Convention Center shortcomings costing Nashville $$$$

[memphian]

The answer is Yes. A new CC will definitely make Nashville more competitive for the top tier conventions. Many people get scared about building a new CC because of bad results in places like St. Louis and Pittsburgh - both of which came online right after 9/11 and both of which tend to still be fighting city-image problems eventhough they are both awesome cities.

Nashville has a great brand name and with the new developments that are coming online today and in the near future - we're good. We've been able to build on our uniqueness and Southern Hospitality but if the city just rests on its laurels then we're doomed to become a last choice location.

Its kind of like having a nice lawn... You don't just fertilize it, water and then mow it only once all summer. You have to continually work at it. The CVB can only do so much with the current facility so we need find a solution - which in this case is basically building new, exciting UNIQUE Music City Center.

On a side note.... A Hard Rock Hotel might be a cool hotel to anchor the new cc. Think Westin would be able to contract something like that? Loews has one in Universal so the name is obviously something that can be negotiated. Just a thought.

[jice]

As memphian said... the problem (IMO) with other convention center failures like St. Louis has more to do with the city's image problems. STL has a lot of other problems to work out right now, as we've discussed in other threads unrelated to STL lol.

As for Nashville... it's still considered a "destination city," as one of the articles above said. As long as it can keep that label... it shouldn't face the same problems a city such as STL has had to face with promoting the use of a new convention center. It seems Nash has the recipe for a successful new center... it just has to capitalize on the thing that makes Nashville unique... the music.

[Kheldane]

Is no one mentioning that there is a convention center at Opryland? I know this isn't owned or maintained by the city.... AND THAT'S THE BEST PART!!! Could Nashville/Davidson county not combine efforts with Gaylord to expand their facility? I have two reasons for that:

1- Land cost outside of downtown should be significantly lower

2- We could keep the current downtown facility intact and bring the smaller conventions downown. I've always thought an LRT from Opryland across the river to downtown would negate the negatives associated with Opryland's convention center.

I know everyone on here wants to see everything in the CBD, but fact is there is a relatively new facility down there, why destroy it after less than 20 years. Are we going to be promoting a new Titan's coliseum 12 years from now?

I tihnk that's the root of the problem. Nashville should have built a facility like the Georgia Dome/Georgia World Congress Center when bringing the Titan's to town in 1996. We would have hosted a Super Bowl and at the same time had a convention center on the river. Hind sight is 20/20

Excellent Post! I have said all the long that the city should not try to compete with opryland (someone even lamented above "can't even compete with opryland'). That's the whole point. The fact that you have opryland getting better conventions than downtown is a good thing. If anything, the existing convention center should be sold to Gaylord Opryland and should be managed by them so hopefully that thing can turn a profit. I'll guarantee the Opryland convention center is turning a profit. I can't imagine any circumstances under which the Metro Davidson government could do a better job of landing convention business than our own local convention expert company. If nashville needs bigger convention space, they should request that Opryland expand their convention center. They should also remove all zoning from the Opryland corridor, allowing music valley drive and McGavok Pike to develope hotels and restaurants and other venues that convention-goers desire. I think Oprymills is a great draw for conventions. You'll never have a profitable shoping center on the scale of Oprymills downtown. Nor do we want one! My personal desire is for downtown retail to be high-end and boutique shops, not mall-type mega retail. But conventioners like shopping....Look at Las vegas.

Now, another point: The arena. That thing has ample room for any convention. Not only does it have the main floor space, but the lobby, and that HUGE "Band Shell" practice area. Have you guys ever seen that area? It's on the Demonbreun/5th corner and as far as I can tell it sits virtually unused 99% of the time. The arena sits unused probably 80% of the time (I totally made that number up, but does it seem right to you guys?). Anyway, the arena is definitely underutilized. Someone said there is a tunnel from the convention center to the Arena....I say upgrade that thing to a major under-the-street pedestrian thoroughfare and sell the two spaces as one mega-convention space. The arena should be sold to Gaylord as well - since the arena also looses millions each year.

