13 Days and counting.....

I don't get your point JTF?
It may seem high to you, but it seems possible to me. I figure during the school year your going to have a lot of days where you have 200-500 school kids on field trips going down on a good portion of the weekdays just like the current Museum of Man and Nature, and on weekends I'd be willing to bet the place will be pretty packed for the first couple years with people who are curious to see something new and to see what all the hype is about.

During the summer months when the Forks is packed and people are attending ball games I don't see how you'd get less than 1,000 people on a Saturday or Sunday. But that's just me, maybe I see this as a possible success rather than assuming it will be a failure. Only time will tell.

However, I will end off saying that I know a ton of people who are constantly looking for new activities and places to see in the city. I'd bet that most of Winnipegers who have seen the vast majority of Winnipeg "sites" (what few we have) will be checking out the museum at least once. Many more will take visiting friends and family as it will be the new thing to see. Once again, maybe I'm being too much of an optimist but really how many times can you take visiting friends to the Forks before it get's really old. Something new to see will be a nice change.

These numbers are just pulled from Gail's ass in order to make this seem plausible...anyone can say anything about anything....what I'd like to see is this backed up with statistics and some sort of professional analysis and not just speculation.

You don't run a business on speculation and bullshit....and the present Aspers appear to be less than good business people in view of their Daddy's company going tits-up now....

But that's just my opinion.

800/day is only about 70/hour.

Now we all know there won't be consistently 70/hour, but some hours will be much higher, some might be a little less. Coming up with an average of 70 visitors/hour should not be too difficult.

70 per hour, even 50 per hour, consistantly is unrealistic imo.

But, hey, anybody can quote numbers like I said. Where those numbers come from is another story though. With all due respect.

Personally I don't believe those numbers can be maintained long-term...but certainly over the next couple of years...till the "newness" wears off.

Want more visits?
Add a heated beach and a casino hall.
Then you'll have peeps buying season's tickets.
:party 003:

What do the current Museum of Man and Nature and the WAG draw annually? I'd guess the CHRM will be significantly higher for the first 2-3 years, and then probably drop off to a similar number. Does anybody have access to these figures?

Heh heh

I have asked those questions as well. Those are unpopular questions that the museum-haters don't like. In so much as they were completely ignored. Just like your post will be.

Another popular target was the increased costs to build since first forecast. You know the argument, costs have gone up soooooo much how could they possibly build it. Now costs are dropping. Wonder if that makes any difference? Ummm. Probably not.

Where are costs dropping?

All around us Deank. Just look at the price of gas.

grumpyrom wrote:What do the current Museum of Man and Nature and the WAG draw annually? I'd guess the CHRM will be significantly higher for the first 2-3 years, and then probably drop off to a similar number. Does anybody have access to these figures?

I'd also be interested in the numbers.

you mean the price of gas that has gone back up in the last 3 weeks?

is it where it was? nope of course not. But the price of gas being lower will NOT have an immediate impact on the price of goods, nor one that is as large as some people may think.

Dont forget when gas was 1.30. Our dollar was on par with the us dollar.
1 CDN dollar = 79 cents us right now.

There will not be a lot of change in the cost of construction in Winnipeg.

grumpy old man wrote:Heh heh

I have asked those questions as well. Those are unpopular questions that the museum-haters don't like. In so much as they were completely ignored. Just like your post will be.

Wrong on both counts. I see you're back to having your old crummy batting average eh.

grumpy old man wrote:.... Now costs are dropping. Wonder if that makes any difference? Ummm. Probably not.

Where have construction costs dropped?

JTF wrote:

grumpy old man wrote:Heh heh

I have asked those questions as well. Those are unpopular questions that the museum-haters don't like. In so much as they were completely ignored. Just like your post will be.

Wrong on both counts. I see you're back to having your old crummy batting average eh.

