You can't make this stuff up!

[southy]

One more example of open communication within the big building over on Main ....


https://www.castanet.net/edition/news-s ... htm#199954

[seewood]

This will be in the headlines for a bit. As the comment mentioned, not one blurb from council regarding parking. They (Penticton) were considering the area for another rink ???
Oh man, shaking my head.....
perhaps time will have this proposal shake out a bit more and answer some questions....

[pentona]

This will be in the headlines for a bit. As the comment mentioned, not one blurb from council regarding parking. They (Penticton) were considering the area for another rink ???
Oh man, shaking my head.....
perhaps time will have this proposal shake out a bit more and answer some questions....

Another example of the city not being open about planning. Tourism should have come first, before the Wine/Info centre was given a home. Plus the term "wine/info" centre is misleading. Most would think that they could come there for general info as it was before; not just wine.

Lets hope that the city listens to the public with regards to this and what they want for a new or renovated Memorial arena.

[Darkre]

Anyone that has been paying attention is aware that the city is looking into the possibility of building another ice sheet or 2 at the SOEC complex. They will either build a new arena and knock down Memorial for additional parking or retrofit Memorial and leave the parking as is. There is a small chance that they could twin Mclaren arena and knock down Memorial as well. This has been in the news on several occasions and there was a highly visible arena task force committee set up to research community needs and consider all the different options available to the city to meet those needs. There was a website that not only provided information on the arena situation, it also sought input from the public. There were public displays and information sessions as well.

People have an obligation to do a little research themselves. The information is out there for anyone that thinks to look. Just because Travel Penticton and members of the public were unaware of this possibility does not mean that the city didn't make a serious effort to engage the public.

[madmudder]

This would be the third info center in thirty years.

[fluffy]

What's going. In the old wine/info building just north of the convention centre?

[southy]

Anyone that has been paying attention is aware that the city is looking into the possibility of building another ice sheet or 2 at the SOEC complex. They will either build a new arena and knock down Memorial for additional parking or retrofit Memorial and leave the parking as is. There is a small chance that they could twin Mclaren arena and knock down Memorial as well. This has been in the news on several occasions and there was a highly visible arena task force committee set up to research community needs and consider all the different options available to the city to meet those needs. There was a website that not only provided information on the arena situation, it also sought input from the public. There were public displays and information sessions as well.

People have an obligation to do a little research themselves. The information is out there for anyone that thinks to look. Just because Travel Penticton and members of the public were unaware of this possibility does not mean that the city didn't make a serious effort to engage the public.

I believe you are missing the point Darkre. One would believe that Travel Penticton is an important partner to the city. One would also believe that they would be kept in the loop with regard to where they are and where they may be heading. For Max Picton to say what he did comes across in my opinion like a slap in the face to Travel Penticton.

[pentona]

What's going. In the old wine/info building just north of the convention centre?

Another example of poorly thought out city planning. The old wine/info centre is still there. Was used after the info centre moved for city managers offices, I believe; then it was rented out; to whom I do not know.

Why not evict the present tenants and move the info centre back in there. Surely better than being in a trailer or out on the street. I mean isn't tourism info important, if we are supposed to be a tourist town?

I was very very surprised that they restored the wine centre portion adjacent to the Casino but left out the Visitors portion (which I think is more important than just promoting and selling wine). The parking lot there, however is too crowded now due to the Casino. They should have relocated both the wine portion and the visitors info to one joint, separate building as it was before.

[Darkre]

I believe you are missing the point Darkre. One would believe that Travel Penticton is an important partner to the city. One would also believe that they would be kept in the loop with regard to where they are and where they may be heading. For Max Picton to say what he did comes across in my opinion like a slap in the face to Travel Penticton.

Actually, your preconceived bias against this city council completely clouds your viewpoint and makes you assume the worst. Not once in the article does it state that Tourism Penticton approached the city to enquire about this location prior to this presentation to council. In fact, if you consider the statement from Travel Penticton Executive Director, Thom Tischuk “Visitor centres tucked into downtown locations quite often don't do well.” it would appear that the city has been championing a downtown location for the new visitor centre. As Travel Penticton was unaware of the possible arena expansion at this location I would venture to guess that this was their counterproposal to a downtown location.

As to the comments by Max Picton “I would be hesitant to see this go through until we get a recommendation from the (arena) task force” there is nothing malicious or offensive in them whatsoever. This is a perfectly logical response considering there are 2 groups interested in the same property. Once council hears back from the arena task force they will decide what is the best use for the property. Committing to the visitor centre then having to renege later on would put them in a far worse position.

Personally I would have asked if a $500,000 for a single location combined with the $286,000 annual operating and staffing cost is a justifiable expense in todays day and age especially considering the yearly decline in visits that the centre receives. Apparently last year was a 10% drop and there is likely a larger drop this year now that the wine information centre is in a separate location. Digital Information Kiosks throughout the city and in the major hotels combined with an improved online and social media presence would likely be far more effective and cost efficient.

