Micklebot
Moderator
- Apr 27, 2010
- 55,541
- 33,144
They won't likely give away the land, but rather lease it at a bargain price (best case for whoever wins the bid).
News Article: Ottawa Senators Organization Actively Considering Building Arena At Lebreton Flats
- Thread starter Sens Mile
- Start date
They won't likely give away the land, but rather lease it at a bargain price (best case for whoever wins the bid).
Buck Aki Berg
Done with this place
It's weeds and contaminated dirt, and has been that way since they leveled it 50 years ago.
Last time I looked, Melnyks' net worth was $1,004,319,818.
http://www.canadianbusiness.com/lists-and-rankings/rich-100-the-full-2014-ranking/
So He's no where near being broke.
A University of Ottawa Study has revealed that the Senators have injected just over 2 Billion dollars into the local economy since they returned to the NHL. So having an NHL Franchise is a net benefit to the local economy, and an argument could be made for some sort of subsidy from the tax payer.
They just announced that the federal government is going to pump $110 million into a major facelift for the National Arts Centre, and I did not hear one peep from those who don't want to have a single tax dollar going to an NHL arena on Lebreton Flats
jbeck5
Registered User
- Jan 26, 2009
- 16,510
- 3,437
This is what pisses me off. The mayor knows damn well that an arena downtown would increase revenue through the downtown core, creating millions and millions of taxable income.
The city won't give 100 million even if they'll recover that in extra taxes in a few years? Total bush league city.
Would you pay 100 bucks today, to get 10 per month for the next few years? I would. Apparently the city wouldn't. Especially if the 10 bucks coming in per month depends on that 100 dollar deposit.(aka the arena won't go up without help so it's not like the city can say "whatever well get more tax revenue regardless of if we help foot the bill".)
Nac Mac Feegle
wee & free
- Jun 10, 2011
- 35,240
- 9,653
Problem is, we're living in a microwave society. We need instant gratification and goodies, right now! People would rather have that $100 in their pocket now over $10,000 in their pocket over the next 10 years. That's why the politicians who promise goodies get elected and politicians who promise to balance the books get turfed.
It's insane, but that's humanity for you.
Do Make Say Think
& Yet & Yet
- Jun 26, 2007
- 51,301
- 10,124
It's an accepted that the NAC would simply not be there without subsidies. People are ok with public funding for the arts in general.
It's the optics. The City would be giving money to rich people and that looks bad in this day and age.
Went to a Christmas party last night and a good friend mine who is the biggest Sens fan I know (you should have seen him the day Alfie left
) is 200% against a downtown arena due to traffic and parking concerns... 
It's an accepted that the NAC would simply not be there without subsidies. People are ok with public funding for the arts in general.
It's the optics. The City would be giving money to rich people and that looks bad in this day and age.
Went to a Christmas party last night and a good friend mine who is the biggest Sens fan I know (you should have seen him the day Alfie left
I don't know about you, but I give money to "Rich People" to invest for me (RRSP / TSFA) looking to the future for a good return on my money.
I will take issue with your statement that "People are ok with public funding for the arts in general" I'm not, and know I'm not alone in that POV, but don't try to stop it. Besides, the taxes generated by an Arena Downtown will generate taxes to subsidize the "arts".
Keep in mind that the Arena is only going to have 44 NHL games (including exhibition) scheduled a year, more if the Senators make the playoffs, fo the majority of the time the Arena will be used for other events.
As for the traffic, I don't under stand how someone can't wrap their head around the fact that there will NOT be the same amount of parking at a downtown arena, as there is at the CTC. People will not be leaving downtown (today) to get home and jump into their car to drive out to Kanata...........they'll already be downtown and will leave from work (walk, OCTranspo) and go to the game(s).
Also, when people leave from a central location, they will NOT all try to get onto the 417 using the same on ramp, they will leave in a number of different directions............and who is really concerned about traffic between 10 - 1030pm?
Golden_Jet
Registered User
- Sep 21, 2005
- 25,226
- 12,842
From today's Citizen.
http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/gordon-ottawa-doesnt-need-nor-can-it-afford-a-new-nhl-arena
People sure are excited about the possibility of a shiny new hockey arena for the Ottawa Senators, and why not? Imagine packing up at the office downtown, taking a short train ride, and then walking through the doors of a state-of-the-art, hyper-expensive cathedral to Canada’s Game! It’s the show! NHL hockey, baby! Money is no object!
