I don't think the bolded is talked about enough. If a team needs a 2.5 billion dollar entertainment complex with residences in order to be profitable, it's a pretty strong indication that the region isn't a viable hockey market at this point.
That's non-sense. Literally EVERYONE building new arena/stadiums are trying to do this, simply because it's more revenue. The development rights to the area surrounding the stadium/arena are coveted, because tens of thousands of people are trafficking the area and it's a much higher ROI than an arena.
The two parties negotiating/dividing costs for the arena/stadium are both trying to spend as little as possible, and keep as much revenue as possible.
If an NHL owner builds a $900m area himself, and makes $30m in profit running a hockey team... he's broken even after 30 years, at which point he needs a new arena. This is why teams don't just build their own.
If a city gives a $900m arena to an owner for free, they're out $900m.
Making it a "mixed used" development project brings in outside revenue streams besides the team and city.
The NHL owner and city split the cost of the $900m arena and the owner pays off his part of the arena from being the landlord of the entertainment district, the city pays off their part of the arena by collecting the taxes from the entertainment district. The hockey team has the revenues to be successful because they're not paying off the arena the whole time, and the city is creating revenue out of what was nothing.
The business are fronting the cost, which they can afford to do because the arena is handing them tens of thousands in customer traffic. It's win-win-win.