“Star-chitecture:” Not as glittering as it seems? by: The Prof

As reported, the Katz Group is trying to win support for the public funding of a proposed downtown arena and the district around it by combining the word ‘star’ and the word ‘architecture’ into a new concept called star-chitecture. But, come on! Is this concept something that demands my support? Is it something that ought to, as they believe, define our city?.

Let’s think about it. As the Katz group notes, “You want to make it something that drops your jaw.” Yes, I suppose “jaw dropping” is one way to look at it. But I happen to think “money-dropping” is really the issue, and here’s why.

Hockey writer Stan Fischler of New York says it clearly. “The salaries of players are insane and, as a result, the owners have to compensate any way they can with the amenities.” “They’re trying to keep up, make a buck,” Fischler says. How do you pay off a guy like a Dany Heatley (who makes upwards of $7.5 million per year) or Shawn Horcoff ($7 million), Lubomir Visnovsky ($5.6 million), or even Sheldon Souray (at a mere $5.4 million)?

Those kinds of salaries – which we have come to almost accept without question – make the Oiler’s total budget $55, 708, 000 – more than I will ever earn in five lifetimes of being a University of Alberta professor. Such a budget, Fischler says, demands a certain higher level of money making. As Fischler adds, it’s dollars and cents (or sense) that are missing and needed. If you are going to pay the salaries, you’ve got to get the income. As a result, the owners are exploring all sorts of ways to “make their money.”

This is me whining, but let me ask two questions: Is this making money? And, is it their money? How different is what the owners are doing with these so-called “star-chitectures” than a panhandler on the street asking me for “spare change?” Certainly, any new arena with all the bells and whistles reeks of luxury, while the panhandler might reek of something else – but we should not lose our focus. In many ways, the activities share the same goal – to shake free your money and my money so that someone else can gain more money (the players) – even in a time of recession.

Is this really only a question of amenities and luxury? Or, are deeper questions involved? And, if so, what are those questions?

I am gladly part of the problem – I love my Oilers. And, it is not like I don’t have a choice. Obviously, I can pony up or not. But, let’s call the new arena project exactly what it is – an opportunity for rich people to get richer. The money that they make is my money, and yours.

And, while I don’t necessarily want to stop this project or any other from going ahead, I don’t want the builders of this “star-chitecture” arena to be so fast and loose with other people’s money. I don’t want them to feel so entitled as it seems they might. So, don’t just expect all of us to pony up so that you rich folks can become even richer. Appreciate, in real ways, that the money you make was first money that most of the rest of us, with far smaller incomes, first made with probably more expended labor than those of you who will be receiving it.

There are two sides debating the issue, and I don’t think they yet understand each other. On one side are those, like University of Michigan professor Mark Rosentraub, an expert in arena districts, who wrote a report on successful arena districts for the Edmonton arena committee and Patrick LaForge, Oilers’ president and spokesman for the Katz Group. Basically, both are saying that, to draw people into arena districts, cities need to build sensational arena structures, such as the all-glass Sprint Center in Kansas City.

In Rosentraub’s words, “You build something that is like a star.” It’s exciting architecture, and the last thing you want is bland. LaForge adds, “The arena side of the development is the opportunity to create something very special for the people who live in Oil Country” – their stamp, their icon. “We (Edmontonians) could use it, I [LaForge] can tell you that.”

In other words, on the one side are those buying us a gift with our own money; on the other hand are most Edmontonians. And, public opinion surveys have consistently shown that Edmontonians have little appetite for publicly finding a new, $400-million-plus downtown arena. Why is this? Oilers’ president Patrick LaForge says that, before any decisions about the project are made, people should first see the plans, and that these plans will be innovative – a visual icon. Implicit in this statement is that we will all be persuaded by the glitz of the new. As he notes, star-chitecture is part of the deal.

Compare this with a recent survey that showed that the University of Alberta is Edmonton’s most important institution when it came to civic pride. The difference seems obvious – world-class education or dazzling colors?

LaForge is quoted as saying: “They [interesting use of the word “they” – not “us”] haven’t seen anything else that has come around that's got this kind of chutzpah.” Look up the definition of the word chutzpah: it means “boldness coupled with supreme self-confidence” and “impudent rudeness combined with a lack of respect.”

This is not the attitude I want from my Oilers. I, for one, want more respect – not less. I want the Oilers to win the Stanley Cup; and I want the organization to flourish. But, I also don’t want those in control of the Oilers simply to expect us to hand over our money because it is their right to have it. This is not a question of entitlement; it is a question of how a community works together to build something important and strong.

So, if I don’t simply give in to your requests, it is not that I don’t care about my Oilers – it is that I want you to care more about your community.