Convention Center Expansion Updates

[ILUVSAT]

That's very unfortunate. Seems like those developers, who were pushing through massive developments to inflate the price on already expensive pieces of property, have killed the western expansion plan of the CC. Sandy Gottesman was never going to build a 700+' tower - for example.

Karlin spent just north of $100 million on the Railyard site. I'm sure they were asking the city for at least 10-15% more than they paid...

What kind of legal affect may this have on the city's vote to expand the convention center (approved recently)? Were they not only approving funds to do so but also for the western expansion?

[papertowelroll]

Honestly I think expanding the existing footprint upward while privately developing the adjacent properties is more efficient use of the limited downtown real estate.

[paul78701]

Originally Posted by ILUVSAT

That's very unfortunate. Seems like those developers, who were pushing through massive developments to inflate the price on already expensive pieces of property, have killed the western expansion plan of the CC. Sandy Gottesman was never going to build a 700+' tower - for example.

Karlin spent just north of $100 million on the Railyard site. I'm sure they were asking the city for at least 10-15% more than they paid...

It's hard to say what was being negotiated exactly or with whom. There were multiple parcels involved. Plus, I remember reading about the city potentially partnering with developers on pieces of it instead of doing wholesale purchases. (Unless I misunderstood.)

Originally Posted by ILUVSAT

What kind of legal affect may this have on the city's vote to expand the convention center (approved recently)? Were they not only approving funds to do so but also for the western expansion?

I believe the funds were approved for an expansion. I don't think it was tied to a westward expansion in particular.

[AusTxDevelopment]

Originally Posted by paul78701

It's hard to say what was being negotiated exactly or with whom. There were multiple parcels involved. Plus, I remember reading about the city potentially partnering with developers on pieces of it instead of doing wholesale purchases. (Unless I misunderstood.)

From the article:

The [westward] plan had called for the city to purchase two city blocks between Second and Fourth Streets and San Jacinto Boulevard and Trinity Street as well as a half city block south of Second Street.

The asking price for the property west of the center was too steep for the city to stomach and [convention center] developers began questioning whether they would be able to meet expansion expectations by acquiring that property.

[paul78701]

Originally Posted by AusTxDevelopment

From the article:

The [westward] plan had called for the city to purchase two city blocks between Second and Fourth Streets and San Jacinto Boulevard and Trinity Street as well as a half city block south of Second Street.

Yes. I read that. That says nothing about the language that was tied to the approved funds. There were multiple plans that they were considering.

The asking price for the property west of the center was too steep for the city to stomach and [convention center] developers began questioning whether they would be able to meet expansion expectations by acquiring that property.

I read this also. This misrepresentation in the article doesn't change the fact that there were multiple entities involved. The author didn't offer up much detail here. The author makes it sound as if only one property was in question. It doesn't make sense as worded. So we can only speculate.

[We vs us]

Originally Posted by papertowelroll

Honestly I think expanding the existing footprint upward while privately developing the adjacent properties is more efficient use of the limited downtown real estate.

I agree, but only somewhat. The Adlerian vision -- where the expansion was conceived as mixed use (along with office or housing, etc) was really great, and oddly visionary. I mean, convention centers are still wastes of space, they're anti-urbanist, they don't play well with the rest of the city fabric. None of that is less true than it was. They're also important economic drivers, and that's also still true. What Adler was pushing was to have our chocolate AND our peanut butter, all in one building . . . and then eventually in two buildings. UT had helped Adler prove that what he wanted was at least somewhat feasible, in a broad strokes kind of way. And wow, when they'd made happy noises last year about partnering with landowners I thought maybe there was a clear path to a new paradigm . . .

But there isn't. The market's still the market, and it's moving at speeds that leave all kinds of folks in the dust. Not just regular-joe homeowners, it turns out, but also slow moving bureaucracies that are incapable (purposefully!) of acting quickly.

So while I'm glad there's a plan B, and it will keep the CC and it's deadzone effect limited, we missed out on a chance to really test a great new way of building something like this, and I'm kinda sad about it.

Also -- this resets the clock, and we've got to start alllllll the way at the beginning again.

[AusTxDevelopment]

Originally Posted by paul78701

Yes. I read that. That says nothing about the language that was tied to the approved funds. There were multiple plans that they were considering.


I read this also. This misrepresentation in the article doesn't change the fact that there were multiple entities involved. The author didn't offer up much detail here. The author makes it sound as if only one property was in question. It doesn't make sense as worded. So we can only speculate.

Oh I wasn't trying to correct you or start a thing. I was just hoping to add context by pointing out which blocks were being talked about for the westward expansion and why the city passed (according to the short article), for those who couldn't get past the paywall. There are 7 owners (9 entities) over those 2.5 blocks. So I'm basically agreeing with you.

[We vs us]

FWIW, so far as I know the funds aren't tied to any specific expansion plan. They can be used for any expansion plan we want.

[paul78701]

Originally Posted by AusTxDevelopment

Oh I wasn't trying to correct you or start a thing. I was just hoping to add context by pointing out which blocks were being talked about for the westward expansion and why the city passed (according to the short article), for those who couldn't get past the paywall. There are 7 owners (9 entities) over those 2.5 blocks. So I'm basically agreeing with you.