How am I wrong? I asked similar questions recently and they were ignored. I'm not surprised they were not answered because it does not fit into the negative and defeatist argument.

btw You do debate like brodbeck does. Make innocuous rebuttals followed by personal shots. Only in here a smiley face is added... Maybe you ARE brodbeck...

JTF wrote:

grumpy old man wrote:.... Now costs are dropping. Wonder if that makes any difference? Ummm. Probably not.

Where have construction costs dropped?

Read my post por favor. Hell, just read the quote here^^^...

grumpy old man wrote:Well the Jets did create a sense of community and pride. And they sure did attract tourists.

Just not 700,000. Maybe not 700,000 in their entire NHL existence.

I think you misread my post. I was stating that a new Jets NHL team would attract likely as many as 700,000 visitors. This is simply identical to the claim that the CRHM are projecting 250,000 visitors.
Look no further than Edmonton. The Oilers play in front of capacity crowds every NHL game. There arena holds 16,839. My formula was based on 41 home games, 3 playoff games, and 4-5 exhibition games.

48 games x 16839 visitors a game = 808,272 visitors a yearNow I implemented the same formula for a new NHL team for Winnipeg which would play out of the MTS Centre:

48 games x 15,003 visitors per game = 720,144 visitors annually.
That would mean an NHL team would most likely beat out the museum in terms of visitors by a ratio of 3:1.

Hypothetically, consider the Jets lost $5,000,000 per year that would be subsidised by the Government. That's a far cry from the $22,000,000(?) that we will be shelling out annually for a museum that would attract far less people.

And personally, which would you rather do? Goto a entertainment venue to see the greatest hockey players in the world, which is the most popular sport by far in Canada, or be reminded of the atrocities committed by human beings in general. IMO, there is no comparison.

grumpy old man wrote:All around us Deank. Just look at the price of gas.

That;s only temporary. Economists are predicting the recession will likely end by the fall, or at the worst early 2010. Do you really thing the price of gas will stay this low once the economy recovers? It wasn't too long ago where some parts of Canada were shelling out 1.50/L just a few months ago.

(Hypothetically, consider the Jets lost $5,000,000 per year that would be subsidised by the Government. That's a far cry from the $22,000,000(?) that we will be shelling out annually for a museum that would attract far less people.

And personally, which would you rather do? Go to a entertainment venue to see the greatest hockey players in the world, which is the most popular sport by far in Canada, or be reminded of the atrocities committed by human beings in general. IMO, there is no comparison Qoute)

First you forget the team lost 5 mill a year and the arena which the city owned lost whatever and we picked that up too. Plus paid the people to run it with the stadium . Which also lost money every year , so we lost alot more then you know . The last time I talked to Barry Shenkarow he had calculated it to 12 mill a year of which he lost 5 to 7 mill that was way back when .
Today the salaries are a lot worse . and the building is gone . If we had not spent so much time debating the question we might still have a team , but we debated it into the ground . We could have done what we did anyway and saved the team way back when .

HurtinAlbertan wrote:

grumpy old man wrote:All around us Deank. Just look at the price of gas.

That;s only temporary. Economists are predicting the recession will likely end by the fall, or at the worst early 2010. Do you really thing the price of gas will stay this low once the economy recovers? It wasn't too long ago where some parts of Canada were shelling out 1.50/L just a few months ago.

Fer sure it is only temporary. I would not put too much faith in what economists tell us. They are very good at looking in rear view mirrors. Maybe not so good looking into a crystal ball.

In any event arguments have been put forward that cost increases have driven costs up too much to build what was promised. That was likely true to an extent. But now that some costs are dropping we are not allowed to use that when discussing costs.

Hell the one major cost reduction presented is dismissed because the Canadian dollar has changed - no matter how irrelevant that is to this debate.

And so has the demand for workers in Alberta we are seeing them come in looking for work here now .

Don't kid yourself. The demand for workers in Alberta is greater right now than any other state/province in North America. Why do you think I left Winnipeg to work here?

