...the Society would be responsible fer raising $20 thousand of that total. Gee whiz! Is there gonna be enough artsy fartsy people with deep pockets to accomplish that in this town? I wonder. And that is just fer a study. Not seasons tickets. Good luck. I really don't think P.G. has that many arts snobs. If I may be so flippant with my redneck induced labels.

Needs assessment? Whats up with the Playhouse Theatre - what is that for? Non performing arts?? Build another one that will sit vacant for most of the year? Where is the logic on city council? I wonder how many potholes that 150 grand would fill? For a city of this size and the amount of money that supposedly flows throw - it is very much an embarassment. Even smaller cities have way more than Prince George has - One movie theatre?? Let's work on infrastructure and attracting new business and residents...the arts will follow...

Yeah, save that money for a good ballteam for the world baseball challenge. PG will need all the subsidized players it can get.

PG doesn't have that many arts snobs. It has a LOT of regular folk who enjoy the arts in many forms. One form is theatre; Theatre North West has a much larger subscriber base than the Cougars. Another form is Country Music. Willie Nelson had thousands go to the CN Centre; Bonnie Rait didn't do as well, and her concert would have been perfect for a warm, intimate PAC rather than a cavernous and cold hockey rink.

Lots of bands of all musical flavours, comedy acts, variety acts, magic shows, children's dance and theatre, and cultural acts of all kinds would come to our city if we had the proper facility for them (one they can make a buck at); not too big (CN Centre), not too small (Playhouse, Artspace), and not too difficutlt to use (Vanier Hall).

Then of course there are the local groups, inluding the PGSO, Judy Russell, Excalibur Theatre Arts, Cantata Singers, Sweet Adelines, Bel Canto Choir, Sinphonia, Borealis Choir, PG Dance Festival, PG Music Festival, a growing number of local bands (we're a university town, you know); opportunities for theatre festivals, Provincial Arts festival (2006 was excellent, despite dated facilities, imagine what could be). Then of course there are other possible uses like bodybuilding championships, corporate seminars, leadership conferences, political forums, motivational speaker series, film festivals (maybe Cinema CNC could use more seating for their annual festival, I don't know; maybe there could be others).

It's not all artsy-fartsy, you know.

It is my hope the study does a good job of identifying those opportunities, and the number of seats (not too few, not too many) that make the centre viable.

I also hope the Society gets people involved that know what they're talking about. I suspect there will be some travel involved. Who's going to go? People with intimate knowledge of lighting and audio systems, people who've operated in and perfomed in numerous venues (PACs, stages, outdoors, civic centres, hotel ballrooms) with all their unique strenghts, shortcomings and challenges? People that have produced many, many shows of all kinds? It had better NOT be well-meaning but ignorant directors of the Society. And sometimes the consultants are a little lacking in the requirements I outlined above, too.

I hope someone like Bill Russell is given a good opportunity to review and provide input into some of the technical and production/operational issues before the study gets too far along. His blend of on-stage, off-stage, production and technical skill and experience is invaluable.

@ southfortguy:

"Let's work on infrastructure and attracting new business and residents...the arts will follow..."

Please understand that a PAC is infrastructure for the creative economy, and the arts and the production of creative content is big business (even in Prince George.)

By your logic we should invest in a PAC (creative eononmy infrastructure) so we can attract new business (like those in the creative economy) and residents (who demand a full menue of amenities including a PAC and rich cultural and entertainment opportunities.)

I agree fully!

(btw - having CN Centre does not mean Kin I does not get used. They get used for different groups and different purposes, though there is obviously overlap. It's the same with the Playhouse and a proper PAC. Please understand there are technical and seating limitations to the Playhouse, though it is being used very well now that the city has taken it over. If you want the facts, give Jo-Ann Merkel a call - she'll be happy to tell you.)

Bravo to city councilors for looking at the big picture and seeing that a performing arts center is much needed to enhance this fine comunity.
I even know some hockey players that enjoy a good night out enjoying a show.Culture isn't a bad word.

Maybe a bridge to get there...lets get our priorities right folks!

@bohemian:
"By your logic we should invest in a PAC (creative eononmy infrastructure)"

I am not in disagreement with you...but I really feel that this city is in dire need of some repair..I lived many years in Winnipeg which is rich in culture and the arts..the difference being a very pedestrian friendly city..with (gasp) sidewalks in neighbourhoods and a great transit system...this should be addressed before our money goes into another "study". In a perfect world there would be money for both..Beetle Kill money anyone???

Yikes! ...warm, intimate PAC.. ..if we had the proper facility.. theatre festivals...leadership conferences, political forums, motivational speakers... Whee!

It isn't the pearls and fur crowd that wants PG to have a PAC, it's people who have psychological problems. Really, most of us are quite happy doing whatever we do without the need to get a public warming or get lead or stand on someone else's porch to feel their sunshine. Some people are adrenaline junkies, and the ones that need the PAC to get all shivery, have a similar problem as the risk takers to get their high. Those kind of people give me the creeps. So naturally I don't see a need to provide a PAC.

I vote no. Oh. I don't get to vote? Well maybe it's time to run for council.

We could host the Tom Vu seminar.

Way to go Councilor Murry Krause...
you whine and sniveled long enough you finally got your wish....
I hope if falls miserably and they we can vote your sorry ass out

@YDPC - I'm quite happy to deal with intelligent opposition to a PAC, because there are many REAL concerns with pursuing one. However, based on your comments, you are clearly a narrow-minded idiot.

