Not to mention that a lot of performers seem to put on good shows there for some reason. Bruce and Phish especially appear to have a fondness for the place.Other than it being totally mismanaged - I kind of like it. Maybe it’s a dump - even after the most recent $100 million fix up - but it can be a real good home court when it’s rocking.
Aetna just sold a big chunk of their business to CVS. Wait until they experience the vibrance of Woonsocket, RI.The CEO of Aetna said that Hartford needs to be a vibrant city to attract business to Connecticut. Closing the XL, and the creating a dead zone in the middle of the city, is a step in the wrong direction.
If the Civic Center ever made money in its history it wasn't much. Its value lies in the positive effect on surrounding businesses. Hartford was a much different city when the Whalers were in town.Connecticut built itself (well rebuilt itself) largely by being a more tax friendly place to do business than NYC (and to lesser extent Boston.) It needs to return that model. The XL's (anyone else's first instinct to type "Civic Center?") existence and quality has near zero impact on the relocation analysis. In my opinion, it is either revenue generator or it's not. Heck even revenue neutral would be fine. But if no one can find a model that gives the state a positive ROI on an nine figure investment, I can't see how anyone could reasonably justify voting for that outlay in a state that has huge fiscal problems.
That's the argument the CDRA makes, but I've never seen any data supporting it. Can't see how the state can justify a nine figure investment without any reasonable projection of a return.If the Civic Center ever made money in its history it wasn't much. Its value lies in the positive effect on surrounding businesses. Hartford was a much different city when the Whalers were in town.
I remember the bars and restaurants being packed. The xl is too large for minor league hocked and mid-major hoops. Shut it downThat's the argument the CDRA makes, but I've never seen any data supporting it. Can't see how the state can justify a nine figure investment without any reasonable projection of a return.
All I know is that Hartford was much more active when the Civic Center was hopping. People invested in downtown businesses and not just bars. Traffic means sales. Was it worth the investment? Hard to know but I think it was. Whether or not the Civic Center is still worth the investment is another question.That's the argument the CDRA makes, but I've never seen any data supporting it. Can't see how the state can justify a nine figure investment without any reasonable projection of a return.
No doubt Hartford was a much more lively city back then. I doubt it was because of the Civic Center though. I have never seen an analysis of the ROI on the original investment. Based on the "eye test" (which is pretty much worthless) I'd guess yes. All those UConn sellouts, packed concert events and the Whale in it's hey day brought a lot revenue.All I know is that Hartford was much more active when the Civic Center was hopping. People invested in downtown businesses and not just bars. Traffic means sales. Was it worth the investment? Hard to know but I think it was. Whether or not the Civic Center is still worth the investment is another question.
There are probably very few venues not named MSG that pay for themselves as a stand alone line item.