And a final point about the convention business: I'm not convinced that the convention business is a good business to be in. Maybe only the Opryland-calibre conventions are money makers. What if it turns out that these ultra-huge mega conventions are all money-losers for the mega-convention centers that host them? Now, someone on here will protest "Yes, but the hotels and restaurants around the convention make money", to which I respond: That's also bad. We don't need tons of downtown hotels and restaurants who are dependent on convention business. Why should the city subsidize these businesses (operating a money-loosing convention center to bring them business is a subsidy) at the expense of the rest of davidson county (since it's a foregone conclusion that the subsidy money comes from all over the county and not just those businesses downtown)? What if someone even suggested a special downtown restaurant and hotel tax to pay for the convention center? I say: Total garbage. Why would you tax a business and use the money to build a convention center to subsidize that same business? If you actually did make the convention center exclusively funded by downtown business then downtown would likely loose businesses because the losses would be more than their increased revenue. So my take on the issue is that any argument favoring a government funded convention center really amounts to saying the rest of the county should subsidize downtown hotels and restaurants because in the free-market they are not profitable. And I say that kind of scheme is not healthy for the overall long-term economic strength of Davidson county. Why do companies re-locate outside of Davidson Co? Because other counties don't engage in the re-distribution-of-wealth schemes to the extent that Davidson co. does.

Who will lobby hardest for this new center? Downtown restaurants & hotels: They actually want the rest of the county to subsidize their "artifical" business. Construction companies will lobby hard for the convention center because they want the lucrative construction contracts. What do they care if it looses money after it's built (Arena, Stadium, Convention Center)? They've already got their money. Politicians might lobby for it because it raises their profile and makes it look like they're doing something - but they don't care about the long-term. They only have to pay a fraction of the cost, the rest of Davidson.co will pay for the rest.

And please indulge me to add one extra point: The fact that this proposed convention center would be built by the government makes it a foregone conclusion that the proposed convention center will loose money. Why do I say this? Because if building mega-centers was a profitable business you would see private companies creating a stampede to SoBro or wherever and buying up huge tracts and constructing their own convention centers and raking in millions. But you don't see that, do you? What you see is a bunch of businessmen saying "Somebody should build this...Somebody should build that". What they mean is that the Government should build them a subsidized convention facility that they can parasite off of. The trouble is: the government doesn't haven any money. Only the tax payers have money, and they don't want to purchase a new convention center (this fact is indisputable since the public has not rallied together and created a volutary convention center finance organization and gone door-to-door seeking donations). They want to purchase groceries and gasoline and college education and new cars, etc... Only opryland has successfully banded together a group of voluntary investors to engage in the conventioning business - and the Davidson Co. govt. should yield to their superiors and let Opryland handle Nashville's convention needs. If restrictive zoning makes it impossible for Opryland to expand, then by all means - that zoning should be removed. Beyond that- Metro shouldn't give conventions a second thought. They have enough to worry about as it is.

[NewTowner]

Only opryland has successfully banded together a group of voluntary investors to engage in the conventioning business - and the Davidson Co. govt. should yield to their superiors and let Opryland handle Nashville's convention needs. If restrictive zoning makes it impossible for Opryland to expand, then by all means - that zoning should be removed. Beyond that- Metro shouldn't give conventions a second thought. They have enough to worry about as it is.

Oh...my goodness. If Convention Centers turn profits for the municipal bodies which build them, to the benefit of all, then what is the problem with them? The urban services infrastructure like sewage and road improvements required to nourish and sustain far-flung suburban Communist Semi-states like Gaylord Opryland rob the taxpayer of much more money than any tidy downtown Convention Center would. You clearly just hold contempt for the entire public realm, Kheldane, and would rather the world be run by corporate entities than republican democracies! All of your posts are remarkably similar. We need to start a new thread in which Libertarian/Anarchist views can be safely pitted against the Capitalist/Civic Realm perspective without jeopordizing entire discussions. No offense, but you distill every conversation about urban design into pretty intense political business.

And please, don't verbally pretend that government support of a downtown Convention Center would be any more socialist, or just anti-capitalist, than the road-building and water-pipe laying and police protecting that the government would have to fork over to Gaylord should they build a Socialist Utopia Convention Center on top of some of the best agricultural land in the world, oodles of miles from a perfectly good and already paid-for network of public services downtown. This is just getting silly.

[memphian]

To understand the convention business you need to be close to it. As for selling the GEC and the current CC - Nashville does this. NAMM used to use all of the combined space and still wanted more. Convention Planners likes to have all of the exhibit space in a single location so eventhough being able to use the GEC is great it still only puts a band-aid on the problem.

Another issue Metro has faced is the fact that Opryland expanded their convention space and Metro agreed at some point not to expand downtown in order to keep the two centers from competing.

