aspect of passenger traffic, and truck traffic that will be servicing the arena for concerts and the like.
10. Do we know where the fans attending Oilers games and concerts are coming from? Will they be more likely to use public transit to get to a more central location, or are they going to continue to drive in mass numbers to the game? Dealing with this and the previous question, what do we know about the current Rexall clientele? What will the impact be of moving their business downtown? On a similar note, will moving the arena change their behaviour or change the clientele of the events offered at the arena?
11. How many nights of the year do we anticipate the new arena being used? What are the intended uses - i.e. is it just the Oilers and possibly concerts that will make use of it, or will the Oil Kings, Rush, CFR etc. move over as well?
12. What will happen to Rexall if a new arena is built downtown? Will it be knocked down? What will happen to the rest of the Northlands site?
13. Why is the "arena feasibility committee" waiting until November or December to publish their findings? If the mayor believes that the downtown arena is such a good idea, why doesn't he demand that the report be finished prior to October, so that he can stand behind it, and the citizens of Edmonton can have their say in its findings? Is the Mayor of Edmonton avoiding membership on the committee so that when he is asked about it during the election, he can pull a Paul Martin and say that he wants to wait until the "impartial findings" of the committee are revealed before speculating on anything?
14. What is so terribly wrong with Rexall that a new arena is required? Is it unsafe? Is it dangerous? Is it under the control of the pack of wild and dangerous dogs controlling most of Canada's major cities? Or is it that the Oilers owners aren't making enough money off of it? If that is the case, why is it the responsibility of taxpayers to aid in building a new arena? Shouldn't that be the responsibility of the business owner(s)?
15. Who makes up the entire membership of the Edmonton Investors Group?
16. Has anyone looked at past evidence of building arenas in this city? Anyone taken a look in the Journal archives, for example? Were similar arguments made about the economic benefits of the Northlands Coliseum when it was built in 1974? If so, did that become a reality?
I'd suggest that stadiums have been going up because team owners have been holding cities hostage, that the city centres he talks about were already economically and socially viable before a stadium arrived, that the research done on the economic spinoff from stadiums shows it to be grossly overrated, and that really lazy sports writers and columnists who like to stay buddy buddy with teams have been using their bully pulpits to convince citizens of the cause without actually doing the hard work necessary to support their claims. But that's just me.
You mean the senior downtown planner for the City of Vancouver thinks that the idea likely developed by the downtown planners for the City of Vancouver was a good one? OH. MY. GOD. That is just unbelievable. What a completely reliable and unbiased source. Here's my money!!!
Hmmm. What a concept. A downtown core with actual nightlife. Ya' think there might be a message in that for Edmonton?
Yes, and I think the message might be that no one should ever listen to a word Gary Lamphier says, ever again. First off, Edmonton does have a nightlife. So does its downtown. I've stated this already, but I'm sick and tired of people like Lamphier complaining that Edmonton isn't exactly the same as other cities around the country and the world. Like downtown Edmonton resembles the opening scene of Omega Man. Downtown development is coming along fine, and there are other areas in this city where people go for entertainment. Has he stated why we need downtown to be thriving, when a twenty-five minute walk away there is already a vibrant scene? Sure, you could make the argument that more is better, but that doesn't mean it's worth spending $400 million+ on a building that will be empty for most of the year. That's a lack of imigination, which can be added to his lack of factual evidence.
Secondly, Vancouver. Here's why a lack of parking at GM Place might not be a problem. One, a SkyTrain station exists on the site. The SkyTrain was built for Expo 86, and stretches from the downtown waterfront (where it meets with the SeaBus going into North Vancouver) to Surrey. It is the "world's longest automated light rapid transit system". It would be great if we had an LRT line like that, but unfortunately we'd rather buy a hockey arena for Cal Nichols. Secondly, Vancouver has a regular bus system vastly superior to ours. Large parking depots exist around the lower mainland, where people can take buses on superlanes into the downtown area or to the SkyTrain lines. Again, non-existent here. Lastly, I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that people don't mind walking to Canucks games in January because it isn't MINUS THIRTY F***ING DEGREES OUTSIDE. I'd walk from Abbotsford to GM Place in November if the seats were good enough. Sure I'd break a sweat, but I wouldn't die from hypothermia. But unless Lamphier is planning on setting up some sort of system where I can rest in the belly of a Tauntaun on my way from Whyte Ave. to City Hall, I suggest he stop telling us how irrelevant downtown parking is (I haven't even broached the population density question, or the fact that downtown Vancouver has a much larger work population).
