Friday, September 04, 2009
Stuff we can agree on
Northlands showed it is Edmonton's "sports and entertainment complex experts" after Rexall Place was ranked 10th in the world for concert and event ticket sales, an official with the non-profit group says.
What conclusions are reasonable to draw from this? I think there's a couple:
- Rexall Place is, at the least, a good concert/event venue
- Northlands is, at the least, a competent venue manager
Which brings us to Pat Laforge on Monday... when asked about the future of Rexall Place, he said:
"Our lease expires in the spring of 2014. ... We're a tenant here and we don't own the building so I can't offer speculation on what might happen to it. But it's been a great building and it still is."
David Staples translated this to mean (and Jonathan Willis seems to agree), "Not our problem".
But whether Staples and Willis are misinterpreting, or Laforge is being disingenous (No!), it clearly is an issue. Whatever scenarios exist for a new downtown arena being successful and profitable (or, self-supporting) involve the migration of all the concerts and a bunch of the other stuff from the old place to the new place.
There's a non-zero chance that, in the event of a taxpayer revolt (and a credible election threat to the mayor), the Oilers press on with the project through private financing. But this non-zero chance drops to zero-point-zero-zero if it's premised on competing with Northlands and the existing building for concerts and other non-hockey events. The abandonment (/demolition) of Rexall Place isn't a side effect of a downtown arena plan; it's a necessary element.
Which brings us back to the Are We Sure This Is Necessary question... I think the proponents and fans of a new downtown arena have done a pretty poor job of explaining why it's necessary, or alternatively, worth it, to abandon Rexall Place.
**I don't think there's any question that a new place would have dozens of features to recommend it over Rexall Place, but if you agree that money talks, customers aren't dissatisfied with Rexall (see top).
**I got the impression before I moved here that it might as well be out in Kanata, but jeez, it's 2 LRT stops (5 minutes) from the east end of downtown, and maybe 10 minutes from the west end/legislature. It's about as handy to downtown as you could want without being within walking distance.
**The CFR -- Rexall's 2nd most important tenant and a genuine boon to the city's economy -- is very likely to bolt for the Stampede grounds if "shuttling cattle back and forth downtown proves to be too complicated and costly". I'm not a logistics guy, but I sense that this would be a major challenge.
**And, I mentioned that I'm not a logistics guy, but even maintaining the existing level of concerts and events at a new downtown location won't be easy. There are no arterial roads to speak of near downtown Edmonton. Just given the price and availabilty of land, blacktop for parking and access around the new place will presumably be limited. But of course it's not "just given" that; the whole idea is to have lots of development around the arena, not lots of development around a 200m strip of asphalt around the arena.
Here's a couple of pics I snapped from the window of the Coliseum Inn, at about 9AM on the morning of a Rascall Flatts concert (after an Oilers game the night before).
Approximately 20 tractor-trailers and 10 Maddencruisers, all told. The difficulties in organizing something like this downtown are not at all insurmountable. That said, every square foot of space surrounding the building that's used for accommodating major concert acts and the like is a square foot that's not being used for the vitality (re-vitality?) of the surrounding development of retail, housing, etc. And as such, it must be acknowledged that the new plan has what everyone besides politicians call "tradeoffs".Or, we could just pretend that the new place will be fairytale perfect, featuring everything you like about the old place, plus a reasonably-priced restaurant you like a few steps out the front door, and plenty of open urinals at intermission.
Labels: New Arena
# posted by Matt @ 4:36 pm 
Comments:
I agree that the two venues couldn't both operate as concert / entertainment spaces. But what about an adaptive re-use of the coliseum, a la the Montreal Forum? Not sure what it could be converted into, but perhaps enough of the building/features could be incorporated to make it our own historic hockey shrine. For those who've advocated for an Edmonton city museum, maybe this would be a neat home (although I assume that the space is so large there'd have to be other users too).
We're also still waiting for the answer to a simple question: is there anything structurally wrong with Rexall?
Some of the physical plant equipment is out of date, but would be 100 times cheaper to replace.
And yes, no arterial roads, lots of red lights, an open question of parking and the added trouble of the only direct outlet south from downtown being two single lane bridges.
Now that we know where the site is, Katz can't just brush off legitimate questions with a promise of "more details to come."
All for 15 more luxury boxes!
Also: I lost my virginity at the Coliseum Inn.
I was young and needed the money. A horrific story, really...
