Full House For Performing Arts Centre Forum

Thursday, February 15, 2007 10:06 PM

It was a ’Who’s Who’ of the arts community that gathered for this evening’s meeting

A public meeting to gauge support for a Performing Arts Centre in downtown Prince George drew a rousing show of support from the many arts, cultural, and academic groups in the community...

The capacity crowd of more than 150 people at the Ramada this evening included representatives from: the Prince George Symphony Orchestra, Cantata Singers, Downtown Prince George, Theatre Northwest, Exploration Place, Enchainement Productions, CNC, B&B Music, and the Conservatory of Music - just to name a few of the close to 30 groups present.

Initiatives Prince George President, Gerry Offet, says the quest for a Performing Arts Centre was fuelled by the recent success of a group of "community-minded people" in putting together the Northern Sports Centre. Offet says the second driver was a consultant’s strong recommendation of a multi-use arts centre in the downtown core as part of a major revitalization of the area.

Offet says City Centre Ventures, a division of IPG, put together an initial steering group and tonight’s meeting was meant as the official kick-off to vetting the idea to the public. "We want to hear from you - the potential users of the facility, the potential patrons of performing arts events and arts events in a new centre, and people who really care about this city and care about the arts."

UNBC’s Vice-President Special Projects, Dr. Sharon Cochran, is one of the steering group members. Dr. Cochran says such a centre would provide the University with an opportunity to pursue one of the elements of its new academic vision - artistic/cultural expression. Dr. Cochran says it would also further enhance the educational experience for students and build further partnerships between UNBC, the city and region. She says, "The bottom line is, we’re strongly supportive of this."

Meeting moderator Bill Kennedy says the goal of tonight’s gathering is to solicit interest for a "Friends of the Performing Arts Centre" steering committee. That committee would then establish a 12-person Task Force charged with:

consulting with potential user groups
ascertaining potential sources of financing
commissioning a preliminary design and cost estimate
doing site identification
reporting back to the "Friends"

Many in the crowd voiced their support this evening. The PGSO’s Chris Monroe says that the Symphony is enthusiastically supportive, has a centre of this type in its long-term business plan, and wants to participate.

Downtown Prince George President, Shari Green, says "We are definitely in support of this and are hoping it will be a downtown facility. We believe it will certainly enhance the quality of our night life in our downtown and that people won’t be rolling up their shutters and going home at 5:30. We’d like to see a much longer day in our downtown core." The group represents over 200 property owners and 300 businesses in the city’s core.

Those in attendance were invited to stay after the 50-minute gathering wrapped up to chat with the steering committee members and offer their thoughts/opinions/suggestions, as well as sign up to be on the "Friends" committee.

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Thursday, February 15, 2007 10:06 PM in News by Michelle Cyr-Whiting

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: bohemian on February 15 2007 11:47 PM

Nice coverage. It truely was a positive meeting.

Posted by: Harbinger on February 16 2007 12:54 AM

Correct me if I am mistaken but didn't the taxpayers bail out the Art Gallery recvently to the tune of many thousands of dollars again due to a lot of promised pledges that diskapeered? I sure hope these enthusiasts have deep pockets and the city doesn't have to bail out another "cultural entity".

Posted by: owl on February 16 2007 5:20 AM

I agree Harbinger. The amount of money put in put in by individuals and corporate citizens, as well as by various levels of government should be known from the start, rather than embellished.

From my point of view, this thing needs to get built. It is long overdue.

In fact, IPG was supposed to have worked on this some time ago and the recent push they are talking about is a bunch of BS.

The Citizen also got it wrong. The thing has been on the books at least as long as the original competition for the Library which included the conceptual design of the whole area, including a PAC. If the city had not been contemplating such a building at the time, then it would not have been part of the design competition.

Then came 1981 and the crash of the PG bubble along as bubbles in a number of western locations, even Alberta at the time. The only survivor was the lower mainland. The things picked up again, but PG was not in that loop.

The Discovery Place proposal followed that, with it to be built in the location identified in the original design competition. It did not get community support, but a "civic centre" did. The big mistake made, form my point of view, is that the centre was built where the PAC was to eventually go.

Basically the centre sits isolated. It is hemmed in from the north and west by non-commercial property, as it is from the south and east. Opportunities for even the smallest commercial enterprise which would make the plaza outside the building a more active place simply were not included in the scheme. It is a dead space. Even skaters do not use the ice in the winter.

