Convention Center Expansion Updates

[We vs us]

Rumor from my friends at the city -- presentation of the UT study will be on Apr 2 at 10am at the Central Library.

Not sure of the format -- townhall? formal presentation? posters? -- but my friend was pretty firm on the date/location.

[freerover]

Originally Posted by We vs us

Rumor from my friends at the city -- presentation of the UT study will be on Apr 2 at 10am at the Central Library.

Not sure of the format -- townhall? formal presentation? posters? -- but my friend was pretty firm on the date/location.

Thanks! There was a pretty dour update to the tourism commission about hotel taxes leveling off due to the recent openings and we still have the Marriott coming.

[We vs us]

Originally Posted by freerover

Thanks! There was a pretty dour update to the tourism commission about hotel taxes leveling off due to the recent openings and we still have the Marriott coming.

I don't think the Marriott itself will reduce the amount of HOT tax being collected . . . it's just adding more rooms to the CBD pot. What it will do (and what we're finally starting to see the Fairmont inventory do) is tamp down average daily rates. While that drives down the HOT tax rate, paired with increased occupancy the amount collected is probably a wash.

[freerover]

Originally Posted by We vs us

I don't think the Marriott itself will reduce the amount of HOT tax being collected . . . it's just adding more rooms to the CBD pot. What it will do (and what we're finally starting to see the Fairmont inventory do) is tamp down average daily rates. While that drives down the HOT tax rate, paired with increased occupancy the amount collected is probably a wash.

Sorry, I must not have been clear. I meant the growth of the tax is becoming stunted because of all of the inventory which will grow more with the Marriot.

Here is the Austin Monitor Article:

The growth of short-term rental activity in the city and a possible saturation of the local hotel market are seen as the biggest causes behind a flattening of Austin’s once fast-growing Hotel Occupancy Tax revenue.
That was the conclusion at this week’s meeting of the Tourism Commission, where how to best use the roughly $100 million collected by the city annually from hotel visitors is a central issue of debate.
While discussion at the meeting again veered into whether expenditure levels for the Austin Convention Center are in line with other peer cities and market demand, commissioners roundly agreed that a combination of factors are slowing growth of the hotel tax. That money is used to fund a variety of efforts including historic preservation, cultural arts, tourism promotion and debt relief on previous capital improvements to the convention center.
While the revenue pool grew by more than 10 percent annually for much of the past decade, its growth is estimated now to be in the low single digits because of a possible surplus of hotel rooms and demand for short-term rentals siphoning off traditional hotel business.
There was some debate at the meeting about possible fluctuations and the overall completeness of the city’s reporting, but data presented showed 10 percent growth in 2016, the most recent year available. Commission Chair Catlin Whitington said by most estimates the tax revenue grew by around 3 percent last year.
Commissioner Scott Joslove, president of the Texas Hotel and Lodging Association, said for the first time in recent memory the city had unused hotel rooms during the 10 days of South by Southwest, which is traditionally one of the busiest and most expensive booking periods.
“We were not even completely sold out for SXSW this year,” he said, pointing out that high room rates generate higher tax amounts. “There were rooms that typically would have been long sold out at high rates that were sitting available, and the rates overall were down.”
Asked about market equilibrium, Joslove said “we’re probably a bit overbuilt” and added that the pace of construction will likely slow soon to allow demand to catch up in coming years.
A bigger concern is the city’s role in regulating and collecting HOT revenue from short-term rentals marketed and managed through platforms such as Airbnb and HomeAway. Currently the city has no comprehensive method to collect the revenue and force those using STR platforms to obtain a license and comply with taxing and other regulations.
Much of the difficulty, Joslove said, comes from conditions the services want cities to agree to in exchange for their collection of tax revenue. Among those conditions are keeping STR owners anonymous, no limits on the number of non-owner-occupied STRs in residential areas and forgiveness of all previous failure to report overall STR activity.
During meetings of the city’s Visitor Impact Task Force in 2017, it was reported that STR companies had roughly $6 million in tax revenue available to the city, but the conditions they placed on that money were counter to a desire many in the city had to strictly manage the number of STRs operating in residential areas.
That battle is currently playing out at the state level, with lawmakers considering legislation that would strip away most of cities’ power to regulate the STR industry.
“You have the Realtors on one side who want to have Austin not able to ban short-term rentals and want an unlimited ability to locate as many as they would like,” Joslove said. “Virtually everybody agrees that if you are owner-occupied you ought to be able to have short-term rentals, and if you’re non-owner-occupied you should be able if you’re located in commercial areas. The issue comes down to residential areas and should you be able to limit that.”
While no action was taken regarding the STR issue since the agenda item was specifically related to growth of HOT revenue, commissioners agreed to a future agenda item to recommend action to City Council, including looking at third-party services that can track STR activity and make it possible to collect outstanding hotel tax money.

[Novacek]

Special called meeting for the city council on April 2nd.

http://www.austintexas.gov/departmen...90402-spec.htm

"Presentation and discussion on The University of Texas study on Alternative Futures for the Austin Convention Center District."