Okay, this enrages me. The guy advocates building an arena to chase away the impoverished and homeless, and we're myopic? Has he even considered any other plan? Have you seen it in print? Has he given any statistical evidence proving the economic benefit of a downtown arena? Has he shown that these other downtown cores he likes to talk about were impoverished areas before arenas appeared? Here are a whole bunch of questions I have for Lamphier, and anyone else who is supporting this plan. Some of them have been asked already, by me and others, but let's do it all over again.
1. The assumption of a downtown arena is that people will loiter and patron the bars and restaurants in the area before or after the game. Do we have hard, factual, evidence of this? I don't mean speculation and guessing, but hard numbers. Furthermore, do we know if people are already doing this or not, and if there will actually be a positive net economic impact on the region, or if you'll just be moving business from one area to another?
2. With the Mayor announcing the "arena feasibility committee", and the City Manager (the head of the city bureaucracy) serving on the committee, is this an endorsement by the City of Edmonton for this concept. If so, was it approved by City Council?
3. How much, if any, city money is going to be spent supporting the work of this "arena feasibility committee"?
4. Why has the Edmonton Journal not disclosed, while discussing this issue, that it has a financial stake in the Edmonton Oilers?
5. Why is the Edmonton Journal not asking the Mayor why he's skipped past the step where we actual discuss whether a new arena is needed, and are now on the step where discuss where it goes and how to pay for it?
6. Why is the Edmonton Journal not discussing the conflict of interest inherent with having three members of the Oilers organization on the committee, along with two members of Northlands?
7. Why has the Edmonton Journal not quoted a single opposing voice to this proposition in any of the articles it has published on the issue?
8. If the feds actually turn over the downtown land to the City or to Northlands, or whoever administers the new arena, what is this entity going to pay in terms of taxes or rent to the City of Edmonton? If it's subsidized below market value (as the Oilers' deal at Rexall now is), what is the opportunity cost in terms of revenue that the City is giving up by using this land for a hockey arena and not for other purposes?
9. What's the traffic impact going to be on the area? This needs to be examined both from the aspect of passenger traffic, and truck traffic that will be servicing the arena for concerts and the like.
10. Do we know where the fans attending Oilers games and concerts are coming from? Will they be more likely to use public transit to get to a more central location, or are they going to continue to drive in mass numbers to the game? Dealing with this and the previous question, what do we know about the current Rexall clientele? What will the impact be of moving their business downtown? On a similar note, will moving the arena change their behaviour or change the clientele of the events offered at the arena?
11. How many nights of the year do we anticipate the new arena being used? What are the intended uses - i.e. is it just the Oilers and possibly concerts that will make use of it, or will the Oil Kings, Rush, CFR etc. move over as well?
12. What will happen to Rexall if a new arena is built downtown? Will it be knocked down? What will happen to the rest of the Northlands site?
13. Why is the "arena feasibility committee" waiting until November or December to publish their findings? If the mayor believes that the downtown arena is such a good idea, why doesn't he demand that the report be finished prior to October, so that he can stand behind it, and the citizens of Edmonton can have their say in its findings? Is the Mayor of Edmonton avoiding membership on the committee so that when he is asked about it during the election, he can pull a Paul Martin and say that he wants to wait until the "impartial findings" of the committee are revealed before speculating on anything?
14. What is so terribly wrong with Rexall that a new arena is required? Is it unsafe? Is it dangerous? Is it under the control of the pack of wild and dangerous dogs controlling most of Canada's major cities? Or is it that the Oilers owners aren't making enough money off of it? If that is the case, why is it the responsibility of taxpayers to aid in building a new arena? Shouldn't that be the responsibility of the business owner(s)?
15. Who makes up the entire membership of the Edmonton Investors Group?
16. Has anyone looked at past evidence of building arenas in this city? Anyone taken a look in the Journal archives, for example? Were similar arguments made about the economic benefits of the Northlands Coliseum when it was built in 1974? If so, did that become a reality?
Labels: New Arena
# posted by andy grabia @ 8:42 pm 
Comments:
"Sure, you could make the argument that more is better, but that doesn't mean it's worth spending $400 million+ on a building that will be empty for most of the year."
I think it was Laforge who said that Rexall is used 185 days this year. So in reality, the new building would be used every 2nd night..and I imagine they'd probably getting even more use out of the new building that they couldn't with the current one.
