Beany, on May 24 2009, 10:07 AM, said:
Just to offer a counterpoint-- I would love for the ACC Hall and Swim Center to both be downtown however I can understand putting it at the coliseum. The swim center is being built with taxpayer money. As such it should be built with some sense of frugality. A bond was voted on and approved for a swim center and a swim center is what the people will get. Unless the city already owns land downtown it would have to be purchased (which isn't cheap). There would have to be suitable parking which could require more land or a very expensive parking garage. Building it at the coliseum requires no land to be purchased and plenty of parking already available. Putting it downtown would certainly be another nice amenity however putting it at the coliseum will cost millions less and is the more responsible use of taxpayer money for a project many do not want their money going to in the first place. The center will be used and enjoyed at the coliseum as much as anywhere else.
As far as the ACC HOC I think downtown would be a preferred site, however I don't see money coming in for it anytime soon for it to be built downtown. Using 2 million from the state the coliseum can be modified to hold the hall and it will still look nice. The conference and city will get the HOC without using lots of taxpayer money. I think the swim center and HOC represent a good compromise between conservative and liberal economics.
And of course High Point road is being targeted for redevelopment as well. This will help. The coliseum isn't far at all from downtown. With a few good redevelopment projects along Lee Street the gap between the two can be bridged.
If you had read my previous comments, you would of noticed that I actually said ACC Hall would be best at the Coliseum.
But the Swim Center is different. And with this project, the council was presented with an opportunity to put a great community attraction in downtown. So the city might have had to purchase more land. Or maybe a community organization like the Bryan Foundation would've stepped up and purchased the land and leased it to the city for $1 a year, similar to what they did with the Elon law school.
But we'll never know because the city council didn't follow its own recommendations and use a committee to look a multitude of sites.
As far as parking, thats a bull answer if I've ever heard one. The city already has underutilized parking decks downtown that could easily support a swim center.
My overall point was that for years, we've heard city leaders wax poetically about downtown revitalization. But the city itself has done little on its own to move the center city forward. Why should other want to invest downtown when the city freely admits, either directly or indirectly, that downtown is too pricey.
My outlook on government isn't purely shaped by the dollars and cents of what a project will cost. And people who only consider this criteria are shortchanging themselves and the city.