I'm a proud Manitoban and will always be, but as long as somewhere else pays me twice as much working at a job I love, as I am now, I accept that job, even if it is in Alberta. After all it's Canada. Last time I checked people have the right to move from province to province with no restrictions.

Then way have 4 trades people come into me in the last week telling me they had been laid off in Wild Rose Land and were looking for work , While the news said it had gone down also . Course your down is still pretty good compared to most , cause we keep paying you no matter what . Some day down the road they will go back to a dirty lake of oil and water and cow paddies , hydrogen will rule .

Alberta is seeing jobs lost and peeps are repatriating to their home provinces and elsewhere in Canada for jobs.

Employment in Alberta declined by 15,800 from 2.034 million to 2.019 million in December. The decline in Alberta was the largest employment loss of any province.

The construction industries of British Columbia and Alberta were the driving forces behind the decline of Canadian employment in December.

Statistics Canada reported that employment in Canada decreased by about 34,000, which follows another large decline (71,000) in November. The decline bumped unemployment by 6.6 per cent in December.

Source

I think we have seen the last of $15/hour Tim Horton counter-staff for a while.

Youthful Albertans seen as economically resilient

Eva Ferguson

Calgary Herald

Friday, January 16, 2009


Alberta is well-poised to weather the looming recession as new statistics show it remains Canada's most youthful province.
Young adults, the backbone of the country's mobile workforce, have more options in an economic downturn, experts say.
According to new numbers released by Statistics Canada on Thursday, 71.3 per cent of Albertans are aged 15 to 64, the highest compared with all other provinces and second only to the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. Alberta's proportion of children aged 14 and under is also among the top five at 18.3 per cent, while the percentage of seniors is the lowest among the provinces, at 10.4 per cent.
Roger Gibbins, president of the Canada West Foundation, says much of Alberta's younger population is part of a mobile labour force, working in oil and gas, construction and retail.
And when job loss becomes more of a reality, Gibbins says young workers will leave, but not necessarily for work elsewhere. "People will still tend to go where their families are, they'll go home for the social support."
But as young workers mi-grate out of Alberta, Gibbins explained, the pressure to keep building and growing will wane somewhat. "We'll get a bit of a breather in terms of providing infrastructure, services in general."
Gibbins added that the labour shortage will also become less acute.
Dr. Harry Hiller, a sociology professor at the University of Calgary specializing in Alberta migration, says the province's economy isn't that bad and people aren't leaving yet. "We may be on the precipice of that, but we're not there yet."
If young people do migrate, Hiller said, it will mostly be those in their 20s who haven't started families and can live with their parents.
But those in their 30s, with kids, who have committed to a life in Alberta, can't go to where the economy is stronger, because the recession is global. Selling their house, as well, would also be difficult.
Hiller said he expects the downturn is temporary, and if young people do lose their jobs, they'll probably stay and wait it out. "Nobody believes this is a long-term thing."
Zelalem Meshesha, a 28-year-old employment counsellor, arrived in Calgary this spring to work after attending university in Windsor and spending time in several Ontario cities, including Toronto, Ottawa and Kitchener.
"I did the research, and it was clear that Calgary was the best place to go. There's a lot of young professionals here in the city."
Meshesha added that even if things get worse economically and he loses his job, he won't plan on leaving.
"There's not as much economic activity because of the recession. But if you work hard, there are still more opportunities here than there are in other provinces."
Alberta, as well, has the smallest percentage of seniors among provinces, with only 10.4 per cent of our population being 65 years or over.
Luanne Whitmarsh, CEO of the Kerby Centre, said it's tougher on Alberta seniors being in such a minority because politicians see them as a lower priority.
eferguson@theherald.canwest.com

So what are ya saying HurtinAlbertan? WTF has this to do with the museum? Care to 'splain your point or is ya bored and wanted somethin' to do?