You make some good points about downtown Andy and for the most part you make a good case...However, the Eskimos manage to cram 40,000+ in Commonwealth, which isn't even close to major roadways or highways...why couldn't the Oilers do the same downtown?
Jordan
imagine they'd probably getting even more use out of the new building that they couldn't with the current one.
You imagine? What do you see?
However, the Eskimos manage to cram 40,000+ in Commonwealth, which isn't even close to major roadways or highways...why couldn't the Oilers do the same downtown?
I don't know what your point is. The Oilers cram 17,000 in Rexall. Why couldn't they do the same in Rexall?
I think it was Laforge who said that Rexall is used 185 days this year.
Did he say that?
I can't believe that's true. That number must include beer league rentals, Minor Hockey week, and practice days. He's probably got Driller games from 1998 factored in there too.
I guess Rexall is "used" but it isn't really making any money those days. Certainly nothing with a big multiplier attached to it.
Anyway... Bravo Andy. Another fine post. Best. Retirement. Ever.
Here's why a lack of parking at GM Place might not be a problem. One, a SkyTrain station exists on the site.
And virtually every single stop from King George in Surrey to Waterfront Station has parking spots available.
I can say with near-absolute certainty that every other reason you cited is perfectly valid as well.
Take a look on Google Maps for the old stadium in Vancouver, the Pacific Coliseum on East Hastings and Renfrew Street.
Yeah, that East Hastings. :-)
Reminds me of when they built the Dome in Toronto and held a naming contest. Can't remember where I read it, but I remember my favorite: TaxpayersGetScrewedAgainDome.
"Is the Mayor of Edmonton avoiding membership on the committee so that when he is asked about it during the election, he can pull a Paul Martin and say that he wants to wait until the "impartial findings" of the committee are revealed before speculating on anything?"
Ouch! That's so mean! But so true.
And I agree, Best. Retirement. Ever. The quality of your posts are better than ever.
- Mustafa Hirji
Simply put: your best posts ever.
Also, almost everything to do with the Oilers, EIG, and Pat LaForge just piss me off these days.
You ever thought of passing these posts along to papers in the city?
The sad thing is knowing that most likely the arena will get built, the taxpayers will get screwed, and more panhandlers will move in (screw you Lamphier!).
Hey, if it results in 10-15 dollar gallery seating for all home games, screw the homeless and drug addicted. I'll just wear a vest (like 50 cent) to the games so i dont get shot or stabbed by crack dealers on the way in or out of the games.
I was chatting with an Edmonton friend yesterday. He is very excited about the new downtown arena you guys are getting.
I asked him who was going to pay for this jewel. He said "casinos".
Propaganda works. I guess that's why they call it propaganda. Or something.
"But unless Lamphier is planning on setting up some sort of system where I can rest in the belly of a Tauntaun on my way from Whyte Ave. to City Hall, I suggest he stop telling us how irrelevant downtown parking is..."
Oh, and apparently that was the calm Grabia, because it's not until the next paragraph that he gets enraged!
What an outstanding post. I don't even live in Edmonton anymore, but I think you're doing the citizens of that city who still have an ounce of common sense a huge favour. Keep it up.
Scary good stuff Grabia.
Both Alberta teams are eliminated from play for the season and this site is getting better.
I'm confused by anonymous:
Hey, if it results in 10-15 dollar gallery seating for all home games, screw the homeless and drug addicted.
Building a new arena will result in a plentiful supply of cheap tickets? I thought that the lockout already did that.
(a) Edmonton's downtown sucks. To say there's a nightlife there is patently false.
(b) the LRT is relatively OK system that could carry many of the people to the new arena downtown
(c) Edmonton is a city which has lacked any sort of vision for decades. As soon as the mayor has some sort of vision, people like andy shout him down.
(d) Alberta is flush with cash from the oil industry
(e) casino revenues could pay for a part of the stadium
(f) Rexall is 30+ years old, small and located in a dismal part of town
(g) a new arena won't solve all our problems downtown but it could seriously be part of the solution.
(h) I guess I'm just an EIG blogosphere plant but MacKinnon seems to make a lot of sense in today's journal.
thus, what is the problem here? build the damn thing. especially if you bundle up it's development with more condos, low income housing, facilities, bars downtown...
(a) Edmonton's downtown sucks. To say there's a nightlife there is patently false.
Do you have any evidence that an arena will magically create nightlife (see: Northlands)?