Gotcha. I just thought that there was some confusion and that what I was getting at didn't come across clearly. No worries.

[paul78701]

Originally Posted by paul78701

Gotcha. I just thought that there was some confusion and that what I was getting at didn't come across clearly. No worries.

At any rate, this was always going to be tough to pull off. I have a friend who works on projects that are in a similar vein. From my conversations with him, getting all stake holders on board and pulling off big projects such as this is like herding cats.

[IluvATX]

Could an eastward expansion be possible? I could picture it lining Waller creek and creating an interesting shape like the southeast corner has.

[KevinFromTexas]

I wonder what the odds are the city could choose to move the convention center out of downtown to the Domain. It would be cool if the city could buy the top golf land at the Domain, for example, and build a convention center there. It would have a rail line right next to it on the east.

I hate the idea of a vertical convention center. I already throw up in my mouth every time I see it blocking the view of downtown, and I hate the way it ruins the grid. Imagine a building as tall as the Hampton Inn & Suites that covered 6 square blocks.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

I wonder what the odds are the city could choose to move the convention center out of downtown to the Domain. It would be cool if the city could buy the top golf land at the Domain, for example, and build a convention center there. It would have a rail line right next to it on the east.

I hate the idea of a vertical convention center. I already throw up in my mouth every time I see it blocking the view of downtown, and I hate the way it ruins the grid. Imagine a building as tall as the Hampton Inn & Suites that covered 6 square blocks.

With the previous plan they were already talking about grid reconnecting. I think any vertical plan would still have that on the table.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

I wonder what the odds are the city could choose to move the convention center out of downtown to the Domain. It would be cool if the city could buy the top golf land at the Domain, for example, and build a convention center there. It would have a rail line right next to it on the east.

I hate the idea of a vertical convention center. I already throw up in my mouth every time I see it blocking the view of downtown, and I hate the way it ruins the grid. Imagine a building as tall as the Hampton Inn & Suites that covered 6 square blocks.

I don't think a non-downtown CC really works.

I'm a big fan of the Domain/NBG, but a lot of its advantage is its location and accessibility for the overall metro and Austin residents. CC visitors don't really have that.

I wouldn't really expect it, but the one non-downtown location that could be interesting is the Metro Center blue line stop, basically between downtown and the airport on the rail.

You can't build that tall in that area due to ABIA, but that doesn't matter if you're building wide.

[chinchaaa]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

I wonder what the odds are the city could choose to move the convention center out of downtown to the Domain. It would be cool if the city could buy the top golf land at the Domain, for example, and build a convention center there. It would have a rail line right next to it on the east.

I hate the idea of a vertical convention center. I already throw up in my mouth every time I see it blocking the view of downtown, and I hate the way it ruins the grid. Imagine a building as tall as the Hampton Inn & Suites that covered 6 square blocks.

Too far from the airport.

[sjk]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

I wonder what the odds are the city could choose to move the convention center out of downtown to the Domain. It would be cool if the city could buy the top golf land at the Domain, for example, and build a convention center there. It would have a rail line right next to it on the east.

I hate the idea of a vertical convention center. I already throw up in my mouth every time I see it blocking the view of downtown, and I hate the way it ruins the grid. Imagine a building as tall as the Hampton Inn & Suites that covered 6 square blocks.

They also have all of the downtown hotels nearby and connected to the CC. That is a huge income driver for those hotels (once we actually have more events again). Also, the convention center attendees often will utilize nightlife and local businesses while they are visiting Austin, so that is an advantage to keeping it downtown. Plus, like mentioned, it is much closer to the airport. Just my opinion

[drummer]

I like the CC downtown. I also think this is an opportunity for more creativity (hopefully) in the solution. I was a fan of the most recent plan, but it wasn't perfect, as we all know.

Originally Posted by IluvATX

Could an eastward expansion be possible? I could picture it lining Waller creek and creating an interesting shape like the southeast corner has.

Wasn't there a drawing of something with the CC following the creek with an eastward expansion at some point?

[freerover]

Originally Posted by drummer

I like the CC downtown. I also think this is an opportunity for more creativity (hopefully) in the solution. I was a fan of the most recent plan, but it wasn't perfect, as we all know.



Wasn't there a drawing of something with the CC following the creek with an eastward expansion at some point?

Yep, along 4th to 35 but I think half of that has already been redeveloped since that was first considered in 2014. Also, I just found quite a doozy in the 2014 plan:

[We vs us]

It's pretty wild. They had a very similar warning in the UT study from 2019.

Studies: "Buy the land now before it gets too expensive!"

City: "Meh."

FWIW, the UT study didn't actually have a scenario where the center is rebuilt on its existing footprint. They imagined a "no change to existing building" scenario as a baseline comparative . . . but every scenario over and above that included expanding the footprint in one direction or the other.

Also: I forgot how much I liked the UT study.

https://issuu.com/utsoa/docs/framewo...g_utsoacsd?e=0

[atxsnail]

i guess it's a bit early, but what does this mean now for the (completely unnecessary, IMO) Travis County Expo Center Expansion? Can the county claim the taxes for this project if the CC is not expanded or modified?