Edmonton’s Downtown Arena moves ahead with agreement framework

By Mack D. Male · May 18, 2011 at 11:36pm

The Katz Group scored a major victory tonight as City Council voted in private to approve an “agreement framework” for the proposed downtown arena. The framework is the basis for the two sides to negotiate a formal Master Agreement, which will require final approval by City Council. While not a final binding agreement, tonight’s deal nevertheless allows the project to move forward.

Here is the full motion and amendments as voted on back on April 6 (tonight’s was largely the same – see here):

Edmonton Downtown Arena Motion

The vote tonight succeeded 8-5. Who voted in favor of the framework? Who voted against?

For: Mandel, Krushell, Loken, Leibovici, Batty, Henderson, Anderson, Sohi
Against: Sloan, Gibbons, Caterina, Iveson, Diotte

The document outlines $350 million in funding for a $450 million arena. Where does the other $100 million come from?

Answering questions from the media tonight, Mayor Mandel would only say “other orders of government.” There is no confirmation on where the remaining amount will come from, but it is hoped that the Province will support the project.

How much of the total cost will be funded by a CRL?

The motion only states that $20 million be directed at the arena from a CRL. The remaining $105 million (the City’s maximum contribution will be $125 million) could come from direct tax revenues. However, the agreement framework page states that $45 million would come from a CRL. The final mix is likely to change.

What happens to Rexall Place and Northlands?

The motion specifies that City administration will continue “to work with Northlands to ensure the City understands their financial challenges and how these can be addressed.” Answering questions this evening, City Manager Simon Farbrother said that Edmonton cannot sustain two arenas. It would appear that Northlands has lost its seat at the table.

Will the City own the arena? Will it receive the revenue?

Under the agreement, the City would own the building and land. The Katz Group would be responsible for all maintenance, upgrades, operating and capital expense costs. The City also retains the right to access the facility four weeks a year. As for revenue, the motion only states that the City “negotiate options for potential revenue sharing.”

What will the arena look like?

The City stated tonight that the arena will contain 18,500 seats and 350 parking stalls. The design process will still need to happen once the project moves ahead.

What are the next steps?

The City and the Katz Group will now work to complete the Master Agreement. They’ll also be working to secure the remaining $100 million, likely from the Province.

Twitter was buzzing with the news tonight. Here are a few of the tweets that caught my eye:

#yegcc just came back in public – voted on a motion to approve a framework for #yegarena deal – details to be kept in private. Passes 8-5.Don Iveson
May 18 via Twitter for iPhone

News conference upcoming at City Hall for major #yegarena announcement.NHL Oilers
May 18 via Twitter for BlackBerry®

City announces framework to build arena!Steve Hogle
May 18 via Twitter for BlackBerry®

City and Katz Group agree on agreement framework to build arena http://bit.ly/ipraRy #yegarena #yegCity of Edmonton
May 18 via TweetDeck

The City of Edmonton and Katz Group agree to framework that “sustains NHL hockey in #yeg for 35 years.” #yegarena #OilersCTV Edmonton
May 18 via Twitter for BlackBerry®

Mandel stresses optimism, forward momentum, believes holes in plan will come together now that framework of deal in place. #yegarenaJohn MacKinnon
May 18 via Twitter for BlackBerry®

This arena will built just when the construction labour and materials market explodes. I’m guessing it comes in at $700 million. #yegarenaDavid MacLean
May 18 via HootSuite

This arena situation is just like the airport situation; everyone knew it was going to happen, it was just a matter of when. #yegarena #yegAlana Willerton
May 18 via Twitter for Mac

NOTE: #yegarena dissenters. A friendly reminder; you have until JULY 17th to file your plebiscite application. Just saying.Chris LaBossiere
May 18 via web

It’ll be interesting to see what happens next! Much more to come, stay tuned.

Will Edmonton be a second-class city without the new arena?

