Orlando Magic Entertainment Complex [Proposed]

[sunshine]

Isnt the arena can essentially be a large conference room?

[spenser1058]

12 minutes ago, JFW657 said:

I don't see what possible argument there could be against incorporating a large, empty, multipurpose room, which is basically all conference space is, into the design of a new downtown hotel, regardless of how much already exists. If the developer wants to pay for it, more power to them. Even if at some point in the future it turns out that the conference business never really materializes, they can easily convert it into something else just by building it out.

It’s a fine idea if they pay for it and the city isn’t giving incentives. We’ve already bent over backward for them.

[JFW657]

26 minutes ago, spenser1058 said:

It’s a fine idea if they pay for it and the city isn’t giving incentives. We’ve already bent over backward for them.

I don't mind the incentives as long as they're reasonable. A major entertainment complex and hotel right next door to our signature sports and concert venue will bring a lot of business and ripple effect dollars into downtown. Because conference space is a major selling point for any hotel and, as was mentioned earlier, groups and companies who schedule conferences prefer to have them in the same hotel their people are staying in, for that reason alone, the amount of space available in the other nearby downtown hotels really doesn't mean much. 

Build it and they will come!!!! 

[AmIReal]

8 minutes ago, spenser1058 said:

It’s a fine idea if they pay for it and the city isn’t giving incentives. We’ve already bent over backward for them.

I'm not sure you understand how incentives work. If they qualify for the documented incentives then they can receive them. To withhold them when earned would be the basis of a lawsuit.

I'm assuming everyone here knows this has already been approved and the debate was held 5 years ago. The 3rd item on the Cornerstone report issued in 2013 and based on the 2003 recommendations of the transition team said- "Downtown Conference Center– A Downtown Conference Center would fill an underserved market niche. The facility needs to be built in conjunction with a hotel… Visit Orlando and the Orange County Convention Center are supportive of this effort. " and "The CRA may provide support and funding for new Downtown conference center(s) and hotel(s). " and "The addition of a conference center/hotel would bring in a more balanced demographic".

Included in the report from Visit Orlando-

Opportunity to build on the existing 800 conventions between 500 – 1,000 attendees that are annually held in our area. *  

• A Conference/Convention Center will provide options to business and convention travelers visiting the City. 
 
• Increase pedestrian traffic from 6 p.m. – 11 p.m. benefiting restaurants and retail 
 
• Increase hotel occupancy 

This was all debated openly between the City and County. It was covered by every media in town. It was discussed on this forum. It was voted on and approved by the City and County. The incentives have already been approved- there is no further need for the City to discuss the TDT and CRA incentives as they are funded and they were predicated on the conference center being included.

The only thing that has thrown a kink in the plan is the project, as now presented by the Magic, is larger than previously conceived. In order to approve this new version- which includes additional square footage- the City had to amend their development code. What they added was that the conference space will not be included in counting square footage. Originally it looked (to me) like this was only specific to the Magic building, but the article I posted a few days ago SEEMS to indicate it will be allowed more broadly downtown, which led me to speculate newly build hotels will all include conference room.

Sorry for the long post, but trying to clear up that there is no debate about incentive there is only debate about allowing developers to get density bonuses that have not previously been available. And, btw, I'm for it.

[jack]

 

2 hours ago, spenser1058 said:

My point is that saying there are no meeting venues downtown is false.

What probably is true is that our CVB (Visit Orlando) mostly ignores downtown in favor of the tourist zone.

What would likely help is to have someone downtown coordinating with Visit Orlando and sharing the wonders of some unique venues in the core.

DDB would of course be a good place to set up such a function if it were at all entrepreneurial but they’re  really busy pushing paper or something.

Of course, as jrs2 points out, this is really more about more breaks for the Magic so if I were Mr. Chatmon I probably wouldn’t spend much effort on it either.

I was involved a decade ago in getting a conference hotel that could seat I think 1000 people (15k total). That was where the gap in the market. The DDB did coordinate with the CVB folks and most of the spaces were too small. The city was going to incentive it so this is not a new idea for them. I probably still have the financial model. 

[jrs2]

43 minutes ago, AmIReal said:

I'm not sure you understand how incentives work. If they qualify for the documented incentives then they can receive them. To withhold them when earned would be the basis of a lawsuit.

I'm assuming everyone here knows this has already been approved and the debate was held 5 years ago. The 3rd item on the Cornerstone report issued in 2013 and based on the 2003 recommendations of the transition team said- "Downtown Conference Center– A Downtown Conference Center would fill an underserved market niche. The facility needs to be built in conjunction with a hotel… Visit Orlando and the Orange County Convention Center are supportive of this effort. " and "The CRA may provide support and funding for new Downtown conference center(s) and hotel(s). " and "The addition of a conference center/hotel would bring in a more balanced demographic".