You are asking the key question that needs to be answered to start the debate:
Is the Coliseum truly obsolete and in need of replacement? Why can't it last another 20 or 30 years?
P.S. The Coliseum could be selling so many concert tickets because Edmonton is a relatively hot economy, full of young people with cash, nothing at all to do with the building. You could have the Taj Mahal of buildings and if the town is poor, the concerts won't come, the tickets won't sell.
For an article called "stuff we can agree on", I sure did find myself disagreeing a lot.
mike w: is there anything structurally wrong with Rexall?
Other than the craptastic acoustics? Ever been to a Rexall concert? Ever been to GM Place for a show?
A few things...
The ice at RX1 is bad. We're talking shitanusly bad these days. Part of the reason is no doubt the age of the mechanics. However, a good part of the reason that's never discussed much is the fact that the ice is pulled so often for other events, so it never gets a chance to season. That's Northlands doing.
The other is that Katz wants to be an owner instead of a tenant. People in the know around here are more than aware that Northlands is a (very!) profitable "non-profit" organization, something that we're all painfully reminded of every time we pay 12 freaking dollars for the honor of walking half a mile in -30C winter nights.
Northlands is also Edmonton's #1 old boys club. They are a restrictive, overbearing ogre of a landlord. I have no doubt that a good part of the reason Katz wants out of RX1 is simply to divest himself of this organization. Laforge's response in his presser thinly hid the disdain the Katz empire has for their current landlord.
I don't think there's any question that a new place would have dozens of features to recommend it over Rexall Place, but if you agree that money talks, customers aren't dissatisfied with Rexall (see top).
This is a false assumption. At current, there is no other choice for consumers. Edmontonians will go to the flashiest event like most consumers - i.e. spectacle is what makes an event. A 40 y.o. cement basement is not a spectacle in Edmonton any longer. Maybe in 1974, but not now.
p.s. - Your rodeo logistics argument is also flawed. If MSG can operate in downtown NY for decades, there is no such thing as a logistics problem in downtown Edmonton. Weak comments. Your bias is showing.
Katz wants to be an owner not a tenant?
Why is this a problem for taxpayers to be concerned about?
I'm finding a hard time seeing any compelling arguments for blowing public money on this thing. Why is it that Katz can't justify this with his own business (the Oilers)?
"I'm finding a hard time seeing any compelling arguments for blowing public money on this thing."
I haven't seen anything except for scare rhetoric that says public money will be used. The only thing that'll work in this scenario is the Calgary East-Side redevelopment model. That being (I think) using future tax revenue to finance the development.
Katz is actively looking for big bucks private partners, Telus being the first. That being said, if he can get any additional funds from the city, why shouldn't he go for it? Seriously, wouldn't you? Its up to the city to say no.
Its been brought up (in previous threads last year - here I believe) that the city would want to take a position to have a say in the development. If that's the case, they're going to have to come to the plate with some cash. But it won't come out of taxpayers pockets as that would be political suicide. Neither will it come from higher level government offices because that's also been kaiboshed publicly.
Only thing that's left is the future property tax financing method.
This levy idea is essentially a gamble that the area will be much more valuable in the future, even though the area (I'm thinking Oliver Square) is already doing fairly well. What's riding on this gamble? Hundreds of millions of city debt.
Meanwhile cities like Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto have arenas almost entirely paid for with private funds.
I thought Alberta was a hotbed of free market enthusiasts -- why does this suddenly go out the window when there's an Oilers crest involved?
Mike - the area that Katz has options on is a fallout crater right now. You could put a parking lot there and the value would go through the roof. I live in Oliver Square and I can tell you that redevelopment has completely transformed the area. That land (Oliver Sq) was essentially a wasteland 10 years ago.
Sorry. For guys that don't live in Edmonton, Katz' land is about 6-8 blocks east of Oliver Square on 104th.
David S
If the city wants to have a say in the development, why would they "have to come to the plate with some cash"?
Nobody can build anything in the City of Edmonton unless the development plans are approved by the city.
The City does not give me money if I want to build a garage in my backyard or to a business developer when they want construct a car wash on an empty lot. And we both can only build what the city allows us to build...
What makes Katz so special?
What makes Katz special is that he's proposing a billion dollar mega development, not a deck or a garage. Privately, as long as he adheres to zoning bylaws and gets the right permits he can do anything he wants. Even at that, he's got every major player in his pockets, so zoning probably wouldn't be an issue.