There’s only one problem with the whole idea: Ottawa can’t afford, nor does it need, a new rink.
Let’s be clear up front. If the Ottawa Senators, who are “actively considering” a proposal to partner up with private investors and make a bid to develop part of the NCC lands at the LeBreton Flats, want to build a new rink at their own expense (that is, without a dime of taxpayers’ money for grants, financing, or sweetheart leases at a publicly-owned rink), and if there are no better plans for public lands on offer, that’s their prerogative. A beautiful new building with no strings attached? How could you argue against that?
There are a couple of reasons that kind of bid is highly unlikely, however.
The first is that the Senators aren’t exactly flush with cash, unless something has changed drastically in the last year or so. Owner Eugene Melnyk claims to have suffered a cumulative cash loss of $110 million operating the team, and the franchise either can’t or won’t spend on a competitive player salary budget. In a league where the top teams pony up close to $70 million, the Senators are second-last at $55.8 million (according to capgeek.com). The odds of them finding the $450 million or so needed to build a modern arena on their own seem fairly low.
Second is the fact that the Sens have already made it clear they “feel very strongly that this could only be possible with strong community support,” which, to anyone familiar with new sports infrastructure, sounds a lot like a euphemism for a handout.
The craziest part of all, though, is that there seems to be a great deal of momentum in this city behind the idea of replacing an NHL-calibre arena that was built in 1996. Even if it took 10 years to construct a new building, the Canadian Tire Centre would still be just 28 years old. It isn’t a poorly-planned dump like Rexall Place in Edmonton, built in 1974, or the New York Islanders’ 1972 Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum, which should have been razed long ago. A modern arena, with proper maintenance, should last at least 40 years.
I’ve covered NHL games in 13 different rinks, and I can say without reservation that the CTC stacks up well against all of them. Not only that, the Senators continue to sink millions into it for upgrades. I don’t hear Boston clamouring to replace the TD Garden (built in 1995), Vancouver to replace the Rogers Arena (1995), Montreal to replace the Bell Centre (1996) or Washington to replace the Verizon Centre (1997), and those are metropolises with populations in the multimillions.
Ottawa is a one million-person city that isn’t even a superb hockey market. I have a great deal of affection for Senators fans, who have hung tough through a lot of dark days, but they vote with their wallets. Attendance plummets when the team isn’t winning and that, more than location, is what drives sales here. The Senators saw positive ripples for years after the team went to the 2007 Stanley Cup final, and the franchise will be successful again if and when the on-ice product turns a corner.
Which brings us to the real reason many in this city believe we need a new half-billion-dollar building: it’s sorta annoying that the current rink is kinda far for some people.
In a meeting with the Citizen’s editorial board this week, Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird, who also oversees the NCC, quipped: “I’ve travelled quite a bit and I’ve never seen a major sports arena in the middle of nowhere.” That sentiment is shared by many in this town.
Except the premise is wrong. This isn’t the late 1990s anymore, when the Palladium was surrounded by farmers’ fields and not much else. Housing continues to go up on both sides of the highway, and a major shopping centre opened nearby recently. More importantly, the area is now serviced by a four-lane (five if you count the bus lanes) superhighway that keeps traffic moving at a decent clip.
The plan behind the Palladium was to eventually build up around it. How does it make sense to ditch the rink now that the people and infrastructure are finally there to support it?
Public dollars will be spent at the Flats, but they should be spent on a national institution all Canadians can be proud of — not in support of privately-owned infrastructure this city already has. The federal government missed a tremendous opportunity to back a purpose-built science and technology museum there, but there’s time yet to get it right
http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/gordon-ottawa-doesnt-need-nor-can-it-afford-a-new-nhl-arena
People sure are excited about the possibility of a shiny new hockey arena for the Ottawa Senators, and why not? Imagine packing up at the office downtown, taking a short train ride, and then walking through the doors of a state-of-the-art, hyper-expensive cathedral to Canada’s Game! It’s the show! NHL hockey, baby! Money is no object!
There’s only one problem with the whole idea: Ottawa can’t afford, nor does it need, a new rink.
