Relocation. Relocation. Relocation.

[maplesyrup]

Another thing worth noting is that there really isn't a big forum for concerts in the 905 or 705. I mean, there's Rama but what else is there?.. and that ain't much. To see a decent show, we all need to head down to the 416 which most of the time is just a big pain in the ass. It would be nice to not have to deal with that kind of a trek. 

 

[Kin]

I believe the article read that just half the money was to be public.

I don't think anybody said differently. It's still a ton of public money to build a private arena which, just about every study has shown, is a terrible investment of public dollars. And that's just the proposal. The proposal for what the public sector would kick in for the Skydome vs. what it actually ended up costing taxpayers was pretty significantly different.

I'm not sure how that compares to other "disasters" but isn't this market (above all) a pretty safe one where the city will get a return on it's investment?

If it made financial sense to build an arena like this, if it was something where the profits generated would compensate for initial investment, why wouldn't it already be built with private funds? There are lots of banks who love putting money into safe projects where they'll see a return on their investment. Why wouldn't you go through them as opposed to the public if it was safe?

Look at the ACC or New Yankee Stadium or the Staples Centre. If a building makes financial sense to build then private enterprise is all over it. They want minimal to no government involvement. Public money for sports arenas are subsidies, not investments.

Obviously I have no idea but my feeling is the city has looked at this pretty hard.

Well, let's leave aside your faith in public officials for a second and remember that it's still a proposal right now and one that was just unveiled so they probably haven't had the chance to go over it with a fine-tooth comb just yet. That said, there's just about unanimity when it comes to serious studies of public investment of this sort and it all comes down on the side of this being a really terrible use of public money.

 

[maplesyrup]

If a building makes financial sense to build then private enterprise is all over it.

Not nearly as much if you can't get the city to foot half the bill though, right? 

 

[Kin]

Another thing worth noting is that there really isn't a big forum for concerts in the 905 or 705. I mean, there's Rama but what else is there?.. and that ain't much. To see a decent show, we all need to head down to the 416 which most of the time is just a big pain in the ass. It would be nice to not have to deal with that kind of a trek.

There's the Hershey Centre which seats 7,000 for concerts. Admittedly that's not quite ACC levels but there's a reason for that. If you're an act who can sell a 20,000 seat venue you're going to play the ACC. You're not going to do two shows in the ACC and then two in Markham. Most big scale arenas will sign exclusivity deals with artists/promoters to prevent that very thing.

Toronto isn't the only city in North America with a big population technically outside the city limits but how many big cities in North America have two 20,000 seat arenas around? LA doesn't. New York doesn't. Chicago doesn't. Off the top of my head there are two cities that come close to that and both are cautionary tales. One is Phoenix, provided you're including Glendale, which has been a disaster and the other is Detroit which is necessitated by it's downtown essentially having turned into Escape from New York.

 

[Kin]

Not nearly as much if you can't get the city to foot half the bill though, right? 

No. I mean, the Leafs didn't have trouble building the ACC. The Yankees didn't need to go begging to build their stadium. If something is going to generate profit you can get investors. That's the crux of the greatness that is capitalism. If you need the city to chip in what you're essentially saying is that it doesn't make sense for private enterprise.

I don't know if you're following the ongoing drama with trying to get a NFL stadium built in Los Angeles but one of the proposals being discussed, one that would see a stadium built entirely privately, has essentially said that the only way it makes sense to build the stadium is if they have not one but two NFL teams as tenants and that they get the Super Bowl every three or four years. As a result, it's hard generating investors considering that they have no tenants and the NFL is pretty unlikely to agree to that Super Bowl-wise.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

Nik seems to have a strong handle on the financial ramifications of this arena.

My question to everyone is this;

Why do these cities continue to live by the 'Field of Dreams' motto?

 

[maplesyrup]

Another thing worth noting is that there really isn't a big forum for concerts in the 905 or 705. I mean, there's Rama but what else is there?.. and that ain't much. To see a decent show, we all need to head down to the 416 which most of the time is just a big pain in the ass. It would be nice to not have to deal with that kind of a trek.

There's the Hershey Centre which seats 7,000 for concerts. Admittedly that's not quite ACC levels but there's a reason for that. If you're an act who can sell a 20,000 seat venue you're going to play the ACC. You're not going to do two shows in the ACC and then two in Markham. Most big scale arenas will sign exclusivity deals with artists/promoters to prevent that very thing.