A centre like that ought to have been included with a hotel much more conveniently located. In fact, the removal of the pool in that location, a rebuild of it in another location in the city, such as College Heights (I believe some money was set aside for that when CH was amalgamated with the city) and a joint venture with a hotel chain plus the PAC may bring some much needed life to an essentially dead-looking, if not totally dead, part of downtown.

Of course, perhaps the purchaser of the Days Inn property has something in mind other than continuing to simply operate the hotel which may get some benefit from the gamig centre.

Posted by: tworivers on February 16 2007 9:30 AM

Harbinger, you asked to be corrected if you were mistaken. I will respectfully oblige.

The taxpayers did not bail out the Art Gallery. The City simply acknowledged that some pledges that had been made to the City by local companies were not collectable because those companies, in most instances, had gone bankrupt or moved out of the community.

The money was not an Art Gallery debt.

Peter Thompson
Managing Director, Two Rivers Gallery

Posted by: Harbinger on February 16 2007 10:33 AM

So am I to believe that monys were not recieved from the City of Prince George taxpayers to help the Art gallery with their fund raising gone askew? Or financial shortfall? Or promissary notes? Or some other spin. I seem to recollect that the Art Gallery recieved a couple of hundred thousand dollars from the city coffers. Spin or no spin, it was money spent. I acknowledge my cablevision bill. Does that mean I didn't pay it? What's in a word?

Posted by: bohemian on February 16 2007 11:56 AM

Harbinger,

Why is it only sports facilities deserve to be built? Sure you didn't say it, but if your issue is how much money is being spent, look at the capital costs and ongoing operational costs of the rinks, CN Centre, the Aquatic Centre, Four Seasons, Citizen Field, and other sports amenities.

These amenities are very important for our community and deserve to be funded. As do arts and cultural facilities such as the Art Gallery, the Playhouse, Exploration Place, the Library and the futrure Performing Arts Centre or Center for the Arts, whatever it's called.

The thing to understand is that art, and the Creative Economy in general, is BIG MONEY, employing hundreds directly, thousands indirectly and an inseperable part of almost all businesses, though not widely recognized as such.

It is my opinion that if the Task Force for this project must articulate the economic impact of the arts in all aspects of life and business.

I can understand someone not supporting this kind of project because they feel it is "artsy-fartsy" for the elites, and that they're not interested in using the facility. But if that same person understands the huge economy that is art, and understands how that economy is growing and drives diversification in all other industries, then they will support the project from an economic development perspective:

BIG MONEY.

Posted by: owl on February 16 2007 12:00 PM

hmmmmm...

A June 28, 2005 staff report to Council, as shown on page 11 of the minutes of the July 4, 2005 Council meeting linked below, states that a contribution of $1.3 million from the Prince George Art Gallery Association, which was to be raised through donations, fell short by $571,061.

A repaiment schedule was agreed on. By 2005, that was paid down to a remaining sum of $251,061.

There were also some other circumstances over which the Society had no control since the building is owned by the City, but affected the ability ot raise money.

So, I would say that based on the memo, that the money was owed by the "Society". I would also say that the City agreed that the inability to collect was partially due to delay of construction over which the "society" has no control since they are not the owners of the building.

One note of interest. The "Society" is a tenant of the City. When tenants put money towards contruction of a building they will occupy, such as a shopping centre or office building, they get a share in that building. Otherwise, they are simply responsible for tenat improvements. For first occupiers of such tenant space, improvements are often paid by the owner in the form of rent free periods which can be in the order of 20 to 25% of the term of the lease.

So, I think that the City, as developer of a leasable space, received a better than normal deal from the "Society" with respect to construction cost contribution.

http://www.city.pg.bc.ca/cityhall/agendas/2005/2005_07_04.pdf

Posted by: Chadermando on February 16 2007 1:43 PM

This is looking more and more like a downtown subsidization program with our tax dollars.

Posted by: bohemian on February 16 2007 2:03 PM

Chadermando, by your logic then CN Centre, Exhibition Park, Aquatic Centre, the ball diamonds, Fort George Park, Pine Valley Golf, Citizen Field, Skateboard Park and other amenities are "non-downtown subsidization programs with our tax dollars."

