Dahl, round 2
I decided th put this up here instead of
way down there. New thoghts from folks
about the Dahl... waiting for your feedback.
way down there. New thoghts from folks
about the Dahl... waiting for your feedback.
posted by Bill Fleming at 7:45 AM
1 Comments:
Bill Fleming puts it into words, and the poll mentioned above, unscientific but highly instructive, puts it into numbers: If the arts community doesn’t hang together, it will hang separately, because most taxpayers would rather not spend the money, period. “Hanging together” does not mean doing it the Dahl’s way, necessarily. “Hanging together” DOES mean putting aside the various hard feelings that now exist, and working very hard to find a win-win situation to be presented with one voice to the city council. At this point, a short term win-lose resolution will ultimately be a lose-lose. It seems to be part of our West River genetic disposition, even among you high-toned artsy-fartsy folks, to keep alive the memory of supposed insults and losses until revenge can be exacted. Seems to me there are lots of potentially constructive options for a joint facility, either near the Journey or at the MDU site.
Comment by Don Frankenfeld — 4/11/2005 @ 9:29 pm
19.
Mike, Linda,
Did you see that little RCJ poll?
Sad that so many said “neither”.
But somewhat encouraging that the second highest number was “both”.
I’d like to see a more rigorous study on this.
Has one been done?
Is there a way to get the whole community more fired up about the Arts?
Culture and the Arts have been key economic development highlights
in other communities. Why not here?
Comment by Bill Fleming — 4/12/2005 @ 6:30 am
20.
Linda brings up some points that hope get addressed.
I’m also curious about the non-2012 funds that have
been raised. Were those donations and grants specifically
for use in building a theater, or for general improvements
and expansion of the Dahl facility?
Is there enough funding available to convert what is
now a small theater in the Dahl to space suitable for other uses?
And if so, what is the city’s disposition on funds raisied to improve city
property that was raised through means other than direct city funding?
i.e. Would the all of the new, improved Dahl still belong to the city?
Do the two combined maintenance subsidies that will be required of the
city add up to more that it would be annualy to support just one facility?
If the city council decides to stay with the current plan and doesn’t build
a new theatre on the Civic Center/Journey campus, will BHCT still be welcome
at the Dahl? Will they still want to lease from the Dahl?
Comment by bill fleming — 4/12/2005 @ 8:39 am
21.
I am a member of the RCAC but I want to make it clear that the following are my own personal views and not those of the RCAC. I’m glad to see a healthy discussion on the 2012 committee recommendations and would like to address some of those issues.
1. Why is this happening now ?
My answer is that I thought we were working together on the one project. In Jan. of 2003 when 2012 funds became available, the City Council approved the architectural contract to design the facility. BHCT was one of our primary partners, sitting side by side with RCAC in this process. We also asked for and received input from over 400 community members and groups.
2. Does it make a difference if the two facilities are separate or together?
I believe it does and I will give you two cases to consider. Number 1: the demise of the Sioux Falls community theatre was brought up. I do not pretend to know the entire story but I do know that their community theatre became a STAND ALONE facility and that it obviously failed to thrive. Number 2: I have just returned from Mesa, AZ. While it has a much larger population than Rapid City, we share many things in common. They are suffering the challenges many downtown areas do today and in order to energize and revitalize their downtown, Mesa arts groups managed to work together along with the city and taxpayers to build a muti-million dollar Mesa Arts Center touting theatre, visual and performing arts, music, classes, film festivals and art galleries all coming together and where? Right in the heart of downtown Mesa, one block off of the main shopping street and with similar parking to the Dahl location.
Mike Gould mentions the synergies for economic development, conventions and tourism and I maintain that those synergies are at the Dahl location too. Finally, on this issue: think of the money saved by building all the arts in one location and the arts groups sharing their resources, manpower, and management under one roof……No duplication needed!!!!!!
3. Who will manage the new theatre and how much will it cost? I will answer that by asking who has a 30 year tested and proven track record of sound fiscal management of a public owned facility in Rapid City??? I also want the public to know that in order to make certain that we can run and maintain an expanded facility, RCAC has hired a national arts facility planner for assistance in designing a 5 year business plan which is almost complete and will be available this month.
And finally I have some questions of my own:
1. Which facility is at an advanced stage of development with hard numbers?
2. Which facility has raised $2.1 million in private funds to date to build the proposed facility in the Dahl location?
3. What will happen to these donations if the project is separated into two separate facilities and two separate locations?
4. Do Rapid City taxpayers really want to turn down the $1.1 million in potential Kresge/Bush Foundation grant funding pending on the City’s decision to go forward at the Dahl location???
Barbara Linderman
Comment by Barbara Linderman — 4/12/2005 @ 10:28 am
22.
I think I can answer Bill Flemings question as to who would own all of the new improved Dahl? The City of Rapid City owns the Dahl and would own the expanded Dahl. RCAC is very aware that we manage, not own, the Dahl. He also asked if the city decided to stay with the current expanded would BHCY be welcome at the Dahl. Yes, our vision all along has been an expanded facility housing all of the performing and visual arts under one roof. The question was asked about city subsidies….it just stands to reason that if the arts are under one roof and share resources, management, and manpower the cost to the city and therefore the taxpayers will be substantially less that funding two separate facilities. Don Frankenfield says it all…if we don’t hang together, we will hang separately.
Barbara Linderman
Comment by Barbara Linderman — 4/12/2005 @ 8:30 pm
Post a Comment
<< Home