While I appreciate Jen’s opinion’s on some topics, I often chuckle when she writes a post about her sudden surprise when a politician is saying one thing and doing another, especially Smiling Mike;
I joined the Build It Downtown Group because I believed in what this passionate and highly committed group of business people wanted to do – engage the Mayor in considering alternative sites for an event center. Consider, not demand. Talk, discuss and give input to the mayor and his staff as they work through the process. Work with them on this project. It is a noble cause spearheaded by noble people who have the best interests of the city at heart. These people are taxpayers, citizens of Sioux Falls and voters. This group has worked hard to gather data, meet with architects, engineers, city planners, developers and the public. They have studied this issue extensively and reviewed dozens of cities’ successes with their own events centers. They deserve to be heard, not ignored.
Why is it that this group is being ignored and even demonized?
There are a lot of groups in SF that deserve to be heard. What makes BID special? Because Hildy runs the group, or because you are a part of it? This should come as no surprise, the mayor has chosen the Arena site from the beginning and all data will point in that direction.
What I don’t get is why the Mayor and members of his staff choose to ignore the Build It Downtown group’s repeated requests to meet and discuss their ideas.
What is Not to Get? The fact that he is king and will run his court the way he chooses? Munson did it for 8 years, and you never heard a peep. I’m not defending Mike, I’m just saying, isn’t it a little late to bitch about the mayoral dictatorship we have had for years? Where was your blog and voice during the Munson years . . . oh . . . that’s right, you were collecting a paycheck from the city and worked at the pleasure of the mayor, so you bitched quietly in a corner by the water cooler.
The mayor promised to seek public input before decisions were made. He has chosen to ignore or even listen to voters who want to give input or their opinions regarding this important project. He is failing to keep his promises. He is failing the voting public.
And all of this is a shocker? I have said all along, if Dr. Staggers were mayor right now, this would be a very open process, in fact, you can probably guarantee he would not be involved at all. The EC debate belongs in the private sector, not the public sector. To quote a frequent commenter on the Argue Endorser’s forums, “If it is such a crackerjack idea, why isn’t the private sector putting their money up? (paraphrasing)”
Build it Downtown’s original FACEBOOK post on the topic:
Steven C. HildebrandFebruary 17, 2011 at 6:24pm
Subject: Seems the Mayor and his staff won’t answer any questions.
Whether the questions come from city council members, the press or from Build it Downtown, the mayor and his staff refuse to answer questions directly about possible locations for the events center and about the process to make decisions.
We’ve been trying to get a meeting with his staff to discuss possible downtown locations. They first refused to meet with us, now they just ignore our requests. We’ve asked for public record information and they’ve refused to provide it.
Seems that in the next few days the mayor will announce which downtown location will be studied. He’s making this decision without public input, without discussing this with the city council (who he will ask to refer this issue to the voters), without discussing it with stakeholders and without meeting with Build it Downtown.
Our group has worked hard to gather data, meet with architects, engineers, city planners, developers and the public. We’ve studied this issue extensively and reviewed dozens of cities’s successes with their own events centers.
Yet the mayor and his staff ignore us and want us to go away. Seems like a poor way to serve the public. Maybe he’s forgotten that we are voters and taxpayers who pay his salary. Maybe he’s forgotten about his promise to be the most transparent mayor in Sioux Falls history. Maybe he’s forgotten about his promise to seek public input before all the decisions were made.
This mayor, like any mayor should be accountable to you and me. We are here to help him build a successful events center. We have the best interests of Sioux Falls at heart.
I hope you will express your concerns with the mayor. You can email him at mhuether@siouxfalls.org. He needs to hear from us.
Thank you.
Steve Hildebrand, Co-founder, Build it Downtown
Hildy is just as closed minded as Huether, though.
Not really, Scott. BID’s position from the beginning has been that if an ecnomic analysis is done correctly and is unbiased stating that the Arena is better and has better potential then they’d fold up shop and get behind the Mayor’s plan. That sentiment hasn’t been reciprocated. Instead, we’ve seen an example of someone who didn’t win the CM job follow up email held up as “that’s how this will get it done.”
