Jump to content

New Richmond Arena


eandslee

Recommended Posts


Brent114...I can't tell if you are for or against this project...:tw_joy:   

You seem to have very good expertise in municipal bond credit metrics, analytics around profitable touring music and entertainment acts, the financial health and general usefulness other entertainment venues in the City, etc...either that or you just hate Dominion  because of some politically-charged view?....I know you can write whatever you want but it's border-line trolling us folks who are genuinely enthusiastic about this project and have a balanced careful view with the underlying hopes that it can be successful....without recklessly throwing around "fake" information as if you have factual data on it (that would be touring act financial data, bond rating scenario analysis, claims of "stealing" from the City (really?), personal attacks ("sophmoric", "high schooler").  

Living in a different time or clinging to the past? Claims like "voodoo economics" and "the circus is gone" leads me to believe that maybe you are out of touch with modern entertainment?  Ice Capades?  That act was big in the 50's-70's.   You do know that Disney has around 15-20 shows of Ice entertainment booked within about a months time between Richmond and Hampton Coliseum...as it does every year.... for a reason.   Get up to date before you make these comments.

I appreciate everyone's input and different views but just reading your quotes on this topic (below) tells me you may want to spend your time elsewhere...but that of course is your choice.
 

Quote

 

" I’d call it hyperbolic and bullying. it’s disingenuous to talk about the area like there are only two options for it: this development or  blocks of abandoned office buildings(Taylor Swift or abandoned concrete plazas).  GTFOH with that sophomoric garbage.

Your journalistic standards must be lower than mine. A high schooler could have made a more persuasive argument

This plan is DOA anyway, we should stop wasting time on it. 

So because I’m not excited about replacing existing parking garages with new ones (pretty much what these generic drawings of the project show) while  using voodo economics to fund the replacement costs, I don’t want the city to move forward?

I  couldn’t  care care less about a new arena.

A new arena will be pretty ( until it becomes  painfully dated in ten years) and will add visual interest to the area (until one by one the lights illuminating the facade burn out). It won’t “put Richmond on the map”.  It won’t take Richmond to another level.  It will do for the city exactly what the Coliseum did: provide  entertainment  for locals which is a good enough purpose I suppose .  The Coliseum was built when arena entertainment was a thing though.  There is no more circus. There are only a handful of arena-packing touring groups.  The Ice Capades  hung up the skates decades ago.

Smelling more like it’s doomed with every “update”.  Good riddance.

It’s stealing from the city to fund a vanity project

 These fake neighborhoods are always failures by every measure (even says so in this article).   

Issuing a billion dollars of bonds will trash the city’s bond rating

talk of adding a “small performance space” when  Doninion’s  black box theater goes unused

It’s fleecing base d on antiquated ideas of entertainment districts.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m for replacing (on the same site) or remodeling the Coliseum.  That’s it. 

There is no scenario where it pays for itself.   There is no scenario where it spurs  meaningful economic activity in the area. Arenas just don’t do that and there’s no reason to believe that somehow Richmond will buck the trend.  You can call wanting to believe that it will a “balanced and careful view “, I’d call that dreaming. 

The most recent article states that the TIF will have to be expanded to help finance the project (steeling money from Richmond’s general find).   It also (under) estimates that the city will have to issue around $270 million in bonds. 

What do we get out it?  We get to rebuild existing structures in their current locations (parking garages, arena) more unneeded meeting space (in addition to the convention center, hotel ballrooms, Main Street Station)  a small performance space (a few blocks from ones that we already financed, that go unused) and some housing in the least likely place anyone in Richmond would want to live. Even if it could spur spillover developments, geography limits it. 

I may feel differently about this plan if it were  in Manchester  or Monroe Ward.  

 

So, what’s there to like about it? 

