Convention Center Expansion

[The ATX]

Now that talk about expanding the convention center is gaining traction, it might be worthy of a thread of its of own. Here's a Statesman article about it from today. Hopefully this link to the other side of the pay wall works:

http://www.mystatesman.com/news/business/a-convention-dilemma/nkRB4/#1b8c2a62.3948020.735666

[KevinFromTexas]

Maybe this is where the rumor of three more White Lodging hotel announcements came from...

[the Genral]

Well they better get their act together and see the need to rush the gate expansion at the airport too.

[drummer]

The end of the article mentions possibly going up rather than out with new expansions. I hope they stick to that line of thinking as they consider their options.

[Novacek]

The end of the article mentions possibly going up rather than out with new expansions. I hope they stick to that line of thinking as they consider their options.

Why not go down? It's not like exhibit halls or meeting rooms ever have any windows.

[GoldenBoot]

Why not go down? It's not like exhibit halls or meeting rooms ever have any windows.

I'm not sure if they can or how much it may increase the cost of going down to expand the contiguous exhibit space. Furthermore, going down would still require the purchase of the additional blocks to make economic sense.

One major differential from one convention center to the next is their respective amounts of contiguous exhibit space. Thus, convention centers move out rather than up. One cannot expand their "contiguous" space by building up over multiple levels.

Having said that, the ballrooms and breakout rooms could be contained in a taller structure.

At this point, in order to make it economically viable to expand the convention center, at least two of the thee western blocks will need to be purchased and incorporated into the "new" convention center.

[drummer]

That's actually a good point. A lot of conventions like one big room for the various kiosks, etc. With many of the types of events that we have in Austin, however, smaller rooms (ballrooms, etc.), may be more in demand - or maybe I'm just thinking that way without any real facts, of course. I agree that those buildings could easily go up (or down, though costs may prevent that). For contiguous space, the blocks lining Waller Creek might be better rather than taking away the ones on the west side (block 8 and the one to the north of it) - so long as the convention center relates well to the creek with all the new development (restaurants, coffee shops, etc., on the creek). The only disadvantage to anything like that is the possibility of lose parts of the street grid.

[drummer]

Another thought - if the convention center does need to take up more blocks, why not put a hotel or something on top of it? That way, we're not necessarily losing the blocks to that space. The streets could have smaller retail and hotel entrances, the guts of the building could be the convention space. It could still be vertical and satisfy the desire of horizontal expansion as well. Anything like that would certainly be easier to do during the original construction rather than adding something later, which would require closing significant chunks of the center during the work.

[lzppjb]

Another thought - if the convention center does need to take up more blocks, why not put a hotel or something on top of it? That way, we're not necessarily losing the blocks to that space. The streets could have smaller retail and hotel entrances, the guts of the building could be the convention space. It could still be vertical and satisfy the desire of horizontal expansion as well. Anything like that would certainly be easier to do during the original construction rather than adding something later, which would require closing significant chunks of the center during the work.

I love this idea. No idea how feasible it is, but it sounds like a great idea.

[jngreenlee]

I love this idea. No idea how feasible it is, but it sounds like a great idea.

You have to think of the clear span length inside the main convention floor of any new space. Roof loads alone begin to require geometrically increasing support structures. To build above, you'll have to carve up the inside space with support columns for the highrise, or else engineer some fanatastically expensive new design that supersedes modern code, and get the COA to pay for it.

[drummer]

You have to think of the clear span length inside the main convention floor of any new space. Roof loads alone begin to require geometrically increasing support structures. To build above, you'll have to carve up the inside space with support columns for the highrise, or else engineer some fanatastically expensive new design that supersedes modern code, and get the COA to pay for it.

You make a good point - but I do like the idea of "new design that supersedes modern code." It's the "fantastically expensive" part that dictates why it won't happen with COA. Either way, I'd like them to start thinking in creative ways to accomplish what needs to be done that satisfies all aspects of a city.

[ivanwolf]

If they expand why not go east? Take the lots that straddle Waller Creek where Moonshine Patio Bar is currently. Those lots are not used but for that bar. Think a few floors of either ground floor small meeting rooms or parking levels on each side of the creek, above they could build a solid continuous floor two blocks long and one block wide. Between Red River/I35 and 3rd/4th. Doing that would allow them to have access to the unused Palm Park that they could use as outside space.

[IluvATX]

If they expand why not go east? Take the lots that straddle Waller Creek where Moonshine Patio Bar is currently. Those lots are not used but for that bar. Think a few floors of either ground floor small meeting rooms or parking levels on each side of the creek, above they could build a solid continuous floor two blocks long and one block wide. Between Red River/I35 and 3rd/4th. Doing that would allow them to have access to the unused Palm Park that they could use as outside space.

I like that idea, but raising the convention center above Waller Creek and Red River wouldn't help with contiguous space inside. To the west, there are restaurants and bars that would be lost, but that seems better than compromising Waller Creek.

[Tech House]

Some more possibilities...

Nairobi has a 28-floor convention center, admittedly hideous but it illustrates the point that we can go vertical too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenyatta_International_Conference_Centre

Cleveland's convention center is being expanded via private sector investment, i.e., the Hilton Convention Center Hotel. "The hotel will feature a 28-story tower filled with 600 guest rooms positioned atop a four-story podium of ballrooms, meeting space, retail space, and lobby. The hotel will feature a rooftop bar as well as underground connections to the Cleveland Convention Center and the Global Center for Health Innovation."
http://www.cuyahogacounty.us/en-US/Cuyahoga-County-Convention-Center-Hotel-Project.aspx

Maybe if Austin can let go of the idea that we must be able to attract the DNC or RNC (and face it, do we really want a bunch of liquored-up political a**holes running loose on Dirty Sixth?) then we could focus instead on expanding the number of less-ginormous meeting rooms and exhibit spaces, which would allow for a public-private partnership to build an expansion that goes vertical with multiple uses included.

The most profitable ACC event is SXSW, isn't it? That type of gathering requires many and varied spaces, not one enormous contiguous space. I just feel very skeptical about the need for that huge unimpeded floor space, as it seems to me that it severely limits the type of construction that can be used, while failing to attract enough added business to make it worthwhile.

What about highrise building(s) above the permimeter structural supports? On the roof of the 2nd or 3rd floor of the middle part of the convention center there could be a rooftop park/garden/outdoor cafe area for convention and hotel guests, surrounded by 2nd floor retail, restaurants, and shops. Are you picturing this? It would be very unusual and possibly visually unappealing from the street view, but I think it would be very cool and it would work from a structural perspective.

[wwmiv]

Some more possibilities...

