Convention Center shortcomings costing Nashville $$$$

[rocky top buzz]

ATL, you make a good point about the effect a CC should have in re-invigorating an area. SoBro needs no additional help.

I also see the problem in that the east bank provides no entertainment outside of events at LP Field. And the hike across the Shelby bridge isn't something you'd want to do a couple of times per day (except for those Olympic atheletes on here).

That's why I will continue to say that metro should encourage Opryland to expand (we give TIF's to everyone else), and build a monorail between Opryland and Broadway.

[Guest]

RTB

There is nooooooo wayyyyy that other hotels/motels are going to allow their joints tax funds (from the hotel/motel surcharge) fund a CC with a competitor. The d'town hotels will not benefit from such a venture and they collect most of the charges.

[franktown]

This could add steam to the convention center movement if the land could be lucratively developed and help pay off the debt:

http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/ar...S0202/610040398

I think it's interesting that they would like to continue the street grid, because it's one of my pet peaves that 6th avenue is screwed up because of the center. I think it would be great to have a little green space in front of the Ryman to take better pictures and sit and look at the building. I personally would like the retail, however it needs to address Broadway well, and some residential would be one of the best locations in the city IMO.

[Nashvillain]

I don't know if anybody saw this atricle in the Oct. 5 Scene by Christine Kreyling,

nashvillescene.com

It's a very interesting summary and analysis of the story so far and sort of advocates for a North Gulch site, which the MCCC did not even consider in their report.

A few points from the article which I found interesting:

1. The financial committee of the MCCC expects TIF for the hotel and parking aspects of the center. These costs were not included in the initial estimate of $455 million.

-This deviates from MDHA's current policy of providing TIF for residential projects only (according to the article).

2. The committee potentially underestimated the value of the SoBro real estate by as much as $19.2 million and as little as $14.2 million according to current real estate estimates.

3. They also potentially undestimated the cost of relocating the NES substation in the area. The report expects the cost of relocation to be $1 million but the VP for engineering at NES guesses it could be from $20 to $40 million and states that NES was not consulted by the committee for its findings on the relocation estimate.

4. A SoBro site, as has already been discussed here before, may not be the most beneficial for a burgeoning neighborhood in the area, as a sort of big-boxification (GEC, Schermerhorn, CMHofF, & CC) may stifle pedestrian traffic and retail development. The prinicpal behind mall development, with anchor stores distanced to encourage foot traffic between and amongst the smaller retail was referenced in the article. As well, the possibility of closing off 7th ave. and decreasing the ability of traffic to dissipate was mentioned as a potential problem for the viability of a future neighborhood.

5. The advantages of a Gulch North site as originally outlined in the Plan of Nashville for the location of a possible future convention center, specifically at 10th and Church or 11th and Church are: the amount of acreage available and subsequent lower real estate costs and expansionability (is that a word?) of the center, the mall anchor effect and further contributing to the growth and evolution of downtown, proximity to existing hotels is greater here than in SoBro, and the ability for the center and hotel to open up onto the Church St. viaduct thereby minimizing the impact on the street scape of a big box. This last point was particlularly interesting to me as I did not realize such a thing was possible.

[ATLBrain]

I have said since all this stuff started that the gulch seemed like the best place for the CC. I can understand the proximity to GEC and HOF and SSC, but seems like Kreylings point about the "mall principle" in the gulch or across the river b/n the bridges would really add to the growth of NSHVL's DT.

[Nashvillain]

Yeah, mayhap my comment was unclear, but like the article said, the clustering of the big attractions in SoBro is antithetical to this mall strategy and would be put to better effect if the CC was in the Gulch or other district, thereby spurring smaller, fill-in developments between these sites.

[MidTenn1]

Making a Convention Center successful is no different than any other business. It's all about the customer.

And the CC's customers (conventioners) demand proximity to major attractions. The planners and urbanists may want it in the north gulch, but if the conventioners feel that is too remote, then why come.

Nashville will be competing against Atlanta and Dallas and others for prime events and needs the added attraction of the proximity to the Lower Broad/District entertainment venues to stay competitive.

It's not about what planners or politicians want. It's about what the customer wants.

[Nashvillain]

Making a Convention Center successful is no different than any other business. It's all about the customer.

And the CC's customers (conventioners) demand proximity to major attractions. The planners and urbanists may want it in the north gulch, but if the conventioners feel that is too remote, then why come.

