Via the Daily Record: Sleiman pushing for new convention center and moratorium

[CityLife]

The thing about the new CC is that it could be a revenue generator as well as a driver of tourism. So I don't know that we can look at it in the same way we look at other public expenditures like the courthouse and the library.

You should view a new CC the same way you view a library, schools, parks, roads, mass transit, etc.  It's most likely going to be a money loser directly but you invest in them to spur indirect economic development.  That being said, if all you had were $200 million in public money (I tend to view things this way because of our current fiscal situation) to invest in DT in the next five years, its difficult for me to say it will bring back the best return or even energize downtown outside of the immediate blocks.

I'd assume that most of the cost of a new CC would be financed. So in my mind the question is, can the increases in revenue and tourism dollars offset the financing costs? If so, the intangible benefits to Downtown and the region would make it a very big positive.

The intangible benefits will ultimately depend on how the box integrates with its surroundings.  We screwed that up with the PO and the amount of potential revenue from a center that size hasn't been as great as it could be.

Schools, parks, and libraries generate little to no revenue, and have significant operations costs. You even said we've lost out on potential revenue from the PO due to its size, so imagine the increases in revenue from a larger CC. I'm not saying it would profit, or even break even, but I'd like to see some projected data so that everyone can make an informed decision.

Basically, someone needs to do a detailed alternatives analysis (Cost benefit, financial impact analysis, etc) of adding a new convention site, vs. keeping the PO and weighing all the factors. Without that information, we the public, and politicians can't make an informed decision on whether or not to add a new CC.

[CityLife]

Anyone realize the artist's rendering is not at the site of the Landing?  But at the site of the old courthouse and city hall annex.

That is where the article and most people project a new CC to go, if one gets built.

[thelakelander]

hmm.

200,000 uninterrupted  square feet?

Yes.  Then you still need additional space for support uses (entrance/foyer, storage/loading docks, truck aprons, etc.).

Well looking at the actual layout of the landing property it appears to be about 1000 feet along the shore line and about 600 feet deep, which is about 600 thousand square feet.

According to Google Earth, there's roughly 370' between Independent/Laura Street and the riverwalk.  Hogan to Main Street is a little over 800'.  However, you're not dealing with a square site.  The Main Street Bridge ramps and Water/Independent eat into it significantly.

And that doesnt even take it over the water.

Shipping channel kills you there.

[CityLife]

Interesting ideas Stephen. There is also the potential of using the surface lots at Bay and Hogan (Omni, Suntrust) Which also happens to be right at a Skyway stop...too bad someone is building a gorgeous (sarcasm) parking garage there....

[thelakelander]

Schools, parks, and libraries generate little to no revenue, and have significant operations costs.

Convention centers tend not to generate revenue either.  Several end up being big money losers. 

http://www.stltoday.com/business/columns/david-nicklaus/here-s-a-rarity-a-profitable-convention-center/article_c2c7e20b-f305-5048-9ee0-5dc004b3545d.html

You don't invest in them for them to bring in revenue.  You're revenue is made by the spinoff of people staying in hotels, buying gas, shopping locally, dining, etc.

You even said we've lost out on potential revenue from the PO due to its size, so imagine the increases in revenue from a larger CC. I'm not saying it would profit, or even break even, but I'd like to see some projected data so that everyone can make an informed decision.

The PO's problems are a combination of size, age and lack of supporting uses (ex. attached hotel, adjacent entertainment, etc.).  It's location also limits its impact on downtown businesses.  You can resolve many of these issues with a better located and designed structure.  However, it would probably still lose money if we're looking at how it can directly generate revenue to cover the annual operations cost.

Basically, someone needs to do a detailed alternatives analysis (Cost benefit, financial impact analysis, etc) of adding a new convention site, vs. keeping the PO and weighing all the factors. Without that information, we the public, and politicians can't make an informed decision on whether or not to add a new CC.

I think this has already been done, which is why the courthouse site ended up being selected.

[fieldafm]

There have been several plans to turn the front of the Landing into a Marina,  the intensification of the current at the bend is why they havent been built, not shipping lanes.

The depth is over 60' from Main Street to the Acosta.

Unless you are tearing down the Landing all together, that site isn't going to work for a convention center. 