Nairobi has a 28-floor convention center, admittedly hideous but it illustrates the point that we can go vertical too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenyatta_International_Conference_Centre

Cleveland's convention center is being expanded via private sector investment, i.e., the Hilton Convention Center Hotel. "The hotel will feature a 28-story tower filled with 600 guest rooms positioned atop a four-story podium of ballrooms, meeting space, retail space, and lobby. The hotel will feature a rooftop bar as well as underground connections to the Cleveland Convention Center and the Global Center for Health Innovation."
http://www.cuyahogacounty.us/en-US/Cuyahoga-County-Convention-Center-Hotel-Project.aspx

Maybe if Austin can let go of the idea that we must be able to attract the DNC or RNC (and face it, do we really want a bunch of liquored-up political a**holes running loose on Dirty Sixth?) then we could focus instead on expanding the number of less-ginormous meeting rooms and exhibit spaces, which would allow for a public-private partnership to build an expansion that goes vertical with multiple uses included.

The most profitable ACC event is SXSW, isn't it? That type of gathering requires many and varied spaces, not one enormous contiguous space. I just feel very skeptical about the need for that huge unimpeded floor space, as it seems to me that it severely limits the type of construction that can be used, while failing to attract enough added business to make it worthwhile.

What about highrise building(s) above the permimeter structural supports? On the roof of the 2nd or 3rd floor of the middle part of the convention center there could be a rooftop park/garden/outdoor cafe area for convention and hotel guests, surrounded by 2nd floor retail, restaurants, and shops. Are you picturing this? It would be very unusual and possibly visually unappealing from the street view, but I think it would be very cool and it would work from a structural perspective.

Austin, as a state capitol, has a vested interest in being able to attract those conventions. It would be good not only for the city, but for the state. Those, really, are the key events that Austin needs to be able to attract and we're currently trying to piece together the necessary components (larger convention space, more hotel space, and a basketball arena that is larger).

[KevinFromTexas]

I like that idea, but raising the convention center above Waller Creek and Red River wouldn't help with contiguous space inside. To the west, there are restaurants and bars that would be lost, but that seems better than compromising Waller Creek.

Actually it could. San Antonio's convention center spans the riverwalk. I've personally stood in a convention hall that straddled the river.

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=San+Antonio,+TX&ll=29.420443,-98.485609&spn=0.001482,0.002064&t=h&cid=600915244098787004&hnear=San+Antonio,+Bexar+County,+Texas&z=20&iwloc=A

[wwmiv]

Actually it could. San Antonio's convention center spans the riverwalk. I've personally stood in a convention hall that straddled the river.

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=San+Antonio,+TX&ll=29.420443,-98.485609&spn=0.001482,0.002064&t=h&cid=600915244098787004&hnear=San+Antonio,+Bexar+County,+Texas&z=20&iwloc=A

A) That's not the actual river, just part of the riverwalk that essentially /ends/ at the convention center and B) I'm sure you realize they're re-doing the entirety of that half of the convention center to basically get rid of it because it didn't work very well.

[KevinFromTexas]

That's a bummer. We always set up in that section over the river facing the glass bridge. It was nice because it had good access to the street.

[The ATX]

Community Impact has some details about the expansion. The new hotel looks to be ~31-stories.

http://communityimpact.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/ConvCenterNEW-e1440436721834.png
Article: http://communityimpact.com/2015/08/24/council-gets-first-look-at-proposed-austin-convention-center-expansion/

[The ATX]

Here are some more renderings from the Austintowers link that Paul78701 posted in the update thread.

http://i1121.photobucket.com/albums/l511/ihatethisplacenothingworks/CC%20Expansion%20Roof.png
http://austintowers.net/wp-content/uploads/austin-convention-center-expansion3-600x452.jpg
http://austintowers.net/wp-content/uploads/austin-convention-center-expansion4-600x452.jpg
http://austintowers.net/wp-content/uploads/austin-convention-center-expansion7-600x449.jpg
Austintowers: http://austintowers.net/visuals-austin-convention-center-expansion/

[KevinFromTexas]

I like that they're planning to keep Trinity Street open and connect the two sections with skywalks. It would be nice to get some retail along the street so there isn't three blocks of dead zone.

Anyway, the main roof parapet of Four Seasons Residences is 382 feet, so the hotel looks to be somewhere around that height, or even a hair taller.

I like the design so far. It sort of reminds me of some stuff in Boston, London and Frankfurt. I really like the green roof idea. Hopefully they keep it.

[The ATX]

I like that they're planning to keep Trinity Street open and connect the two sections with skywalks. It would be nice to get some retail along the street so there isn't three blocks of dead zone.

Anyway, the main roof parapet of Four Seasons Residences is 382 feet, so the hotel looks to be somewhere around that height, or even a hair taller.

I like the design so far. It sort of reminds me of some stuff in Boston, London and Frankfurt. I really like the green roof idea. Hopefully they keep it.

Another good thing about this is that the city is not planning a bond election to finance it which always put big projects in doubt. They are using a redirect of the hotel tax. But that apparently still requires voter approval.

[JAM]

"The convention center in its current phase is like a fortress, and there’s really nothing on at the street level,” said Alan Colyer, a Gensler principal and design director, during the Aug. 24 committee meeting."

Could not agree more. This is often a problem in other cities. They MUST find a way to integrate the facility so it has life surrounding it when there is no convention going on. Like the JW Marriot did with their street level scene. Wow, what an amazing job they did!

[The ATX]

The Statesman has the story now. This link should get past the paywall:

http://www.mystatesman.com/news/business/report-calls-for-up-to-600-million-austin-conventi/nnQS2/#9b381f18.3948020.735834

[drummer]

^^ from the Statesman article:

"The convention center expansion would likely include retail and restaurant space, plans indicate, meaning it’s possible some of the displaced businesses could relocate."

[drummer]

Do y'all think that with this expansion they would also need the lot(s) next to Waller Creek - across Red River Street? I would love to have those lots utilized for something more exciting than a convention center expansion - and potential dead zone along the new area. Plus it could tie the Rainey St. district to the 6th street area a bit more.

[The ATX]

Do y'all think that with this expansion they would also need the lot(s) next to Waller Creek - across Red River Street? I would love to have those lots utilized for something more exciting than a convention center expansion - and potential dead zone along the new area. Plus it could tie the Rainey St. district to the 6th street area a bit more.

Well, that site is already spoken for - it's the future site of the Le Meridien Hotel & Residences. :rolleyes:

[drummer]

Haha, true....forgot all about that sure thing. :)

[JoninATX]

This is layed out as one big site. Could you image staying inside The Fairmont and had to walk all the way to the new Convention Center by using the skybridges to get to your destination.

