Convention Center Expansion

[We vs us]

On our management call this morning, my boss brought this up as something the city is looking into. FYI, it's the first time I've ever heard or seen this as a serious option. Regardless, eastward expansion is limited to the block at 4th and Red River (which includes Moonshine, and a handful of historic buildings) and the land along the creek at 3rd and Red River (which I think the CC already owns).

Also, supposedly the city is ready to start to talking about options with the hotel community as early as next week. Which is GREAT news. It indicates that maybe there's already a contingency plan in place . . . ? Hopefully . . . ?

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.

[freerover]

Originally Posted by We vs us

On our management call this morning, my boss brought this up as something the city is looking into. FYI, it's the first time I've ever heard or seen this as a serious option. Regardless, eastward expansion is limited to the block at 4th and Red River (which includes Moonshine, and a handful of historic buildings) and the land along the creek at 3rd and Red River (which I think the CC already owns).

Also, supposedly the city is ready to start to talking about options with the hotel community as early as next week. Which is GREAT news. It indicates that maybe there's already a contingency plan in place . . . ? Hopefully . . . ?

This was explored in the 2014 plan as well. Wasn't the block next to 35 just redeveloped?

[drummer]

^^ The block next to 35 has the building with the odd cutout for the billboard.

Quick question. I'm all for keeping a grid in 99% of cases, but what benefit does 3rd street have from the access road to Red River, given the giant CC in its current footprint?

[freerover]

Originally Posted by drummer

^^ The block next to 35 has the building with the odd cutout for the billboard.

Quick question. I'm all for keeping a grid in 99% of cases, but what benefit does 3rd street have from the access road to Red River, given the giant CC in its current footprint?

You're not thinking 4th dimensionally. This is where the cap over 35 will be so you'll have a full connection to 3rd for pedestrians and bikes by going through the park/cap to east Austin. If the rebuilt con center will hopefully have street level passage for pedestrians like the UT study recommended.

[JAM]

Originally Posted by We vs us

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 . . .

Great points. Personally, I wasn't looking forward to a big flat footprint myself - to your point a big ugly, scary dead zone. Like it is now, but worse. Also worried the vision on paper would never come to fruition. If they could somehow turn all of that into ground floor retail that is open until later in the evening and weekends, that would stop dead zones, but is that really possible?

The Javits center did a good job on mutli-level convention center. The conferences I've attended need meeting spaces, it doesnt really matter where those are located.

[drummer]

Originally Posted by freerover

You're not thinking 4th dimensionally. This is where the cap over 35 will be so you'll have a full connection to 3rd for pedestrians and bikes by going through the park/cap to east Austin. If the rebuilt con center will hopefully have street level passage for pedestrians like the UT study recommended.

Good point.

[paul78701]

Originally Posted by freerover

This was explored in the 2014 plan as well. Wasn't the block next to 35 just redeveloped?

The city owns that parking garage just to the east of the Hilton. I wouldn't be surprised if they shoehorned that block into an eastern expansion somehow. If they were willing to span over Waller Creek, they could do the same over the rail line on 4th St.

[H2O]

The next step would be to build over I-35 from Cesar Chavez to 4th as part of the Cap & Stitch. Many cities have convention centers spanning freeways.

[Mopacs]

Originally Posted by H2O

The next step would be to build over I-35 from Cesar Chavez to 4th as part of the Cap & Stitch. Many cities have convention centers spanning freeways.

You're right...Seattle's CC spans I-5

https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Washingt...vention_Center

[We vs us]

Kansas City's CC also covers a highway.

[GoldenBoot]

I may have misunderstood...but, didn't the CC say that an eastward expansion is also out?!?

Just spitballing here...but, why doesn't the city buy the land for the South Central Waterfront District and build a new CC there with a waterfront park and other civic amenities. We already know the neighborhoods are going to come out in force against tall buildings there anyway. Plus, the future blue line will run right up against it.

As soon as the new CC is complete, the city will then parcel off and sell the old one, reconnect the downtown grid and opening all that area up to new developments. Yes, I know, the "CC" hotels won't like it. But, since it was brought up, the Javitz Center doesn't not have any huge, major CC hotels near it. I visited that center annually (pre-COVID) and I never really minded that my hotel was blocks and blocks away. And, there's nothing that says a new hotel (and multifamily) could not be apart of a new development there. Heck, the current vision calls for those.

Just an idea.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by GoldenBoot

I may have misunderstood...but, didn't the CC say that an eastward expansion is also out?!?

Just spitballing here...but, why doesn't the city buy the land for the SouthShore Waterfront District and build a new CC there with a waterfront park and other civic amenities. We already know the neighborhoods are going to come out in force against tall buildings there anyway. Plus, the future blue line will run right up against it.

As soon as the new CC is complete, the city will then parcel off and sell the old one, reconnect the downtown grid and opening all that area up to new developments. Yes, I know, the "CC" hotels won't like it. But, since it was brought up, the Javitz Center doesn't not have any huge, major CC hotels near it. I visited that center annually (pre-COVID) and I never really minded that my hotel was blocks and blocks away. And, there's nothing that says a new hotel (and multifamily) could not be apart of a new development there. Heck, the current vision calls for those.

Just an idea.

This idea would require at least two new pedestrian only bridges in order to accommodate necessary tie ins with hotel and nightlife infrastructure: one connecting Statesman to Rainey and another paralleling Congress to the Brazos dead end.