Prediction: the Mayor will go with Cherapa for their study site. Bonus of that will be it’s been studyed and it’s basically turnkey when the tracks are gone. Give Mortenson the gig with what’s left of the $40 milllion Fed appropriation and a bonus if they get it done a year early, which they would.
But they’ll never accept any study as “unbiased” if it doesn’t agree with what they want.
AECOM is a $3.5 billion (market cap) company, and the City’s annual budget is 10% of that amount. Right now we are spending $30K on the study, so the question is can the information be unbiased under those parameters? Is Mike such a huckster that he can manipulate a company that size? I guess he may have a history doing just that.
I have said all along Mike will go for the DT location, but he wants to take credit for it. Mark my words, he will name the DT location.
Try this comparison, picture one of your favorite concerts going on and either before or after the show you can walk indoors into a handful of different & new spots with 30 ft of the EC and the other side of those places opens up to the river greenway project. Within 500 feet are both Phillips ave and 8th & RR and within 1000 feet are Uptown and whatever happens at Sioux Steel.
Or before or after the same show you can walk 1000 ft to either BW3 or the Sheraton restaurant to grab a bite or a drink.
Sy, I have said all along, if DT is not picked, I will rail against the EC like a fiery storm.
l3wis, does that mean you will rail for a DT EC even if funded by those who will never use it?
Scott Hudson is really the only person I have heard of around here that can truly see the big picture.
Poly, Scott does have a point on the current state of the music industry and big touring acts, but as the new Arena Manager said in the AL, we lose the ones that want to come here (he didn’t want to get specific on how many) due to something we can’t change at the place: ceiling height.
http://www.argusleader.com/article/20110220/NEWS/102200331/1001/Arena-GM-Lifespan-facility-has-passed
BID is arguing for the largest economic ripple for this project, period. The project won’t open until at least 2014 and more like 2015. Do you guys honestly think we will still be in a recession by then? If so, isn’t that all the more reason to do this 50 year project and do it correctly?
Also, look at the recent Census data and you’ll also see that by the time the place would open we’ll add enough new population to fill it.
Poly, I am against it, as currently proposed, any location. I think there needs to be at least a 50% private contribution, I also think we need to get creative on the funding, like a corporate entertainment tax.
Until he names the acts, I don’t believe the high stage story. And if it’s somebody who would only attract the typical 5000, it has nothing to do with needing a BIGGER facility.
What’s his motivation to lie about something like that, Scott?
Also, I noticed you didn’t answer my other questions; do you think we will still be in a recession in 2014? Do you think this City will stop growing like it has? Not flaming, I just want to know why you think that if you do.
I don’t know why you’re asking me that. My comments on need has nothing to do with the state of the economy. Instead, it’s the death of arena shows. The future is in smaller, more intimate venues. That’s what I’ve said from the beginning, and I’ve never wavered.
If I’m wrong, and the Arena begins to consistently sell out, I’ll revise my position.
Okay, but per Forbes, the industry had a record year in ’08 and has obviously fallen off since;
http://www.forbes.com/2008/01/04/concert-revenues-2007-biz-media-cx_lh_0104bizconcert.html
You claim we don’t need a new EC because of the “death of arena shows”, yet that same trend is largely blamed on current economic conditions. Per Pollstar via ticketnews.com:
“The concert industry trade magazine reports that North American touring has seen a 15 percent drop in “key concert indicators,†a trend reflected in the number of recent cancellations by artists like Christina Aguilera, the Eagles and Rihanna. With higher ticket sales happening in geographic areas with higher employment stats, it seems clear that the still sluggish U.S. economy is largely contributing to industry woes.”
http://www.ticketnews.com/news/Weak-economy-contributes-to-faltering-North-American-concert-industry-in-first-half7101276
I get that live music is based on discretionary income, but I’ll submit that people go without for a period, but they don’t quit going to shows forever. When either A. prices come down or B. people’s incomes go up you will see a snap back in this industry. If both happen simultaneously, it will come back in spades.