Toronto isn't the only city in North America with a big population technically outside the city limits but how many big cities in North America have two 20,000 seat arenas around? LA doesn't. New York doesn't. Chicago doesn't. Off the top of my head there are two cities that come close to that and both are cautionary tales. One is Phoenix, provided you're including Glendale, which has been a disaster and the other is Detroit which is necessitated by it's downtown essentially having turned into Escape from New York.

I'm not sure LA or any other warmer climate city can be used as an example. I mean, you really don't need an arena for concerts and other events at all,  do you? I'm obviously no expert but I feel two 20,000 seat arenas in 60/70km (or whatever it is) apart in a city this size could probably be warranted. I'm curious if there are more than one arena in similar European cities like Stockholm or Olso, etc... 

Edit: Though I suppose using those cities as a comparable is not that smart either as they're much, much smaller population-wise, no?

Edit II: A very quick Google search of Oslo (a much smaller city) shows at least a couple very significant arenas in very short proximity. 

 

[Kin]

Nik seems to have a strong handle on the financial ramifications of this arena.

My question to everyone is this;

Why do these cities continue to live by the 'Field of Dreams' motto?

Well, there's no one answer because just about every situation is different and a city isn't a monolith but a construction of various views and interests.

If you were going to take the charitable position on things you could say that in some cases the public opinion is that spending huge chunks of money for the privilege of having a professional sports team is worth it. That the benefits it provides, tangible and intangible alike, are so great that it's a better use of money than putting it into schools or services or what have you. I was reading the other day about a city in Texas that just approved a bond issue to raise 60 million dollars for the construction of a high school football stadium. The vote on it passed overwhelmingly. People may disagree with that but...hey, that's democracy for you.

If you're going to be cynical about it then you can look at it the same way you look at any number of things. It's an issue where the interests of the powerful and wealthy outweigh the good of the public at large because the politicians who are in charge of the public monies are more accessible and accountable to the people who do actually benefit from these large subsidies. Given the relatively transitory nature of municipal politics a Mayor or Councilman can reap the benefits of this by getting their picture taken when the arena breaks ground and when it's built but are often in different office when the bill comes due and so don't have to deal with the ramifications.

Realistically, though, it's a blend of the two. People love sports. People are sometimes irrational when it comes to their love of sports. That love and irrationality can be exploited by people who own teams when they say "Give us hundreds of millions of dollars to build a new arena or we'll move the team to a city where they will".  People don't want to lose their team so despite the fact that it's not a good financial decision they tell politicians to get the deal done. Politicians who don't, and who risk losing teams, can lose their jobs by taking the smarter stand on how to spend public money.

 

[Kin]

I'm not sure LA or any other warmer climate city can be used as an example. I mean, you really don't need an arena for concerts and other events at all,  do you?

Of course you do. Most concerts happen at night. Despite Los Angeles being a city with warm weather it gets cold at night. It rains. If you're a big concert promoter who can sell 20,000 tickets a night you don't want to leave that sort of thing to chance unless you're specifically planning an outdoor event.

edit: which doesn't even factor in the logistics of the events. A 20,000 seat indoor arena complete with concessions. luxury suites and adequate bathrooms can't be duplicated by an outdoor arena without making a nearly identical investment.

I'm obviously no expert but I feel two 20,000 seat arenas in 60/70km (or whatever it is) apart in a city this size could probably be warranted. I'm curious if there are more than one arena in similar European cities like Stockholm or Olso, etc... 

I don't know what you mean by warranted but if it made financial sense, why wouldn't it be in larger cities with comparable weather like New York or Chicago?

Edit II: A very quick Google search of Oslo (a much smaller city) shows at least a couple very significant arenas in very short proximity.

Similar to how Toronto already has the 55,000 seat Rogers Centre, the 20,000 seat ACC, the 9,000 seat Ricoh Coliseum, the 7,000 seat Hershey Centre, etc, etc.

 

[maplesyrup]

Similar to how Toronto already has the 55,000 seat Rogers Centre, the 20,000 seat ACC, the 9,000 seat Ricoh Coliseum, the 7,000 seat Hershey Centre, etc, etc.

Fairly smaller, but so is Oslo and to be fair, the Hershey Centre and Ricoh don't really do much for 905 and 705ers.  I mean Barrie, Orillia, Newmarket, that's a significant population base starved of a big-time venue - and that's saying nothing of Markham and it's own surrounding areas.

