The West End

[gman430]

1 hour ago, GVLover said:

https://www.greenvilleonline.com/story/news/2019/03/13/lawmakers-want-5-million-downtown-greenville-convention-center/3155864002/

Out of left field, this post becomes much more relevant.

Interesting stuff. $300 million total. Camperdown is right around that amount to give you some idea. 

[GVLover]

1 hour ago, gman430 said:

Interesting stuff. $300 million total. Camperdown is right around that amount to give you some idea. 

I thought the $300m total was interesting as well; maybe they’re referring to Riverplace? For those without Greenville News acess here are the highlights:

•A $50-60m price tag for a new convention center, $26m coming from the city and county each, $5m potentially coming from the State and significant private sector investment. This price tag does not include land purchases (across from Embassy Suites — Riverplace)

•The convention center will potentially host collections from Greenville County Art Museum + BJU

•As quoted by the Greenville News:

“The overall economic investment once built out with associated mixed-use development would exceed $300 million”

Excellent news to hear such a project is being considered although it’s a few years out. We’ve heard drips about a downtown convention center for a few years now, but to hear funding is being sought is a major step in the right direction. 

Edit:

The more I think on it, the more I think you’re right, Gman. The $300m figure may be an entirely new development! That said, I’m not sure how I feel about BJU potentially having a collection on a partially state funded property + the price-tag for the convention seems a bit low.

The article says the building will cost up to $60m, highlights where the funds may come from but the article throws me off by saying “significant participation by the private sector.” Maybe that’s referencing the mixed-use development? 

Edited March 14, 2019 by GVLover

[gman430]

Yeah, I am pretty sure that $300 million would be new development on this site. I know the city wants a large hotel (500-1,000 rooms) with the new convention center. I wouldn’t be surprised if Hughes Investments and Windsor Aughtry get involved seeing how they already own portions of this site and mixed use developments are their speciality. 

[Spero]

The way I read that at first is the (often dubious) “economic impact” studies that boosters do that factors in every cent spent within a country mile of the site. Those studies have been roundly panned by serious economists.

 

if that figure is direct investment, though, sure, the more the merrier

[distortedlogic]

55 minutes ago, gman430 said:

Yeah, I am pretty sure that $300 million would be new development on this site. I know the city wants a large hotel (500-1,000 rooms) with the new convention center. I wouldn’t be surprised if Hughes Investments and Windsor Aughtry get involved seeing how they already own portions of this site and mixed use developments are their speciality. 

Could downtown support a hotel like that considering all the other new ones? I'm sure it would be ok when conventions are in town but what about nonconvention nights?

[gman430]

2 hours ago, Spero said:

The way I read that at first is the (often dubious) “economic impact” studies that boosters do that factors in every cent spent within a country mile of the site. Those studies have been roundly panned by serious economists.

 

if that figure is direct investment, though, sure, the more the merrier

The article says “overall economic investment once built out...”

That tells me it’s the total cost of the project upon completion and not the economic impact afterwards. 

1 hour ago, distortedlogic said:

Could downtown support a hotel like that considering all the other new ones? I'm sure it would be ok when conventions are in town but what about nonconvention nights?

Good question. These hotel companies do their due diligence and studies to see if the market can support it. Of course that can vary with recessions and what not. 

Edited March 14, 2019 by gman430

[ausrutherford]

I have long thought BJU needed to move their art museum downtown. It would have more prominence and give the collection the proper building it deserves. I assume the school would also enjoy the extra room on campus.

Greenville literally has one of the biggest religious art collections outside the Vatican, time to show it off!

 

[vicupstate]

Glad to see this. This is the most logical location for something like this.  The $60 mm price tag seems low for a convention center but considering we have no idea of the size, it is possible I suppose.  I am sure the $300mm figure applies to actual construction because once you build a big hotel and a garage plus the center, you wouldn't be far from that total.  Not to mention the musuem is probably not included in the $60mm.     

I wonder what impact this will have on the existing center? 

 

Quote

I’m not sure how I feel about BJU potentially having a collection on a partially state funded property 

I would imagine the parcel would be subdivided such that the museum part would be privately owned with the government funding going to the actaul meeting space.   

[GVLover]

32 minutes ago, vicupstate said:

Glad to see this. This is the most logical location for something like this.  The $60 mm price tag seems low for a convention center but considering we have no idea of the size, it is possible I suppose.  I am sure the $300mm figure applies to actual construction because once you build a big hotel and a garage plus the center, you wouldn't be far from that total.  Not to mention the musuem is probably not included in the $60mm.     

I wonder what impact this will have on the existing center? 

 

I would imagine the parcel would be subdivided such that the museum part would be privately owned with the government funding going to the actaul meeting space.   

