phxcat wrote:
I don't mean that they shouldn't pursue it, it would be good for the city- it would be another amenity to bring people to KC, and, in a perfect world, into the core, and it would be a regional draw, since the regional cities don't have anything like it. However, it would not be a national draw, whereas the others have that potential, being unique.
Honestly, I don't consider WWI Museum, NLBM, or anything else in KC a
national tourism draw. I mean, by and large, tourists to KC are regional residents. Probably not a whole lot of east or west coasters flying to KC to see the WWI memorial. In terms of pro athletes visiting the NLBM, they typically do that when they are in KC for a road game.
That said, I'm not sure KC has ever really approached its tourism industry from a national or global scale. Pretty much, we're focused on the midwest. We need to compete with STL, Denver, and maybe even Chicago or Dallas for some attractions. Now that Funk is in office, we are a bit more focused on staying on par with Omaha and possibly even staying ahead of Lawrence and Columbia. I digress.
I just think that the aquarium doesn't necessarily need to be a huge, tourism magnet in terms of bringing otherwise disinterested people to Kansas City; although I think it would have this effect. I would be content if it were just a magnet to draw people - who would already be in KC - down to the urban core. I mean, there are hundreds of thousands of people who visit KC every year for any given reason (holidays, weddings, conferences, sporting events), and once here, begin looking for something to do. Are we content telling these people to go to Mission to see the aquarium. Or, should we agressively pursue these $$$ DT. If the benefit > cost, I say we go for it.