(b) the LRT is relatively OK system that could carry many of the people to the new arena downtown
...or to the existing arena called Rexall Place.
(d) Alberta is flush with cash from the oil industry
But the city is not.
(f) Rexall is 30+ years old, small and located in a dismal part of town
Since when is 30 years too old for a building? By that logic, all of Sherwood Park should be demolished. Rexall is a great hockey building and the EIG have a cozy lease -- I still haven't seen much evidence of the building being "old" and "tired."
If EIG wants their own building so they can squeeze out some more dollars, fine. Just don't ask the City of Edmonton to foot the bill.
Also, anytime the City wants to build a decent subway/LRT system, go nuts.
What is so terribly wrong with Rexall that a new arena is required? Is it unsafe? Is it dangerous? Is it under the control of the pack of wild and dangerous dogs controlling most of Canada's major cities? Or is it that the Oilers owners aren't making enough money off of it? If that is the case, why is it the responsibility of taxpayers to aid in building a new arena? Shouldn't that be the responsibility of the business owner(s)?
This is the issue in a nutshell and no one involved with "the push" wants to admit it. EIG wants the added revenue of 4,000+ seats and for some reason wants to squeeze the citizens out of their money. If they want the city to chip in, perhaps council should negotiate some sort of revenue sharing program and a cap on ticket prices. There's precedent!
(a) Edmonton's downtown sucks. To say there's a nightlife there is patently false.
"Do you have any evidence that an arena will magically create nightlife (see: Northlands)?"
Why not shuffle on down to Buffalo and enjoy the bustling nightlife HSBC has brought. Last season, you could park in an empty lot, for FREE only three blocks from the rink. If the citizens are expected pay for the "economic impact," I would expect, as a citizen, real estate to be slightly more valuable. Ever taken a stroll down their lovely pedestrian mall? I think there was a Chinese Buffet and a Red Hots shack, the rest was either for sale, rent, or just boarded up and abandoned. There must be so of a much frenzy amongst potential buyers that the owners of such properties would prefer to leave them empty while the price keeps rising.
(b) the LRT is relatively OK system that could carry many of the people to the new arena downtown
OK compared to what? I got around on it alright, but if you've ever been to say... any other city, you realize Edmonton's LRT is sadly lacking. Why not invest the money proposed for the stadium on building a line to the west? I would bet that would bring people to the area... and not just on game days.
Edmonton is a city which has lacked any sort of vision for decades. As soon as the mayor has some sort of vision, people like andy shout him down.
I'm not exactly sure what your definition of "vision" is, but I'll give it a shot:
Jam Reimer (Vomit) instituted a recycling program that is still considered one of the best in the world. To put that in perspective, Toronto does not have a deposit on aluminum cans and only
recently instituted a deposit on liquor bottles. This is like 15 years later.
Smiley Bill: Brought the third largest sporting event in the World, to the city. This event also included a modest and necessary upgrade to Commonwealth, kinda similar to the one that was done to Northlands ten years ago.
I'm not sure if those things would fit in your vision of "vision," but I'd have to think that anyone would agree what Bill Hunter was a visionary.
Maybe this has been addressed here in a different post already, and maybe the situations are too different to be comparable...but I wonder if there has been any research on the impact of Winnipeg's recent arena move downtown?
I know they don't have an NHL team, and I know that does matter in this discussion...also, the old Winnipeg Arena was 20 years older and pretty much shot...BUT enough disclaimers.
I think there might be some parallels:
-- similar populations
-- similar climate and general car dependency
-- similar proximity to downtown of the original arenas
-- crumbling city infrastructure (roads and other facilities) and budget shortfalls
-- downtown cores with not-so-good reputations, poverty, etc.
Anyway, Winnipeg blew up the old arena and got the three levels of government to kick in about 30% ($40 million) to build a new one downtown (knocking down a historic building in the process, but that's another story).
How has it worked out for them? Lessons learned? Promises kept? Is it an anchor of revitalization or a sweet arena in a shitty spot? Maybe it's too early to tell, but I'd be curious to hear from any Winnipeggers (or anyone who knows) about it.
Post a Comment
<< Home
"Sure, you could make the argument that more is better, but that doesn't mean it's worth spending $400 million+ on a building that will be empty for most of the year."
I think it was Laforge who said that Rexall is used 185 days this year. So in reality, the new building would be used every 2nd night..and I imagine they'd probably getting even more use out of the new building that they couldn't with the current one.