By Mack D. Male · March 7, 2011 at 11:41am

Last week City Council was again discussing the proposed downtown arena. Though Administration provided an update at the Wednesday meeting, it certainly didn’t feel like much new information was brought forward. Details on the proposed Community Revitalization Levy (CRL) were delayed yet again, this time until the first week of April. The meeting did not go well.

Mayor Mandel seemed to be upset that progress had stalled. He wants Council to make a decision in the next month or so:

“It’s enough already. I think we’re going around too many circles and let’s make a decision.”

But there was another comment he made that stood out:

“Either we build a new arena or we become a second-class city, which in my mind we don’t want to be.”

I’ll admit that comment even surprised me. Does Mandel really think we can’t be a first-class city without building the new arena? Is the project really a make-or-break one for Edmonton? Boosterism has long been a part of this debate, something Dave covered back in January. And as our Mayor I think Mandel needs to be Edmonton’s greatest champion, a role he has definitely not shied away from while in office. But is there no hope for Edmonton if the arena project doesn’t go ahead?

“My choice of words probably wasn’t right,” Mandel admitted when I asked him about it. “It’s just that when opportunities come up, you have to make a decision. Edmonton in the past hasn’t made an effort to seize opportunities that have come up.” It’s a good point, I think. You can’t simply wait for things to come along, you have to go out and get them. If we want to take Edmonton forward, we need to make a concerted effort to do so. “You’ve got to fight for things,” Mandel said.

Mandel stressed the need to improve our downtown. “Cities are evaluated by their downtowns, not their suburbs. Edmonton’s downtown has a long way to go.” I asked if that meant we had to have the arena. “There’s millions of ingredients that go into it,” he said. The arts community and our IT sector were just a few of the examples he cited. He of course thinks the arena is one of those ingredients, however. “The arena with a good financial deal will make Edmonton better.”

When discussions get intense, people say things without fully thinking them through. I think that’s what happened to Mandel last week with the second-class comment, but he’s certainly not the only one who has made regrettable comments. Is it true that “the anti-arena faction is out in full force” as David Staples suggested (archive) a couple of weeks ago? I think it is, and there have certainly been some puzzling comments from them as well. The debate needs people on both sides, to help us tease out the details and ultimately arrive at the best decision for Edmonton. Mandel has decided to support the arena. Others have decided to fight it. A good debate is healthy for Edmonton.

On Saturday, Gary Lamphier writing in the Edmonton Journal reminded us that there are many key questions about the project that have yet to be answered (archive):

Although Mayor Stephen Mandel seems determined to wrap up the Seinfeldian arena "debate" — such as it is — in early April and push the project ahead at Mach speed, it’s hard to see why with so many key questions unresolved.

With weeks to go before a pivotal report on the project is presented to city council — following which councillors may have little time to reflect on it before they vote — it’s puzzling that so many key questions remain unanswered.

Today, Danny Hooper writing in the Edmonton Sun offered some compelling reasons to move ahead with the project (archive):

We are not the arctic outpost some think of us. This is a vibrant, energetic, resourceful, caring, and fun community, yet I don’t think our downtown best makes that statement. And I think it should.

Where some see a downtown that feels dull, disjointed, and at times lifeless, I see a blank canvas. The Katz group have at least brought out the paint and offered their vision of what our city centre could be. Of what it should be. And we’re all welcome to pick up a brush.

Maybe it comes down to perspective, as is so often the case with difficult questions such as this one. Do you choose to see the arena as Mayor Mandel does, as an opportunity to enhance our downtown that we should at least make an effort to capitalize on? Or do you choose to see the arena as those against the project do, as an expensive pet project that will do little to help Edmonton’s core?

There are no guarantees in this debate. Edmonton will not be relegated to “second-class” status if the project dies, nor will Edmonton automatically be world-renowned if it goes ahead. There’s obviously no secret recipe either, or we’d have already turned downtown around. Whether you support the arena or not, it’s important to recognize that revitalizing our downtown and becoming the city we want to be will take much more than any single project.

