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

[thelakelander]

I'm confused?  The shipping channel is used regularly by barges and tugs headed to Green Cove and Palatka.  To get a usable box like structure on the site, you'd have to completely demolish the Landing and build a new structure that goes over the bridge ramps and Independent Drive, between Hogan and Laura.  There's simply easier ways to achieve what you're looking for in tying a CC and TUPAC together, such as building over the streets and parking lots between it, the Omni, and Water Street Garage.  It cost you less, there's two large parking garages and three lots beneath, and still achieve your goal.

[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.

While some interesting architecture could come of this, it would still lead to a dead zone.one that would suck all the life right out of the center of the city.

Just as the mostly empty convention center at the Prime Osborne created a giant dead zone that triggered a wave of demolitions that eventually put it in the center of an urban prairie.

Your center would be what you make of it.  It can be as dead or as live as any location in the city, including the Landing site and the courthouse site it will most likely end up at.  If you want to be cheap and dead, at least you're box would be at street level and no more dead than the site is today.  If you wanted it to be lively, you simply add retail or cultural space at street level. This can be applied to any site.

[thelakelander]

The shipping channel is in the river.

[Charles Hunter]

Is the Landing land taxed?  I thought the City owned the land under the Landing.

Interesting idea, anyway, but I haven't grasped how you build a Convention Center on the Landing land without knocking down the existing Landing.  And, even if it can be done, seems it would pretty much close the Landing for the duration of construction (or discourage folks from coming due to the ongoing construction).

[fsujax]

The building is taxed but not the land.

[spuwho]

Sorry, when I see Sleiman talking about a convention center and a cheerleadering confab in the same paragraph all I could think of was all the rental minivans high tailing to SJTC during a competition break.

[AbelH]

The Landing is on taxable real estate.  The Prime Osborne is on a huge stretch of non taxable property.

Setting aside another huge stretch of property for a two level tax free property is insane at this point in our history.

Okay, let's get this straight... Property tax revenues, which essentially fund city government, are declining rapidly. We're trying to revitalize downtown, which is already populated by a significant amount of real estate exempt from property taxes. So, let's set aside another significant portion of downtown real estate and make it exempt as well?

Um, Stephen has a good point.

[Charles Hunter]

Although, using the Old Court House site would not "remove" any taxable land, it just wouldn't allow it to become taxable land from a hypothetical sale to a private developer.

[thelakelander]

A convention center can be whatever we want it to be.  You could probably do a P3 with Hyatt just as much as you could with Sleiman.  One thing that seems to be overlooked in this discussion is the importance of ancillary uses such as dining, entertainment and retail.  In fact, it's much more critical to the success of this project than property tax revenue on a convention center site.  With that in mind, the Landing is something like 125,000 square feet of waterfront retail and dining in a highly centralized location.  Even in its current state, it's still downtown's top destination.  If you want vibrancy, you add to things instead of replacing them. Unless, it's on the verge of falling in the river, I don't see how demolishing it and replace it with a convention center box is a positive for downtown?  You end up with a new box that doesn't really net you significant expansion over the PO, in another situation where it lacks a high number of retail and entertainment space in a compact setting.  Not to mention your subsidized 966 unit convention center hotel still isn't directly connected.

[thelakelander]

I'm not seeing it.  All of my architectural background in me doesn't see how you add on a convention center with 200,000 square feet of continuous exhibition space to the Landing without completely demolishing the existing structure and constructing an expensive replacement that extends over the ramps, river or whatever.  All the planning and creativity in the world won't make me or you knock down jumpers like Ray Allen.  At some point, reality has to come into the process.

[thelakelander]

http://www.youtube.com/v/cDUkGEH74Xw

http://sap.mit.edu/resources/portfolio/evaluating_vertical_expansion/

Recent Research from the Center for Real Estate

Recent research from the MIT Center for Real Estate indicates that the vertical phasing of buildings may hold significant potential for helping developers manage risk by allowing a building to grow in height as market conditions warrant.
Vertical expansion refers to a process by which a building is built to a certain height with the intention of possibly expanding it upwards in the future; if such an expansion never occurs, the original building can stand by itself as a fully functioning structure. The development method is an example of a 'real option' in real estate â€" a right but not an obligation to pursue a future course of action; real options are important because of the value they can add to a project.

Great link, but it doesn't apply to the Landing because the it isn't built to support the load of an exhibition center on top of it and it doesn't even have the proper foot print or size.  If anything, it would apply to the vertical construction of a new mixed use convention center on the old courthouse site.  For the Landing, you're looking at a complete tear down and rebuild.

[thelakelander]

We'll agree to disagree on this one. 

[thelakelander]

You actually need more than 200k sf.  The 200k would be for a continuous exhibition space only.  For example, the Prime Osborn is 265,000 square feet but only has 78,500 of exhibition space.  Here is a list of centers across the country and how their total square footage compares with their exhibition spaces.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_convention_and_exhibition_centers

Raleigh's new vertical center has 150,000 square feet of exhibition space but the center covers 500,000 square feet.

[thelakelander]

What do you think about this look?

[tufsu1]

I like Vancouver's convention center quite a bit....but my favorite waterfront center ios Pittsburgh's

btw...regarding NYC, Madison Square Garden only serves as the arena for some conventions....the main convention center is the Javits Center, a few blocks away.

sorry I've been away from this thread all night....the first playoff game for the Baltimore Orioles in 15 years has me a bit distracted!