[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Search Archives]

Fwd: sites

(Duh, next time I'll try paying attention to the headers.)

-- BEGIN included message

  Speaking from what I have seen around my area, part of the problem with
sites is the cost.  For instance, there is a place that is really quite
lovely--creek running around 3 of  4 perimeters with quiet canopied paths
alongside, open fields, trees, the works--would make a great site--for only
$1000.00 (based on a headcount of 100 gentles attending).  Not only that, but
also bone dry.  Another I have seen that was a truly gorgeous indoor site
couldnt hold our shire's active members comfortably, much less an entire
event.  In finding a site there are a number of criteria that need to be met,
such as fire codes, regs (eg alcohol allowance, whether merchants will be
allowed, etc) whether the kitchen is adequate, insurance details, and so
forth.  Not to mention, some places I have seen would have to hold a vote at
their board meetings to decide whether they could allow our type of group to
use it (not to imply that they dont like us; they simply had never been
approached by any groups like us before).

Just food for thought,

>  Poster: jsrechts@imap.unc.edu
>  It's slow so figure I'd throw in a conversation starter.
>  A friend and I were discussing that  that the quality of the sites has
>  become lower recently. 
>   What I mean is asethetic ambiance.  The site choices seem to harder to
>  make SCA feel
>  like we are escaping the 20th century for a day.  
>  Wall hangings only do so much afterall.  
>  An idea might be to try to look a little harder for sites that have a
>  nicer feel.
>  There are some beautiful sites out there.  Boat Wars for example was in
>  a lovely spot
>  but it seems to be the exception rather than the rule these  days.
>  Comments?
>  Lyanna

-- END included message