City’s Standing As Metropolis Declared To Hinge On Coliseum

By Mack D. Male · February 17, 2011 at 12:00pm

Recently I have been doing some research on the history of Rexall Place. I thought it would be useful to understand what happened in the past when trying to make sense of our current downtown arena debate. As part of that research, I spent some time at the City of Edmonton archives. I wasn’t sure what to expect or how to approach my research, so I simply asked for anything related to the construction of the Coliseum. Sherry Bell, Reference Archivist at the Archives, was incredibly helpful and came back with a thick file folder labeled “File 1, 1963-1974”. She told me it was the first of many, just the tip of the iceberg.

I read through the entire folder, taking notes as I went. The documents inside, mostly clipped Edmonton Journal articles, tell the story of how the Coliseum came to be, from the push for a downtown arena in the early 1960s through to the construction of what we now call Rexall Place in the early 1970s.

The title of this post comes from an article in the Edmonton Journal published on September 12, 1963. In it, Alderman Les Bodie made his case for the proposed downtown coliseum of the day, saying:

“I think the successful city will be the one with a stable economic base combined with a stimulating economic climate, and the coliseum will be a major factor in attracting interest in our city.”

It was one of many gems I found in the file, some of which I have shared below, and some of which I’ll share in future posts.

In total, I recorded 93 headlines (I skipped some). Here’s the breakdown of the articles I looked at by year:

Lots was written early on in the debate, and less was written as construction got underway and progressed. Here’s a sample of the headlines:

Coliseum Site Studied – May 11, 1963
City Approves $10 Million Coliseum Plan – June 25, 1963
City Has ‘Escape Hatch’ If Coliseum Voted Down – August 29, 1963
City’s Standing As Metropolis Declared To Hinge On Coliseum – September 12, 1963
Mayor Hits Coliseum Critics – September 24, 1963
Coliseums Seem To Spark Growth – September 28, 1963
Coliseum Complex Rejected By Almost Half Ratepayers – October 17, 1963
Mayor Anticipates Verdict On New Coliseum Proposal – March 1, 1965
A Coliseum Or A New Arena? – March 25, 1965
Alderman Warns City Taxpayers Will Have To Subsidize Coliseum – July 20, 1966
Ex arena to be constructed just north of Gardens – April 22, 1972
Oilers won game but public the real winner – November 11, 1974

I was immediately struck by how similar today’s debate is to the debate in the 1960s. In short: a downtown arena is proposed and tied to the future of the city, people argue over the location and other details, but the process really gets stuck on the money.

One of the first documents I found in the file was a pamphlet published by The Hamly Press (which as far as I can tell no longer exists) entitled, “the Coliseum Plebiscite: a test of our Faith in Edmonton as a Great Metropolis of the North West”. Here are some of the statements found inside:

“A downtown showplace that will publicize Edmonton as a progressive, positive-thinking city, developing rapidly in all phases of modern city live and endeavor.”
“The Coliseum Complex will lead the way in revitalizing downtown activity.”
“A Vital Necessity for Downtown Development!”
“Construction of the Coliseum Complex will be the city’s first step in the fulfilment of Edmonton’s remarkable plan for the renewal of the downtown city centre. There is little doubt that perseverance with this project now will be a decisive factor in the eventual completion of the entire Civic Centre plan.”
And a quote from Mayor Roper: “This plebiscite will be a test of the vision of the ratepayers of our city. How much do we want Edmonton to lead all Canada in bold, imaginative downtown development?”

Edmonton Journal writer Ben Tierney, working in the City Hall Bureau, wrote a lot about the proposed project. In a September 24, 1963 article entitled “Other Cities Find Value in Coliseums” he highlighted what he saw as “three basic benefits”:

Attraction of major sports, entertainment and cultural events that the city could not otherwise hope to obtain.
Attraction of outside dollars to the city through increased convention activity as well as non-local attendance at coliseum events.
Increased tax revenue for the city through construction of new downtown building encouraged by the coliseum’s construction, and a revitalized city centre.

Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?

Of course, the initial plan never came to fruition, and subsequent attempts to rescue it failed also. On October 17, 1963 the Edmonton Journal reported the results of the plebiscite that would have authorized the City to borrow $14,250,000 to finance the coliseum:

“The coliseum complex was strongly backed by the former city council, the Edmonton and District Labor Council, the Edmonton Chamber of Commerce and Jaycees, the Edmonton Exhibition Association, the Edmonton Area Civic Centennial Committee, and the Edmonton Building and Construction Trades Council.”

“55% of voters favored the two money bylaws…but a 2/3 majority was required. Opposition to the project centered on the costs involved.”

Over the next ten years, various attempts to salvage the idea were made, but ultimately the cheaper Edmonton Coliseum was built instead. I wonder how different things might have been had the downtown complex gone ahead?

Yes! For Edmonton Position Statement on the Proposed Downtown Edmonton Arena

By Mack D. Male · January 12, 2011 at 2:15pm

Yes! For Edmonton sent the following position statement on the proposed arena to the media this afternoon:

Yes 4 Edmonton Arena Project Position Statement

I have been privy to some of the discussions about this, and was opposed to the statement being released because it kind of suggests that everyone who signed up to support the group on the airport issue automatically supports this one too. I don’t believe that is the case.

There are people in the organization who wanted to make a statement on the arena, and that’s fine. The more people who share their thoughts and opinions, the better. But I don’t think it is clear who Yes! For Edmonton speaks for, and that causes me some concern as the group approaches future issues.

It’s not clear whether this position statement will be posted on the Yes! For Edmonton website or what other updates will be made.

ONEdmonton Downtown Vibrancy Task Force letter to City Council regarding the Proposed Downtown Edmonton Arena and Entertainment District

By Mack D. Male · January 11, 2011 at 11:15am

ONEdmonton is a group of local leaders that have come together a few times over the last year to discuss how we can make Edmonton one of the world’s top 5 mid-size cities. The first subcommittee, called the Downtown Vibrancy Task Force, was launched in November after the larger group identified that our urban core is the top priority. I have been fortunate enough to be part of both groups.

Today, our task force sent a letter to City Council regarding the proposed Downtown Arena and Entertainment District:

ONEdmonton Letter to Council

The task force is a group of majority, not consensus. At the last meeting, the majority of the task force members voted the arena project as the top near-term priority in Edmonton’s downtown.

The task force members include: Chairperson Randy Ferguson (Procura), Bob Black (Katz Group), Dr. Paul Byrne (MacEwan), Carolyn Campbell (University of Alberta), Michael Janz (Public School Trustee, EFCL), Terry Kilburn (Avison Young), Bernie Kollman (IBM Canada), David Majeski (RBC), Mack Male, Doug McConnell (Dialog), Scott McKeen, Honourable Anne McLellan (Bennett Jones), Carol Neuman (Edmonton Next Gen), Simon O’Byrne (Stantec), Ian O’Donnell (Downtown Edmonton Community League) Keith Shillington (Stantec), Paul Verhesen (Clark Builders), Sheila Weatherill (EPCOR), Richard Wong (Sutton Place Hotel), and Ralph Young (Melcor). Representatives from EEDC facilitate the task force.

I don’t think anyone on the task force considers the arena project a done deal, nor do they think the issue is a simple one, and this is reflected in the letter. My read of what the task force is saying here is this: there’s potential with the arena project to positively impact our urban core, so let’s keep things moving and figure out how to make that happen.

UPDATE: I originally left out Ian O’Donnell and Sheila Weatherill, because they joined us after the first meeting. My mistake. EEDC has posted the list here.

Proposed Downtown Arena: Response to Council’s Questions

By Mack D. Male · December 3, 2010 at 10:56am

Back in July, City Council asked questions of Administration, the Katz Group, and Northlands regarding the proposed downtown arena district. A lot of questions. Today, the responses to those questions are being made available in preparation for the December 10 meeting (read them here). Here are a few questions and answers that I have extracted.

