New Convention Hotel talk

[eliphar17]

This site is getting really pathetic really quick. I miss Barnes.

This site is getting really pathetic (although the descent hasn't necessarily been sudden). But it's a different reason from my perspective. Little to do with Barnes or Funk or conventions or PACs. I live in Sydney, Australia now.





People care about living in the city. It's cool to live in the city. Don't get me wrong, the suburbs are thriving too. But people are willing to put their money where their mouth is and spend money on urban housing and support retail in the city. That's just how it works. Without that happening in a place like Kansas City, why does it matter who the mayor is or how big the convention center is or how many palaces of architectural wonder there are? Guess what, my enjoyment of this city is hardly affected by having the Opera House to look at.



And I have no idea who the mayor is or what his development policy is - which doesn't matter anyway because the mayor isn't the one building new apartment towers or opening big shopping centers or landing retail tenants like the Apple Store who are brand-new to the country let alone the city.

Lesson from a big vibrant city: vibrancy is a result of many thousands of people choosing to place their lives in the heart of the city. It is not in the hands of one mayor or one architect or one bureaucracy.

As long as this forum is all about the little disputes that don't really matter such as which conventions to go after, it will continue to be pathetic. And as long as this forum ignores the need to win the hearts, minds, and lifestyles of the millions of KC suburbanites to urban living and focuses instead on who is right and who is wrong, who's an optimist and who's a pessimist, who supports Barnes and who supports Funk, it will continue to be pathetic.

But on the topic of this thread, if a hotel can be done with minimal subsidy, with a TIF that is small and NOT guaranteed by general city funds, and without city-issued bonds, then sure why not? Is someone working on a plan like that? Has anyone even presented a real plan or are we all just blowing hot air?

[aknowledgeableperson]

It's not that mid-sized conventions are bad or that I wouldn't want them. AKP's perspective is representative of those in our city who have no imagination, and those who do not dream or aspire. All they worry about is the budget line item; it's practical and pragmatic. It is never-the-less the mindset of underachievement and lack of ambition. When this is manifested on a city wide scale or at an official level, the city stagnates. The Berkley years were a time of stagnation. KC did not decline only because it was part of a national trend. It declined as others have said because some Kempers, Nutter, and other city leaders and power brokers had this idea of where our city should go. How many people do you hear say "wow, those were the days", as if that was a time when Kansas City stood proud and tall? I never have, and it is sad. KC needs to think big. It may not become a great megalopolis, but if this city doesn't strive then it will decline again as it did under Mayor Berkley and perhaps as it might under Mayor Nutthauser.   

You are so wrong about me.  My imagination, my dreams, my aspirations are there.  The difference is that they are not in line with yours.  They are tempered with the reality that to bring them to life there is a cost one has to pay.  I can imagine, dream, and aspire to bigger and better things than you may, but I can also bring myself back into what is real and then see what is actually possible.  If that means I am concerned with a budget line item then I am guilty of that.  But don't forget, even to bring your images, dreams, and aspirations to life somebody has to pay for it.  So, come on now.  Tell us about how you propose to bring them to life?  How do you propose to pay for them?  Or are you just a dreamer?

It is easy to dream.  It is hard to bring those dreams to life. 

[beautyfromashes]

But people are willing to put their money where their mouth is and spend money on urban housing and support retail in the city.

...says the guys who bolted to Sydney.

[Midtownkid]

"my enjoyment of this city is hardly affected by having the Opera House to look at."

Do you think the Opera House had something to do w/ keeping Sydney a popular city to live in?

[KC-wildcat]

. . . why does it matter who the mayor is or how big the convention center is or how many palaces of architectural wonder there are? Guess what, my enjoyment of this city is hardly affected by having the Opera House to look at.

And I have no idea who the mayor is or what his development policy is - which doesn't matter anyway because the mayor isn't the one building new apartment towers or opening big shopping centers or landing retail tenants like the Apple Store who are brand-new to the country let alone the city.

Lesson from a big vibrant city: vibrancy is a result of many thousands of people choosing to place their lives in the heart of the city. It is not in the hands of one mayor or one architect or one bureaucracy.

Well, Kansas City isn't Sydney, Australia or New York, or Rome, or Paris.  Every nation has its trademark, diamond cities that don't need to rely on leadership, or TIF, or downtown ballparks, etc.  Kansas City isn't one of these cities.  We have to work harder, much harder to attract people to live and work here.  Sydney doesn't need a mayor with vigor and immagination because it's on the Australian coast line (and because it's one of three cities on the entire continent). 