[The ATX]

Here's an industry article listing the top 20 U.S. convention markets. Austin moved up more (3 places) during the past year which was more than any of the top 20 cities. No surprises concerning the top 3 cities - Chicago, Las Vegas and Orlando.

http://skift.com/2015/08/11/top-three-u-s-cities-for-meetings-are-orlando-chicago-and-las-vegas/

From the article:
http://i1121.photobucket.com/albums/l511/ihatethisplacenothingworks/CC%20Stats.png

[drummer]

Is Dallas all of DFW or just Dallas? That's insanely high if it's just Dallas proper - more than NYC.

[The ATX]

Is Dallas all of DFW or just Dallas? That's insanely high if it's just Dallas proper - more than NYC.

Those numbers are only for hotels with meeting space.

[paul78701]

I'm surprised that the renderings show the Railyard Condos will be left standing on it's under utilized half block just north of this expansion. They had no qualms with taking out some of those condos for the current convention center.

[KevinFromTexas]

I'm surprised that the renderings show the Railyard Condos will be left standing on it's under utilized half block just north of this expansion. They had no qualms with taking out some of those condos for the current convention center.

I think details are still being worked out, because this other rendering here shows the different scenarios. One of them puts the hotel on the north end of the convention center expansion. I really can't imagine the hotel not facing 4th Street if it were on the north end of the expansion. So the the Railyard Condos may still go away. Plus, that would put the hotel closer to the MetrRail station, and I would imagine that would be more favorable.

http://i.imgur.com/ITtS61y.jpg

[GoldenBoot]

I'm surprised that the renderings show the Railyard Condos will be left standing on it's under utilized half block just north of this expansion. They had no qualms with taking out some of those condos for the current convention center.

They may still go away.

I may be incorrect, but it is much easier to deal with one land owner of a particular parcel than several. What I mean is, the parcels of land to the south of the Railyard are owned by a few land owners. It would be easier to negotiate a "fair" price those parcels of land than it would be to negotiate with every owner in the Railyard (since they each own a tiny piece of that land).

The last thing the city wants to do is acquire the land via eminent domain (which is what I believe they did for the 2002 expansion). However, it would still seem to be the simplest and least time consuming way to acquire the land under the Railyard. Negotiating with all of those owners on a "fair" price could take months or years to accomplish.

[paul78701]

I think details are still being worked out, because this other rendering here shows the different scenarios. One of them puts the hotel on the north end of the convention center expansion. I really can't imagine the hotel not facing 4th Street if it were on the north end of the expansion. So the the Railyard Condos may still go away. Plus, that would put the hotel closer to the MetrRail station, and I would imagine that would be more favorable.

http://i.imgur.com/ITtS61y.jpg

Rightly or wrongly, I get the impression that a lot of those units are being used for short term rentals. So it would only be fitting to see them turned into a hotel. Being that White Lodging is already planning a hotel that would be at the south end of this...maybe the north orientation is chosen and we end up with hotel towers at both ends.

[AustinGoesVertical]

Rightly or wrongly, I get the impression that a lot of those units are being used for short term rentals. So it would only be fitting to see them turned into a hotel. Being that White Lodging is already planning a hotel that would be at the south end of this...maybe the north orientation is chosen and we end up with hotel towers at both ends.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the White Lodging hotel proposal incorporated into this expansion, as some people pontificated when the White Lodging one was initially announced?

[paul78701]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the White Lodging hotel proposal incorporated into this expansion, as some people pontificated when the White Lodging one was initially announced?

Nope, I think it's just been pontification. Nobody has posted evidence of such an arrangement. Being that White Lodging announced their plans only a short while ago, I highly doubt that they've had time to come to any sort of arrangement to build the hotel as an actual part of this expansion.

[AustinGoesVertical]

Nope, I think it's just been pontification. Nobody has posted evidence of such an arrangement. Being that White Lodging announced their plans only a short while ago, I highly doubt that they've had time to come to any sort of arrangement to build the hotel as an actual part of this expansion.

I was just wondering because I think the White Lodging parcel is squarely in the expansion zone.

[paul78701]

I was just wondering because I think the White Lodging parcel is squarely in the expansion zone.

It is in the expansion zone. So it will be interesting to see how this all pans out. It's in the exact location shown in the rendering which shows a hotel tower on the south end of the expansion.

I'm betting White Lodging's timeline isn't as far out as this is though. So I could see it being built and then incorporated into the expansion. It could also be built but not incorporated entirely. In the latter case, maybe the expansion has a hotel built into the north end. Or maybe no hotel is incorporated at all. I'm sure there will be plenty of talks/negotiating that will ultimately determine what happens.

[The ATX]

A writer for the S.A. Business Journal sees the proposed Austin convention center as a threat to S.A. I prefer to view it as healthy competition.

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanantonio/news/2015/08/25/massive-austin-convention-center-expansion-could.html

[Jdawgboy]

It seems San Antonio is freaking out about Austin a lot these days. It's as if we just suddenly appeared out of nowhere on their horizon..:rolleyes:

And what's with this whole "people like to go to Austin because we have more direct flights" as one of their city officials put it. Why do we have more direct flights in the first place? Because there is demand.. I mean seriously if there wasn't the demand and the need for those flights we wouldn't have any more than SA. Airlines don't just say hey let's start a new direct flight out of "so and so city" and see if it will be successful! That's like renting a house to people who have no money to pay rent. They first research the market to see the viability before they make a decision. Sure it's a two way street, the city has pushed for more direct flights and sure, sometimes a route doesn't always work out in the end but to imply that basically if we didn't have more direct routes not many people would come here is just ridiculous and patronizing. We seemed to have had plenty of people wanting to come here when we didn't have as many flights.

Reality check....People come here because they like the city and they want to visit. Larger conventions have been wanting to come to Austin for years but we just didn't have the space they needed. That much is evident as the JW Marriott was under construction several conventions that havent been here before began booking. They didn't book just because "oh hey! Austin has a 1,012 room JW Marriott now and a lot more ballroom space, let's book there because you know..... they have it now so why not":shrug:

[Austin1971]

It seems San Antonio is freaking out about Austin a lot these days. It's as if we just suddenly appeared out of nowhere on their horizon..:rolleyes:

And what's with this whole "people like to go to Austin because we have more direct flights" as one of their city officials put it. Why do we have more direct flights in the first place? Because there is demand.. I mean seriously if there wasn't the demand and the need for those flights we wouldn't have any more than SA. Airlines don't just say hey let's start a new direct flight out of "so and so city" and see if it will be successful! That's like renting a house to people who have no money to pay rent. They first research the market to see the viability before they make a decision. Sure it's a two way street, the city has pushed for more direct flights and sure, sometimes a route doesn't always work out in the end but to imply that basically if we didn't have more direct routes not many people would come here is just ridiculous and patronizing. We seemed to have had plenty of people wanting to come here when we didn't have as many flights.