Mayor Mandel asked Administration: How many parking stalls are in downtown Edmonton that are within 8-10 blocks of the new proposed arena site?

Data from a parking study prepared as a background report for the Capital City Downtown Plan (Capital City Downtown Plan) in 2008 and recent calculations indicate approximately 46,100 total parking stalls exist within a 10 block radius from the proposed arena site. Of these, approximately 2,700 are on-street metered parking, 17,300 are off-street surface parking, and 26,100 are located within a parkade (i.e. structured parking).

Councillor Caterina asked Administration: Why was the 5th best location chosen rather than #1 – Jasper Avenue, #2 – Northlands, etc.?

The confidential HOK Study does not prioritize the proposed locations. Rather, it identifies the essential components required to attract major sporting and entertainment events and identifies location issues and the criteria necessary for a successful facility development. The proposed location for the district is a viable choice when factoring in the various criteria identified in the HOK Study, particularly related to the challenges/opportunities of land assembly.

Councillor Leibovici asked Administration: Can a condition of a CRL be a guaranteed revenue stream? In other words if projected development does not occur as anticipated can the City require that the Katz Group provide a guarantee to cover debt servicing costs?

A risk assessment is part of the requirement for the CRL. The CRL plan must identify expected and alternative funding sources in the event the development does not occur. Alternative revenues to make up any shortfall in expected revenues from a CRL would be discussed as part of a negotiation with the Katz group.

Councillor Leibovici asked Administration: What are the projections for the Edmonton Convention Market? Part of the answer:

From Mike Fitzpatrick, VP & General Manager of the Shaw Convention Centre: The Shaw Conference Centre is routinely turning away convention business due to a lack of downtown convention space; when that happens these events are almost always forced to select another city. In the nine months from January to September 2010 we have already turned away 13 future convention bookings.

Councillor Sohi asked Administration: Have discussions taken place with the Province regarding the CRL model?

Administration has had preliminary discussions with the province on the use of a CRL for arena development.

Councillor Anderson asked the Katz Group: Is the $100 m Katz dollars cash or land?

There are a number of ways to deliver $100m in value, but we recognize that this will have to be done in a fashion that is acceptable to the City.

Councillor Iveson asked the Katz Group: Please explain exactly how a Location Agreement works from the Franchise perspective, including the contemplated duration of the agreement.

A location agreement would be a term of the lease pursuant to which the Oilers would play in the new building. It would bind the Oilers to playing only in that building for the full term of the lease. We are prepared to sign a long term lease in a new downtown arena that would bind the team to Edmonton for the term of that lease. We expect a term of 25 years or more.

Councillor Sloan asked the Katz Group: Forbes has shown consistently over the past 3 years that the Oiler net operating income is better than the Calgary Flames anywhere from $3 million to $10 million per year?

That is not accurate based on our information.

Councillor Sohi asked the Katz Group: Are two arenas viable in Edmonton?

No.

Councillor Thiele asked the Katz Group: If no new downtown arena district is built in Edmonton and the Oilers will not play in a renovated Rexall Place, where will they play?

Our singular focus is upon negotiating a mutually satisfactory agreement with the City of Edmonton that will facilitate the construction of a new downtown arena. We are confident that this can be achieved.

The complete list of questions and answers is available here. At the December 10 meeting, Northlands will be giving a presentation, the questions and answers will be discussed, and Administration will be talking about the public consultation that took place.

The issue will come before Council again on January 17. You can see more information here.

A closer look at the City of Edmonton’s Downtown Arena Questionnaire

By Mack D. Male · November 11, 2010 at 12:17pm

The City’s online questionnaire for the proposed downtown arena has received quite a lot of criticism, especially online. Twitter users have not been shy about calling it “leading” and questioning its intent. And that criticism has come up in face-to-face conversations I’ve had with people at arena consultation sessions and other events as well.