But then again I apparently have psychological problems, so my judgement might not be so good.

bohemian, I would not consider myself an "artsy fartsy", although I will not deny mild interest in all you mentioned. However, I found your blog to be quite informative. I am a bit more educated on the issue now but still have a hard time swallowing $150,000 JUST FOR A STUDY???? I am, however, greatful that it won't be my "tax dollars", but will come from the pockets of a pack of "losers", LOL...

I would rather see the money go to a hockey team...and it is no secret how I feel about hockey as it sits now....

Bohemian: Amen to being happy to deal with "intelligent opposition" to this and any other issue. It's pretty hard to have a legitimate debate with people who can't see past the end of their own noses. It's the old "what's in it for me" syndrome. I loved your previous comments about the many and varied groups that a PAC could encompass, and how it really is a part of our infrastructure. No city is perfect in North America, and there is always more money that could be spent, so a nice balanced approach seems to be the best bet, with cosideration given to everything from sewers, potholes, bridges, sports, recreation, business, arts & culture, just to name a few. As for the $150K for a study, the other option is to just close our eyes and build a PAC with no study or business plan...which would create even louder howls of criticism and negativity, as it should. Of course a multi-million dollar project needs proper planning - that's hardly a difficult concept to understand.

@Buzz - thanks.

For the record, I'm probably one of the most demanding people of this study. It had better be thorough, and it had better show a very high upside. I suspect the bar will be set higher on this project than others like the Civic Centre, CN Centre, Baseball stadium, Aquatic Centre. This study needs to be able to withstand serious critique and it can't afford any pie-in-the-sky.

I can see you are a demanding fellow bohemian, especially when it comes to getting the PAC, but I doubt the "bar" will be any different than the fluff we were given on the Rack of Beef building business plan. There was some serious critique given on that business plan, but it didn't matter, and it all came true. The building is a bust and a burden. The people that pushed that building weren't adrenaline junkies, just dreamers. The dreamers haven't even been back since the building opened. Reality bites.

What the heck is the "rack of beef" building?

What the heck is the "rack of beef" building?

Love your comments bohemian. My family and I are not supporters of the arts in a big way. We go to an occasional concert but never to plays or to symphony events. However, I can certainly see the benefit to the community in having a really good arts centre. It would benefit everyone directly and indirectly and it is very small-minded and short-sighted to not be able to understand that. I think the building of the art gallery further jaded an already jaded section of the city's population. Too bad we couldn't make that a useful building. I know! Let's turn it into a performing arts center! I'm sure it's not that simple but wouldn't it be great? The roads will always need fixing and there will always be a need for another big chunk of something that costs millions of dollars but does that mean that EVERYTHING else (besides sports of course) has to fall by the wayside?

I am happy that my tax dollars will be supporting the beginnings of a Performing Arts Centre.

@ Buzz:

"What the heck is the "rack of beef" building?"

I think he is referring to the Art Gallery. I guess in YDPC's world, good architechture comes in a square box.

YDPC says "The building is a bust and a burden." Based on what criteria? Tax dollar support? The same could be said of CN Centre, the Aquatic Centre, all the rinks, the baseball fields, the soccer fields, and especailly Fort George Park. In fact, the roads in this city, even the ones without potholes, don't make any money and cost us millions a year in snow removal costs.

I think YDPC SHOULD run for city council, and perhaps a key plank in his platform could be that he will close all the civic facilities and parks because they are a "burden" to the taxpayer.

Or maybe civic facilities and programs are a service the electorate want and what they voted for (based on the track recored of those the continually re-elect). Perhaps they want (and will pay for) amenities for their city in the same way they want (and will pay for) amenities in their home - all of it is an investment in their lifestyle.

If YDPG wants to save tax money, and doesn't want any civic amenities, he should move outside the city boundaries.

I suggest perhaps Burns Lake, or maybe Fort Nelson.

thanks bohemian...I get it..."rack of beef"/Two Rivers Gallery. That's actually quite funny! I thought of it as the Fred Flinstone building for some reason. I think it's a very interesting piece of architecture and much better than our usual prison/school format buildings in Canada. At least it gets a reaction!!

I think YDPC and other "100% user pay proponents" may be interested in living in a country with no infrastrucutre, like Afghanistan, where the user has to pay for absolutely everything, so I guess it's more fair?!?!?

I was kidding about running for council, but maybe it would be a good idea. Can't have everybody on council supporting the PAC without thinking about what the costs are.

Nothing is free, and anything that benefits anybody will invariably cost something for everyone. And most things paid for by everyone (through taxes)is not necessarily utilized by everyone. We all don't swim, we all don't go see art shows, we all don't go to concerts, we all don't .... period. I think it is called "community" something or other?? If we had to take a vote on a swimming pool I would imagine anyone who doesn't swim would vote no.

We're all in it together I think. This community that is.

@YDPC

"Can't have everybody on council supporting the PAC without thinking about what the costs are."

They are not supporting a PAC without thinking about the costs. That's what the STUDY is for!

In fact, the first phase of the study will determine if there really is a market for a PAC; there might not be. That's maybe a $50,000 investment that could save $millions in capital costs, and $hundreds of thousands a year in operating costs.

I would say that's a prudent investment by Council.

On the other hand, the study might discover a real economic and community opportunity, worthy of $millions in investment and $hundreds of thousands a year in operating.

Again, a prudent investment by Council.

(btw - another fairly recent prudent investment in a study by Council was the Transit System study. The improvements are remarkable, and ridership is way up.)

bohemian, once again thanks, your posts are informative and give me cause to think a bit more clearly. When put that way, 50,000 versus millions, makes more sense to do the study, and even at 150,000 - comparables still good.