Convention Center Expansion Updates
 

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/busi...3948020.735666

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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/Kenyatt...ference_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/C...l-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).

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+A...s&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.

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.

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

http://communityimpact.com/wp-conten...0436721834.png
Article: http://communityimpact.com/2015/08/2...ter-expansion/

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

http://i1121.photobucket.com/albums/...ion%20Roof.png
http://austintowers.net/wp-content/u...n3-600x452.jpg
http://austintowers.net/wp-content/u...n4-600x452.jpg
http://austintowers.net/wp-content/u...n7-600x449.jpg
Austintowers: http://austintowers.net/visuals-aust...ter-expansion/

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.

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

http://www.mystatesman.com/news/busi...3948020.735834

^^ 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."

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:

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

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.

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-thre...and-las-vegas/

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

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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/sanantoni...ion-could.html

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-co...her-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.

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.

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

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.

A first: Austin beats San Antonio's hotel business
 

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/bl...-business.html

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.

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.