,
19 tweets,
4 min read
Read on Twitter
2. While new sports venues don't typically help a city economically overall, they can have positive localized impact by slightly (+10-15%) increasing property values at the neighbourhood scale. So not economic boosters, but can help catalyze development in the immediate area.
3. That dev'mt may not be new but rather displaces dev'mt that might otherwise happen in adjacent areas (since absorption is tied to general economic conditions -- no reason to think the arena would generate more net office or housing demand in the city).
4. There is an opportunity cost to subsidizing new venues. Public $ spent on this is $ not spend on essential public services - schools, transit, or social programs that improve quality of life or social mobility. So there is a clear trade-off here that speaks to priorities.
5. Strong architecture and urban design is critical to enhance street life. The facility itself is not enough to generate spillover effects - you need other anchors and/or well-designed adjacent commercial corridors rich with public realm amenities to facilitate a vibrant area.
6. There are non-economic benefits to sports and entertainment facilities (and teams) - boosting civic pride, building support for local youth sports, having fun(!), even creating a common experience that helps newcomers participate in civic life, among others.
7. Location is critical. Centrally located, transit-rich arenas have more positive spillover effects in the area vs peripheral locations. Also important to have critical mass of people living & working within walking distance. Minimizing parking and arriving by car is essential.
So how does Calgary's arena fare?
8. Its location is ideal, served by 2-3 LRT stops, walking distance to jobs and housing, vibrant streets next to arena. Development around the facility is likely, but not necessarily new - likely displaced from surrounding neighborhoods.
8. Its location is ideal, served by 2-3 LRT stops, walking distance to jobs and housing, vibrant streets next to arena. Development around the facility is likely, but not necessarily new - likely displaced from surrounding neighborhoods.
9. It's odd to anchor a CRL w a non-taxable venue, but a CRL is good vehicle to front-load associated infrastructure upgrades (like EV). New dev'mt will help recover those costs, though likely generates less than if Vic Park was developed entirely with taxable properties.
10. Providing land options on valuable Vic Park land is curious, particularly since it prevents the City from later recapturing some of the value uplift from the initial development. At sale, it won't be true market value w/o competitors, so will likely be another boon for CSEC.
11. Given Calgary's precarious budget situation and cuts to essential public services (transit, services that improve quality of life for its most vulnerable residents) to balance the budget raises legitimate questions about the city's priorities in subsidizing this venue.
12. The claim of $400M in benefits is intentionally misleading and wrong. It ignores time value of $, which you just can't (inflation is a thing, so is opportunity cost of capital). Both admin and Council championing this blatant falsehood is embarrassing and disappointing.
13. Far from a good investment, it's a loss. The City says 47M loss, but it's likely much more than that with a more reasonable discount rate. It's pretty typical for these type of public subsidies to overstate benefits and understate costs -- Calgary is following the script.
14. The absurdly brief public consultation is inadequate, even if it doesn't change minds. Creating the false sense of urgency undermines public trust in the soundness of the decision -- and it will make Council look reckless when costs go over budget, as they surely will.
15. Look, Council was desperate to do *something*. First it was Amazon, then the Olympics, so 3rd time's a charm? It's a good deal for CSEC; they had the upper hand and it shows. The process was a gong show from day one. But here we are and I don't think they can turn back now.
16. Calgarians will get their chance to judge Council in 2021. Hopefully Calgary will start to get ahead of its fiscal problems rather than always kicking them down the road. If we're honest, cutting essential public services while subsidizing an arena is hardly a just outcome.
17. Calgary isn't the first and won't be the last to use public $ to bet on program-driven development. It's not even the first time Calgary has done it - Convention Centre, Eau Claire market, etc. The arena is just the latest gamble. Hopefully it's better than the previous ones.
18. If nothing else, the decision to bet big on a new arena shows a lack of innovative ideas about how to spur economic development that is broadly inclusive, durable in boom/bust cycles, creates measurable value, and improves quality of life. It's basically a feel-good project.
19. True econ dev'mt requires more than a marketing with catchy taglines and chest-beating of being the "best" at this or that. It requires a more honest self-assessment of where Calgary is and deeper introspection to imagine what it will take to thrive far into the future. /end
