Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm a big fan of Raleigh Wide Open, but think taking a year off may not be such a bad idea. When I went last year it all felt a little stale. Some of the music was a little weak and having the "headlining band" in the Amphitherater was a bit of a let-down since you had to buy a ticket. I think they may need to marinate on it a bit and come back with a fresh approach. Maybe they could have less generic carnival food vendors and instead invite all the local food trucks next year?
This event is hosted by the City of Raleigh, not the state.
I think NRG might be right about maybe taking a year off to come up with some fresh ideas for next time. Or maybe they need to hire my sister as the new event director. That might work, too (and it would get her up here, closer to me!).
We are all going to be seeing the effects of only addressing the demand side of the financial equation at the city, state and national level. Having this event cancelled is just the beginning.
Too bad, last year was the first year we did it and we absolutely loved it. It was the best thing we did downtown all year and we do quite a few things throughout the year. I can understand though given budget concerns, though I wonder if it is really because they blew it out for the All-Star Wide Open.
NRG is right, last year felt a bit forced when compared to prior years. I'm hoping that it's one year off, and then come back with a whole new approach. I'd love to see us go back to the free concerts in the park on Saturdays. Those were a complete blast. I'd love to see it refurbished. There are so many ways that this could be redone. I'm choosing to not look at this as a negative, but hopefully something that may get further thought in the future years - especially if enough people call for it.
gibsonlespaul - I'm sure that the city receives funds, also in some manner, but that's not the issue here. This has nothing to do with the state debt. It's completely about the amount of current expenditures of the city versus current income. This doesn't make your opinion not valid, just not applicable to this particular issue.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.