Let’s be clear up front. If the Ottawa Senators, who are “actively considering” a proposal to partner up with private investors and make a bid to develop part of the NCC lands at the LeBreton Flats, want to build a new rink at their own expense (that is, without a dime of taxpayers’ money for grants, financing, or sweetheart leases at a publicly-owned rink), and if there are no better plans for public lands on offer, that’s their prerogative. A beautiful new building with no strings attached? How could you argue against that?
There are a couple of reasons that kind of bid is highly unlikely, however.
The first is that the Senators aren’t exactly flush with cash, unless something has changed drastically in the last year or so. Owner Eugene Melnyk claims to have suffered a cumulative cash loss of $110 million operating the team, and the franchise either can’t or won’t spend on a competitive player salary budget. In a league where the top teams pony up close to $70 million, the Senators are second-last at $55.8 million (according to capgeek.com). The odds of them finding the $450 million or so needed to build a modern arena on their own seem fairly low.
Second is the fact that the Sens have already made it clear they “feel very strongly that this could only be possible with strong community support,” which, to anyone familiar with new sports infrastructure, sounds a lot like a euphemism for a handout.
The craziest part of all, though, is that there seems to be a great deal of momentum in this city behind the idea of replacing an NHL-calibre arena that was built in 1996. Even if it took 10 years to construct a new building, the Canadian Tire Centre would still be just 28 years old. It isn’t a poorly-planned dump like Rexall Place in Edmonton, built in 1974, or the New York Islanders’ 1972 Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum, which should have been razed long ago. A modern arena, with proper maintenance, should last at least 40 years.
I’ve covered NHL games in 13 different rinks, and I can say without reservation that the CTC stacks up well against all of them. Not only that, the Senators continue to sink millions into it for upgrades. I don’t hear Boston clamouring to replace the TD Garden (built in 1995), Vancouver to replace the Rogers Arena (1995), Montreal to replace the Bell Centre (1996) or Washington to replace the Verizon Centre (1997), and those are metropolises with populations in the multimillions.
Ottawa is a one million-person city that isn’t even a superb hockey market. I have a great deal of affection for Senators fans, who have hung tough through a lot of dark days, but they vote with their wallets. Attendance plummets when the team isn’t winning and that, more than location, is what drives sales here. The Senators saw positive ripples for years after the team went to the 2007 Stanley Cup final, and the franchise will be successful again if and when the on-ice product turns a corner.
Which brings us to the real reason many in this city believe we need a new half-billion-dollar building: it’s sorta annoying that the current rink is kinda far for some people.
In a meeting with the Citizen’s editorial board this week, Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird, who also oversees the NCC, quipped: “I’ve travelled quite a bit and I’ve never seen a major sports arena in the middle of nowhere.” That sentiment is shared by many in this town.
Except the premise is wrong. This isn’t the late 1990s anymore, when the Palladium was surrounded by farmers’ fields and not much else. Housing continues to go up on both sides of the highway, and a major shopping centre opened nearby recently. More importantly, the area is now serviced by a four-lane (five if you count the bus lanes) superhighway that keeps traffic moving at a decent clip.
The plan behind the Palladium was to eventually build up around it. How does it make sense to ditch the rink now that the people and infrastructure are finally there to support it?
Public dollars will be spent at the Flats, but they should be spent on a national institution all Canadians can be proud of — not in support of privately-owned infrastructure this city already has. The federal government missed a tremendous opportunity to back a purpose-built science and technology museum there, but there’s time yet to get it right
coladin
Registered User
- Sep 18, 2009
- 11,891
- 4,603
In fairness, the City is heavily investing in transit and perhaps the investing in an arena may not be prudent. Today. How about in 5 years? Maybe. Once LRT is established there would be a batter gauge to the feasibility of a downtown arena. Don't forget all the condos being built near Dow's Lake, downtown, they surely could use a hockey arena as a selling point one would think.
What do you think of Bingo moving to the CTC once Ottawa has a downtown arena? I am concerned about all the spinoff businesses in Kanata that may suffer from losing a big tenant. Things is , there are enough concerts to pass around to still keep CTC busy. Maybe a deal can be struck where all concerts will be at CTC to help Kanata local businesses.