Reality check....People come here because they like the city and they want to visit. Larger conventions have been wanting to come to Austin for years but we just didn't have the space they needed. That much is evident as the JW Marriott was under construction several conventions that havent been here before began booking. They didn't book just because "oh hey! Austin has a 1,012 room JW Marriott now and a lot more ballroom space, let's book there because you know..... they have it now so why not":shrug:

SA acts like Austin is stealing all their passengers. In reality only a small amount use ABIA instead of SA.

http://tpr.org/post/growing-pains-comparing-san-antonio-air-ticket-prices-other-key-cities

San Antonio’s airport director told city council members Wednesday that a net 300,000 passengers who used to fly out of the San Antonio International Airport are now driving to Austin for flights.

[Jdawgboy]

Yea I saw that. I know we are kinda moving off topic as far as specifically convention center news but the two do go hand in hand since convention goers fly to get here.

Your right as well about it not being a big difference by any means. Honestly for people who live in New Braunfels or Seguin ABIA is just as easily accessible if not moreso especially for Seguin since SH130 ends there. Time wise it's probably the same if not even quicker to get to ABIA.

Most conventions typically choose cities based on their attendees preferences. Many take polls and surveys. So our convention industry is growing because people want to come here which means there's a lot of demand for the convention center to expand. Conventions will only go to cities that provide the space and amenities they need, so even if the majority of their attendees want to come to Austin, if we don't have the space at that time then they won't come here. Conversely if we have the space and amenities that doesn't mean that other conventions will choose us. They will go where their attendees would like to go.

[Austinite101]

It seems San Antonio is freaking out about Austin a lot these days. It's as if we just suddenly appeared out of nowhere on their horizon..:rolleyes:

And what's with this whole "people like to go to Austin because we have more direct flights" as one of their city officials put it. Why do we have more direct flights in the first place? Because there is demand.. I mean seriously if there wasn't the demand and the need for those flights we wouldn't have any more than SA. Airlines don't just say hey let's start a new direct flight out of "so and so city" and see if it will be successful! That's like renting a house to people who have no money to pay rent. They first research the market to see the viability before they make a decision. Sure it's a two way street, the city has pushed for more direct flights and sure, sometimes a route doesn't always work out in the end but to imply that basically if we didn't have more direct routes not many people would come here is just ridiculous and patronizing. We seemed to have had plenty of people wanting to come here when we didn't have as many flights.

Reality check....People come here because they like the city and they want to visit. Larger conventions have been wanting to come to Austin for years but we just didn't have the space they needed. That much is evident as the JW Marriott was under construction several conventions that havent been here before began booking. They didn't book just because "oh hey! Austin has a 1,012 room JW Marriott now and a lot more ballroom space, let's book there because you know..... they have it now so why not":shrug:

They have good reason to. Up until the 2000s, SA was largely without serious competition as Austin lacked amenities and competitive edge. We're now at a point where Austin's becoming the bigger kid on the block and it's finally getting people in SA's attention.

[Jdawgboy]

They have good reason to. Up until the 2000s, SA was largely without serious competition as Austin lacked amenities and competitive edge. We're now at a point where Austin's becoming the bigger kid on the block and it's finally getting people in SA's attention.

Well the attitudes seem patronizing and tone of the articles still try to brush us off despite being a "threat".

They should have known a long time ago that we would catch up. As I told an old friend back in the early 2000s who lived in SA, I half jokingly mentioned how you look at your side mirrors and the warning at the bottom of the mirror saying Objects are closer than they appear.:burstbubble

[ivanwolf]

The Phase III with no hotel is silly, I mean really its great to have the hotel with the new CC. But what they should do is have not one hotel on either the north or the south but BOTH. Two hotels one at each end. That would really up the rooms and make the hotel highly convenient to the CC.

[Austin1971]

W. Scott Bailey
Reporter/Project Coordinator
San Antonio Business Journal


It was not a good second quarter for San Antonio’s hotel industry. Fewer rooms were booked and overall revenues declined.

But the more troubling news for San Antonio is that, for the first time, according to industry tracker Source Strategies Inc., the Austin area passed up the Alamo City, generating more hotel revenue than a market so heavily dependent on the tourism sector.

http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/blog/real-estate/2015/08/a-first-austin-beats-san-antonios-hotel-business.html

[KevinFromTexas]

I'm not sure this is necessarily a bad thing for San Antonio. On the face of it it does seem so, but you have to remember that Austin and San Antonio both offer something very different when it comes to entertainment. San Antonio does things in a more intimate way that draws a lot of people to witness something historic and grand, while Austin does big festivals. I don't think that San Antonio's wonder is being one-upped, I just think that Austin is getting the kind of attractions that draw more people simply because that's the nature of them - that they draw a lot of people even in a short time.

[ATXboom]

see a trend? ...The trend will be complete in the next 15 years.

Austin passes SA in GDP
Austin airport traffic passes SA
Austin hotel revenue passes SA
Soon Austin hotel number passes SA
Soon Austin metro population passes SA

Oh yeah... no city vs city stuff. Please delete this post upon reading.

[Jdawgboy]

I'm not sure this is necessarily a bad thing for San Antonio. On the face of it it does seem so, but you have to remember that Austin and San Antonio both offer something very different when it comes to entertainment. San Antonio does things in a more intimate way that draws a lot of people to witness something historic and grand, while Austin does big festivals. I don't think that San Antonio's wonder is being one-upped, I just think that Austin is getting the kind of attractions that draw more people simply because that's the nature of them - that they draw a lot of people even in a short time.

I agree, I think each city has its own unique qualities. I don't think it should be considered as some sort of doomed relegation to second place because It's not about that.

[paul78701]

The Phase III with no hotel is silly, I mean really its great to have the hotel with the new CC. But what they should do is have not one hotel on either the north or the south but BOTH. Two hotels one at each end. That would really up the rooms and make the hotel highly convenient to the CC.

As I was saying above, this could very well happen. White Lodging announced their hotel (which would be at the south end of this site) only last month. The expansion proposal probably had the hotel as a part of their suggestion before that. They could go with the version that puts it on the north end of the proposed expansion and we could effectively end up with two hotel towers.