 

Edited by Brent114
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Brent is right about arenas and economic impact. I don’t think anything significant has changed since Andrew Zimbalist laid such ideas to waste in Baseball & Billions and Sports, Jobs, and Taxes. An exception may be if the stadium/arena project enables a much needed infrastructure improvement, which is almost never the case. OTOH, you can’t put a price on civic pride. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still cautious about this project. I agree that sports/music venues are not the type of projects that successfully revitalize neighborhoods, at least in the ways that I like to see. I would almost rather the Coliseum be rebuilt outside of the current area and leave the entire up for housing/mixed use but that won't happen. I really don't know where I stand. I'm definitely against expanding the TIF, I agree that at that point you are starting to really take money away from the city even if it is "future" money. In reality I'd be for the project if it succeeds but I think it's a large risk to develop the entire area at once opposed to trying to incrementally promote development in the area. I'm just kind of sitting on the sidelines for this one...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't the city's RFP expect responses to be way above and beyond the scope of replacing the Coliseum? GRTC transfer center, convention hotel, off-street parking, workforce housing, etc etc? You guys all seem very knowledgeable about funding mechanisms for public projects, so I'd love to hear about alternative methods of providing these public items (exclude the convention hotel) that don't include public investment, TIFs, bonds, etc. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well convention hotels (as mentioned) and off street parking I wouldn't  consider public projects. Yes this does include GRTC transfer center and the mayor mentioned that a certain amount of affordable housing would have to be included. Both transportation and affordable housing projects are currently being developed within the city without specialized TIFs, meaning that these specific things are already possible. That's a major reason I disagree with expanding the TIF, although the original proposal I think I'm OK with. 

It's not the specifics of the project that I have a problem with. I personally think that large scale multi-block projects that try and "create" a neighborhood often come out disingenuous and that's what I'm most scared of in this. That was my major problem with the stadium in the bottom. The best neighborhoods are products of separate developers putting projects together independent of each other to create a more organically diverse atmosphere. Not saying large developments like this always fail, I just prefer it the other way. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Per article today in times dispatch on VCU graduation - the coliseum is officially not booking events past this December.    City council is going to have to vote soon if they want to fast track and start demolition beginning 2019. 

Edited by cbl1
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, cbl1 said:

Per article today in times dispatch on VCU graduation - the coliseum is officially not booking events past this December.    City council is going to have to vote soon if they want to fast track and start demolition beginning 2019. 

Seriously.  I’m surprised we haven’t heard anything lately regarding any updates yet. We know they were close in negotiating a deal a few months ago, but crickets as of late. The Coliseum is obviously preparing for the deal to go through and I think that is very telling. I just want this to go before City council soon to get this approved so that we can get this show on the road!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe (hopefully) they are working close with City Council on details to get there support vs. surprising them with details and them voting NO.  Maybe there getting the votes lined up before putting it in front of the public - and the naysayers that will come out of the woodwork.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or maybe the coliseum sits vacant for the next few years.  That’s the most likely scenerio right now.   

Does anyone know if the operating budget for 2019 was approved?  It could be shutting down not because demolition is eminent but because the operating costs aren’t in the budget after December. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I was wondering is... if it was assumed that construction was moving forward a year ago, they may have left the operation costs out of the 2019 budget (not that fiscal year 2019 necessarily starts January 1st).  Events  are booked pretty far out.  

I doubt demolition is eminent when  nothing has been approved or made public.   The city can’t use public money to demolish public property, on which it still owes millions of dollars* without public hearings and a city council vote. 

*Remember ? The developer is supposed to assume the debt ... then get it back from  Richmonders when every taxable property downtown is placed in a TIF. 

Edited by Brent114
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Brent114 said:

What I was wondering is... if it was assumed that construction was moving forward a year ago, they may have left the operation costs out of the 2019 budget (not that fiscal year 2019 necessarily starts January 1st).  Events  are booked pretty far out.  

I doubt demolition is eminent when  nothing has been approved or made public.   The city can’t use public money to demolish public property, on which it still owes millions of dollars* without public hearings and a city council vote. 

*Remember ? The developer is supposed to assume the debt ... then get it back from  Richmonders when every taxable property downtown is placed in a TIF. 

This assumption is pretty far reaching, especially given the limited data we actually have...

I would imagine that this is a solid sign that the development is moving forward. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just did a whole bunch of reading on TIFs, slightly confused on a couple of aspects. It seems that TIFs are usually started to attract development, however in this case we already have a developer. I haven't been able to find examples of places having TIFs located outside of the area of investment. I'm going to try and talk about it in my urban planning class tonight and see if the professor has any expertise. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, wrldcoupe4 said:

What’s the article say? Is it a TIF structure or special assessment or some other concept?