The current downtown CC has run its course. Its very impersonal and looks more than out-of-style. These are things that weigh on convention planner's minds when they choose a facility.

There is no reason that Opryland and downtown cannot compete. As for Metro the CVB in Nashville as awesome and does a wonderful job. They can only sell what they have to offer. If your baby is ugly then face it, you baby is ugly and people will take notice.

[LA_TN]

Kheldane, nice of you to participate, we look forward to your posts.

My only point here is simple, the types and sizes of conventions Opryland and DT are attracting belong in two different leagues. DT conventions want at DT experience - and volume of attendees. Opryland attracts exclusive small conferences on a big dollar ticket.

[ATLBrain]

Kheldane, nice of you to participate, we look forward to your posts.

My only point here is simple, the types and sizes of conventions Opryland and DT are attracting belong in two different leagues. DT conventions want at DT experience - and volume of attendees. Opryland attracts exclusive small conferences on a big dollar ticket.

I'll second this point, LA. I was up in Nashville in fall '04 for an AMA convention at the Opryland Hotel. There were 3000 members (I'm not a MD, but I give lectures on malpractice liability). Anyway, this group was there for the whole resort experience (Aww Gawd did they play golf). Let me tell you that everything was choreographed. Also, I don't recall any planned excursions to go to DT. As one of the members told me, "I kinda wanted to see what downtown Nashville was all about, but we never even got near it."

On the other hand, trade expositions tend not to follow as choreographed a plan, and there's more of a free flow of attendees. Often, that's because they are from a wider span of disciplines and backgrounds. As such, the shows must offer more of a rotational schedule of presentations (i.e. classes on cost accounting offered up to X times a day), so the space is required for extended periods.

All conventions these days need lots and lots of breakout space. That's what is fretfully inadequate about Nashville's current CC. Plus with all the elaborate display booths these days, high ceilings and space unobstructed by posts are a big big asset.

Also, for the reasons stated so eloquently above about St. Louis vs. Nashville, I think it would be a big mistake if Nashville doesn't pursue this.

[Kheldane]

And please, don't verbally pretend that government support of a downtown Convention Center would be any more socialist, or just anti-capitalist, than the road-building and water-pipe laying and police protecting that the government would have to fork over to Gaylord should they build a Socialist Utopia Convention Center on top of some of the best agricultural land in the world, oodles of miles from a perfectly good and already paid-for network of public services downtown. This is just getting silly.

I will try not to steer this discussion down a philosophical side road. I think everyone knows my thoughts on government involvement so I'll leave it at one post on the issue. I will address your one concern briefly: I also argue against government owned utilities - but this is an entirely different issue.

Now back to the topic at hand: I think nashville should have as large a convention space as possible. If money were no object, of course the bigger the better. If organizations across the country would be interested in scheduling their conventions for nashville and bringing their legions of conventioneers with them, then yes, we should have a convention center to satisfy that desire and it should be as big as possible because that means more money for the local economy. I think that Nashville makes a good convention destination because it has a unique personality.

It is actually very hard for me to discuss this issue (now that I think about it) without addressing the how. If someone told me "Kheldane, we're building a new DT convention center, we need you to buy $1000 in stock". I would probably say "No thanks, I have better investments to make". That's just me. My personal attitude is that if I wouldn't invest in it myself, I have a hard time forcing other tax payers to invest in it.

But I'll try to move beyond the "how" and focus on the "what". I don't know much (if anything) about the convention business, but I do know that if the experts in the business say we are missing opportunities for lack of a better facility, then some entity should build a new and bigger facility to keep the economy rolling and keep downtown growing. We can probably all agree on that.

[southsideJ]

I hate to bring the discussion back to sports again--sorry--but the sole reason that Nashville hasn't gotten an NHL All-Star Game yet is because we don't have a large enough CC space DT. Using the arena for CC space would not solve this problem. That is just another good reason for a new CC that I think should be added to the discussion--more great sports events will come.

Another concern I have w/the Opryland Conventions is that they don't often arrange to come dt. Therefore, if someone wants to go and do something dt they have to drive themselves or take a cab or something. Then there is Briley Parkway waiting to eat up a first time Nashville driver. Ouch.

I think it is a fair point to look at whether a city with such a large suburban CC really needs a new one dt or if they can even compete or afford to try. But there have been several studies commissioned which have found that expansion or new construction is the recommended course of action and that the market will support it. Also, the two sites will draw different types of conventions, like ATL was saying.