If the city gets involved they might want a say in things like affordable housing, common space, green space, tenant mix, commercial vs residential ratios, etc.
I'm mentioning most of this from memory. When Andy was going hard on the arena issue last year, he had a whole raft of articles on the subject. I think it was Brad Humphreys who was mentioning the city's desire for involvement, but I could be wrong.
I also would prefer to be an owner, not a tenant. Could someone please build me a $500 million house? I promise to employ several hundred teenagers at minimum wage to prepare stale food and watered-down sodas.
Also, if Howie Mandel and his merry band of thieving douchebags contributes as much as one cent to Carpet-Bagging Katz's Playpen for Millionaires I vow to pay my municipal taxes in the form of loonies embedded in an epic stool I will squeeze out after not visiting a bathroom for upwards of one week.
@matthartman You really think Rexall is #2 in Canada/#10 worldwide despite being a place where no one wants to go? I have a lot of trouble believing this... where does Edmonton "belong", if they have a more modern building -- higher on these lists?
Also, I doubt Edmontonians were keen on 40-y.o. concrete basements in 1974, though I'm not aware that there were any then. And it wasn't me who sounded the alarm about the CFR moving downtown, it was the GM of the C.P.R.A. I believe MSG does the circus, not rodeo, the animal headcount is quite a bit lower there, but at any rate, MSG was not developed as an integrated arena/retail/housing complex; it was developed (and re-developed) to host events.
Which is really the point I was making, and seems clear to everyone else. But we'll make a note: "there is no such thing as a logistics problem in downtown Edmonton." -- matthartman.
David S:
Doesn't the city have the jurisdiction to grant zoning and building permits to get all those things you mentioned?
If they really don't like something that is going to require 20000 people going to and then coming from the dowtiwn area in less than four hours, I'm pretty sure they have the ability to quash it.
It just takes some negotiating rather than lying down and rolling over.
As for the supposed fearmongering... So far the group of representatives for the proposal like Laforge have been pumping out false information like crazy. This is setting up just like a classic stadium grift, so I think only the truly naive would not be concerned.
Mike W: I don't think it's the Oilers' crest, Mike. Albertans just kind of like spreading their cheeks as long as you call yourself a businessman.
"If they really don't like something that is going to require 20000 people going to and then coming from the dowtiwn area in less than four hours, I'm pretty sure they have the ability to quash it."
C'mon man. We both know far more than 20,000 people go and come from the downtown core every day - for work. And they're gone by 6:00. So you're just looking at a second wave.
And of course you're right. The city would negotiate the development to some extent either way. Problem is, they reeeeally want this thing to go, so they're not exactly in a position of strength.
Look. The only argument that's making any hay around here is that nobody wants to pay for it. Fine. Most likely they won't. Laforge (*spits*) threw it out there today that a casino might be able to pay for the arena. Given Katz, it would be a whopper. At least they're throwing out alternatives, which is alot more than anybody else has done to date - except for living in the past and lamenting poor old RX1 (sniff).
The whole area where Katz wants to build is a shithole right now. If the development is managed properly and the taxpayer doesn't have to cough up any cash, frankly I'm OK with that. Hey, the city just coughed up a whole whack of dough for the new art gallery and not a peep was heard. Comparatively, this arena complex as its now being proposed will serve alot more people.
People talk about this team like it should be some sort of altruistic entity. Its not. Its a business and they have every right to make a profit. If we get a great new arena in the process, then that's great. Not sure but I get the impression that not many here actually go to many games anyways. I do and I would welcome a new facility. Some don't and that's fine. But putting something down just because its the popular sentiment for all the cool kids only makes you look like sheep too. Only from a different flock.
Oh, I have no problem with a new facility. I think the arguments that Rexall is totally antiquated are ridiculous, but I would welcome a new building. (Aside: they really should be focusing on the merits of a new building. Trashing Rexall is pretty desperate.) As long as the Oilers pay for it themselves. You know, like a business would do.
RiversQ - Totally agree that they should be focusing on the merits of the new arena. I think the problem is that they're not ready to share what those merits are because so much of it is tied to location and design, both of which are under wraps (but there's alot of people who know where its going to be located. You can just look at where new development is happening right now and put it together).