[freerover]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Special called meeting for the city council on April 2nd.

http://www.austintexas.gov/departmen...90402-spec.htm

"Presentation and discussion on The University of Texas study on Alternative Futures for the Austin Convention Center District."

Dope! I'll be there.

[urbancore]

Originally Posted by freerover

Dope! I'll be there.

Haven't kept up with this thread, what's important about this special meeting and presentation.

I haven't been to a meeting in a while myself, it'd be cool to come down.

[freerover]

Originally Posted by urbancore

Haven't kept up with this thread, what's important about this special meeting and presentation.

I haven't been to a meeting in a while myself, it'd be cool to come down.

Council kicked the can down the road by commissioning this study by UT last year to see if it's worth expanding the convention center.

The thing is, we can't legally raise the hotel tax to do much else. Plus, if we raise the hotel tax to pay for the convention center expansion, hotels in the area have agreed to an additional voluntary tax that can go towards fixing problems in downtown like homelessness, sidewalks etc. Plus, it means more tourism dollars.

One big question is if UT is going to recommend adding housing to the expansion which was floated by some council members. Seems weird but we'll see.

[urbancore]

Originally Posted by freerover

Council kicked the can down the road by commissioning this study by UT last year to see if it's worth expanding the convention center.

The thing is, we can't legally raise the hotel tax to do much else. Plus, if we raise the hotel tax to pay for the convention center expansion, hotels in the area have agreed to an additional voluntary tax that can go towards fixing problems in downtown like homelessness, sidewalks etc. Plus, it means more tourism dollars.

One big question is if UT is going to recommend adding housing to the expansion which was floated by some council members. Seems weird but we'll see.

So the hotel WANT the council to raise the tax and will voluntarily pay more. That's cool.

To your second question, how many pro-housing CM do we have now? A majority?

[We vs us]

Nice! I might seriously try to play hooky that day.

[MichaelB]

Start with, I'm in favor of expanding.
HOWEVER....
There needs to be some good "thinking out of the box" on this one. There has to be a better way to incorporate the city into a convention area and not just have a big BLOCK to the flow of the city. I will be really opposed to closing more streets. I know there have been some design idea floated where we maintain retail and restaurants etc. I'm be fighting any other option. Cities build over expressways ( KC for one) and roads ( Tampa, Louisville) all the time. Just don't make it a big black hole to city life.

[freerover]

Originally Posted by MichaelB

Start with, I'm in favor of expanding.
HOWEVER....
There needs to be some good "thinking out of the box" on this one. There has to be a better way to incorporate the city into a convention area and not just have a big BLOCK to the flow of the city. I will be really opposed to closing more streets. I know there have been some design idea floated where we maintain retail and restaurants etc. I'm be fighting any other option. Cities build over expressways ( KC for one) and roads ( Tampa, Louisville) all the time. Just don't make it a big black hole to city life.

The previous recommended proposal wouldn't close any city streets and would have 1st floor food/drink.

[chinchaaa]

Originally Posted by freerover

The previous recommended proposal wouldn't close any city streets and would have 1st floor food/drink.

Doesn't this example pretty clearly show that street would be closed?

[AusTxDevelopment]

Originally Posted by chinchaaa

Doesn't this example pretty clearly show that street would be closed?

Yeah, that would definitely close 2nd Street through that block, and possibly 3rd Street as well. But 2nd already dead-ends at the convention center and 3rd picks up after the convention center for only one more block before it hits I35. But if you are talking about Trinity, those appear to be skybridges. Unless they are planning on making Trinity pedestrian only or a single lane. Hard to tell from a line drawing.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Au....7392938?hl=en

[freerover]

Originally Posted by chinchaaa

Doesn't this example pretty clearly show that street would be closed?

Sorry, 2nd and 3rd would close but they already dead ended at the convention center so they will continue to dead end at the convention center. Trinity will stay open.

[paul78701]

UT report outlines convention center expansion pros, cons:
https://www.statesman.com/news/20190...sion-pros-cons

The ideas of expanding westward (with something multi-story and with better street level interaction) then demolishing part or all of the current convention center for redevelopment seem like winners to me.

[We vs us]

I've heard that it may close off 2nd and 3rd between San Jacinto and Trinity, though Trinity will remain open. I can't confirm that, though . . . just what I was remembering.

The last convo I had with people at Visit Austin (in Jan), they were still pushing the idea that it will have lots of ground floor retail and a public park on the roof (see below). Not sure how that would work practically speaking, but there aren't other CC's with that feature, and it's viewed as a way to activate as much of the CC as possible with additional non-CC uses.

The preliminary plans, so far as I know, don't include housing.

[freerover]

Wow. Fucking Bold.

[lzppjb]

Thanks for the visuals.

[Echostatic]

I'm going with Scenario 3 or 4.1. Scenario 3 seems like the likely solution they'll go with, and I think it's the most effective scenario for its cost. 4.1 is probably what will happen on a longer timescale, but not immediately. 5 is probably too bold and too costly to happen for a long time.