Included in the report from Visit Orlando-

Opportunity to build on the existing 800 conventions between 500 – 1,000 attendees that are annually held in our area. *  

• A Conference/Convention Center will provide options to business and convention travelers visiting the City. 
 
• Increase pedestrian traffic from 6 p.m. – 11 p.m. benefiting restaurants and retail 
 
• Increase hotel occupancy 

This was all debated openly between the City and County. It was covered by every media in town. It was discussed on this forum. It was voted on and approved by the City and County. The incentives have already been approved- there is no further need for the City to discuss the TDT and CRA incentives as they are funded and they were predicated on the conference center being included.

The only thing that has thrown a kink in the plan is the project, as now presented by the Magic, is larger than previously conceived. In order to approve this new version- which includes additional square footage- the City had to amend their development code. What they added was that the conference space will not be included in counting square footage. Originally it looked (to me) like this was only specific to the Magic building, but the article I posted a few days ago SEEMS to indicate it will be allowed more broadly downtown, which led me to speculate newly build hotels will all include conference room.

Sorry for the long post, but trying to clear up that there is no debate about incentive there is only debate about allowing developers to get density bonuses that have not previously been available. And, btw, I'm for it.

So, in the case of the Magic, is it your take that their proposal for the MEC was in part a response to the 2013 Cornerstone report?

The deal with The City in November 2013 (after agreeing to sell the land to the Magic) was that regarding the expo space that could handle 1,000 people, The City would contribute $1.7M towards it's construction, and as part of the deal the Magic would allow The City to extend Pine Street west of Hughey.  Didn't they nix that though?

An official announcement of the MEC was in March 2013.

However, the Magic had retained advisors for pre-development services for the MEC nine months earlier in August 2012.   

So, their project was in the works a good while before the Cornerstone Report of 2013.

Yes, it's true that Dyer wanted a good sized ballroom, I remember that in the press at the time- and I'm all for it.

My main gripe is that the Magic have kept delaying this project repeatedly under the pretext of changing construction phase plans dictated by neighboring land uses they would have to deal with, when in actuality they have been delaying it as much as they can to reap as much public monies as they could.

So, do they still get the $1.7M towards construction of the expos space and also not get it's square footage counted on the tax rolls?

[spenser1058]

What is in fact being described is the age old Orlando approach someone dubbed the “Edifice Complex”: when in doubt, just ditch the old and build a new big box.

Good to see we’re no longer in that rut. 9 times out of 10 spending someone else’s money.

The only difference with sports teams is they expect you to rinse and repeat every 15 years.

We won’t even talk about how much money Visit Orlando wastes from the TDT. Scott Maxwell has opined about it for some time now.

 

[jack]

When Dyer was elected, a report was issued that identified bringing in more meeting space into downtown as a priority. That was in 2003. MEC had nothing to do with it. 

[JFW657]

1 hour ago, jrs2 said:

My main gripe is that the Magic have kept delaying this project repeatedly under the pretext of changing construction phase plans dictated by neighboring land uses they would have to deal with, when in actuality they have been delaying it as much as they can to reap as much public monies as they could.

Keep in mind that they really did have to wait until the rescue mission took care of relocating and now the demo of the old building is the only thing left to do.

If they don't get underway some time this year, then I'll believe that something else is going on.

[AmIReal]

1 hour ago, jrs2 said:

So, in the case of the Magic, is it your take that their proposal for the MEC was in part a response to the 2013 Cornerstone report?

The deal with The City in November 2013 (after agreeing to sell the land to the Magic) was that regarding the expo space that could handle 1,000 people, The City would contribute $1.7M towards it's construction, and as part of the deal the Magic would allow The City to extend Pine Street west of Hughey.  Didn't they nix that though?

An official announcement of the MEC was in March 2013.

However, the Magic had retained advisors for pre-development services for the MEC nine months earlier in August 2012.   

So, their project was in the works a good while before the Cornerstone Report of 2013.

Yes, it's true that Dyer wanted a good sized ballroom, I remember that in the press at the time- and I'm all for it.

My main gripe is that the Magic have kept delaying this project repeatedly under the pretext of changing construction phase plans dictated by neighboring land uses they would have to deal with, when in actuality they have been delaying it as much as they can to reap as much public monies as they could.

So, do they still get the $1.7M towards construction of the expos space and also not get it's square footage counted on the tax rolls?

The Cornerstone report was the public presentation of the project. As you can see it, they already had the financial modeling and the artistic rendering of the MEC. The action started in 2006 when the City rezoned the land for the arena and included OPD to build out a sports and entertainment district. The Magic did a multi-million $ study and took 2 years to start negotiating and it took until 2013 to put together something suitable for public view. 