Not the whole article, but here are some excerpts talking about the TIF:

“A special tax zone Richmond Mayor Levar Stoney’s administration is weighing to finance the $1.4 billion plan to overhaul the Richmond Coliseum could stretch far beyond the 10-block area Stoney originally identified for redevelopment and cover much of downtown, according to four council members briefed on the matter.

The zone, called a tax increment financing district, or TIF, would siphon new property tax revenues and put them toward the cost of replacing the Coliseum with a new 17,500-seat arena. The arena is the centerpiece of a proposal from NH District Corp, a nonprofit development group led by Dominion CEO Thomas F. Farrell II. A TIF zone is integral to the proposal, which also calls for new apartments, a hotel and retail space in the area around the arena and proposes additional housing and retail on three surface parking lots controlled by the city south of Broad Street.

The Stoney administration, which asked developers to send the city plans to revitalize the area, has spent the past eight months reviewing the only proposal it received.

Typically, a TIF zone encompasses a small area where a project is happening. The idea is that the development would essentially be paid for by the new tax revenue it creates. 

But NH District Corp has pushed for the city to include two Dominion-owned properties outside of the project’s footprint. Including the Dominion towers would provide more security to the investors who may buy the bonds that finance the public costs to execute the plans, the group has said. The move would commit an additional $165 million in city tax money to the project over three decades.

Now, Stoney is considering setting the boundaries for the TIF zone as far north as Interstate 95/64, as far south as the Downtown Expressway, as far west as First Street and as far east as 10th Street, the council members said.”

...

“Drawing the lines in that way would redirect new tax revenue from any construction project for decades in a vast swath of the city’s Financial District, Monroe Ward and part of Jackson Ward to underwrite NH District Corp.’s plans. Without the special tax zone, new property tax revenue from future development would flow to the city’s general fund to pay for public education, police and fire, and other core city services.”

...

“Others said they thought it was a strategic way of capitalizing on new development dollars in an area in need of a lift.

“There’s potential for a huge public benefit and huge investment in the area and outside of it,” said 1st District Councilman Andreas Addison. “It’s a proven model that works.”

In mid-October, city officials indicated their desire to rezone a portion of Monroe Ward to promote new construction on long-vacant surface parking lots. If included in the TIF, revenue from any new construction on those lots would be counted as incremental revenue and diverted to pay for the project’s costs.

The administration began updating the council members late last week. The meetings were led by Chief Administrative Officer Selena Cuffee-Glenn and representatives from the city’s external financial adviser, Davenport & Co. Members were shown financial projections from a third-party review of the proposal that Stoney ordered over the summer.

The report, compiled by Chicago-based Hunden Strategic Partners, was due to the city in late August. As of last week, Davenport had a draft version of the report it was “reviewing prior to the report being finalized and provided to the city administration,” according to Matt Welch, a senior policy adviser in the city’s Department of Economic Development.”

https://www.richmond.com/news/local/plus/stoney-s-special-tax-zone-for-billion-coliseum-plan-in/article_6ed41252-edd7-5ea5-8649-feca6b568c75.html

 

Also here is a report from NBC12 News on the subject.  There is a rendering of the hotel from a perspective I have not seen before included on the following link:

http://www.nbc12.com/2018/10/31/inside-look-proposed-reinvention-coliseum-surrounding-development/

Edited by eandslee
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look, I might not know a whole lot about TIFs and this and that or the other, but I will say this from my standpoint.  This city absolutely needs a new Coliseum.  Those renderings are impressive and they compliment the other buildings that in that area, including the new VCU outpatient center that just got started.  This city has missed out on so many acts and concerts and such due to JPJ or Hampton/Virginia Beach.  This city council needs to stop thinking about themselves like they have been for the last 40-50 years and start thinking about right now and the future.  The potential for this city to grow is incredible, the potential to bring in more money based on more events happening, more rooms being booked, more tourists visiting our city is HUGE.  It is time to start fresh, people!