Constructing a $60m convention center would make it incredibly small, using cheap materials — that’s not needed in such a prime location of town. I’m hoping there was some miscommunication between Greenville News and City Officials and that the “significant participation from the private sector” means we’re seeing private dollars fund part of the convention center as well. Regardless, the $5m requested from the State should be given without much resistance considering the $61m injection of lottery monies from the ticket sold in Greenville County. 

[PuppiesandKittens]

Why can’t the private sector build a convention center?  Why does tax money have to be used?  The private sector wouldn’t pay $60MM for something with $300MM of impact?

[vicupstate]

The 'impact' is the cost of construction not the income or profit from operations. Convention Centers do not make money on their own, they are only viable from the standpoint of the impact on the greater economy.  A CC is an expensive, single purpose facility that is not in perputual use. The payoff is in the hotel rooms rented, meals purchasesd, souvenir shopping by participants, etc. That income is divided among a multitude of providers. Meal and room taxes alone would not cover the cost of construction and operations for a CC, but the enlargement of the community's 'economic pie' is the payoff.    

Given the price tag and the somewhat small site, I imagine this facility is more of a uber meeting venue rather than providing a large expanse of exhibit space with high ceilings and few interior columns.  That describes what most CCs consist off (in addition to meeting rooms).    

[gman430]

16 minutes ago, PuppiesandKittens said:

Why can’t the private sector build a convention center?  Why does tax money have to be used?  The private sector wouldn’t pay $60MM for something with $300MM of impact?

The $60 million is ONLY the construction costs for the convention center while  the $300 million is the construction costs for the ENTIRE mixed use development INCLUDING the convention center. NONE of it is the economic impact projections. Hope that makes sense.  

Edited March 14, 2019 by gman430

[GVLover]

30 minutes ago, PuppiesandKittens said:

Why can’t the private sector build a convention center?  Why does tax money have to be used?  The private sector wouldn’t pay $60MM for something with $300MM of impact?

$60m is an investment. More hospitality tax dollars flow into city coffers, meaning more money to invest in other city projects. 

[vicupstate]

Public weighs in on West End projects

Merrill Gardens and McClaren both covered by the article on the last DRB meeting.

[Den2Gvl]

Sounds awesome. Would love to see a convention center similar to the one in Denver.  I think that would bring Greenville to the next level. 

Edited March 14, 2019 by Den2Gvl

[goodbye]

Please don't drop the ball on this idea, Greenville!  This is an important missing element in the heart of the city.

[Exile]

37 minutes ago, vicupstate said:

The 'impact' is the cost of construction not the income or profit from operations. Convention Centers do not make money on their own, they are only viable from the standpoint of the impact on the greater economy.  A CC is an expensive, single purpose facility that is not in perputual use. The payoff is in the hotel rooms rented, meals purchasesd, souvenir shopping by participants, etc. That income is divided among a multitude of providers. Meal and room taxes alone would not cover the cost of construction and operations for a CC, but the enlargement of the community's 'economic pie' is the payoff.    

Given the price tag and the somewhat small site, I imagine this facility is more of a uber meeting venue rather than providing a large expanse of exhibit space with high ceilings and few interior columns.  That describes what most CCs consist off (in addition to meeting rooms).    

 

14 minutes ago, GVLover said:

$60m is an investment. More hospitality tax dollars flow into city coffers, meaning more money to invest in other city projects. 

Generally speaking, it's bad business to "invest" in something that "do[es] not make money on its own."

I don't know if this is the kind of thing P&K has in mind, but if the benefits--profits, that is--accrue to a variety of local businesses, then why does an entrepreneurial genius not recruit local businesses to invest in such a center, along the lines of issuing stock (or whatever)? That way the risk of the investment is distributed according to peoples'/companies' willingness to incur it, and the costs of any failure won't devolve onto everybody indiscriminately.

If you can't get such a project off the ground that way, then maybe it would be wise to pay attention to the unwillingness of private investors to take on such a project. Has any entrepreneurial genius studied the potential for something like this being done privately? Or is city/county government standing in the way of something like that ever being attempted privately, so that nobody even tries?

And wasn't there a study just a few years ago that torpedoed the idea anyway?

But all that aside, I think, in keeping with Greenville's trajectory (at least as it appears to me), a smaller meeting facility could be built in a way that it could be utilized by locals for various purposes and not have to sit idle. This makes more sense than a "convention center" in the normal sense of that term--which of course Gville already has. Do you really want a big hulking building that's empty most of the time lurking on the edge of the West End? And is it really appropriate to build a 500+ room hotel downtown, particularly given the number of hotels we already have? 1,000 rooms seems ridiculous to me.

Greenville's becoming more and more unique. I'm not eager to see my hometown chasing after the Joneses.

[gman430]

From the Greenville News: 

The coming of a downtown convention center wouldn't impact operation of the Greenville Convention Center "for the next several years" because the two aren't trying to attract the same clientele, White said.