You make some good points about downtown Andy and for the most part you make a good case...However, the Eskimos manage to cram 40,000+ in Commonwealth, which isn't even close to major roadways or highways...why couldn't the Oilers do the same downtown?
Jordan
# posted by 
: April 26, 2007 11:15 pm
: April 26, 2007 11:15 pm imagine they'd probably getting even more use out of the new building that they couldn't with the current one.
You imagine? What do you see?
However, the Eskimos manage to cram 40,000+ in Commonwealth, which isn't even close to major roadways or highways...why couldn't the Oilers do the same downtown?
I don't know what your point is. The Oilers cram 17,000 in Rexall. Why couldn't they do the same in Rexall?
I think it was Laforge who said that Rexall is used 185 days this year.
Did he say that?
I can't believe that's true. That number must include beer league rentals, Minor Hockey week, and practice days. He's probably got Driller games from 1998 factored in there too.
I guess Rexall is "used" but it isn't really making any money those days. Certainly nothing with a big multiplier attached to it.
Anyway... Bravo Andy. Another fine post. Best. Retirement. Ever.
Here's why a lack of parking at GM Place might not be a problem. One, a SkyTrain station exists on the site.
And virtually every single stop from King George in Surrey to Waterfront Station has parking spots available.
I can say with near-absolute certainty that every other reason you cited is perfectly valid as well.
Take a look on Google Maps for the old stadium in Vancouver, the Pacific Coliseum on East Hastings and Renfrew Street.
Yeah, that East Hastings. :-)
Reminds me of when they built the Dome in Toronto and held a naming contest. Can't remember where I read it, but I remember my favorite: TaxpayersGetScrewedAgainDome.
"Is the Mayor of Edmonton avoiding membership on the committee so that when he is asked about it during the election, he can pull a Paul Martin and say that he wants to wait until the "impartial findings" of the committee are revealed before speculating on anything?"
Ouch! That's so mean! But so true.
And I agree, Best. Retirement. Ever. The quality of your posts are better than ever.
- Mustafa Hirji
Simply put: your best posts ever.
Also, almost everything to do with the Oilers, EIG, and Pat LaForge just piss me off these days.
You ever thought of passing these posts along to papers in the city?
The sad thing is knowing that most likely the arena will get built, the taxpayers will get screwed, and more panhandlers will move in (screw you Lamphier!).
Hey, if it results in 10-15 dollar gallery seating for all home games, screw the homeless and drug addicted. I'll just wear a vest (like 50 cent) to the games so i dont get shot or stabbed by crack dealers on the way in or out of the games.
# posted by : April 27, 2007 10:25 am
: April 27, 2007 10:25 am I was chatting with an Edmonton friend yesterday. He is very excited about the new downtown arena you guys are getting.
I asked him who was going to pay for this jewel. He said "casinos".
Propaganda works. I guess that's why they call it propaganda. Or something.
# posted by : April 27, 2007 10:30 am
: April 27, 2007 10:30 am "But unless Lamphier is planning on setting up some sort of system where I can rest in the belly of a Tauntaun on my way from Whyte Ave. to City Hall, I suggest he stop telling us how irrelevant downtown parking is..."
Oh, and apparently that was the calm Grabia, because it's not until the next paragraph that he gets enraged!
What an outstanding post. I don't even live in Edmonton anymore, but I think you're doing the citizens of that city who still have an ounce of common sense a huge favour. Keep it up.
# posted by : April 27, 2007 10:59 am
: April 27, 2007 10:59 am Scary good stuff Grabia.
Both Alberta teams are eliminated from play for the season and this site is getting better.
I'm confused by anonymous:
Hey, if it results in 10-15 dollar gallery seating for all home games, screw the homeless and drug addicted.
Building a new arena will result in a plentiful supply of cheap tickets? I thought that the lockout already did that.
# posted by : April 27, 2007 11:35 am
: April 27, 2007 11:35 am (a) Edmonton's downtown sucks. To say there's a nightlife there is patently false.
(b) the LRT is relatively OK system that could carry many of the people to the new arena downtown
(c) Edmonton is a city which has lacked any sort of vision for decades. As soon as the mayor has some sort of vision, people like andy shout him down.
(d) Alberta is flush with cash from the oil industry
(e) casino revenues could pay for a part of the stadium
(f) Rexall is 30+ years old, small and located in a dismal part of town
(g) a new arena won't solve all our problems downtown but it could seriously be part of the solution.