Yes, they get the $1.7 mil, it will be counted on the tax rolls since they own it (I assume), but they do not include the footage for calculations that limit the size of the project. Let's say they build 500k sqft. It is taxed, but they do not have to decrease their room count or office space to accommodate the conference space. By allowing the additional sq footage the City actually gets more return in taxes.

The report noted the space would-"Moving the property onto the tax role – Produces from  $52 million to $89 million for the CRA* – Produces from $39 million to $67 million for schools* " Those were the initial numbers from '13. I haven't seen any updates.

I have no idea how they waived the Pine St cut through other than guessing that the additional land was need for the reconfiguring of the layout. I never thought it was a big deal and wondered why folks on this site did.

30 minutes ago, jack said:

When Dyer was elected, a report was issued that identified bringing in more meeting space into downtown as a priority. That was in 2003. MEC had nothing to do with it. 

Correct. I assume the 2 concepts crossed paths once the City started negotiating for the new arena- sometime in '04.

Btw, a downtown conference space was also high on Mayor Hood's list in 2000-03, so this idea has been in process for 2 decades.

[AndyPok1]

7 minutes ago, AmIReal said:

I have no idea how they waived the Pine St cut through other than guessing that the additional land was need for the reconfiguring of the layout. I never thought it was a big deal and wondered why folks on this site did.

Having lived in 55W for 6 years, Pine St dead ending there causes massive traffic problems at various times of day, especially when Orange Ave is closed and/or a big event is happening at Amway since its the "public" garage that fills the fastest.

[AmIReal]

1 hour ago, AndyPok1 said:

Having lived in 55W for 6 years, Pine St dead ending there causes massive traffic problems at various times of day, especially when Orange Ave is closed and/or a big event is happening at Amway since its the "public" garage that fills the fastest.

I would imagine you're right. Isn't there a proposed "public" garage included in the S+ED (MEC) on the other side of 4. If so, that should offset some of the issue.

[gibby]

3 hours ago, jrs2 said:

The deal with The City in November 2013 (after agreeing to sell the land to the Magic) was that regarding the expo space that could handle 1,000 people, The City would contribute $1.7M towards it's construction, and as part of the deal the Magic would allow The City to extend Pine Street west of Hughey.  Didn't they nix that though?

Really?  That's an excellent point.  It's still beyond my understanding how the City has not forcefully made them extend Pine.

[jack]

And the building would not be exempt from taxes, it is exempted from FAR. 

[jrs2]

2 hours ago, jack said:

And the building would not be exempt from taxes, it is exempted from FAR. 

… so they pay cheaper taxes b/c of the FAR exemption...

[spenser1058]

The City of Orlando: Official ATM of the DeVos family and its minions.

Edited January 8, 2020 by spenser1058

[AmIReal]

1 hour ago, jrs2 said:

… so they pay cheaper taxes b/c of the FAR exemption...

No. The FAR exemption has nothing whatsoever to do with taxes. It has to do with how much concrete you can put on a piece of dirt. By bypassing the FAR (floor area calculation), the builder is allowed to build more than is normally allowed to be built under the guidelines of the city code. The end result is it INCREASES the taxable value of the property thereby increasing the amount of taxes paid by the development. 

 

[jack]

3 hours ago, jrs2 said:

… so they pay cheaper taxes b/c of the FAR exemption...

No, it is a density bonus. FAR is floor area ration and regulates how much could be built. 1.0 = whatever the size of the land is. A 1 acre lot with a 1.0 far means you could build 43,560 square feet of space. Height limits are not the only limiting factor in development. FAR is as well. 

[jrs2]

16 hours ago, AmIReal said:

No. The FAR exemption has nothing whatsoever to do with taxes. It has to do with how much concrete you can put on a piece of dirt. By bypassing the FAR (floor area calculation), the builder is allowed to build more than is normally allowed to be built under the guidelines of the city code. The end result is it INCREASES the taxable value of the property thereby increasing the amount of taxes paid by the development. 

 

true, I misspoke.  But, by being exempt the Magic property is more attractive now to a prospective purchaser b/c there aren't any limitations to FAR.  And that may be what their delay is all about.  I think it's odd that there is  a FAR exemption on that lot versus one out in a rural area.

[spenser1058]

Here’s the thing: we always bemoan either the sameness of what gets done downtown or that, relative to  other fast growing cities we seem to not progress as quickly or whatever.

Some of it I know is because of the decentralized nature of our infrastructure. A lot of those decisions were made half a century ago or even longer and too much has been invested to change them.

But it also seems (and, I could be in error here, but I think I’m right) that as the city has grown and one would expect a lot more players to become involved, this administration keeps going back to the same few players: Lincoln, the DeVoses, Baker-Barrios come immediately to mind.