Maybe we haven't been reading the same comments, DavidS, but I can't seem to find the "people" who "talk about this team like it should be some sort of altruistic entity". As far as I can tell, we're dealing with two groups of critics: 1) People who aren't jazzed by the idea of placing a ginormous arena (or two!) downtown and are skeptics of the project's much-hyped "revitalizing" qualities, and 2) Folks who don't want a dime of public money being spent on the development. Obviously there is plenty of room for overlap there, but I certainly find that Crowd #2 has a valid point -- and I don't think it's asking too much for profitable businesses to take care of their own damned capital upgrades.
So please, let's dispense with the strawmen in the future.
(Also, as an aside to a commenter above -- MSG is in midtown, not downtown, NYC. Not that it makes a great deal of difference.)
MSG is in midtown, not downtown, NYC. Not that it makes a great deal of difference.
Also, Manhattan traffic isn't exactly something to write home about either so I wouldn't dismiss basic concerns about whether the infrastructure in Edmonton is appropriate for a downtown arena (that is, without giant parking lots around the structure).
We both know far more than 20,000 people go and come from the downtown core every day - for work.
The downtown core is miles wide and deep. The real concern is 20,000 people leaving the same square block all at the same time, with (presumably) way less dedicated parking spots to accommodate them, barring a massive parking lot like at Northlands (so many other downtown arenas make use of fast transit to suburbs, something that Edmonton simply does not have).
"The downtown core is miles wide and deep. The real concern is 20,000 people leaving the same square block all at the same time, with (presumably) way less dedicated parking spots to accommodate them, barring a massive parking lot like at Northlands..."
Mike - This thing has grown to be alot bigger than the initial proposal. Its going to be a "district" rather than a few blocks.
Not saying that parking/getting in and out won't be a factor, but somehow I think it won't be an irresolvable issue given the scope of what's in play now.
Its going to be a "district" rather than a few blocks.
Sure, but for purposes of an arena, people will still be leaving the same square block.
I also find it odd that no one seems to mind the idea of a "retail complex" a stone's throw away from the already-existing retail complex known as Edmonton Centre, but I guess the more the merrier?
"And yes, no arterial roads, lots of red lights, an open question of parking and the added trouble of the only direct outlet south from downtown being two single lane bridges"
Bridges, and lanes:
Dawson - one lane
James McDonald - 2 Lanes
Low Level - one lane
High Level - Two Lanes
and for SW Edmonites
Groat - two lanes
"The real concern is 20,000 people leaving the same square block all at the same time, with (presumably) way less dedicated parking spots to accommodate them"
Getting out of the "dedicated parking" at Northlands is hell.
Ever seen 75th street NB on a game night?
Parking downtown will be diffused between several lots – surface, underground & free street parking
People with monthly downtown parking can use it at night
The best part the downtown arena idea is the access & parking
There are more options for getting there, for leaving and for parking.
The cow question is an interesting one, though.
Bridges, and lanes:
Dawson - one lane
James McDonald - 2 Lanes
Low Level - one lane
High Level - Two Lanes
and for SW Edmonites
Groat - two lanes
I said directly south bridges, ones that involved a minimum of red lights and residential streets. You'd have to admit that Groat Road isn't exactly a stone's throw from the arena site.
The best part the downtown arena idea is the access & parking
I don't think this is true at all.
Rexall has about 6,000 dedicated parking spots in a giant, cement lot that's about 1km long.
Underground parking in downtown tops out in the low hundreds per garage, and there are no major lots near the site. To say Downtown Edmonton has plenty of parking is to ignore the fact that "downtown" is miles wide and deep and that what the site needs concentrated, dedicated parking.
Reserved spots are just that, for people who may work downtown that may happen to stay downtown for other things that don't include hockey (City Centre, Winspear, Citadel, etc).
Other downtown arenas have the benfit of a rapid transit system that leads to the suburbs, or major arterial roads (like Wayne Gretzky Drive). Even the ACC here in Toronto is at the foot of Union Station at the end of a highway ramp.
Traffic congestion is a valid concern.
...on top of the whole waste of taxpayers money thing.
Post a Comment
<< Home
I agree that the two venues couldn't both operate as concert / entertainment spaces. But what about an adaptive re-use of the coliseum, a la the Montreal Forum? Not sure what it could be converted into, but perhaps enough of the building/features could be incorporated to make it our own historic hockey shrine. For those who've advocated for an Edmonton city museum, maybe this would be a neat home (although I assume that the space is so large there'd have to be other users too).
We're also still waiting for the answer to a simple question: is there anything structurally wrong with Rexall?