Nashville will be competing against Atlanta and Dallas and others for prime events and needs the added attraction of the proximity to the Lower Broad/District entertainment venues to stay competitive.

It's not about what planners or politicians want. It's about what the customer wants.

But this fails to take into account any of the potential problems with the committees recomendations like real estate costs and the expense of relocating the NES station being far above what they accounted for in their estimated price tag of $455 million.

[MidTenn1]

But this fails to take into account any of the potential problems with the committees recomendations like real estate costs and the expense of relocating the NES station being far above what they accounted for in their estimated price tag of $455 million.

I agree that new questions regarding the feasibility of the SoBro site have some validity. The point I was trying to make is that the choice of location is and should be primarily a business decision. The 'true' costs of building in SoBro need to be weighed against the risks that the gulch location may not appeal to major conventions. As long as the City wishes to get into the 'business' of hosting conventions, the decision should be a matter of analyzing the market and crunching the numbers and formulating a business plan.

If the location is selected through a public participation process, as commendable as that is, you run the risk of ending up with a site that may not work, economically. If it doesn't pay back, then why build it?

Indeed, the two alternatives may be 1. SoBro or 2. No build. Libraries, museums, courthouses and Symphony Hall can and should be sited with considerable public participation as there is minimal risk of failure. But this venture, seems to be significantly dependent on its proximity to other attractions for success.

[ATLBrain]

Making a Convention Center successful is no different than any other business. It's all about the customer.

And the CC's customers (conventioners) demand proximity to major attractions. The planners and urbanists may want it in the north gulch, but if the conventioners feel that is too remote, then why come.

Nashville will be competing against Atlanta and Dallas and others for prime events and needs the added attraction of the proximity to the Lower Broad/District entertainment venues to stay competitive.

It's not about what planners or politicians want. It's about what the customer wants.

But Nashville's DT is not big. Being on opposite ends of the DT would still be relatively close for most people from other cities. The points I've heard in favor of SOBRO have disregarded the amenities in West End too.

I recall making the point before on this board that putitng the CC in the gulch would actually enhance and increase the footprint of DT far more than putting it in Sobro. After all, does anybody think that the block in SOBRO won't get developed. It could be a completely urban neighborhood with residentials, restaurants, pubs, retail, etc.... but with the CC, it will be the 800 lb gorilla in what could have been a great urban boulevard. I'm afraid it won't happen.

[Nashvillain]

^Exactemente. We're talking about three, four blocks at most. I think, spacing things out lends more impetus for continuing growth in the Gulch and along the already developed Church St. While Church St. along the interstate ramp is a hairaisingly frightening experience for brave pedestrians, there is already much retail, resturaunt, bar activity both toward West End and into downtown (see the coffee house thread on the emergence of Church ST/gay district). A CC fronting the Church St. viaduct would certainly lead to improving this segment for pedestrians, leading to greater pedestrian connectivity of West End, Midtown and Downtown.

I think the main theme of the article was that the MCCC did not take all sites into consideration and seem to have an inexplicable preconceived tunnel vision towards the SoBro site. A CC needs to take into account the future of Nashville as a more integrated city with more people actually living in the city and not just the short-term interests of a minority group of high powered business men that may not have a vision for a future Nashville that's much better or different than now.

[Hankster]

I could support either location, because I think the NCC would be successful in either. However, the important thing to me is that it becomes a reality. If, only one of these locations can ever get the consensus needed to get it built, then that's the one I would support.

[barakat]

A friend who works at the CVB says the convention center 'has to be downtown.' Meaning that, to some at the CVB, SoBro is considered 'downtown' and the north gulch is not. People perceive the gulch site to be too far from 2nd ave and brodway. the north gulch site might be a better option, though. it would help generate new interest in and activity on church st, east and west of the site, considering there are plenty of empty lots surrounding it. a logical place for a hotel would be the old tulane hotel site at 8th and church. as someone referred to before, the walk to 2nd ave or lower broad via church would also provide one of the best pedestrian experiences in the city. i understand the logic behind preferences for sobro, though. just don't think it would be the best use of the land.