It seems anyone else that comes in, if they even get through one project, they don’t repeat. Is that normal as a city grows there become fewer and fewer players?

I think of Ron Pizzuti who had his finger in several projects, most notably for our tall fans the tower that would have the huge cube on top and later The Sevens.

I know he’s something of a big deal in Columbus and finally abandoned Orlando saying there were more opportunities in Ohio (a scary thought).

There have been a variety of others, apart from the scammers and wannabes, who just never found a foothold.

Is it because our power structure has become too incestuous? It used to be that Orlando’s big selling feature as a brand new city was how open it was compared to older cities like New Orleans or Charleston or many of the larger Midwestern cities.

We do seem to be “stuck” in that regard. Maybe I’m misreading it but it does seem worth review.

[jack]

It feels that way because of the high profile nature of Church street and the Magic Entertainment project. 

Every major developer is doing deals or looking for property in central Florida. It just may not be downtown.  

If I compare it to the boom in the 2000's the players now are more likely to execute and have a stronger track record. 

[sunshine]

1 hour ago, spenser1058 said:

Here’s the thing: we always bemoan either the sameness of what gets done downtown or that, relative to  other fast growing cities we seem to not progress as quickly or whatever.

Some of it I know is because of the decentralized nature of our infrastructure. A lot of those decisions were made half a century ago or even longer and too much has been invested to change them.

But it also seems (and, I could be in error here, but I think I’m right) that as the city has grown and one would expect a lot more players to become involved, this administration keeps going back to the same few players: Lincoln, the DeVoses, Baker-Barrios come immediately to mind.

It seems anyone else that comes in, if they even get through one project, they don’t repeat. Is that normal as a city grows there become fewer and fewer players?

I think of Ron Pizzuti who had his finger in several projects, most notably for our tall fans the tower that would have the huge cube on top and later The Sevens.

I know he’s something of a big deal in Columbus and finally abandoned Orlando saying there were more opportunities in Ohio (a scary thought).

There have been a variety of others, apart from the scammers and wannabes, who just never found a foothold.

Is it because our power structure has become too incestuous? It used to be that Orlando’s big selling feature as a brand new city was how open it was compared to older cities like New Orleans or Charleston or many of the larger Midwestern cities.

We do seem to be “stuck” in that regard. Maybe I’m misreading it but it does seem worth review.

For the same reason, i was talking to my friends that it is time to get a new mayor not name Buddy.  They all think i am crazy.  Hence, downtown Orlando will only be playing catch up and not a leader.

 

[JFW657]

1 hour ago, spenser1058 said:

Here’s the thing: we always bemoan either the sameness of what gets done downtown or that, relative to  other fast growing cities we seem to not progress as quickly or whatever.

Some of it I know is because of the decentralized nature of our infrastructure. A lot of those decisions were made half a century ago or even longer and too much has been invested to change them.

But it also seems (and, I could be in error here, but I think I’m right) that as the city has grown and one would expect a lot more players to become involved, this administration keeps going back to the same few players: Lincoln, the DeVoses, Baker-Barrios come immediately to mind.

It seems anyone else that comes in, if they even get through one project, they don’t repeat. Is that normal as a city grows there become fewer and fewer players?

I think of Ron Pizzuti who had his finger in several projects, most notably for our tall fans the tower that would have the huge cube on top and later The Sevens.

I know he’s something of a big deal in Columbus and finally abandoned Orlando saying there were more opportunities in Ohio (a scary thought).

There have been a variety of others, apart from the scammers and wannabes, who just never found a foothold.

Is it because our power structure has become too incestuous? It used to be that Orlando’s big selling feature as a brand new city was how open it was compared to older cities like New Orleans or Charleston or many of the larger Midwestern cities.

We do seem to be “stuck” in that regard. Maybe I’m misreading it but it does seem worth review.

How or why the Mayor or the city is involved in choosing which architects design privately owned and funded construction projects? 

4 minutes ago, sunshine said:

For the same reason, i was talking to my friends that it is time to get a new mayor not name Buddy.  They all think i am crazy.  Hence, downtown Orlando will only be playing catch up and not a leader.

IYAM, Dyer has done more for downtown development than any of his predecessors. 

[sunshine]

A mayor can shape downtown, we need someone that have the will to make Orlando the next Miami/ Austin.

 

[aent]

7 minutes ago, JFW657 said:

How or why the Mayor or the city is involved in choosing which architects design privately owned and funded construction projects? 

Because we have an ARB. You want better, higher quality, more unique developments, disband the ARB. You may get a few ugly projects too, but thats the price you pay. If its not disbanded, I'd be shocked if we don't continue to get exactly what we've been getting.