Some of the physical plant equipment is out of date, but would be 100 times cheaper to replace.
And yes, no arterial roads, lots of red lights, an open question of parking and the added trouble of the only direct outlet south from downtown being two single lane bridges.
Now that we know where the site is, Katz can't just brush off legitimate questions with a promise of "more details to come."
All for 15 more luxury boxes!
Also: I lost my virginity at the Coliseum Inn.
I was young and needed the money. A horrific story, really...
You are asking the key question that needs to be answered to start the debate:
Is the Coliseum truly obsolete and in need of replacement? Why can't it last another 20 or 30 years?
P.S. The Coliseum could be selling so many concert tickets because Edmonton is a relatively hot economy, full of young people with cash, nothing at all to do with the building. You could have the Taj Mahal of buildings and if the town is poor, the concerts won't come, the tickets won't sell.
For an article called "stuff we can agree on", I sure did find myself disagreeing a lot.
mike w: is there anything structurally wrong with Rexall?
Other than the craptastic acoustics? Ever been to a Rexall concert? Ever been to GM Place for a show?
A few things...
The ice at RX1 is bad. We're talking shitanusly bad these days. Part of the reason is no doubt the age of the mechanics. However, a good part of the reason that's never discussed much is the fact that the ice is pulled so often for other events, so it never gets a chance to season. That's Northlands doing.
The other is that Katz wants to be an owner instead of a tenant. People in the know around here are more than aware that Northlands is a (very!) profitable "non-profit" organization, something that we're all painfully reminded of every time we pay 12 freaking dollars for the honor of walking half a mile in -30C winter nights.
Northlands is also Edmonton's #1 old boys club. They are a restrictive, overbearing ogre of a landlord. I have no doubt that a good part of the reason Katz wants out of RX1 is simply to divest himself of this organization. Laforge's response in his presser thinly hid the disdain the Katz empire has for their current landlord.
I don't think there's any question that a new place would have dozens of features to recommend it over Rexall Place, but if you agree that money talks, customers aren't dissatisfied with Rexall (see top).
This is a false assumption. At current, there is no other choice for consumers. Edmontonians will go to the flashiest event like most consumers - i.e. spectacle is what makes an event. A 40 y.o. cement basement is not a spectacle in Edmonton any longer. Maybe in 1974, but not now.
p.s. - Your rodeo logistics argument is also flawed. If MSG can operate in downtown NY for decades, there is no such thing as a logistics problem in downtown Edmonton. Weak comments. Your bias is showing.
Katz wants to be an owner not a tenant?
Why is this a problem for taxpayers to be concerned about?
I'm finding a hard time seeing any compelling arguments for blowing public money on this thing. Why is it that Katz can't justify this with his own business (the Oilers)?
"I'm finding a hard time seeing any compelling arguments for blowing public money on this thing."
I haven't seen anything except for scare rhetoric that says public money will be used. The only thing that'll work in this scenario is the Calgary East-Side redevelopment model. That being (I think) using future tax revenue to finance the development.
Katz is actively looking for big bucks private partners, Telus being the first. That being said, if he can get any additional funds from the city, why shouldn't he go for it? Seriously, wouldn't you? Its up to the city to say no.
Its been brought up (in previous threads last year - here I believe) that the city would want to take a position to have a say in the development. If that's the case, they're going to have to come to the plate with some cash. But it won't come out of taxpayers pockets as that would be political suicide. Neither will it come from higher level government offices because that's also been kaiboshed publicly.
Only thing that's left is the future property tax financing method.
This levy idea is essentially a gamble that the area will be much more valuable in the future, even though the area (I'm thinking Oliver Square) is already doing fairly well. What's riding on this gamble? Hundreds of millions of city debt.
Meanwhile cities like Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto have arenas almost entirely paid for with private funds.
I thought Alberta was a hotbed of free market enthusiasts -- why does this suddenly go out the window when there's an Oilers crest involved?
Mike - the area that Katz has options on is a fallout crater right now. You could put a parking lot there and the value would go through the roof. I live in Oliver Square and I can tell you that redevelopment has completely transformed the area. That land (Oliver Sq) was essentially a wasteland 10 years ago.
Sorry. For guys that don't live in Edmonton, Katz' land is about 6-8 blocks east of Oliver Square on 104th.
David S
If the city wants to have a say in the development, why would they "have to come to the plate with some cash"?
