With the projected cost of the proposed downtown bridge/science center now $350M and only $100M raised thus far, some Tucsonans are already resisting the project, although a new study claims it could bring big economic dividends:
'Rainbow bridge' may be pot of gold
Study: Costly science center structure would add $305M yearly to economy
By Thomas Stauffer
ARIZONA DAILY STAR
12.21.2005
An extra $100 million spent on a landmark science center structure Downtown would return several times that amount in economic benefits, according to a study released Tuesday.
The "rainbow bridge" designed by architect Rafael Viñoly to house the science center would create about 5,000 new permanent jobs and bring in about $362 million annually in economic activity, the study says. Viñoly's bridge would reach a height of 367 feet, span Interstate 10 and the Santa Cruz River, and support most of the science center's buildings along its 1,200-foot curved expanse.
The rainbow bridge is now projected to cost about $350 million to build, compared to about $250 million for a similar science center built on a lesser bridge. For a cost increase of about one third, the economic impacts are several times that, said Rob Vugteveen, director of marketing and outreach for the University of Arizona's Flandrau Science Center.
The study by Cambridge, Mass.-based ConsultEcon Inc. projected that the extra $100 million for a landmark structure would bring in $305 million more in new spending every year and create 4,206 more jobs than a bridge that is not such a destination.
More than 80 percent of the projected economic impact of the proposed bridge is attributable to its architectural grandeur, said Alexis Faust, executive director of the University of Arizona's Flandrau Science Center. That's because of the larger number of out-of-state visitors such a landmark would attract, she said.
The UA has raised about $100 million of the $350 million price tag for Viñoly's suspension-bridge science center — a price tag that accounts for surging construction costs, said Robert Smith, director of Facilities Design & Construction at the UA.
To bridge the $250 million gap, UA officials will take results of the current study and images of the project to the public to build consensus and continue seeking funding, Faust said.
Officials from the UA and the city of Tucson have said one potential source of funding would be an extension to the 10-year tax increment financing period that allows the Rio Nuevo Downtown revitalization project to use a portion of state sales tax on public projects Downtown.
"The bottom line is we need to stay as open to pursuing as many different sources of funding as we can, public and private," she said. "The TIF (tax increment financing) extension money would obviously be a source we would look at, but that funding is not going to make or break the project."
Projections of the current take of sales tax generated from the financing — currently set to expire in 2013 — is $124 million, which the city must match from its general fund dollar-for-dollar in public funding for the project. The city spending can include infrastructure improvements and other public uses such as parking garages.
Extending the tax increment financing period for another 10 to 15 years could raise another $186 million, bringing the total state-sales-tax take to about $400 million.
While that amount of money could fund the Viñoly-designed science center, city officials have more recently announced plans to seek a tax increment financing extension not for the science center but to lower a stretch of Interstate 10 underground in the Downtown area, a project estimated to cost more than $400 million.
Lowered freeway won't hurt
Faust said efforts to extend funding for Rio Nuevo to bury the freeway don't adversely affect the rainbow bridge plan. An underground freeway would actually benefit the landmark bridge, reducing noise levels and visual congestion, Faust said.
The science center is "definitely part of the menu of projects" that could benefit from an extension of tax increment financing, said C. Mary Okoye, director of intergovernmental relations for the city.
A West Side resident who has attended scores of meetings and workshops on the proposed science center said she doesn't care how much money the study claims Viñoly's bridge will bring — she's dead set against it.
"I'm in full support of the science center, but look, we were never in favor of that damn bridge in the first place, and it's just a big waste of money and time," said Lillian Lopez Grant, the president of the Menlo Park Neighborhood Association. "I think they could do a lot of different things if they wanted to, instead of just hiring this loony-toon architect who designed a monument to himself. They're out of their minds."