[drummer]

I'm a big fan of that idea. It's a better use for the space and the hotels would be used even when conventions weren't happening, bringing more life (and business) to the area.

[Tech House]

...Austin and San Antonio both offer something very different when it comes to entertainment. San Antonio does things in a more intimate way that draws a lot of people to witness something historic and grand, while Austin does big festivals. I don't think that San Antonio's wonder is being one-upped, I just think that Austin is getting the kind of attractions that draw more people simply because that's the nature of them - that they draw a lot of people even in a short time.

Yes!!! I just wrote my first comment on the San Antonio forum, and it was basically about this same idea, that each city is unique and they're not in direct competition. As I said in that comment, I originally came to Texas to see both San Antonio and Austin, not one or the other. They're so close to each other that they can each benefit from the other's success, yet they're distinct enough that they don't cannibalize each other's business.

I don't see any reason for there to be envy or rivalry between the cities. They're far too unique for that. And there's a very serious danger in seeing each other as direct competition, which is that such a mentality can easily lead to inappropriate (dare I say moronic?) responses that detract from each city's unique appeal. Should San Antonio strive to dot its downtown with skinny metallic residential and office skyscrapers and attract massive pop culture festivals? I think not. Should Austin curtail development along Shoal and Waller creeks in order to preserve an intimate, warm, cozy feeling along the lines of the Riverwalk? Good luck.

I probably haven't stated that very well but i think most of us can plainly see that each city has unique strengths and weaknesses, and we're not so much direct competitors for tourism dollars as we are partners in a region that can attract visitors to either or both cities in such a way that we're not seeing the other as a threat to our identity and prosperity.

[drummer]

In some ways, I see it like Dallas - Fort Worth. I know the comparison has been made and some folks are on either side of the camp, but the bottom line is that Dallas and Fort Worth both benefit from the success of the other - as do a plethora of other cities in the DFW region (largely, if not completely, because of the success of Dallas and Fort Worth). Both are impressive cities in their own right, but together they're a huge, unstoppable force economically and they're growing in urbanism (at least in some areas, while others seem complacent to continue sprawling north to Oklahoma). That said, Austin and San Antonio can have a similarly beneficial relationship if they work together to make the region great. Both cities are going to develop in their own unique ways - which is good and right - and they shouldn't worry so much about that. Dallas and Fort Worth are radically different, in my opinion, as are Austin and San Antonio. However, the region's health and future depends on the success of both cities - whether they eventually form a metroplex-like relationship or not. Conventions are plenty, as are tourists. I don't think we need to get too worried about either city dying out because of the success of the other.

[The ATX]

They are drilling on Block 8 this morning. The drilling rig is in the parking lot for the Bates Motel (SXSW reference.)

[drummer]

Any news on a proposed timeline? Or has one been announced and I just missed it?

[Urbannizer]

City Council could vote on Austin Convention Center master plan Oct. 15 (https://communityimpact.com/2015/10/13/city-council-could-vote-on-austin-convention-center-master-plan-oct-15/)

A long-range master plan that outlines recommendations for expanding Austin Convention Center comes before City Council on Oct. 15 for potential approval.

[The ATX]

Not wanting to be outdone by the Fairmont (apparently), the Hilton is proposing an 88 feet log aerial walkway connecting to the convention center:

"Jones|Carter is submitting this project for review by the AULCC. This exhibit is for the design of a walkway spanning between the Hilton Hotel and The Austin Convention Center between Travis County Parcels Nos: 525245 and 191560. Utility locations in this area are needed to place columns and foundations for the walkway. The project will include construction of an 88-ft aerial walkway between the Hilton Hotel and the Austin Convention Center."


ftp://ftp.ci.austin.tx.us/ATD_AULCC/2015/151029/

[Jdawgboy]

Not wanting to be outdone by the Fairmont (apparently), the Hilton is proposing an 88 feet log aerial walkway connecting to the convention center:

"Jones|Carter is submitting this project for review by the AULCC. This exhibit is for the design of a walkway spanning between the Hilton Hotel and The Austin Convention Center between Travis County Parcels Nos: 525245 and 191560. Utility locations in this area are needed to place columns and foundations for the walkway. The project will include construction of an 88-ft aerial walkway between the Hilton Hotel and the Austin Convention Center."


ftp://ftp.ci.austin.tx.us/ATD_AULCC/2015/151029/

Maybe they can redo the Hilton's facade while they are at it. Way too much hideous brown and tan stucco. :yuck:

[drummer]

You know, Kuala Lumpur has a massively long pedestrian bridge that flows from one of the main convention centers throughout one of their districts connecting multiple hotels and shopping centers above the city traffic. Bangkok also has its pedestrian bridge connecting Central City, Siam Center, Siam Discovery, and multiple hotels/convention centers as well as Skytrain stations in its downtown district. Why don't we just build a major pedestrian network of bridges above the street grid? :P

[lzppjb]

And bikes. Safer for everyone.

[Novacek]

You know, Kuala Lumpur has a massively long pedestrian bridge that flows from one of the main convention centers throughout one of their districts connecting multiple hotels and shopping centers above the city traffic. Bangkok also has its pedestrian bridge connecting Central City, Siam Center, Siam Discovery, and multiple hotels/convention centers as well as Skytrain stations in its downtown district. Why don't we just build a major pedestrian network of bridges above the street grid? :P

Building stuff like that in America is complicated (in part) by American safety regulations, disability accessibility regulations, airspace ownership questions, sun-accessibility/shading issues, etc.

There's times when it still makes sense here, but it's a lot easier in some countries.

[Samwill89]

Building stuff like that in America is complicated (in part) by American safety regulations, disability accessibility regulations, airspace ownership questions, sun-accessibility/shading issues, etc.

There's times when it still makes sense here, but it's a lot easier in some countries.


Not to mention these things take away significantly from street-activity.

[drummer]

In my experience, neither of those places lack in street activity. However, when you take handicapped accessibility and most other forms of building codes out of the equation, I agree - a lot more can be done.

[We vs us]

Rumor around the water cooler is that the council is voting today to continue or kill the feasibility study and consulting fees for the CC expansion. Rumor is also that most of the council is unconvinced that pushing this forward is worthwhile. A good chunk of our senior leadership is over there right now to show support for the project.

[KevinFromTexas]

The convention center is going to have to expand eventually and somehow.

[drummer]

I like the current plan more than another one that I think I heard years back - bulldozing the two blocks across Red River (north of Fairmont) up to Waller Creek. I don't think that plan had Red River continuing through the center either. I have no idea where I saw that, though.