Nobody can build anything in the City of Edmonton unless the development plans are approved by the city.
The City does not give me money if I want to build a garage in my backyard or to a business developer when they want construct a car wash on an empty lot. And we both can only build what the city allows us to build...
What makes Katz so special?
What makes Katz special is that he's proposing a billion dollar mega development, not a deck or a garage. Privately, as long as he adheres to zoning bylaws and gets the right permits he can do anything he wants. Even at that, he's got every major player in his pockets, so zoning probably wouldn't be an issue.
If the city gets involved they might want a say in things like affordable housing, common space, green space, tenant mix, commercial vs residential ratios, etc.
I'm mentioning most of this from memory. When Andy was going hard on the arena issue last year, he had a whole raft of articles on the subject. I think it was Brad Humphreys who was mentioning the city's desire for involvement, but I could be wrong.
I also would prefer to be an owner, not a tenant. Could someone please build me a $500 million house? I promise to employ several hundred teenagers at minimum wage to prepare stale food and watered-down sodas.
Also, if Howie Mandel and his merry band of thieving douchebags contributes as much as one cent to Carpet-Bagging Katz's Playpen for Millionaires I vow to pay my municipal taxes in the form of loonies embedded in an epic stool I will squeeze out after not visiting a bathroom for upwards of one week.
@matthartman You really think Rexall is #2 in Canada/#10 worldwide despite being a place where no one wants to go? I have a lot of trouble believing this... where does Edmonton "belong", if they have a more modern building -- higher on these lists?
Also, I doubt Edmontonians were keen on 40-y.o. concrete basements in 1974, though I'm not aware that there were any then. And it wasn't me who sounded the alarm about the CFR moving downtown, it was the GM of the C.P.R.A. I believe MSG does the circus, not rodeo, the animal headcount is quite a bit lower there, but at any rate, MSG was not developed as an integrated arena/retail/housing complex; it was developed (and re-developed) to host events.
Which is really the point I was making, and seems clear to everyone else. But we'll make a note: "there is no such thing as a logistics problem in downtown Edmonton." -- matthartman.
David S:
Doesn't the city have the jurisdiction to grant zoning and building permits to get all those things you mentioned?
If they really don't like something that is going to require 20000 people going to and then coming from the dowtiwn area in less than four hours, I'm pretty sure they have the ability to quash it.
It just takes some negotiating rather than lying down and rolling over.
As for the supposed fearmongering... So far the group of representatives for the proposal like Laforge have been pumping out false information like crazy. This is setting up just like a classic stadium grift, so I think only the truly naive would not be concerned.
Mike W: I don't think it's the Oilers' crest, Mike. Albertans just kind of like spreading their cheeks as long as you call yourself a businessman.
"If they really don't like something that is going to require 20000 people going to and then coming from the dowtiwn area in less than four hours, I'm pretty sure they have the ability to quash it."
C'mon man. We both know far more than 20,000 people go and come from the downtown core every day - for work. And they're gone by 6:00. So you're just looking at a second wave.
And of course you're right. The city would negotiate the development to some extent either way. Problem is, they reeeeally want this thing to go, so they're not exactly in a position of strength.
Look. The only argument that's making any hay around here is that nobody wants to pay for it. Fine. Most likely they won't. Laforge (*spits*) threw it out there today that a casino might be able to pay for the arena. Given Katz, it would be a whopper. At least they're throwing out alternatives, which is alot more than anybody else has done to date - except for living in the past and lamenting poor old RX1 (sniff).
The whole area where Katz wants to build is a shithole right now. If the development is managed properly and the taxpayer doesn't have to cough up any cash, frankly I'm OK with that. Hey, the city just coughed up a whole whack of dough for the new art gallery and not a peep was heard. Comparatively, this arena complex as its now being proposed will serve alot more people.
People talk about this team like it should be some sort of altruistic entity. Its not. Its a business and they have every right to make a profit. If we get a great new arena in the process, then that's great. Not sure but I get the impression that not many here actually go to many games anyways. I do and I would welcome a new facility. Some don't and that's fine. But putting something down just because its the popular sentiment for all the cool kids only makes you look like sheep too. Only from a different flock.
Oh, I have no problem with a new facility. I think the arguments that Rexall is totally antiquated are ridiculous, but I would welcome a new building. (Aside: they really should be focusing on the merits of a new building. Trashing Rexall is pretty desperate.) As long as the Oilers pay for it themselves. You know, like a business would do.