[XT225]

Actually, your preconceived bias against this city council completely clouds your viewpoint and makes you assume the worst. Not once in the article does it state that Tourism Penticton approached the city to enquire about this location prior to this presentation to council. In fact, if you consider the statement from Travel Penticton Executive Director, Thom Tischuk “Visitor centres tucked into downtown locations quite often don't do well.” it would appear that the city has been championing a downtown location for the new visitor centre. As Travel Penticton was unaware of the possible arena expansion at this location I would venture to guess that this was their counterproposal to a downtown location.

I spoke to someone at the tourist booth, or whatever you they call it. They do not want a downtown location, it would not do well, mainly due to lack of parking for RV's who stop off for info. Makes sense. Should have kept it like in the old days. One booth at each entrance to the city.

[southy]

Personally I would have asked if a $500,000 for a single location combined with the $286,000 annual operating and staffing cost is a justifiable expense in todays day and age especially considering the yearly decline in visits that the centre receives. Apparently last year was a 10% drop and there is likely a larger drop this year now that the wine information centre is in a separate location. Digital Information Kiosks throughout the city and in the major hotels combined with an improved online and social media presence would likely be far more effective and cost efficient.

Darke - facts/links/stats please:

1. yearly decline in visits that the centre receives.
2. Last year was a 10% drop and there is likely a larger drop this year (you know this how?)
3. Digital information kiosks throughout the city and in the major hotels (you mean the only two we have?) at what cost?
4. Improved online and social media presence - compared to what?

You seem to know something others don't or you wouldn't be able to make these judgements ... lets hear it.

[Darkre]

Actually, your preconceived bias against this city council completely clouds your viewpoint and makes you assume the worst. Not once in the article does it state that Tourism Penticton approached the city to enquire about this location prior to this presentation to council. In fact, if you consider the statement from Travel Penticton Executive Director, Thom Tischuk “Visitor centres tucked into downtown locations quite often don't do well.” it would appear that the city has been championing a downtown location for the new visitor centre. As Travel Penticton was unaware of the possible arena expansion at this location I would venture to guess that this was their counterproposal to a downtown location.

I spoke to someone at the tourist booth, or whatever you they call it. They do not want a downtown location, it would not do well, mainly due to lack of parking for RV's who stop off for info. Makes sense. Should have kept it like in the old days. One booth at each entrance to the city.

Exactly the point I was attempting to make. The city likely offered them a downtown location and Travel Penticton countered with this location at the SOEC, likely without consulting the city. Thus their shock at another group being interested in the property.

As to one booth at each entrance to the city, 2 locations equals double the expenses. Travel Penticton only has a $700,000 budget and 40% of that is already being used for operating expenses and staffing at the one info centre ($281,000 per year not the $286,000 I stated earlier). Broken down, the cost to assist each traveler that visited the information centre was $12.57 per person and the number of visitors to the Tourist Information Centre were greatly inflated by those visiting the Wine Information Centre. Without that traffic the cost per visitor is going to rise sharply. This does not seem like an efficient use of their limited budget and would only grow worse with 2 staffed locations.

This is why I mentioned the Digital Kiosks. The city could have one at each entrance to the city, one in each hotel, one at each large park, one in the mall, another downtown. With a bluetooth connection people could download maps, coupons and gps coordinates to anything that interested them.

[Darkre]

Personally I would have asked if a $500,000 for a single location combined with the $286,000 annual operating and staffing cost is a justifiable expense in todays day and age especially considering the yearly decline in visits that the centre receives. Apparently last year was a 10% drop and there is likely a larger drop this year now that the wine information centre is in a separate location. Digital Information Kiosks throughout the city and in the major hotels combined with an improved online and social media presence would likely be far more effective and cost efficient.

Darke - facts/links/stats please:

1. yearly decline in visits that the centre receives.
2. Last year was a 10% drop and there is likely a larger drop this year (you know this how?)
3. Digital information kiosks throughout the city and in the major hotels (you mean the only two we have?) at what cost?
4. Improved online and social media presence - compared to what?

You seem to know something others don't or you wouldn't be able to make these judgements ... lets hear it.

http://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/pentictonherald.ca/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/7/ba/7ba51d00-1326-11e6-80c4-775b630ebe4f/572bedc4f02ed.pdf.pdf

Whatever the cost would be for digital kiosks it would be substantially less than building a new information centre plus the annual operating budget for the information centre could be allocated to more advertising to bring more people in to Penticton.

[Darkre]

article from 2013 stating the new habits of travellers
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/smartphones-use-forces-rethink-of-visitor-centres/article14032293/

[XT225]

article from 2013 stating the new habits of travellers
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/smartphones-use-forces-rethink-of-visitor-centres/article14032293/

Perhaps you weren't around when we had the two booths; one North of town; the other South. Worked well and they do NOT have to be pricey; could be the size of the Peach with minimal expense. Digital is ok for some but actually talking to someone face to face and getting paper brochures/directions is invaluable. With the growing senior populations in the country, digital doesn't always cut it.