Edited by RVAbigdawg
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before siphoning off new property tax revenues for an arena, perhaps the city should first assess downtown commercial property in line with the rest of the city. Since 2007, the dominion tower property assessment has increased just 3%. Pretty sure this is Out of synch with surrounding neighborhoods, especially considering all the money the city has invested around downtown since 2007 (Potterfield Bridge, kanawha plaza, BRT, etc.).  I’m no tax expert on commercial vs residential property assessments, but residential has increased at least 20% in only the last couple years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm feeling pessimistic about this happening. If the most optimistic group of people around development are negative, no way this gets the votes.  There are no alternative  proposals, so with this soon enough dead in the water, what would you like to see instead that is actually realistic and not some pipe dream? (bearing in mind all of the land is controlled by the city and has to go through their procurement, which means the incremental organic growth is extremely unlikely). 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, wrldcoupe4 said:

I'm feeling pessimistic about this happening. If the most optimistic group of people around development are negative, no way this gets the votes.  There are no alternative  proposals, so with this soon enough dead in the water, what would you like to see instead that is actually realistic and not some pipe dream? (bearing in mind all of the land is controlled by the city and has to go through their procurement, which means the incremental organic growth is extremely unlikely). 

 

Who around development is negative?  I didn’t gather that from anything I’ve read.  I see some who are cautiously optimistic, but I haven’t seen anyone close to this development say that this is a NO GO.  I’ve seen Council members express their doubts, but those can be handled with good education.  I’m still hopeful and I know that there are a lot of people in my camp!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good education? 

The more the details are hashed out (education) the less appealing this whole thing becomes. 

I’ve hated it since the RFP. It saddled the developer with too much existing debt and tried to do too many things regardless of the fit for this particular area (housing is a dreadful component for this area, a land swap to build the housing elsewhere on city property would have been cool).  

The first red flag is that no one outside of Richmond expressed any interest in it (because it doesn’t work).  The second red flag is that no major tenant has expressed any interest.  There is no hotel (unlike with the ball park proposal, which also had Kroger on board).  There’s no mention of a major league (or minor) franchise expressing interest in a Richmond arena.  The third red flag  is that the developers are already clamoring for more public money (at first it wasn’t going to cost the city at all, now we are in the hook to build the arena and make the infrastructure upgrades) at the same time that they are unable to line up tenants. 

 

I’m for rebuilding the arena and adding a hotel if there is actually any demand.  Lack of work on the Moxy leads me to believe that the hotel market may be saturated.  I’d like the armory to serve as the lobby for the hotel.  

Thats it.  The rest can fill in organically.   It isn’t a  good place for  the bus transfer station so we need to move on from that idea. As for the funding of that, apply for federal and state money and fund the rest with bonds, like every other public works project in the history of the world. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Brent114 said:

Good education? 

The more the details are hashed out (education) the less appealing this whole thing becomes. 

I’ve hated it since the RFP. It saddled the developer with too much existing debt and tried to do too many things regardless of the fit for this particular area (housing is a dreadful component for this area, a land swap to build the housing elsewhere on city property would have been cool).  

The first red flag is that no one outside of Richmond expressed any interest in it (because it doesn’t work).  The second red flag is that no major tenant has expressed any interest.  There is no hotel (unlike with the ball park proposal, which also had Kroger on board).  There’s no mention of a major league (or minor) franchise expressing interest in a Richmond arena.  The third red flag  is that the developers are already clamoring for more public money (at first it wasn’t going to cost the city at all, now we are in the hook to build the arena and make the infrastructure upgrades) at the same time that they are unable to line up tenants. 

 

I’m for rebuilding the arena and adding a hotel if there is actually any demand.  Lack of work on the Moxy leads me to believe that the hotel market may be saturated.  I’d like the armory to serve as the lobby for the hotel.  

Thats it.  The rest can fill in organically.   It isn’t a  good place for  the bus transfer station so we need to move on from that idea. As for the funding of that, apply for federal and state money and fund the rest with bonds, like every other public works project in the history of the world. 

Actually agree with most of this. I however am completely for housing in this area, but if the market deems its a good fit then it will happen regardless of this project. 

I guess all we can do is wait and see. The only way I'm going to be publicly out spoken about this project is if Richmond does take way to much financial responsibility, we will have to wait for official details not RTD speculation for that though.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.