At the consultation sessions, officials have made it very clear that the questionnaire is meant simply to gather feedback, and is not intended to be a statistically valid survey. It feels like a survey though, so it’s no surprise that people treat it that way.

The introduction of the questionnaire reads:

This questionnaire is one of several methods being used to gather thoughts and concerns about a proposed downtown sports and entertainment facility. The feedback received will be provided to City Council to assist in their decision-making.

And it explicitly asks that you only fill it out once, though technically there’s nothing stopping you from filling it out dozens of times. There’s also no way to ensure that only people who live in Edmonton fill out the questionnaire.

I emailed the City with some questions on the survey, and they wrote back with detailed responses.

Was the questionnaire written by City staff? Calder Bateman staff?

A team worked on the online questionnaire. It was one of the early elements developed to support public input and was meant to be a quick and convenient way people could share their thoughts. It was never intended and not designed as a statistically valid, formal survey – but a technology-based tool for use by those who might not make the open houses in person. It means we will have a richer range of input to report on.

While other elements of the open house and discussion forums have evolved based on the input and suggestions we’ve received, we didn’t feel it appropriate to adjust the online questionnaire – so it has remained consistent with what was originally posted.

How many entries have you received to-date?

As of 4:00 p.m. Nov 9 we had 17,030 directly through the online questionnaire plus another 60 from those who called 311. We’re pleased with these results. It’s likely that people are seeing the online questionnaire as an option to attendance at the open house.

Any indication of how many received entries are duplicates?

No. At this point, we haven’t done an analysis on the questionnaire submissions. We really need to wait until the entire process concludes to get the full picture. There are a number of ways people are providing input including email, sticky notes, completion of the discussion feedback forms and the questionnaires. The inputs from all areas will be consolidated into the final report.

Are there any plans for a follow-up questionnaire later in the process?

There will be other opportunities for public involvement and input throughout the process, and another questionnaire might well be an option.

Are there any plans for a statistically valid survey?

We realize the online questionnaire only reflects the opinion of the people who complete it – it is not a representative analysis of what the population of Edmonton might think. The City will be very clear when presenting the results to ensure they are not considered a statistically valid sample of opinion.

A statistically valid survey continues to be a possibility. Our focus right now is on the current suite of public involvement opportunities.

I also asked my colleague Greg Pope, Analytics & Psychometrics Manager for Questionmark, for his thoughts and feedback on the questionnaire. He suggested this best practice guide (PDF) for good survey design as a starting point. Here are some of the comments & suggestions he had:

The current 1-5 “definitely” likert scale is unclear (no label for 2,3,4). Greg suggested an even number of choices (1-4) so that there is no “maybe” or “unsure” category.
“A rule of thumb is to try and keep all the questions on the same scale with the same values, so converting all questions to statements with a 4 point agreement scale would work well.”
“Another rule of thumb is to phrase the questions all the same way. It is not leading or misleading to ask “I want a new downtown arena built in Edmonton.” Because you are asking whether they agree or not with the statement. “
If the responses were going to be analyzed in any way, Greg said he would have asked some demographic questions. As a simple questionnaire, that’s probably not as important.
Another suggestion Greg had was to combine the open-ended fields into one at the end, to make it quicker to complete the questionnaire. He said there’s often sorting that has to happen anyway.

Good feedback to keep in mind if a survey is created in the future. Thanks to both Greg and the City of Edmonton for helping me out with this.

I think there are two key takeaways here. First, the online questionnaire is not a survey. Second, the City of Edmonton is consistent in treating the questionnaire as just another way for people to provide input. If you think the questions are leading, don’t fill it out. There’s nothing stopping you from emailing the City with your thoughts or calling 311. And if you can, attend one of the public consultation sessions.

Recap: Downtown Arena Public Consultation Session

By Mack D. Male · November 10, 2010 at 10:00am

Last night was the first of four City-hosted public consultation sessions on the proposed downtown arena. The sessions aim to gather input that will be provided to City Council. Roughly 150 people visited the Robbins Health Learning Centre throughout the evening, though only about a third of those stayed for the facilitated part of the session.