[ATLBrain]

So things are getting interesting indeed. Now the cost of land has doubled. Does this make the CC south of the GEC no longer feasible? Does this make the gulch or the east side more attractive? While Purcell drags his feet, the rest of the world goes on.

http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/ar.../610150351/1003

http://www.tennessean.com/assets/gif/DN456781015.GIF

[Hankster]

I would imagine that land costs in the Gulch would not be much different. I recall a piece of property between the Gulch and the Roundabout sold for $9.15 Million recently and was, I believe, about 3 acres. If I'm correct on this, that works out to about $3,000,000 per acre. The $60 per square foot price quoted in the article works out to $2,613,600 per acre....pretty much in the same ballpark. No matter where they build the Convention Center, land costs will be substantial.

[ATLBrain]

The article mentioned that the cost estimates in the report were b/n 30 and 40 dollars/sq.ft.

Obviously, the cost will not go down as they take their time studying this. I still would be surprised if the land across the river is going for that rate. Now getting the owners to sell would be another matter altogether.

[ATLBrain]

Anybody go to the rally? What happened?

[ATLBrain]

Is there any inclination on the part of the MCC to put the convention center anywhere else (besides Demonbreun)? Is there a backup site? I'd be surprised if they would divulge that.

[smeagolsfree]

An article from the NBJ this afternoon. The big news in this article is that demand for trade shows and conventions are on the rise. Good news for building a new CC where ever it goes.

http://nashville.bizjournals.com/nashville...ml?surround=lfn

[frankliner]

http://www.nashvillecitypaper.com/index.cf...p;news_id=53324

The 2nd blurb is really interesting on the Rex and the City column today. Bill Marriott visiting Nashville is a pretty big deal. I think i read somewhere that someone said the development wing of the company was scouting downtown and this really brings it home. I personally would like to see a Marriott Marquis downtown. Maybe doormanpoet has some insight on this since his hotel is a division of Marriott International.

[Hankster]

http://www.nashvillecitypaper.com/index.cf...p;news_id=53324

The 2nd blurb is really interesting on the Rex and the City column today. Bill Marriott visiting Nashville is a pretty big deal. I think i read somewhere that someone said the development wing of the company was scouting downtown and this really brings it home. I personally would like to see a Marriott Marquis downtown. Maybe doormanpoet has some insight on this since his hotel is a division of Marriott International.

[southsideJ]

Nashville City Paper article today on growing rift between the planning commission and the convention center proponents.

Belmont's Bob Fisher on planning commission's recommendation of elevating some parts of the convention center so that the downtown street pattern is not disrupted: "We believe this strong language that would prohibit entrances and exists from the new center on the four streets that surround the site is premature and restrictive in the extreme."

I have to say this just ticks me off. If Fisher and the other Convention center proponents aren't willing to give and take on the design then the city should just refuse to build the damn thing.

[barakat]

I think the CP piece today is non-news and premature. It's a complex process and hardly anything has been done in terms of design.

[Jeeper12]

Cudos to Rick Bernhardt for making it clear that his department will not rubber stamp whatever the CC coalition ultimately submits for review/approval. With all due respect to that committee, few, if any, of the most vocal members know very much about how the development/project design process really works. So far, they have done a very good job of creating a lot of momentum for the new CC. It will take some considerable leadership on the part of the new mayor, Bernhardt and others to not simply cave to the whims of this committee when the reality of budget constraints become apparent. Rick is right to get the important issues on the table early to they can be considered at the inception of the design.

That said, I think the idea of wrapping the CC with residential is almost laughable. Who would want to live on top of a CC for more than a few nights while attending an event ? Hopefully, they can strike a balance that is reasonable.

[ATLBrain]

Not surprisingly, it sounds like a few members of the business community are trying to do just what they have wanted since the beginning. From their background, they're used to dictating how things are going to be with little regard to dissenting opinion. "My way or the highway" thinking. They just want a big, new CC, damnit! Apparently they're not concerned about how (or if) the CC even fits in with its surroundings.

IMO: This whole process appears to be lacking a lot of foresight. Just an example is some idiotic study that concluded the SoBro site is the best b/c it's closer to more restaurants. Don't even get me started on the erroneous assumptions behind that conclusion. IMO it's also shortsighted not to see the CC's potential to spur that kind of related development around it. As I've said before, SoBro does not need an inward-looking, fortress of a CC in it to spur development. Finally, to have anything wrapped around the CC anywhere is a surefire way to limit its expansion abilities. That's sheer stupidity... even if the residential wrapped around it is rental (does the city want to be a landlord to those living there?). Also, if the CC goes to SoBro, will Marriott be able to build the large hotel it presumably would want? I just think lots of questions are being overlooked.