[Tech House]

The convention center is going to have to expand eventually and somehow.

Why? I don't see how this is a necessity for Austin. We're going to thrive with or without the larger conventions that could be attracted, but expanding the CC dead zone and tourist-oriented businesses could significantly detract from the distinct Austin vibe of downtown which is already in great flux.

I don't see how convention business really contributes to a city's core identity and purpose. If all goes well it can be a cash cow, but in many cases it's a cash drain. I recently read a very good analysis discussing all the hidden costs of hosting conventions, and the tricks that are used to pump up estimates of what conventions bring to cities. I don't recall the source, however.

SXSW is pretty unique in its ability to truly add to what makes Austin Austin, but most conventions bring a crowd of folks who aren't interested in the host city and will mostly spend their money on chain hotels, chain restaurants, and strip clubs. I've been a convention-goer a few times, and we were a dull lot who didn't contribute anything to the vitality and ambiance of our host cities. And, FTR, none of us visited strip clubs. That's just something that I've heard is a "thing" with many conventions, especially the national political party conventions. Gotta love our politicians... not.

[smt1]

Rumor around the water cooler is that the council is voting today to continue or kill the feasibility study and consulting fees for the CC expansion. Rumor is also that most of the council is unconvinced that pushing this forward is worthwhile. A good chunk of our senior leadership is over there right now to show support for the project.

Good call:
http://www.mystatesman.com/news/business/dispute-simmers-over-merits-of-austin-convention-c/npMm5/

[We vs us]

Why? I don't see how this is a necessity for Austin. We're going to thrive with or without the larger conventions that could be attracted, but expanding the CC dead zone and tourist-oriented businesses could significantly detract from the distinct Austin vibe of downtown which is already in great flux.

I don't see how convention business really contributes to a city's core identity and purpose. If all goes well it can be a cash cow, but in many cases it's a cash drain. I recently read a very good analysis discussing all the hidden costs of hosting conventions, and the tricks that are used to pump up estimates of what conventions bring to cities. I don't recall the source, however.

SXSW is pretty unique in its ability to truly add to what makes Austin Austin, but most conventions bring a crowd of folks who aren't interested in the host city and will mostly spend their money on chain hotels, chain restaurants, and strip clubs. I've been a convention-goer a few times, and we were a dull lot who didn't contribute anything to the vitality and ambiance of our host cities. And, FTR, none of us visited strip clubs. That's just something that I've heard is a "thing" with many conventions, especially the national political party conventions. Gotta love our politicians... not.

I think there're some worthwhile caveats for convention center updates/rebuilds/etc on a generalized level, but at the same time I also believe the value proposition is highly specific to the market in which it's being considered. I've worked within several mid-size convention packages in my career and I have to say Austin's in an amazing place right now. We're one of the hottest destinations in the country, and all of our major metrics (ADR, RevPar, Occupancy) track that. It's pretty much us and Nashville and Portland for places that people want to visit and meet in.

Some upsides: we're walkable, we're friendly, the Center and the hotel package is relatively convenient. We have Sixth Street. Town Lake for natural beauty and recreation. Really stupendous food. And we have that thing, that snap, that people really want right now. As a guy who sells this place to out of towners, I've really had a hard time articulating what that snap actually is, but it's real and people across the country know it. I have a theory that it's mostly about youth culture and that we're like the Millenial Homeworld and people like that . . . but I'm still working on it.

Anyway, we're in a really rare position to take advantage of that crazy demand. IMO it can go one of two ways -- we can acknowledge the demand, ride it, and let it subside over time. Or embrace it, lock in one of the drivers of that demand, and see where it takes us.

IMO, the business of Austin now is very much one of hospitality and tourism. It's the side product of being an awesome city :D

[The ATX]

I think there're some worthwhile caveats for convention center updates/rebuilds/etc on a generalized level, but at the same time I also believe the value proposition is highly specific to the market in which it's being considered. I've worked within several mid-size convention packages in my career and I have to say Austin's in an amazing place right now. We're one of the hottest destinations in the country, and all of our major metrics (ADR, RevPar, Occupancy) track that. It's pretty much us and Nashville and Portland for places that people want to visit and meet in.

Some upsides: we're walkable, we're friendly, the Center and the hotel package is relatively convenient. We have Sixth Street. Town Lake for natural beauty and recreation. Really stupendous food. And we have that thing, that snap, that people really want right now. As a guy who sells this place to out of towners, I've really had a hard time articulating what that snap actually is, but it's real and people across the country know it. I have a theory that it's mostly about youth culture and that we're like the Millenial Homeworld and people like that . . . but I'm still working on it.

Anyway, we're in a really rare position to take advantage of that crazy demand. IMO it can go one of two ways -- we can acknowledge the demand, ride it, and let it subside over time. Or embrace it, lock in one of the drivers of that demand, and see where it takes us.

IMO, the business of Austin now is very much one of hospitality and tourism. It's the side product of being an awesome city :D

Well said. I'm all for the expansion and am thankful that the proposed expansion will not be a complete dead zone in between conventions unlike the current CC.

[drummer]

You know, after seeing the rendering of The Fairmont just put up by the General on the Fairmont thread (posted below for reference), I got to thinking: Between Fairmont, JW Marriott, Hyatt Regency, and other hotels with decently large convention areas (albeit much smaller than the Convention Center), it seems like we're gaining quite a bit of convention space as it is. The advantage of a larger convention center, of course, is being able to do more in a single place rather than spread out across downtown. At the same time, it depends on the type of event. If we're talking SXSW, it makes sense to have multiple venues (of which all of these would be used and then some anyway). If we're talking a large conference for a business or an industry, a single place would be more productive - but how much is actually needed for that? Just thinking aloud as opposed to bringing forth strong opinions on one side or another.

http://i1291.photobucket.com/albums/b549/johngenerali/Screenshot_2015-11-17-18-34-06-1_zpshe7iqzxg.png (http://s1291.photobucket.com/user/johngenerali/media/Screenshot_2015-11-17-18-34-06-1_zpshe7iqzxg.png.html)
www.themeetingsgoup.com

[We vs us]

You know, after seeing the rendering of The Fairmont just put up by the General on the Fairmont thread (posted below for reference), I got to thinking: Between Fairmont, JW Marriott, Hyatt Regency, and other hotels with decently large convention areas (albeit much smaller than the Convention Center), it seems like we're gaining quite a bit of convention space as it is. The advantage of a larger convention center, of course, is being able to do more in a single place rather than spread out across downtown. At the same time, it depends on the type of event. If we're talking SXSW, it makes sense to have multiple venues (of which all of these would be used and then some anyway). If we're talking a large conference for a business or an industry, a single place would be more productive - but how much is actually needed for that? Just thinking aloud as opposed to bringing forth strong opinions on one side or another.