The first two hours of the session followed an open house format, with information displays, handouts such as a backgrounder (PDF), City officials available to answer questions, and opportunities for individuals to write questions or comments on sticky notes or in drop boxes. Promptly at 7pm, Margaret Bateman made a brief presentation (PDF) on the consultation process. The next two hours were facilitated discussion groups, where everyone had the opportunity to provide specific feedback on five key questions. Here are the questions as they were presented this evening:

What’s your position on building a downtown arena?
- If supportive, why?
- If not, why not?
- If conditional, why?
If a new downtown arena project were to proceed, what do you think is important to consider in terms of:
- Design?
- Downtown connection and impact?
- Impact on surrounding communities?
- Community benefits/engagement?
- Impact on the future of Rexall Place?
- Any other issues?
What about using a mix of private and public funding to fund a downtown arena?
- Are you open to this? Why?
- Not open to this? Why not?
- Open under certain circumstances or conditions? If so, what are they?
What do you think about other possible funding sources to cover arena costs? (some or all of these are options)
- A ticket tax
- A personal seat license or luxury box license
- A community revitalization levy (which would require the facility be publicly owned)
- Funding for non-arena infrastructure from other levels of government
- Additional private investment
- Any other sources?
Do you have any final thoughts or views for Council?

I attended a “stakeholder” consultation last Thursday that followed a similar format, but asked slightly different questions. The first question in that session was: “Do you support building an arena to revitalize Edmonton’s downtown? If yes, why? If no, why not?” Talk about a leading question with a big assumption! Needless to say I was very pleased to see that the City (along with consultation partner Calder Bateman) had tweaked the questions this time around.

My discussion group started off fine, but quickly descended into disagreement as a few very vocal members wanted to skip to the funding question right away. The City officials on hand handled the situation very well, and before long our group was back on track generating some useful discussion (the other groups didn’t seem to have any issues). Here are some of the comments from the group that I wrote down:

Unclear that the arena would actually bring people downtown
The arena will not generate tourism
Skepticism about an influx of commercial development surrounding the arena
Transit would need to be greatly improved, concern about the lack of an LRT stop right at the arena
What would happen to Rexall Place?
General feeling we would lose Canadian Finals Rodeo and maybe other events
Lots of concern over traffic congestion, some concern over parking
Feeling that the current ticket prices are already too high
Quite a bit of skepticism about the effectiveness of a CRL
Thought that spending the money on existing recreation centres would result in higher benefit to the community

As far as I could tell, my group was the most negative about the arena. The others seemed cautiously optimistic, and when everyone came together at the end of the evening for Margaret Bateman’s recap, that seemed to be the consensus. There was concern over treating the arena as the key to revitalizing downtown, and there was obviously lots of concern over the funding model, but there also seemed to be some optimism that the project could be a very good thing.

There are three more public consultation sessions currently planned:

Wednesday, November 10 – 5pm at the Santa Maria Goretti Centre
Monday, November 15 – 5pm at the Robbins Health Learning Centre
Wednesday, November 17 – 5pm at the Robbins Health Learning Centre

If you can’t make it to any of those sessions, you can fill out the online questionnaire, call 311, or email downtownarena@edmonton.ca.

For more information, check out the City of Edmonton’s site, the Katz Group’s site, and the Why Downtown? site. You can follow updates on Twitter using #yegarena.

Whether you’re for or against the arena, or even if you’re unsure, it’s important to make your voice heard!

Recap: Public Meeting on Proposed Arena & Entertainment District in Downtown Edmonton

By Mack D. Male · May 20, 2010 at 9:30am

Last night at MacEwan’s City Centre Campus the City of Edmonton held a Public Meeting on the proposed Arena & Entertainment District (on ShareEdmonton). I don’t know what the final attendance numbers were, but my rough guess is that about 100 people were in the room. There were a number of City representatives on hand, led by Scott Mackie from the Planning & Development department. Councillors Batty and Henderson also attended. From the Katz Group, Jim Low, Bob Black, and Steve Hogle were all there, along with Simon O’Byrne from Stantec, and Ray Davis from Bunt & Associates.

