350 million from province for museum...None for arenas

[nik-]

Originally Posted by transplant99

It's still an extremely valid point regardless. When you are talking about using taxpayer money at this kind of level (1/3rd of a BILLION $$), return on said money should most definately be part of the decision. I am aware that not all of the value can be tanglible in the ledger book, but it most certainly can, and should, be a big chunk.

No, just because it's accurate doesn't mean it's valid. People do not come to visit just a pedestrian bridge, both sides of this argument are wrong. Using it as the crux of an argument for or against is not valid though. It's just way too small a part of the issue and it acts as a soapbox smokescreen.

And how does one get a return on investment on beautifying infrastructure spending exactly?

[nik-]

Regardless, this province should be able to supply money for both. We're in this position because we elected a farmer to run a province that pumps BILLIONS of dollars out of the ground. The government is tragic here. Now it becomes a fight over lifestyles and that's just way to polarizing to be productive.

[transplant99]

No, just because it's accurate doesn't mean it's valid.

yes it does.

People do not come to visit just a pedestrian bridge, both sides of this argument are wrong. Using it as the crux of an argument for or against is not valid though. It's just way too small a part of the issue and it acts as a soapbox smokescreen.

Agreed...but part of the argument is that a new museum will attract tourists. I dont believe that is true at all, at least to the extent where it would validate the cost associated.

And how does one get a return on investment on beautifying infrastructure spending exactly?

Not sure if you are referring to the bridge or the museum here. They are seperate issues but both require taxpayer money. However, there is no law that states you cant build something both aesthetically pleasing and functional that doesnt allow for some return on investements either. Perhaps the new museum will allow for that, but I highly doubt it.

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by transplant99

This is from an article about the "peace" bridge but seems rather applicable on this topic as well.

While I agree with Nenshi on a great many things, including these exact words, I don't agree with the position that the words were used to support.

Nenshi brings up the Milwaukee example saying that he saw the art museum without actually having gone to Milwaukee specifically to see it. Lo and behold, look at what he is bringing up, rather unprompted, 7 or 8 years later.

To round out this argument, I'll copy and paste from a post I made a few months ago in the Peace Bridge thread.

Thing is, the tourism spin-off argument was never about that [getting a big influx of people who will come specifically to see the bridge]. Sure, there may be a handful of bridge architecture enthusiasts who may make a special trip just to check out the bridge, but that economic and social impact would be negligible.

It's about little spin-offs like the business traveler seeing it from his hotel room and deciding to walk down and have a look; the kid in the car seeing the uniquely-shaped red bridge while driving by and asking his mom if they can go see it sometime; the tourist passing through on their way to Banff and adding the bridge to their tour of the Calgary Tower and Glenbow Museum; the people in town for Stampede that make it part of their trip; the local Calgarians that make it part of their bike trip or photo op, etc.

Do people go to Toronto just for the CN Tower? Some may, but most make it part of their trip that includes the Hockey Hall of Fame, catching a live play, Blue Jays/Raptors game, Royal Ontario Museum, etc. Do people go to Chicago to visit Grant Park? Most wouldn't, but they may take a spin by there while there to check out the Sears Tower, a Lake Michigan ferry ride, Wrigley Field, and the Hancock Observatory.

The bridge isn't the reason to go to Calgary, but it's one more reason.

--------------------------------

To add, it should be said that being for or against funding for arts is generally an ideological gap that can't be closed. The impasse seen in this thread is a testament to this.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by transplant99

yes it does.



Agreed...but part of the argument is that a new museum will attract tourists. I dont believe that is true at all, at least to the extent where it would validate the cost associated.



Not sure if you are referring to the bridge or the museum here. They are seperate issues but both require taxpayer money. However, there is no law that states you cant build something both aesthetically pleasing and functional that doesnt allow for some return on investements either. Perhaps the new museum will allow for that, but I highly doubt it.

I really don't agree on the first part. The individual point is valid, but it's not a valid argument for or against the bridge if that's what you're standing on, which is what too many do on both sides, as you agree with in the second part of your post. Mostly I agree with your points here, and I wasn't really directing my quote of your first post at you, more so at the people who are living and dying by this being or not being a tourist draw on its own.

[Addick]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Agreed...but part of the argument is that a new museum will attract tourists. I dont believe that is true at all, at least to the extent where it would validate the cost associated.

A part you fail to correctly understand.

The Peace Bridge will not attract a large amount of tourists, however, it will give them another attraction to keep them in Calgary for just a while longer. In addition, it is the cumulative effect of attractions like the Peace Bridge that will become the draw. For instance, a new museum would also probably fail to attract a large amount of tourists, however, a Calgary with the Peace Bridge, a world class portrait gallery, and a vibrant streetlife in the East Village will definitely start to attract tourists.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Addick

A part you fail to correctly understand.

The Peace Bridge will not attract a large amount of tourists, however, it will give them another attraction to keep them in Calgary for just a while longer. In addition, it is the cumulative effect of attractions like the Peace Bridge that will become the draw. For instance, a new museum would also probably fail to attract a large amount of tourists, however, a Calgary with the Peace Bridge, a world class portrait gallery, and a vibrant streetlife in the East Village will definitely start to attract tourists.

I was talking specifically about the museum in Edmonton...how that combines with a foot bridge in Calgary I have no idea....so , no, I don't "fail to understand".

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by transplant99

I was talking specifically about the museum in Edmonton...how that combines with a foot bridge in Calgary I have no idea....so , no, I don't "fail to understand".

To be fair, you introduced comments from an article about with a pedestrian bridge in Calgary as being analogous to a museum in Edmonton. Actually you didn't even mention the specific example of the museum in Edmonton. You said "applicable on this topic," and the topic has meandered into being about museums and arts facilities in general.