RiversQ - Totally agree that they should be focusing on the merits of the new arena. I think the problem is that they're not ready to share what those merits are because so much of it is tied to location and design, both of which are under wraps (but there's alot of people who know where its going to be located. You can just look at where new development is happening right now and put it together).
Maybe we haven't been reading the same comments, DavidS, but I can't seem to find the "people" who "talk about this team like it should be some sort of altruistic entity". As far as I can tell, we're dealing with two groups of critics: 1) People who aren't jazzed by the idea of placing a ginormous arena (or two!) downtown and are skeptics of the project's much-hyped "revitalizing" qualities, and 2) Folks who don't want a dime of public money being spent on the development. Obviously there is plenty of room for overlap there, but I certainly find that Crowd #2 has a valid point -- and I don't think it's asking too much for profitable businesses to take care of their own damned capital upgrades.
So please, let's dispense with the strawmen in the future.
(Also, as an aside to a commenter above -- MSG is in midtown, not downtown, NYC. Not that it makes a great deal of difference.)
MSG is in midtown, not downtown, NYC. Not that it makes a great deal of difference.
Also, Manhattan traffic isn't exactly something to write home about either so I wouldn't dismiss basic concerns about whether the infrastructure in Edmonton is appropriate for a downtown arena (that is, without giant parking lots around the structure).
We both know far more than 20,000 people go and come from the downtown core every day - for work.
The downtown core is miles wide and deep. The real concern is 20,000 people leaving the same square block all at the same time, with (presumably) way less dedicated parking spots to accommodate them, barring a massive parking lot like at Northlands (so many other downtown arenas make use of fast transit to suburbs, something that Edmonton simply does not have).
"The downtown core is miles wide and deep. The real concern is 20,000 people leaving the same square block all at the same time, with (presumably) way less dedicated parking spots to accommodate them, barring a massive parking lot like at Northlands..."
Mike - This thing has grown to be alot bigger than the initial proposal. Its going to be a "district" rather than a few blocks.
Not saying that parking/getting in and out won't be a factor, but somehow I think it won't be an irresolvable issue given the scope of what's in play now.
Its going to be a "district" rather than a few blocks.
Sure, but for purposes of an arena, people will still be leaving the same square block.
I also find it odd that no one seems to mind the idea of a "retail complex" a stone's throw away from the already-existing retail complex known as Edmonton Centre, but I guess the more the merrier?
"And yes, no arterial roads, lots of red lights, an open question of parking and the added trouble of the only direct outlet south from downtown being two single lane bridges"
Bridges, and lanes:
Dawson - one lane
James McDonald - 2 Lanes
Low Level - one lane
High Level - Two Lanes
and for SW Edmonites
Groat - two lanes
"The real concern is 20,000 people leaving the same square block all at the same time, with (presumably) way less dedicated parking spots to accommodate them"
Getting out of the "dedicated parking" at Northlands is hell.
Ever seen 75th street NB on a game night?
Parking downtown will be diffused between several lots – surface, underground & free street parking
People with monthly downtown parking can use it at night
The best part the downtown arena idea is the access & parking
There are more options for getting there, for leaving and for parking.
The cow question is an interesting one, though.
Bridges, and lanes:
Dawson - one lane
James McDonald - 2 Lanes
Low Level - one lane
High Level - Two Lanes
and for SW Edmonites
Groat - two lanes
I said directly south bridges, ones that involved a minimum of red lights and residential streets. You'd have to admit that Groat Road isn't exactly a stone's throw from the arena site.
The best part the downtown arena idea is the access & parking
I don't think this is true at all.
Rexall has about 6,000 dedicated parking spots in a giant, cement lot that's about 1km long.
Underground parking in downtown tops out in the low hundreds per garage, and there are no major lots near the site. To say Downtown Edmonton has plenty of parking is to ignore the fact that "downtown" is miles wide and deep and that what the site needs concentrated, dedicated parking.
Reserved spots are just that, for people who may work downtown that may happen to stay downtown for other things that don't include hockey (City Centre, Winspear, Citadel, etc).
Other downtown arenas have the benfit of a rapid transit system that leads to the suburbs, or major arterial roads (like Wayne Gretzky Drive). Even the ACC here in Toronto is at the foot of Union Station at the end of a highway ramp.
Traffic congestion is a valid concern.
...on top of the whole waste of taxpayers money thing.
Post a Comment
<< Home