I’m not going to rehash my entire argument for the 1000th time. The economy is certainly a factor, but the big elephant in the room that Pollstar doesn’t want to acknowledge is that the number of acts with across-the-board popularity is decreasing every year. That is exactly why the future of live music is in smaller theaters.
That and the fact the voters haven’t said if they want it or not, and no funding source has been secured.
Scott:
“that Pollstar doesn’t want to acknowledge is that the number of acts with across-the-board popularity is decreasing every year.”
How long has this trend been occurring? I guess as a casual live music fan I don’t remember a time where there was a large amout of acts that appealed to both young & old, male & female, country & urban etc. at the same time. When I think crossover appeal I think Kid Rock and Taylor Swift. I don’t recall acts like that back in High School or College.
Also, what do you think has changed more: The acts or the audience?
Sorry, but I’ve only heard bits of your argument over time and I’m curious as to what you base it on.
The entire concept of arena-sized shows are based on mass-appeal, household name acts. Everybody knew who the Beatles, Stones, Zep, Clapton, Brooks and Dunn, Cheap Trick, AC/DC, Bon Jovi, Chicago, Tom Petty, Springsteen, Prince, Garth, etc. etc. were. You may not have been a fan, but you knew who they were and what they sounded like. This was primarily because until 10 years ago or so, there was a true Top 40 format. This has been replaced by CHR (current hits radio), which is a much more streamlined format (primarily bubble gum, light rap, and pop R&B) and has done more to hurt the record industry than downloading has ever done.
The concert industry has relied on these old stalwarts for decades, and as they’re dying off or retiring there have been fewer and fewer acts that have replaced them. Off the top of my head, I would say Pearl Jam, Foo Fighters, and a handful of country acts are among the few that have built up that sort of name recognition that will allow them to play arenas for almost as long as they want. The majority of others get about 2-3 years to capitalize on the peak of their success.
More and more, the music industry has become about finding your own little niche. There are mass appeal “celebrities”, and there are short flash in the pan success stories (Bieber, Rhianna, Jonas), but for the most part we’re at the point where I haven’t heard of your favorite current band and you haven’t heard of mine. Arcade Fire topped the charts for two weeks when their album came out, but last week there was tons of outrage that nobody had ever heard of them when they won the Grammy.
This is why I am so critical of the Pavilion and Orpheum. They have wonderful opportunities to bring in some top-notch acts, but like most of the buildings we’ve had in this city they’re run by people who know nothing about music.
Also, one more big difference in the concert industry these days as opposed to the height of arena shows – artists aren’t spending months and months on the road anymore. A typical tour is 30 – 60 dates, primarily hitting the big cities, and are only to promote their once-every-3-years album release. Country acts tend to stay on the road longer, and also release product on a more timely basis.
To sum it up – music has become like television. Instead of a couple dozen acts (or 3 TV networks) dominating the industry, there are now tens of thousands of bands (or a few hundred channels) fighting not only to be noticed but to be an alternative to video games, DVD’s, netflix, Hulu, etc. Video games, in fact, are sadly the new rock stars. One new game can gross $100 million in one day.
Interesting and thanks for sharing. I guess I look at our local market which is dominated by heavy metal and country and then I go back and look at Pollstar’s latest (’10) top 50. It’s peppered with those kinds of acts. If what they say about ticket sales being better in markets with low unemployment (duh) than we’ve missed the opportunity to show what we can do during times like these. The top two touring acts were AC/DC and Bon Jovi and BJ went right by us with an open date between Fargo and Omaha. Both bands have played here in the past and neither one would consider stopping here today. Now I’m not saying they would with a 12K seat Arena in place, but I’d think they’d at least give us a look.
But I do agree with you, someone would have to do the actual legwork and make an actual intelligent pitch to get them to consider us upon getting said look. We build a new facility and stay with the same MO we are truly screwed.