Sorry to threadsit but . . . well, this is what I do all day.

Really big things like SXSW are pretty rare. Cities usually only get one or two a year. Bigger convention destinations may have three or four. That said, some of the medium size events (think 1600 attendees or so) need a ballroom, an exhibit hall, and breakout rooms for the primary agenda. That's your CC space. But for something that size, there's going to be what my company calls ICWs ("In-Conjunction-Withs") that are one-off events usually held at participating hotels. Banquets or mixers hosted by major sponsors; maybe recruiting fairs; maybe a separate education track hosted by a third party. Events at 1600+ usually have a raft of smaller events trailing them; those are important, too.

My understanding, though, is that an expansion would allow a couple of these kind of meetings to happen simultaneously. Capacity like that opens up all sorts of opportunities for nearby hotels.

Another random factoid: full occupancy at a CC is considered something like 65% usage. The rest of the time is load-in/load-out and repair. We're now consistently operating in that 65% zone and turning business away because the only time we have to sell are distressed dates (holidays, summers, etc). So more space would also allow our peak seasons to peak even further.

/the more you know

[drummer]

Effort to expand convention center on hold for now
Council seeking more info before passing proposed master plan

Efforts to make Austin a convention destination have proven so effective that a larger event center is needed to accommodate increased demand, according to city staff.

The city is proposing to expand the Austin Convention Center westward by adding 321,680 square feet of leasable space. The expanded center, outlined in a master plan considered Nov. 12 by City Council, also could include a 3-acre park atop the facility and a private hotel.

But before such an expansion can proceed, council members want to know what alternative projects, including a potential arena, could be funded using the city’s hotel occupancy tax, or HOT tax, revenue.

“There are some issues that have been raised by some folks as to what is the opportunity cost associated with this proposal,” Mayor Steve Adler said. “I want to make sure we’re not going to be doing anything by this vote that is going to … affect what we can do in the future.”


http://communityimpact.com/2015/11/24/effort-to-expand-convention-center-on-hold-for-now/

[Jdawgboy]

You know it would make sense to use some of that hotel tax for a new arena. Fact is the Erwin Center will be torn down eventually and a city as large as Austin needs a major indoor arena or we will lose out big time to other cities that have 20,000 plus seat arenas.

I'm all for expanding the convention center but I don't see a problem with looking at using some of the hotel tax for a new arena.

[We vs us]

Some great stats on the San Antonio vs. Austin hotel battle. Takeaway: Austin's a baller.

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanantonio/news/2015/11/24/san-antonio-s-hotel-battle-with-austin-heats-up-as.html

[Jdawgboy]

Some great stats on the San Antonio vs. Austin hotel battle. Takeaway: Austin's a baller.

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanantonio/news/2015/11/24/san-antonio-s-hotel-battle-with-austin-heats-up-as.html

I can understand their reason to be concerned over the decline of their market in particular but I think they are once again overblowing this idea that Austin is out to get them and take over the lead. There may be other reasons behind the decline than just Austin becoming competitive.

Austin is currently a hot destination and that has nothing to do with whether or not hotels are filling up in San Antonio. Both Metros are essentially in the same population catagory. They just recently expanded their convention center and they still have more hotel rooms than we do. Austin just happens to be a major city to the north of them that is beginning to come into its own. I don't think that should be anything to be concerned over nor do I think it's really fair to put our industry's success as the cause of their industry's stagnation. Sure some of it may be due to competition but there's bound to be other underlying issues as well that have nothing to do with Austin.

[Downtown_Austin]

http://communityimpact.com/2015/11/24/effort-to-expand-convention-center-on-hold-for-now/

This can be an opportunity for Austin to do something world-class, to figure out a new best-practice. Convention center expansion = single story sprawl right in the middle of downtown. It's a terrible use of scarce land, with additional social costs of physically dividing the city.

The dogma is that conventions must be single story events under one roof. The engineering challenge is in people moving. I'm eager to see some top designers tackle the challenge of getting conventions to operate on multiple stories, or connected to existing hotel banquet space.

[wwmiv]

This can be an opportunity for Austin to do something world-class, to figure out a new best-practice. Convention center expansion = single story sprawl right in the middle of downtown. It's a terrible use of scarce land, with additional social costs of physically dividing the city.

The dogma is that conventions must be single story events under one roof. The engineering challenge is in people moving. I'm eager to see some top designers tackle the challenge of getting conventions to operate on multiple stories, or connected to existing hotel banquet space.

I'm a big fan of Minneapolis's convention center, and it has parts with multiple floors.

[verybadgnome]

I too think there is such a thing as too much acreage devoted to a single use, e.g. convention center.

Was in San Diego last year and went to their two story CC, a well designed facility with plenty of ways to get from floor to floor.

Maybe we should start requiring property tax impact studies for these types of developments as a means to dissuade against bad development. Of course these studies would have to take into account things like CVCs which could promote CC expansion is certain directions but not others.

[hereinaustin]

This can be an opportunity for Austin to do something world-class, to figure out a new best-practice. Convention center expansion = single story sprawl right in the middle of downtown. It's a terrible use of scarce land, with additional social costs of physically dividing the city.

The dogma is that conventions must be single story events under one roof. The engineering challenge is in people moving. I'm eager to see some top designers tackle the challenge of getting conventions to operate on multiple stories, or connected to existing hotel banquet space.

I would love to see a future expansion to the convention center rebuild the facility within the confines of the existing land area. It would require Austin to not take any large conventions for a few years, but the existing footprint is plenty large to build a multilevel facility and still include a park up on top. It wouldn't be cheap, but it would be a better use of scarce land and would be pretty dang cool. The new building could incorporate retail/office space on the first few levels around the perimeter of the building (i.e. make it part shopping mall/office space), double or triple the existing footprint (albeit not contiguous), and not require eminent domain for land acquisition. Haven't figured out the parking situation though :shrug: Maybe build a garage connecting to the red line in East Austin with more ground floor retail?

[verybadgnome]

I had no idea the CC was lagging so far behind projections (http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/news/2016/02/23/controversy-over-austin-convention-center.html) as these are some huge discrepancies.

[Jdawgboy]

Interesting how the latest numbers used in the argument against expanding the cc are from 2013 when the JW and other major hotels weren't completed yet. From what I understand, a big reason why we were underperforming before then was due to lack of hotel rooms for larger conferences and events. With those hotels open plus more on the way, the cc seems like it's filling up quickly. I don't buy that the cc is not a benefit to the city and our economy.