Here, in midwest America, we can't just rely on stunning scenery, wonderful year-round weather, coastal population demographic, etc.  We have to improvise.  We have to go out and actively seek our residents.  Crazy as it might sound, people aren't exactly chomping at the bit to relocate to midwestern America.  Especially since 90% of Americans think KC is in Kansas and associate Kansas with the Wizard of Oz.  Yeah, that's the truth.

So, while the goal is to ultimately create the Sydney atmosphere where thousands of people live, work, and play DT year round, we have to go about creating that atmosphere in a different way.  As decades of decline and 8 years under Barnes have made painfully obvious, mayoral leadership and TIF are two of the ways to do this.  Another way of doing this is to embrace and encourage a thriving convention industry.  Again, the convention industry is the primary method by which KC keeps a steady stream of tourists coming.  Without those tourists, we lose a lot of $$$.  Reality.  We must embrace it.  Our mayor must embrace it.   

[mean]

Here, in midwest America, we can't just rely on stunning scenery, wonderful year-round weather, coastal population demographic, etc.  We have to improvise.  We have to go out and actively seek our residents.  Crazy as it might sound, people aren't exactly chomping at the bit to relocate to midwestern America.

Could not agree more.

So, while the goal is to ultimately create the Sydney atmosphere where thousands of people live, work, and play DT year round, we have to go about creating that atmosphere in a different way.

Still following you, right on...

As decades of decline and 8 years under Barnes have made painfully obvious, mayoral leadership and TIF are two of the ways to do this.

Well, maybe. We'll see in a few decades. It has worked so far. Hopefully it will continue to work.

Another way of doing this is to embrace and encourage a thriving convention industry.  Again, the convention industry is the primary method by which KC keeps a steady stream of tourists coming.  Without those tourists, we lose a lot of $$$.  Reality.  We must embrace it.  Our mayor must embrace it.

And here you completely lose me. You are saying that the net economic impact to Kansas City as a result of public investment in the convention industry is positive. Could you offer a cite for your assertion? Not to muddle this question-begging, baseless opinionfest with things like studies and research, but there have been a lot of skeptical economists publishing about this over the years. See:

Economic Impact Studies: Relating The Positive And Negative Impacts To Tourism Development -- Fleming & Toepper, 1990
Forecasting The Economic Impacts Of Events And Conventions -- Dwyer, Mellor, Mistilis & Mules, 2000
Convention Myths and Markets: A Critical Review of Convention Center Feasibility Studies -- Sanders, 2002

I've yet to see an independent economic impact study (e.g., that wasn't sponsored by a CVB) that favored public investment in the convention industry.

[KC-wildcat]

You are saying that the net economic impact to Kansas City as a result of public investment in the convention industry is positive. Could you offer a cite for your assertion?

On June 24, Wal-Mart announced that its planned 2009 meeting instead would be in Orlando, a move that Rick Hughes, CEO of the Kansas City Convention & Visitors Association, said will leave the city bereft of $8 million.
http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/s ... %5E1663320.

I know some are skeptical of the "net" economic benefit to conventions.  Others, like Rick Hughes, believe that the economic benefit can't be overstated.  I'm not an economist or tourism expert, but I can see that Wal-Mart brings 8,000 and $8M annually and Skills brings 6,000-7,000 and more than $13M annually.  http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/s ... aily5.html

this loss of 14,000 visitors and 21M in revenue is not a good thing.  Admittedly, I don't know if the hotel balances out as a net benefit.  But, ultimately, my point about the convention industry had nothing to do with the hotel.  I was just explaining to the Sydney guy that we need conventioneers (from conventions big or small) to pump millions into our economy on an annual basis.  Can't rely on the beach and mountains.

[kcjak]

New talk of a convention hotel in the Biz Journal: http://kansascity.bizjournals.com/kansa ... 378&page=1

The reporter says that once a consultant is hired, financing options should come quickly due to the fact that market studies have been completed over the years and could be used in this case.  One of the funding mechanism discusses the public ownership model where, once the hotel was paid off, the city/public entity could sell it for hundreds of millions of dollars.  Mmmmmmmmmmmm 

Another interesting point from Mr. Lucas is that if hotel occupancy in the city is to increase, it will do so by building a large convention hotel to increase convention attendance (I'm not wording that correctly, but read the article).

[DaveKCMO]

so increased tourism does what... nothing?

i'm all for innovative proposals that don't suck money from the general fund. god knows we have plenty of vacant parcels for such a facility.

[mean]

On June 24, Wal-Mart announced that its planned 2009 meeting instead would be in Orlando, a move that Rick Hughes, CEO of the Kansas City Convention & Visitors Association, said will leave the city bereft of $8 million.
http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/s ... %5E1663320.