What do you think of Bingo moving to the CTC once Ottawa has a downtown arena? I am concerned about all the spinoff businesses in Kanata that may suffer from losing a big tenant. Things is , there are enough concerts to pass around to still keep CTC busy. Maybe a deal can be struck where all concerts will be at CTC to help Kanata local businesses.
There is a difference in having money spent on the NAC vs a new arena. The NAC is a federally owned public building, the sens are a for profit private company.
great1
Registered User
Don Brennan @SunDoniB
Melnyk says today #sens haven't decided to pursue Labreton Flats location, but if they submit bid before Jan 7 deadline it will be strong
Melnyk says today #sens haven't decided to pursue Labreton Flats location, but if they submit bid before Jan 7 deadline it will be strong
PoutineSp00nZ
Electricity is really just organized lightning.
He says a lot more then that and makes some valid points.
The CTC is in fine shape, and a second massive arena in the city would be a massive expense and make a perfectly functional building redundant.
He's right when he says that the main reason people want a building downtown is because the building is "sorta far for some people"
"not with my tax dollars"
what does he care about expense, if not for the tax dollars?
This thread can be referenced multiple times that people want to bring money/ecenomic boost to the downtown core, so no, not really.
PoutineSp00nZ
Electricity is really just organized lightning.
He makes points to reinforce how expensive it would be, and how and unlikely it is that the arena would be built without tax dollars. ANd of course it would be nice to revitalize downtown, but another argument the writer makes is that that land could be used for more culturally significant purposes.
And you really think that revitalizing the downtown core is the main reason people want a rink downtown? I guess this forum has just been littered with people complaining about Lebreton flats going to waste over the years. More so than those whining about the drive to and from Sens games.
I didn't realize "some" could be used in place of "most".
I agree the bid is unlikely but the reason to build downtown is to be downtown - the author keeps hammering on about how the arena isn't that old in the grand scheme of things... as if anyone put forward that argument. Disingenuous.
Micklebot
Moderator
- Apr 27, 2010
- 55,541
- 33,144
I think most peoples issues with the location is the 2nd order effects. Everyone leaves at the same time in the same direction, nobody goes to the bars or restaurants, so there is no symbiotic relationship.
I'm also not sure where people are getting the funtional lifespan of an arena (I've seen people say 30-40, and now he's saying 40 min). The original post indicated getting a venue like CTC to continue beyond 30 yrs requires massive renovation costs (100+ mil), so is it comes down to if it's worth spending a 5th of the cost of a new building to get 10 more years of functionality while no longer being state of the art.
I would also point out that building a new arena isn't building something redundant, as the old building would likely be re-purposed.
The reason for moving downtown is because it's a better location for an arena. The reason for doing this now is because the option likely won't be there in 10 years when the CTC is nearing it's end of lifecycle.
........exactly, tax dollars are what he cares about.
He doesn't make a single argument about this, 7/14 paragraphs of the article is complaining about costs, 2/14 saying the arena isn't old enough (in other words a new arena isn't warranted for his tax dollars) and he closes with a sentence that is effectively "museum; better" with no explanation why that is better for the city other than "private vs public" building, which to us non-share holders means nothing. Not to mention the fact public buildings usually require tax money to stay afloat. Simply stating something isn't an argument without explaining reasons why.
Last edited:
Sure, for people like James Gordon, with small town mentality, it will be the main reason.
But for those in charge of urban planning and city development, it will be the last reason.
Baird can be a moron sometimes.
It's nice that an area MP who is a cabinet minister I may add, refers to Kanata as the middle of nowhere. That's a line I hear from the troglodytes..
If they want to put an arena downtown so be it, no need to slag other parts of the city though.
It's nice that an area MP who is a cabinet minister I may add, refers to Kanata as the middle of nowhere. That's a line I hear from the troglodytes..
If they want to put an arena downtown so be it, no need to slag other parts of the city though.
PoutineSp00nZ
Electricity is really just organized lightning.
Its an article where someone points out that not everyone is behind building a brand new arena right now when we have a perfectly adequate one already. Thats all it is, and despite the majority on this board there are plenty of people who like things as they are and/or don't want tax payer money going to help a private company make more money.
Im not even saying that I wouldn't mind an arena downtown, I don't really care where it is to be honest, but I can see both sides of the coin.
