Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame
I like the rebranding. Is it perfect? No. But Calgary needed one. That said, it's not like the rebranding shows up on Google Maps when you search for "Calgary" or it's what the Flames have to wear. So to all the anger warriors, relax.
|
Well the real reason why a lot of people get worked up over this stuff is because it's a little more trivial. Every city has branding and promoting tourism, that isn't the point. Nothing wrong with a re-fresh and a re-brand so to speak.
$1.7 million to talk to people about it? 2 years of engagement? We got a colourful C for Calgary and talks about a blue sky? If 5 employees were working full time, each earning $100k for 2 years on this engagement, you would still need to spend $700k in discussion on this.
The city says they don't have the financial resources to repair critical electrical work for inner city pools for $600k.
The reason why a lot of people get upset is they see property taxes increased, rental rates increased, high utility rates and fee's. A downtown vibrancy problem, a homeless/tent population and other associated issues.
There is only 1 taxpayer. Years ago I recall the re-branding from "Heart of the New West" to "Be Part of the Energy" and associated explaining was done so that global investors and talent recruiters could better connect with people on what Calgary does. We are the energy capital of Canada. It was also being done for traditional oil and gas and for clean tech and other opportunities.
The logic was what does "Heart of the New West" mean to people in other countries from a recruitment and investor perspective? It's a local thing for western Canada, not for investment banking merger opportunities in Japan.
Now we are getting Blue Sky City to promote Calgary to the world. Do other people not have blue sky's??
And for the posters who try to defend this nonsense, why would a mission critical report for a water crisis take a year but a re-branding of Calgary into Blue Sky City take 2?