Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame
If I had to compare the two, I would think the BMO Centre would be more needed for a vision of hosting large scale international events. That said, the new arena would be used more frequently by locals, as well as the field house.
Five years ago I would say a new BMO Centre isn't necessary for growth. I am not so sure about that these days. Perhaps there is a way that costs can be shared between the two facilities.
|
If the goal is to spur an entertainment district and generate , convention centres definitely are at the top of the totem pole in terms of their potential. Getting a steady schedule of decent conventions means a steady stream of people needing hotel rooms, people going out to eat and drink looking for something to do, vendors with expense accounts, etc and this tends to apply even for shows primarily attended by locals.
An arena really only has 60-80 premiere events a year between the Flames and concerts (and maybe 60-80 more for smaller events between the Hitmen, Roughnecks and smaller concerts?) and most of the attendees live in the city so no hotel rooms and the bulk of their food and drink money is spent in the arena. If the entertainment district is adjacent to the arena you'll probably have more people spending more right by the arena, but what does that do to the places pre-game traffic currently goes to? The potential for the district is limited if this is your primary driver for traffic. If the district gets taken over by the 'Margaritaville's' of the world then how many locals will really care to go?
Basically both are necessary for a city like Calgary. San Diego we are not so we aren't getting the crazy premiere convention traffic with consistency (without even including the 130,000 person behemoth of Comicon) so I don't think a convention expansion alone can do it. The arena provides a bit of a baseline, convention expansion provides the potential, the Stampede will be the gravy for the businesses there.