There is still a market for the traditional shows, he said.

The downtown center would host a higher-end, business-related market that is looking for interesting locales to across the country, which Greenville offers with its downtown landscape.

The problem with the large center off Pleasantburg has been its unwieldy size but more so the isolation from downtown Greenville where business conventions aren't interested in taking a shuttle a few miles away, White said.

Edited March 14, 2019 by gman430

[vicupstate]

It is very rare for a Convention Centers to show a profit regardless of where they are located.  Jacksonville, a significantly larger city, issued an RFP to build a riverfront convention center and all proposals submitted required massive incentives. One proposal requested $229 million.  

Things that don't generate a profit such as sewers, schools, roads, public safety are exactly what governments typically provide.  A meal or room tax, which I suspect if how this will be funded,  is essentially the same thing as what you propose being done privately.  

[vicupstate]

2016: Does Greenville need DT Convention Center

[Exile]

1 hour ago, vicupstate said:

It is very rare for a Convention Centers to show a profit regardless of where they are located.  Jacksonville, a significantly larger city, issued an RFP to build a riverfront convention center and all proposals submitted required massive incentives. One proposal requested $229 million.  

Things that don't generate a profit such as sewers, schools, roads, public safety are exactly what governments typically provide.  A meal or room tax, which I suspect if how this will be funded,  is essentially the same thing as what you propose being done privately.  

But the general tenor of this discussion is that a successful "convention center" indirectly generates increased business--and therefore more profit--for innumerable businesses. If that is true, then it can generate a "profit" when all the associated transactions are tallied up. If this is not the case, then all the more reason not to build it.

So theoretically businesses who stand to gain financially from having a convention center could provide the "venture capital" for building the thing, with the expectation of an adequate or better return. Joe's Hotdog Stand might own one share; Table 301 might own lots of shares; and so on. Ownership can be transferred, or expanded.

The converse is not attractive to me: tax revenue is used to build the thing, which then benefits the same businesses to the same degree; but if the thing fails, taxpayers are on the hook to pick up the tab. In other words, the only downside devolves to those who make little or no use of the facility, but were compelled to support it.

Sewers, roads, etc. are necessities. Convention centers are not. I'm for restricting government to a relatively small area of (in)competence; and let the business community decide for itself what it needs, and what it doesn't (though I realize that the typical cronyism means that some businesses are already entangled with various government agencies/officials).

Edited March 14, 2019 by Exile

[PuppiesandKittens]

Exile, would you please run for elected office?  You have my vote.

[vicupstate]

Quote

But the general tenor of this discussion is that a successful "convention center" indirectly generates increased business--and therefore more profit--for innumerable businesses. If that is true, then it can generate a "profit" when all the associated transactions are tallied up. If this is not the case, then all the more reason not to build it.

I think you would have a hard time getting 100% of the benefactors to 1) recognize they are benefiting and to a degree that is material and 2) agreeing to pay their fair share. rather than being a freeloader.

The existing Convention Center, originally a private venue called 'Textile Hall' would be the best example of what you propose. It ceased to be a sustaining entity decades ago.     

[ausrutherford]

The new Convention will be for business conferences, the old for Auto Shows, etc.

 

And we really need to stop the whole "it loses money" or "why is the government subsidizing the private industry?" argument. Business and government are a symbiotic relationship. Governments can not exist without their tax revenue, businesses can not exist without Government's construction of infrastructure nor law system.

A convention center is infrastructure to businesses. Government funded convention centers are nothing new. They go back to ancient times to foster business and tax revenue alike.

Do convention centers loose money? Yes. But, what is important is the increase in tax revenue that results.

Even with that, if you still do not believe that. Ask yourself, how do roads make money for the government? Should we not fund them either?

[Exile]

41 minutes ago, vicupstate said:

I think you would have a hard time getting 100% of the benefactors to 1) recognize they are benefiting and to a degree that is material and 2) agreeing to pay their fair share. rather than being a freeloader.

The existing Convention Center, originally a private venue called 'Textile Hall' would be the best example of what you propose. It ceased to be a sustaining entity decades ago.     

1) They wouldn't be benefactors, they'd be investors. In it to win it.

2) The freeloader problem is real, but it's also universal. What would you prefer? Entrepreneurs who factor freeloaders into their calculations, or beneficiaries of the publicly-financed convention center windfall who effectively freeload off of taxpayers? I'm for the former.

As for Textile Hall (that's still what I reflexively call it), then it should have been shuttered and sold off to the biggest megachurch, or whatever. That example is informative, but not determinative for what I'm suggesting. Different time, location, and lots of water under the bridge.

As long as something consumes capital without producing a sufficient return, it makes everybody poorer.

i'm all for a convention center, provided it is put together in a way that it pays for itself. Otherwise, we all lose--even if there's a shiny new jewel somewhere downtown.