I think DT is starting to intimidate the suburbanites, threatening to take away businesses and residents, and that is a good thing. Now that I mention that--hasn't Opryland tried to prevent DT from expanding CC space in the past? Memphian, you mentioned there was an agreement in the past. I wonder, would Opryland try to legally block the city from building new or expanding? Have they ever tried this in the past?

[ATLBrain]

Now that I mention that--hasn't Opryland tried to prevent DT from expanding CC space in the past? Memphian, you mentioned there was an agreement in the past. I wonder, would Opryland try to legally block the city from building new or expanding? Have they ever tried this in the past?

As I understand the agreement, it was a nonbinding promise from former Mayor Bredesen that Metro would not (either) pursue or open (I think the latter) a new or expansion of the convention center before 2005. This was made in response to Gaylord's last massive expansion at O'land in the mid 1990s. According to my sources, this agreement has expired.

[rocky top buzz]

Yes, the agreement for dontown not to expand their Convention center has expired and that's why this has come up.

I agree that anyone comingto town for a 2 day convention would need 'breakout' time, and downtown is perfect. Ever been to the Gatlinburg convention center? I don't know how big it is, but the location is perfect!

I have to agree with Kheldane on the Convention center investment theory (and I agree about government run utilities. What are my options when the jerks at the water company screw up my bill, threaten to dig a well??). If someone asked me if I wanted to invest in a convention center, it would be a definite 'no.' However, I would have invested in both the GEC and the coliseum. Why? with the coliseum you have 8 guaranteed sellouts plus Fan Fare, and with the GEC you have 40+ scheduled dates, although the GEC would have been bad last year. I know everyone gripes about how these facilities cost more than they earn, but I guarantee if the Coliseum were privately owned, the Titans wouldn't have had such a stronghold and there woube more events there, and the GEC probably would have turned the starwood ampitheater into a housing developement by now if Powers managemtn felt a need to turn a profit by lowering the cost to rent (which I think they did)

I think this just adds to the fact that a convention center sounds nice, but it's also a big risk that shouldn't be forced on the taxpayers too quickly. Or do like Murfreesboro. They allowed their citizens to vote for a new convention center, and I believe it passed, right?

[smeagolsfree]

I needed to chime in quickly to make a point. It is true most convention centers lose money. Everyone is comparing Gaylord to the CC downtown. The only problem is that if Nashville or any other city owns the CC and not the rooms then it will lose money. The majority of the revenue comes from hotel rooms and food sales. Now if the city were to own the hotel that would be different, but that would be in competition with the private sector and I dont think they can, by law compete with private companies. I may be wrong there and I am sure to be corrected if I am because you guys dont miss much.

Now could the answer be to subsidize a CC and let the majority of the risk be on the companies operating the surrounding hotels. That is a lot of money to recoup and I doubt they would be able to do it. But there could be an answer on the private side that we may be overlooking. Are there any large CC in the US that are private excluding Las Vegas that are in large cities?

[southsideJ]

The new Scene is out w/a story on the report coming in to Mayor Purcell on Friday. The proposal is for a new $1.2 million sq ft. CC priced at about $455 million. It also documents proposed tourist tax hikes, some of which will require changes in state law. Steve Gill has already thrown his hat into the ring, calling the proposal, "crazy." No surprise there--but I wonder what the average person will think of this proposal.

It looks like the Civic Design Center is ready to spur on public discussion on this issue--so that's good news.

After watching the Metro Council on the Sounds, I don't know if I can imagine this being approved--at least not for 5-7 years.

[smeagolsfree]

Things are about to get really interesting. Something will be done, but what is going to be the question.

[NewTowner]

Kheldane, I am also against publicly-held utilities, and I barely buy into public schools--they just don't seem to work very well--and with my wife being from Europe, I have bad nasty feelings about the way public medical care can work out. I am a capitalist, not a socialist--I don't want the government to be my parent. They mess a lot of stuff up. I don't like big beauracracies, and I don't like having to get signatures and stamps in order to participate in life. I am a grown-up.