 

[maplesyrup]

Of course you do. Most concerts happen at night. Despite Los Angeles being a city with warm weather it gets cold at night. It rains. If you're a big concert promoter who can sell 20,000 tickets a night you don't want to leave that sort of thing to chance unless you're specifically planning an outdoor event.

I don't know what you mean by warranted but if it made financial sense, why wouldn't it be in larger cities with comparable weather like New York or Chicago?

Well, in NY, you've got Jersey too, right? I mean, here we've got what Buffalo and Detroit? - I think you've already built a case against going to see a concert in Detroit in this thread. - and nobody even needs a case for Buffalo.

 

[Kin]

Fairly smaller, but so is Oslo and to be fair, the Hershey Centre and Ricoh don't really do much for 905 and 705ers.

Well, the Hershey Centre is in Mississauga which is in the 905 so I don't see how it does anything for anyone but 905ers. As for 705ers, I mean, that's like half of Ontario. I'm sure smaller arenas dot the land. The Colts have to play somewhere, I assume.

 

[Kin]

Well, in NY, you've got Jersey too, right? I mean, here we've got what Buffalo and Detroit? - I think you've already built a case against going to see a concert in Detroit in this thread. - and nobody even needs a case for Buffalo.

I don't know what you're trying to say here. Leaving aside the differences between New York and New Jersey I sincerely hope your point isn't that people on the outskirts of Toronto have the terrible option of going to see shows in awful places like Detroit or Buffalo whereas New Yorkers have the preferable option of beautiful downtown Newark because A) the Pistons' arena is in Auburn Hills, not Detroit, and Auburn Hills isn't a terrible place and B) I'd go to Buffalo a thousand times before I went to Newark once.

 

[maplesyrup]

Fairly smaller, but so is Oslo and to be fair, the Hershey Centre and Ricoh don't really do much for 905 and 705ers.

Well, the Hershey Centre is in Mississauga which is in the 905 so I don't see how it does anything for anyone but 905ers. As for 705ers, I mean, that's like half of Ontario.

But again, Mississauga doesn't do much for Markham, Newmarket, Barrie,  Oriila, etc. 

 

[maplesyrup]

Well, in NY, you've got Jersey too, right? I mean, here we've got what Buffalo and Detroit? - I think you've already built a case against going to see a concert in Detroit in this thread. - and nobody even needs a case for Buffalo.

I don't know what you're trying to say here. Leaving aside the differences between New York and New Jersey I sincerely hope your point isn't that people on the outskirts of Toronto have the terrible option of going to see shows in awful places like Detroit or Buffalo whereas New Yorkers have the preferable option of beautiful downtown Newark because A) the Pistons' arena is in Auburn Hills, not Detroit, and Auburn Hills isn't a terrible place and B) I'd go to Buffalo a thousand times before I went to Newark once.

What I'm trying to say is that there's essentially the ACC in terms of big time venues as far as arenas goes that serve this city and that's about it. The trek for folks to other larger venues nearby is probably significantly larger for folks here than it would be for folks on Chicago or NY. 

 

[Kin]

But again, Mississauga doesn't do much for Markham, Newmarket, Barrie,  Oriila, etc.

Ok. But that's a population of what...500,000 or so spread out over a large geographic area? Winnipeg is several hundred thousand people bigger, denser, and they don't have any 20,000 seat arenas within any kind of driving distance. Certainly not the 40-45 minutes it takes to get to the ACC.

A 20,000 seat venue isn't something that's going to be within driving distance of the whole world. Again, if it made sense to build a 20,000 seat venue in Markham, it'd be being built.

 

[bustaheims]

To be fair, NYC will soon have another major sporting arena open in a matter of weeks, when the Barclay's Center officially opens in Brooklyn.

 

[Kin]

What I'm trying to say is that there's essentially the ACC in terms of big time venues as far as arenas goes that serve this city and that's about it.

Well that's just not true. The Dome still exists. It still holds things like UFC fights and concerts and other things that a new Arena would be competing for.

 

[Kin]

To be fair, NYC will soon have another major sporting arena open in a matter of weeks, when the Barclay's Center officially opens in Brooklyn.

Sure. New York is also twice as big as Toronto and the Atlantic Yards project has yet to prove itself remotely successful.

 

[bustaheims]

To be fair, NYC will soon have another major sporting arena open in a matter of weeks, when the Barclay's Center officially opens in Brooklyn.

Sure. New York is also twice as big as Toronto and the Atlantic Yards project has yet to prove itself remotely successful.

This is also all true.