Not trying to imply anything:rolleyes: but the dude arguing against any expansion is out of SA. Me wonders if there is a hidden agenda on his part considering they just completed an expansion with theirs. Of couse this is nothing more than an unsubstantiated musing on my part and shouldn't be taken seriously at all.;)

[wwmiv]

Interesting how the latest numbers used in the argument against expanding the cc are from 2013 when the JW and other major hotels weren't completed yet. From what I understand, a big reason why we were underperforming before then was due to lack of hotel rooms for larger conferences and events. With those hotels open plus more on the way, the cc seems like it's filling up quickly. I don't buy that the cc is not a benefit to the city and our economy.

Not trying to imply anything:rolleyes: but the dude arguing against any expansion is out of SA. Me wonders if there is a hidden agenda on his part considering they just completed an expansion with theirs. Of couse this is nothing more than an unsubstantiated musing on my part and shouldn't be taken seriously at all.;)

I'd want to see the most recent numbers after JW and the Fairmont are completed before we even consider expanding again.

[drummer]

^ I agree with this.

[Jdawgboy]

I'd want to see the most recent numbers after JW and the Fairmont are completed before we even consider expanding again.

Oh I agree, I'd like to see the changes with the added hotels. It's possible they don't have them yet and of course they will continue to change once the next round of hotels open. I'm glad that a plan is in place at least. I'd rather have the planners be proactive rather than when the time comes and they have to start at the very beginning.

[wwmiv]

Oh I agree, I'd like to see the changes with the added hotels. It's possible they don't have them yet and of course they will continue to change once the next round of hotels open. I'm glad that a plan is in place at least. I'd rather have the planners be proactive rather than when the time comes and they have to start at the very beginning.

Agreed. Contingency planning is always smart.

[We vs us]

I'd want to see the most recent numbers after JW and the Fairmont are completed before we even consider expanding again.

Sanders doesn't actually link to the 1990's projections that he's railing against in the source article, so it's hard to pinpoint a worthwhile counterargument. We don't event know what part of the 90's it was, so Johnson the consultant could've been projecting anywhere from 15-25 years out. That's a loooong time, and the things that have happened to the hospitality sector in the intervening years -- 9/11, the Great Recession, etc -- were transformative.

The thing that gets me is that Sanders' article pitches the whole thing as if the Convention Center expansion is a great tragedy, and that it's somehow this massive distressed asset in the middle of the city, sucking taxpayer resources down with it into a black hole of empty promises.

This is completely untrue, though. It's packed to the gills. Regardless of the number of shows per year (which is a meaningless metric in the end), it's occupied productively almost 70% of the time, which is considered at full capacity for convention centers. It's been a major demand driver, enough so that the convention package can support three convention hotels (800 rooms and up) plus a ton of middle sized options. Rates and occupancies are way up, and for the first time last year we beat San Antonio in city occupancy for a full month. That's nuts for a city this size.

I don't think we shouldn't look at the numbers again, but it's true, Sanders' metrics are exceptionally limited, and at best don't tell the full story. At worst they're intentionally misleading.

[ILUVSAT]

Rates and occupancies are way up, and for the first time last year we beat San Antonio in city occupancy for a full month. That's nuts for a city this size.


I thought Austin's hotel rates and occupancy levels were tops in Texas, overall, for the past couple of years...due to demand outweighing supply!?!

Furthermore, Austin (Metro) and San Antonio (Metro) are very, very comparable in size (~2 million vs. ~2.375 million). It's completely "nuts" to look at actual city limit population size when comparing two (or more) urban areas. The world no longer works in that realm.



Regarding your assessment of the "report," I agree. It's pretty much crap.

[GoldenBoot]

I move for expansion. UNLESS another, VIABLE option arises to secure large/larger conventions to our fair city with a smaller-than-average convention center footprint.

[The ATX]

I'm all for this too - especially since the expansion plans (as they stand now) have better street interaction than the current CC.

[verybadgnome]

I tried contacting the PIO at the CC to no avail. Just sent a message to the main PIO office hoping they can give me stats for years CC attendance. Anyone have better luck?

[The ATX]

This was also posted in the Update thread, but this is a good place for it since it should put the expansion plans back on the front burner.

http://www.512tech.com/technology/dell-moving-its-big-tech-conference-from-austin-las-vegas-citing-lack-convention-space/mUQ0eHxab6rLQRGgdOejCL/

[We vs us]

This was also posed in the Update thread, but this is a good place for it since it should put the expansion plans back on the front burner.

http://www.512tech.com/technology/dell-moving-its-big-tech-conference-from-austin-las-vegas-citing-lack-convention-space/mUQ0eHxab6rLQRGgdOejCL/

Good article. Dellworld left a huge hole in the convention calendar for 2017 but by 2018 it should be pretty well filled in by smaller conferences and single hotel groups. Demand for Austin continues to be huge and we can keep replacing conventions that outgrow us pretty much ad infinitum -- or until the market for Austin bottoms out, which it will do eventually.

At the same time it's obviously a solid argument for ACC expansion, because boy howdy, Dellworld still represents a crap ton of revenue for downtown hotels, which will all now go to Vegas instead. Boooo.

[wwmiv]

This announcement just killed one or more prospective hotels' changes of getting financing.

[We vs us]

This announcement just killed one or more prospective hotels' changes of getting financing.

Are you being serious?

[AusTxDevelopment]

This was also posed in the Update thread, but this is a good place for it since it should put the expansion plans back on the front burner.

http://www.512tech.com/technology/dell-moving-its-big-tech-conference-from-austin-las-vegas-citing-lack-convention-space/mUQ0eHxab6rLQRGgdOejCL/

Dell announced in the beginning of September that they were moving the conference out of Austin. It took city leaders a month and a half to notice? Or maybe city leaders didn't read the article because they can't get past the paywall. :D

http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/news/2016/09/08/dell-to-move-annual-users-conference-las-vegas.html

[wwmiv]

Are you being serious?

Actually yes. We've all speculated for months (maybe even a year) as to why new hotel projects keep getting announced given that we've known also for awhile that the lending market is contracting, and news like this is extremely relevant to future hotel bookings when it was one of our larger annual convention events.

[We vs us]

Actually yes. We've all speculated for months (maybe even a year) as to why new hotel projects keep getting announced given that we've known also for awhile that the lending market is contracting, and news like this is extremely relevant to future hotel bookings when it was one of our larger annual convention events.

Sorry, wasn't trying to be flippant . . . just wondered if you had direct knowledge of someone losing funding, or were commenting on the general environment.