[thelakelander]

Looking at google earth, the scale appears to be 200 ft per inch, and there are four of them along the landing on Hogan.
Also the Riverfront is significantly longer than bay street because it is not a regularly shaped property.

If you're using Google Earth, just zoom in and use the ruler/scale command. 

[fsujax]

Sleiman, the Hyatt and the City need to form the mayors favorite thing a P3 and get it done.

[fieldafm]

So in Michael's mind... how will the competitive problem that the current Prime Osborn convention center faces by not having enough single use contiguous space be solved by building a convention center around the Landing site (without tearing it down)? 

[thelakelander]

There have been several plans to turn the front of the Landing into a Marina,  the intensification of the current at the bend is why they havent been built, not shipping lanes.

The depth is over 60' from Main Street to the Acosta.

Unless you are tearing down the Landing all together, that site isn't going to work for a convention center.

Well luckily the good lord invented telephones, and I was able to call The Landing to get accurate measurements.

Even with the irregular shape, the property itself is closer to 300 than 200 thousand square feet, and large enough to accomodate this one unsourced (at present) requirement.

Additionally, in Toney's original plans for the redevelopment of the Landing, the proposal for a convention center was already forwarded several years ago before the Peyton Administration nixed all landing redevelopment plans and actively tried to choke the shit out of the flagship sleiman property.

In my discussion today, there was even a part of the conversation which contemplated the extension of the skyway paralell to Hogan street to serve both the Landing and The Times Union Center.  (which I think would be unecessary if cheaper, covered moving walkways similar to the ones found at airports were installed in the planned parking garage.

There was some enthusiasm for the idea with the Landing folks actually.  Who knows.  Maybe this is one of the many fruitful discussions on metrojacksonville.

We can add that new Chinatown on the east parking lot.  Seriously, though, Sleiman's old idea of doing a convention center was on the East lot.  Either way, for the amount of money you would have to spend on that site and with the tight fit, you'd be better off not doing it.

[fieldafm]

Sleiman's old idea of doing a convention center was on the East lot.

Correct, and would have included tearing down the stepped down building currently used as part of the Hyatt's meeting space in b/w the Landing parking lot and the Hyatt (which frankly wasn't a bad plan but it still had size limitations, which is exactly the same problem facing Prime Osborn). 

[simms3]

^^I remember that plan, but that was before he also proposed putting a 25 floor office tower on that same site, right?

[thelakelander]

I think it was after.

[thelakelander]

meh.

sounds like speculation lake.

Since we don't know the amounts that it would cost comparatively, and even estimating the size of the property was so off,

My estimating of the property's size was not off.  Also, I do know if the river is 60' deep at that location, extending an exhibition hall over the river is going to cost you significantly more than a plan, who's foundation does not have to account for that unique situation.

I would suspect that this is an idea that should be explored before any conclusions should be drawn.

To be honest, I think it's one that quickly dies, simply due to the configuration of the site, the landing lease situation, cost of squeezing something in there with limited expansion potential and still no direct connection to a hotel, and the fact that there are other workable parcels in the area.

The behefits of a centrally located, mulituse facility, with inexpensive transit connection in the middle of what passes for the vibrant nucleus of the downtown that also activates transit for the TUPAC?

Cant overestimate the added value that such a co location would provide.

Great benefits but you can get this at other sites as well and not deal with some of the constraints and costs associated with this site above.  Also, why replace the Landing with a convention center?  Why not keep the Landing and add a mixed use convention center?

Plus, I would really love to see some modern architecture that explores the new possibilities of our building technologies at this site.

I'd like to see various forms of architecture at a lot of sites.  A revamped Landing could also provide the same opportunity.

[thelakelander]

The behefits of a centrally located, mulituse facility, with inexpensive transit connection in the middle of what passes for the vibrant nucleus of the downtown that also activates transit for the TUPAC?

Cant overestimate the added value that such a co location would provide.

Plus, I would really love to see some modern architecture that explores the new possibilities of our building technologies at this site.

Just thinking out of the box but if you wanted to tie something in with the TUPAC, have you considered the air rights for the three blocks of parking lots on the other side of it?  I believe they are owned by different entities but you can get a decent sized single floor box there and directly tie it into the Omni, TUPAC and Water Street garage.  The TUPAC would then essentially serve as your riverfront entrance.



An example of this would be the Dallas Convention Center.  Under it, you have streets, parking and a covered LRT station.