Not sure it’s feasible.

But I really do like it.

As for hotels, it’s a wash: Hilton and Fairmont are further away, but Hyatt and Line would be closer. JW and Marriott would be about the same. Only Hilton is really screwed if it moved south of the river and that building should be torn down and redeveloped anyway.

[GoldenBoot]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

This idea would require two new pedestrian only bridges in order to accommodate necessary tie ins with hotel and nightlife infrastructure: one connecting Statesman to Rainey and another paralleling Congress just East of Congress.

Not sure it’s feasible.

I disagree. Those pieces of infrastructure are not "required." Ideal, yes. But, not required.

By the time this would be up-and-running, there will be a blue line connection to the old CC area (hotels) and I believe there is already a pedestrian bridge in the vision for the South Central Waterfront District - connecting to the Rainey area.

[We vs us]

I also love it. It would be a signature space. But the infrastructure isn't there, and the downtown hotels, whom the CC is built to fill, would have fits.

[drummer]

To continue the daydreaming... IF a CC was built in that area, it could be built in a way to tie into the park/trail, restaurants, and add a significant mixed-use component for that plot. Pedestrian bridges would be a added bonus that would benefit the trail, the city as a whole, as well as convention/hotel activities. Also, it could be worked out to keep some height with connected towers while positioning them next to the river as opposed to right next to the neighborhoods. It could be a win-win.

CBD gains 5.5 blocks of new prime land for development - especially considering the location of the downtown station at 4th/Trinity. Other hotels near the current CC are still pretty darn close. One of the bridges could tie into the Waller Creek project. Wouldn't the Blue Line run right next to that also?

This is fun.

[GoldenBoot]

Originally Posted by We vs us

I also love it. It would be a signature space. But the infrastructure isn't there, and the downtown hotels, whom the CC is built to fill, would have fits.

But, they will still be filled. Again, Javitz does not have any nearby (major) CC hotels. The major hotels in downtown Atlanta are closer to the AmericasMart than their World Congress Center (I think that is what it's called). You could probably find several more examples of CC's not necessarily being adjacent to several CC hotels.

People will still come. And when this is complete, the pandemic will be a few years behind us and Uber/Lyft will be getting back to full force, coach shuttles will be utilized, cabs, etc. Thus, more individuals have an opportunity to profit off of big shows.

[JAM]

Originally Posted by GoldenBoot

Again, Javitz does not have any nearby (major) CC hotels.

ya - went annually too pre cv19. The subways were getting pretty ugly the last few years we was there. Wife starting saying hell no to the subway. After that, Uber was a big factor in getting us to Javits. A lot of the show attendees used buses that brought them back and forth to hotel. if it was a nice day, we would just walk back to the hotel, even if it was upper west side. plenty to do along the way.

I should add, that Conv Center is not a big boon to some of the small biz's. Some, but as one biz owner put it, these are not my customers. Dining, yes, other wise, eh. I guess it adds up.

[We vs us]

Originally Posted by GoldenBoot

But, they will still be filled. Again, Javitz does not have any nearby (major) CC hotels. The major hotels in downtown Atlanta are closer to the AmericasMart than their World Congress Center (I think that is what it's called). You could probably find several more examples of CC's not necessarily being adjacent to several CC hotels.

People will still come. And when this is complete, the pandemic will be a few years behind us and Uber/Lyft will be getting back to full force, coach shuttles will be utilized, cabs, etc. Thus, more individuals have an opportunity to profit off of big shows.

For potential clients, our (ahem) compact package is a really big selling point. People generally hate the Javitz situation (or the McCormick Place situation, or the World Congress Center situation, etc) -- AND those facilities are bringing in huge events, several magnitudes larger than what we can handle. In those cases, just the attendance numbers alone force people to search much more widely for lodging.

And I agree that people will to one degree or another work around bottlenecks . . . but for instance, what happens when a 10,000 person event breaks at the Statesman site at 5pm on a Wednesday . . . and those 10k people decide they need to cross the single nearest bridge during rush hour? Clusterf*ck city.

[ILUVSAT]

Originally Posted by We vs us

For potential clients, our (ahem) compact package is a really big selling point. People generally hate the Javitz situation (or the McCormick Place situation, or the World Congress Center situation, etc) -- AND those facilities are bringing in huge events, several magnitudes larger than what we can handle. In those cases, just the attendance numbers alone force people to search much more widely for lodging.

I generally like the idea. It's not as bad is you seem to think it is.

Also, "generally hate" is overly harsh, IMHO. I know hundreds who really don't give a flip about those situations. It is what it is. Those centers are not loosing any sleep over people "hating" their specific situations. Shows keep coming and people keep attending those shows. They may, however, loose sleep because of COVID.

Originally Posted by We vs us

...but for instance, what happens when a 10,000 person event breaks at the Statesman site at 5pm on a Wednesday . . . and those 10k people decide they need to cross the single nearest bridge during rush hour? Clusterf*ck city.

Hey! Welcome to the Big Leagues, Austin. You're not a sleepy little college town anymore.

[AusTxDevelopment]

Originally Posted by We vs us

I also love it. It would be a signature space. But the infrastructure isn't there, and the downtown hotels, whom the CC is built to fill, would have fits.

I like the idea. Investing in water taxis would be a big win for some entrepreneur.

Unfortunately, if the city can't afford the pricing of the west lots, they certainly would not be able to afford South Shore.