(h) I guess I'm just an EIG blogosphere plant but MacKinnon seems to make a lot of sense in today's journal.
thus, what is the problem here? build the damn thing. especially if you bundle up it's development with more condos, low income housing, facilities, bars downtown...
(a) Edmonton's downtown sucks. To say there's a nightlife there is patently false.
Do you have any evidence that an arena will magically create nightlife (see: Northlands)?
(b) the LRT is relatively OK system that could carry many of the people to the new arena downtown
...or to the existing arena called Rexall Place.
(d) Alberta is flush with cash from the oil industry
But the city is not.
(f) Rexall is 30+ years old, small and located in a dismal part of town
Since when is 30 years too old for a building? By that logic, all of Sherwood Park should be demolished. Rexall is a great hockey building and the EIG have a cozy lease -- I still haven't seen much evidence of the building being "old" and "tired."
If EIG wants their own building so they can squeeze out some more dollars, fine. Just don't ask the City of Edmonton to foot the bill.
Also, anytime the City wants to build a decent subway/LRT system, go nuts.
What is so terribly wrong with Rexall that a new arena is required? Is it unsafe? Is it dangerous? Is it under the control of the pack of wild and dangerous dogs controlling most of Canada's major cities? Or is it that the Oilers owners aren't making enough money off of it? If that is the case, why is it the responsibility of taxpayers to aid in building a new arena? Shouldn't that be the responsibility of the business owner(s)?
This is the issue in a nutshell and no one involved with "the push" wants to admit it. EIG wants the added revenue of 4,000+ seats and for some reason wants to squeeze the citizens out of their money. If they want the city to chip in, perhaps council should negotiate some sort of revenue sharing program and a cap on ticket prices. There's precedent!
(a) Edmonton's downtown sucks. To say there's a nightlife there is patently false.
"Do you have any evidence that an arena will magically create nightlife (see: Northlands)?"
Why not shuffle on down to Buffalo and enjoy the bustling nightlife HSBC has brought. Last season, you could park in an empty lot, for FREE only three blocks from the rink. If the citizens are expected pay for the "economic impact," I would expect, as a citizen, real estate to be slightly more valuable. Ever taken a stroll down their lovely pedestrian mall? I think there was a Chinese Buffet and a Red Hots shack, the rest was either for sale, rent, or just boarded up and abandoned. There must be so of a much frenzy amongst potential buyers that the owners of such properties would prefer to leave them empty while the price keeps rising.
(b) the LRT is relatively OK system that could carry many of the people to the new arena downtown
OK compared to what? I got around on it alright, but if you've ever been to say... any other city, you realize Edmonton's LRT is sadly lacking. Why not invest the money proposed for the stadium on building a line to the west? I would bet that would bring people to the area... and not just on game days.
Edmonton is a city which has lacked any sort of vision for decades. As soon as the mayor has some sort of vision, people like andy shout him down.
I'm not exactly sure what your definition of "vision" is, but I'll give it a shot:
Jam Reimer (Vomit) instituted a recycling program that is still considered one of the best in the world. To put that in perspective, Toronto does not have a deposit on aluminum cans and only
recently instituted a deposit on liquor bottles. This is like 15 years later.
Smiley Bill: Brought the third largest sporting event in the World, to the city. This event also included a modest and necessary upgrade to Commonwealth, kinda similar to the one that was done to Northlands ten years ago.
I'm not sure if those things would fit in your vision of "vision," but I'd have to think that anyone would agree what Bill Hunter was a visionary.
Maybe this has been addressed here in a different post already, and maybe the situations are too different to be comparable...but I wonder if there has been any research on the impact of Winnipeg's recent arena move downtown?
I know they don't have an NHL team, and I know that does matter in this discussion...also, the old Winnipeg Arena was 20 years older and pretty much shot...BUT enough disclaimers.
I think there might be some parallels:
-- similar populations
-- similar climate and general car dependency
-- similar proximity to downtown of the original arenas
-- crumbling city infrastructure (roads and other facilities) and budget shortfalls
-- downtown cores with not-so-good reputations, poverty, etc.
Anyway, Winnipeg blew up the old arena and got the three levels of government to kick in about 30% ($40 million) to build a new one downtown (knocking down a historic building in the process, but that's another story).
How has it worked out for them? Lessons learned? Promises kept? Is it an anchor of revitalization or a sweet arena in a shitty spot? Maybe it's too early to tell, but I'd be curious to hear from any Winnipeggers (or anyone who knows) about it.
Post a Comment
<< Home
