Convertible venues - one or more Place entities?


Many concert venues have a set of alternate configurations for different sizes and types of concerts, sometimes with names for each. Should each of these configurations be included as a separate Place as a child of the parent entity, or should we use alternate means (e.g. an annotation or “credited as” alternate name) to denote which configuration was used?


My thinking is that renamed venues are separate entities.
This also seems to solve issues around one large venue being split into multiple smaller venues with concurrent/overlapping events on.

And is consistent with a venue being able to change its location.
Cf Brother Love’s Travelling Salvation Show.


That’s not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about one venue that can be converted from one type of venue to another.
For example, there have been a number of these venues open up lately: semi-outdoor amphitheatres (sometimes referred to as “sheds”) with built-in partitions that can be lowered or raised to adjust seating capacity. They usually have three configurations: club/small theatre, indoor theatre and outdoor amphitheatre. Here is an example of such a venue in MB, and here is a link to the venue’s website with info about its seating configurations.
Also, arenas will sometimes use an alternate seating arrangement and stage setup along with heavy curtains as a sort of makeshift theatre. One example of this I can name is Brick Breeden Fieldhouse, which is configured into “The Theatre at the Brick” using the method I described.
The question I posed was whether or not there should be a separate Place for each configuration. It doesn’t entirely make sense to do so, since there’s only one facility as opposed to several that can hold concerts.


I 'm suggesting that altered venues that result in 1 changed venue are a subset of altered venues that result in “n” changed venues.


All the scenarios you mentioned earlier were permanent changes. That, to me at least, is enough to warrant a new Place entity. The scenarios I described are temporary and interchangeable.


I apologise for not making it clear that I was referring to temporary changes. I thought that the context created by your OP would have carried over to my reply.

To be explicit: The renamings and alterations I have referred to are all nonpermanent changes.


I see.
I don’t know if you know about this already, but there was some related discussion a while back: When a Place is no longer a Place
I’m building off some of the suggestions that were made in that thread. From what I remember, name changes are not enough to warrant a new entity, and neither are most remodels (i.e. ones that don’t radically convert the building into something totally different).


My reading of those threads has nothing firm being resolved but with perhaps more support being shown for the idea of a Place being an establishment - which I interpret to include name, decor, ambiance, vision of management.
As opposed to Place as a building.

If this interpretation and weighting of relative support of those threads is correct then temporarily re-shaped venues, would be different Places - more-so if the name is changed,


Some of my bars contained multiple rooms. Each room with a name and theme.
While most of the time we would do a “one ticket access” to the entire building, we would often do a “per room” access. So, if you wanted to see the rock band, you would pay to go into one room. Or if you wanted to see a country band, you would pay to go into the other room. And you wouldn’t have to worry about the crowds mixing.

But no one ever said - we are playing The Blue Room or the Piggly Wiggly. It was always billed under the main bar with a notation that it was one place or the other.

However, that is completely different than the local stadium, which does book their various sections as separate places. The stadium for the big acts, and the amphitheater for smaller acts.

I can’t see a definitive answer coming simply because there are too many scenarios. My bar may have one name, with 5 named rooms inside, but next year I will change the name and theme of 3 of them. Are you going to list the 100 different names I’ve used in one venue - some of which I don’t even remember. But the stadium has been the stadium longer than I have been alive, with the amphitheater being there for the last decade or so.


*it should be noted: I may call it a bar and a room. But, the big room held 1500 people and the next room held 500. We aren’t talking about your local corner pub that holds 50 and has a room to shoot pool on the side.


That’s different; what you’re describing is a permanent division into multiple venues. That, to me, warrants multiple Place entities. I’ve even created a STYLE ticket or two for multi-Place complexes (they usually consist of multiple free-standing buildings, but the same principle applies): STYLE-717 and STYLE-864.


In the case of my local stadium/amphitheater…
The new setup is

one stage shared by both places.
You either face north, or you face south.
Big bands that draw big crowds go in the “stadium”. They perform facing the south so that up to 50,000 people can fit.
Bands that won’t draw that many people play in the “amphitheater”. They perform on the same stage but face north for crowds up to 10,000.


That sounds like what I was describing in the OP: one facility that can be temporarily reconfigured for different sizes/types of events. Since there’s only the one facility (as opposed to one that is permanently subdivided), it doesn’t really make sense to me to have separate entities for each configuration. It might be necessary to do so, if only for tracking purposes.


Having 2 entities here makes good sense to me if Places are “establishments” with their own decor/seating pattern/entrance/target audiences/

Even if a Place is decided to be “a built structure or defined physical area”(an approach which those threads you cite show as probably receiving less support), in this case the audience are sitting in different built structures that share a common stage.
What is it about a common stage that makes this a single Place in your view?


It’s not really “two built structures with a common stage”; it’s the same structure with temporary modifications. In the case of convertible amphitheaters, it’s the same structure and stage with the partitions between sections raised or lowered; and with arenas/stadiums there is no common stage (the stage is a temporary structure, as the building has no stage by default).
Consider this example: many clubs consist of open space with a stage in front. Usually these clubs will be general admission (standing room only) but occasionally one will set up rows of folding chairs as reserved seating or set up tables with chairs for certain events. Would we have separate Places for each of these arrangements?


If the club has the same identity/name/ambiance/decor/general floorplan/entrance/exit/management then why would we have different Places?

But if Place=Establishment then it would depend.
A few extra tables and chairs are not going to make a different Place - and I see no-one claiming it does.
But it might become a new temporary or intermittent Place with some of different identity/name/ambiance/decor/general floorplan/entrance/exit/management/… .

The question seems to be whether different Places are able to temporarily/intermitently “pop-up” in the same physical location/building, or subdivisions there-of.

Temporary/intermitent “pop-up” Places being the case:
It captures relevant data well. Seems likely that some cataloger of Events/Places will find it important to be able to have distinction of Place between justcheckingitout’s Amphitheatre and Stadium.
It functions to group Events with more detail.
It allows complex and in-flux venue arrangements to be captured.
It removes any need to decide “How long can something be temporary?”.
It allows Places to be represented as they are known.
No one-to-one relationship between Place and building/enclosedspace/field/GPS co-ordinates.
Added complexity for db?
Removes benefits of a “single name” for a “building/enclosed space/field/GPS co-ordinates”.
This removal increases the possibility of confusion, and makes it more difficult to enter broader/less-specific Place data. If multiple Place names are created for a single space then accuracy depends on editors having access to the specific Place name used, not just the general (or even the common) name.

What have I missed?


If we are talking about movable tables and chairs…
One of my other bars…
By day it was a restaurant. Brunch, lunch, and early dinners. Everyone out by 7pm. And that worked real well, because it was near the capitol, people would come to eat right after work and go home.

Once everyone was out, we moved all of the tables and chairs into storage. By 8:30pm, we were ready to open as a night club.

Yes, we used different names for each.
And, unlike the first bar I spoke of which had one official name and a bunch of “internal use” names, because this place was open during both the day and night, I actually needed a separate license - which I got in the 2nd name.


Bumping to announce I’ve created a STYLE ticket incorporating some suggestions from this thread.