But there are some things which would simply not exist if left to the private sector. And there are some things which SHOULD NOT exist in the private sector. The military and police probably fall into both categories. Airports, passenger rail systems, fine-grained road networks, trash disposal systems, immunization clinics, and many other desperately needed bits of the public realm fall under former bracket, also known as the "never possibly ever make a profit" category. So often the public realm must throw its weight around--for better or for worse--and make things messier by keeping us going. When this happens, the government starts to act like a business. It provides a service to the taxpayer, in return for tax--only, and ominously, the taxes paid are not voluntary. It is the price of admission to the body politic. Is that fair? I don't know. The nature of citizenship is the issue here. I doubt we'll resolve it on UrbanPlanet.org.

But, assuming republican democracies are viable systems, then it seems the government will have stand in the place of the absent financial moron and build a new Music City Convention Center--or nobody will. Opryland can't do it--and even if they could, it would still cost the taxpayer money...in pure, hard, infrastructure and support. The Gaylord argument all sounds a lot like the hilarious Ethanol scheme (you see, while ethanol isn't petroleum, it costs more agribusiness petroleum energy units to produce the ethanol than we get out of the ethanol itself). Gaylord would take taxpayer money, but contribute nothing in return--or at least, nothing compared to a convention center downtown. Net loss. Rip-off for private citizen and public realm alike. Nothing new--Gaylord is hated for reasons.

I sympathize with scepticism about the government ownership of stuff. It just seems like the only logical route to go with a new convention center. The second best plan would probably be: not build a new convention center at all. Don't build it out in the middle of the Gulf of Mexico, in Howenwald, off of Briley Parkway, or anywhere else.

Personally, I just hope they stick this thing somewhere where it won't erase the street grid. It's going to be a giant Snuffelupagus of a thing, should it become Real.

[doormanpoet]

Pardon my cynicism, but this is NOT going to happen. According to some letters in the paper, most Nashvillians are not concerned with having big conventions here. Our city barely has the infrastructure for the conventions we get now, and large religious groups like the Passion Group and Promise Keepers do NOT spend money! They get hotel rates below $50 per room, and they eat at McDonalds and Subway. They are NOT spending money like smaller more economically strong groups do, and they do not tip!

Bellman, Doorman, Valets, Servers, Waiters etc... NEVER make money on the groups the Tennessean reported were not coming back.

Yes, Nashville lose some money, but the amount of money we lose does not compare to all the lost wages from all the FREE work people in tipped positions provide. Nashville trying to absorb a 1000 room hotel is only going to take business away from the Renaissance, Hilton and other hotels. That is something I cannot afford. I don't mind the Intercontinental going in WES. That wont affect or effect me, but another convention hotel may send me home with empty pockets.

Secondly, Union workers unload for conventions at the current convention center. They worked for NAMM and did quite well. Since NAMM left they lost money, but how is the city going to work out a new labor contract for a new convention center?

Just a thought.

[ATLBrain]

Just a thought.

I always enjoy reading your thoughts DP. Yours is an interesting perspective b/c your livelihood depends on so much that happens around the cc. Also, I'm sure you have an eye for all the various types that attend these shows.

I just have two things to say in response. First, I've already heard so much against this project. Also I think that it will be a hard sell on what I know about Nashvillians (especially with the reaction against the Sounds Park... btw: That surprised me). On a positive note, the council of jealous whores did see enough merit in the project to support it overwhelmingly. But my point on this is that when Atlanta was looking to expand the GWCC (about 18 years ago), there wasn't even a whimper against the project. I can't remember all the details b/c I was actually in Nashville at the time, but I do recall that the WCC Authority did a wonderful job of selling the expansion. Ultimately it was financed predominantly by hotel/motel taxes.

Furthermore, I think this is the kind of thing Atlantans (by then) were in favor of to take the city to the next level. Consequently, we've gotten the Super Bowl (and will again in two years) and COMDEX and so many other shows it's not even funny. Plus, there was the Marriott Marquis and the massive expansion of the Omni Hotel. Three others have been added since then.

Second thing: I think one thing that needs to be pressed to Nashvillians is that any CC is a loss leader (the guy in the article had it right). The other thing is that financing will need to be as creatively favorable to the city as possible.

On the loss leader aspect, this will be tough for Nashville. Nashvillians (as opposed to Atlantans in general) are more realistic, even (dare I say?) more down to earth. In other words, they don't get all starry-eyed at the mention of new hotels and the latest/greatest restaurants. They're generally more pragmatic. So the sales job on this thing will have to be huge, or it will not happen.

Finally, I think this thing could be passed if it's done very carefully. Financing, benefits, and people/commitments involved will all need to be above board and transparent to Davidson County residents. On that note, David Briley (perhaps the Council's biggest naysayer) has already said that the CC needs to be expanded. So there's already a base of support.