Posted by: Harbinger on February 16 2007 4:23 PM

The only entity not being subsidized these days seems to be the lowly taxpayer. I rest my case.

Posted by: Raparee on February 16 2007 5:37 PM

I think a centre for the performing arts is a great idea. They could put it on third avenue, between a pawn shop and a cheque cashing place.

Posted by: bohemian on February 16 2007 5:45 PM

Harbinger, it appears to me you are being "subsidized" with water, sewer, garbage collection, roads, fire protection, police protection, parks, sports, leisure, art and cultural amenities.

Posted by: owl on February 16 2007 6:16 PM

It seems to me that you are not too familiar with the cost of health care .. the cost of education ... the cost of transportation ... the taxpayers pay for it, and the taxpayers benefit from it ...

....those who have, generally subsidize those who have not....

... then there are the subsidies to business who put jobs on the plate and even they need subisidies in order to educate their potential employees ... in order to regularly lay people off on a seasonal basis and still have them stick around ... in order to provide them with health care so that they do not have to have that as a perk ....

every time you drive in your vehicle and buy some of the cheapest gas in the world, you are being subsidized since the true cost of the product and its effect on the environment is not accounted for ...

What do you expect .. a 30% off sale? such as provided by your friendly retailer ....

Remember, they are just trying to liquidate errors in stocking decisions or pass on the manufacturers' errors in over producing ..... they are no bargains, you are paying for them in the regular priced goods and services you buy .... So each time you buy a regular priced good, you are subsidizing mistakes ....

On average, no one gets nothin' for nothin' ... those who are astute users of resources do better than those who are not ... those who are not, subsidize those who are ...

Thus, in the end, who subsidizes whom?

Some taxpayers subsidize others, other taxpayers are subsidized ...

Only hermits and the dead do not pay taxes, other than through their estates ...

Posted by: owl on February 16 2007 6:19 PM

Raparee ... I am sure that there are several on here who would argue that the 3rd avenue location is already a centre for the performing arts ....

Posted by: Palopu on February 16 2007 10:34 PM

For starters: Approx 77,560 people were not in attendence for this meeting. Because the meeting was called for all those that were interested in a PAC could we then say that the interest level in this town is about *NIL* This venture was voted down in 1992, however we all knew at the time it would be back. This will be another great endeavour **build it and they will come** somehow I doubt it.

Why is the PAC being pushed by IPG at this time? I suspect that in the not to distant future we will hear from the City that they will be selling the Playhouse Theatre to developers, however not to worry because we are well on our way to building a PAC which will be more than happy to accomodate those people who presently use the playhouse. In addition I expect that they will announce that the PAC will be built on the location of the present police station.

This all fits in nicely with our Planning (Real Estate) Department at City Hall.

Dont get confused between Librarys, Swimming Pools, Skating Rinks, Art Centres, etc; that are built with taxpayers dollars, and any money they generate goes back to the City. This is not the case with the Cougers at the Multiplex. This is a private business that leases the building from the City and makes a profit holding Hockey games in the facilities. They own the Cougers. The City makes some money from rentals for the Cougers and Show operations, etc; but at the end of the day they lose $500,000.00 on this operation. This makes it a failed project. The Cougers should be asked to leave, and the facility should be better utilized to reduce our operating costs. If this means tearing down the Coliseum and moving the Spruce Kings so be it, at least we would reduce our losses and still have a Hockey Team. If we dont do it, I suspect that before too long the Cougers will do it for us.

I suspect that at the end of the day the PAC will never attract any more fans than the Cougers are getting at the moment, (3000)and probably much less, so we will have another 10/15 Million building being haunted by a small number of people at a huge cost to the City.

All this BS about creating jobs etc doesnt fly because everyone in this City that is presently employed by the Arts Community, such as the Playhouse, Theatre Northwest, PG Symphony, etc; will just move over to the PAC, and abandon their present facilities, and there will be no net gain whatsoever.

If the population in this town remains static or drops, then you will have the same people in the Arts community after the PAC is built as you have now.

If nothing else this City certainly can be counted on to build high priced facilities for a small number of people, however we somehow cant get our roads fixed, or build washrooms facilitys downtown to accomodate **Taxpaying** shoppers.

I notice a number of Councillors were at this meeting that didnt have the intestinal fortitude to attend the tax levy meeting. I for one will be keeping this in mind at the next election.