The purpose of the meeting was to provide information on and to gather feedback about a proposed rezoning from DC2.500 to a new AED zoning. Such a change would require an amendment to either the existing Capital City Downtown Plan or the new one that Council is expected to approve this summer.

The night started with a brief presentation from Scott Mackie, as well as introductions of all the representatives:

Next Jim Low gave an overview:

The final (and very long) presentation was from Simon O’Byrne (only about the last two minutes are missing):

That was followed up by questions and comments from the audience, which I unfortunately had to miss (but it was live-tweeted, see below). I’m not sure why the Katz Group and its representatives got to talk for 45 minutes; I thought that’s why they held their own open house a couple weeks ago? Maybe that’s just how these things go.

Here’s a map of the area that the Katz Group would like rezoned:

View Proposed Arena & Entertainment District in a larger map

Here are the tweets tagged #yegarena that were posted two hours before, during, and two hours after the public meeting (in reverse chronological order):

You can get the full version here. Here’s a quick Wordle I made with that data (removing usernames and the hashtag):

Both @journalistjeff and @bingofuel did an awesome job live-tweeting the meeting!

If you’d like to learn more about the rezoning process, you can do so here. I was pleased to see the City actively promoting its Planning Academy at the meeting. The proposed rezoning is tentatively scheduled to go to a public hearing on June 28, but that date could change – stay tuned to #yegarena for updates.

You can see the rest of my photos from the event here.

UPDATE: Check out Jeff’s excellent recap here.

Recap: Edmonton Arena District Open House

By Mack D. Male · May 7, 2010 at 9:30am

Yesterday Edmontonians had the opportunity to visit the Art Gallery of Alberta to learn more about the proposed Edmonton Arena District (EAD). At least that was the intent of the open house – I’m not sure how many people actually came away with a better idea of what the proposed downtown arena is all about or how it’ll become a reality. Representatives from the Katz Group, Stantec Consulting, Bunt & Associates, and Anschutz Entertainment Group were on hand to answer questions, and there was a number of images and other bits of information on display.

Clearly the downtown arena is a topic that many Edmontonians find interesting. When I visited the open house at around 11:15am, it was already at capacity (200 people at at time). By 5:00pm, the total number of visitors was close to 2000. In all, around 2650 people stopped by. It’s great that EAD is working to involve the public in its plans, and I’m very happy that so many people took the time to learn more.

For those of you who have been following this issue, there wasn’t anything new presented. None of the big questions were answered: proposed funding models, or details on cost. I did ask some questions about parking (I want less not more), and got almost a word-for-word response from the FAQ page. The only additional bit of information that was provided to me was that there would be “seven LRT platforms within a few blocks of the area.” I’m really not sure where that number comes from.

A quick scan of the #yegarena hashtag on Twitter yesterday suggested a good mix of negative and positive tweets. I decided to run all 110 tweets through OpenAmplify, a semantic web service I’ve been experimenting with. It can identify topics, people, and other items and can determine the attitude expressed toward each one (the polarity). Here’s what I found (polarities below zero are negative, zero is neutral, and polarities above zero are positive).

#yegarena (so all the tweets, effectively)

Mean polarity: 0.53
Min polarity: –0.6
Max polarity: 1

winter garden

Mean polarity: 0
Min polarity: –0.15
Max polarity: 0

So tweets were slightly more positive than negative on the arena, and slightly negative on the winter garden. OpenAmplify also assigned a polarity of –1 to Katz and 1 to Zack Stortini (who made an appearance). This is highly unscientific, of course, but I still think it’s interesting. FWIW, this is very similar to the result found by Tweet Sentiments.

You can see the rest of my photos from the open house here.