[jice]

Just a thought.

With a bigger CC, wouldn't it be possible to have multiple smaller conventions in town at the same time? Thus creating the possibility for even more tips for service industry workers. Plus, the big conventions would be more likely to sell out more hotels... which in turn would make hotels like the Ren. want to possibly go ahead with expansion plans... and therefore lead to more visitors in the hotel at once, and more people to possibly leave tips (even if small). It seems like it would lead to better wages in the long run, even if the people who attend larger conventions don't tip as well. Although, I could be completely wrong! But just another thought

[ATLBrain]

You're right jice. After GWCC was tripled in size, the number of conventions and attendees increased by a factor of five. It turned out to exceed expectations.

Of course this was back in the early 90s. We've had 9/11 since then. But on that point, I think Nashville is ideally suited for travellers who don't want to go far for a convention. After all, they don't call it Nashvegas for nothin'. This goes right to my point about the salesmanship of the new CC in Nashville.

[bzorch]

I thought this might help. Here is a jpeg illustrating the 1.2 million square feet (dark blue) and the 375,000 square feet of exhibition hall space (light blue). I thought is might help frame the urban design discussion.

Obviously, this is not a site plan. This is only to show the CC's size in relationship to the downtown.

[Rural King]

^ Wow, thats a lot of ground.

[mississippiyuppie]

Who thinks it needs to go on the east side of the River? Not Opryland...just across the river from the new Sounds Stadium.

Obviously, this is not a site plan. This is only to show the CC's size in relationship to the downtown.

[bzorch]

Just so we all get up to speed on the issues before Friday's release. Here is the link to the Brookings Institute Study

Space Available: The Realities of Convention Centers as Economic Development Strategy

[ATLBrain]

I thought this might help. Here is a jpeg illustrating the 1.2 million square feet (dark blue) and the 375,000 square feet of exhibition hall space (light blue). I thought is might help frame the urban design discussion.

If I may point out that the CC would be rectangular along the new Gateway Blvd across Demonbreun from the GEC (visible in the photo as white oval). It would run approximately 3 blocks from fifth to eighth.

At Eighth and Gateway would be a roundabout (proposed) that would also tie-in to the little shortcut to Demonbreun (imagine if you will, a continuation of the diagonal Lafayette street, if it were extended to the northwest beyond its Y intersection (with 8th) and connect with Demonbreun at Cummings Station (adjacent to the Demonbreun viaduct). The proposed roundabout would replace the Y interchange with Lafayette.

I guess you guys can see that I think Nashville needs to do this if it ever wants to be considered a destination city. The current get-up will not (does not) enable that. It's already being left by the wayside. So the big decision is not really whether to build the CC or not. It's actually whether or not the citizens want their city to be on the map for conventions. Without this, it simply won't be considered in the future.

I see that Nashville (for at least the third time), along with the other usual suspects, was invited to bid on the Republican Convention for 08. Without the new CC, this won't even happen the next time around. So it comes down to whether or not the city wants to be a contender for these types of conventions. I think that a solid marketing campaign can sell this point to the voters.

I'm a big believer in the draw of a good convention center, but I understand that it is at minimum a loss leader. By this, I mean that the direct revenue (as quantified) may not cover the debt service. This is where the hotel taxes (or similar facility) brings in the additional revenue to pay down the bonds (assuming the typical financing avenues are done here).

BTW: Atlanta's CC has been a money maker from the word GO. It's well managed. So good luck, Nashville.

[Skyscrapergeek]

Who thinks it needs to go on the east side of the River? Not Opryland...just across the river from the new Sounds Stadium.

Obviously, this is not a site plan. This is only to show the CC's size in relationship to the downtown.

Hey Yup that's a good question, however, locating the CC on the east side won't work for a few reasons. First, it will need to be as close to the arena, Broadway, Sobro and 2nd Ave as they can get it. Having a river between tourist spots and the CC will be too large of a barrier and an inconvenience. Second, we still have to deal with the metal recycling plant on the east side. This wouldn't be a good visual for visitors. It's bad enough as it is. I cringe each time I drive by that pile of junk. It also is critical for it to be very near as many hotel rooms as possible. The vast majority of the existing rooms are on the west side. I think the spot they're looking at makes perfect sense. Being a member of First Baptist, I find it interesting how things are about to change around our property. It's going to be very exciting!