I know some are skeptical of the "net" economic benefit to conventions.  Others, like Rick Hughes, believe that the economic benefit can't be overstated. 

Is Rick Hughes an impartial observer? Does he even have a degree in economics?

[K.C.Highrise]

Why don't you talk about how we can build a new convention hotel at ZERO cost to the city?

[DaveKCMO]

Why don't you talk about how we can build a new convention hotel at ZERO cost to the city?

we'll need more info than what's provided in that article. ZERO cost, eh? how can the city own something at ZERO cost? not saying it ain't possible, we need more details.

[KCTigerFan]

None of these ideas are new.  Several cities have actually built a convention hotel facility.  Even ones as small as Myrtle Beach.  Houston has been able to pay down construction bonds on theirs faster than they projected. 

[mean]

Why don't you talk about how we can build a new convention hotel at ZERO cost to the city?

I don't think we really need a convention hotel in the first place, because the evidence I've seen indicates that such facilities are bad public investments. What I'm looking for is contrary evidence from an impartial source. Developers, convention boosters, and hoteliers are not exactly what I would consider impartial sources.

I'm not just being an ass either, there may very well be one or more case studies by economists that show tangible benefit to cities investing in convention hotels and, even more importantly, offer guidelines on how this success was achieved (and what to avoid) that KC could use as a model in the event that we went forward with such a project. I just haven't been able to find any, and I've searched. What I found was a lot of different economists saying the same thing, which I offered some examples of previously. But believe me, I wouldn't mind being wrong. If we can justify the investment, I would love to see it happen.

None of these ideas are new.  Several cities have actually built a convention hotel facility.  Even ones as small as Myrtle Beach.  Houston has been able to pay down construction bonds on theirs faster than they projected. 

Well yeah, of course it isn't new. If it was new there wouldn't be 20 years of studies saying it doesn't work. If Houston is a model child here, then great, hopefully someone will do an impartial economic impact study and show us the way to do it right.

[trailerkid]

I don't think we really need a convention hotel in the first place, because the evidence I've seen indicates that such facilities are bad public investments. What I'm looking for is contrary evidence from an impartial source. Developers, convention boosters, and hoteliers are not exactly what I would consider impartial sources.

I'm not just being an ass either, there may very well be one or more case studies by economists that show tangible benefit to cities investing in convention hotels and, even more importantly, offer guidelines on how this success was achieved (and what to avoid) that KC could use as a model in the event that we went forward with such a project. I just haven't been able to find any, and I've searched. What I found was a lot of different economists saying the same thing, which I offered some examples of previously. But believe me, I wouldn't mind being wrong. If we can justify the investment, I would love to see it happen.

Well yeah, of course it isn't new. If it was new there wouldn't be 20 years of studies saying it doesn't work. If Houston is a model child here, then great, hopefully someone will do an impartial economic impact study and show us the way to do it right.

The economic reductionists on this site want to blind and confuse every issue regarding downtown. Please take your head out of Funkhouser's anus.

Kansas City's downtown is still dead and in a state of emergency. There are certain pieces of the puzzle that the city can and should line up to increase the city's overall portfolio. Will it cost money? YES. Sprint Center was one of those pieces. Live in your own little dream world where everything pays for itself and the city just plays the watchdog role. It's a nice fantasy, but they are subsidizing private construction in NYC while KC sits on on 845 downtown surface lots where there used to be commerce. Again, KC can stay in 1987 for eternity, but there won't be much of a city left in 25 years.

[K.C.Highrise]

20 years of study huh? Wait what exactly doesn't work? Be specific and then show me 20 years of "study" proving your point.

[hubert]

Atlanta built the Peachtree Plaza Hotel (70 stories or so) and then the downtown really spread out.  I do not know the financing method they used back during the day but I have been around to witness the building since that time.  Before they built the Peachtree Plaza just a few buildings within a half mile or so of that proposed structure was all there was of downtown Atlanta.  It is still quite the attraction in downtown Atlanta.  I am a firm believer that you have to create an attraction to draw the tax base and eventual revenue will grow considerably.  You cannot always base plans on existing potential but give credit to future potential given certain change such as what the P&L and Sprint Center bring to the table coupled with a new convention hotel/center centrally located with some light rail located downtown to the Plaza.  Those future potential revenue draw numbers have probably not been considered in older or current studies that may contribute to further justification for both the P&L tower and the Convention Center.  Build it and they will come.  There has to be some speculation and investment or you will always be mired in trying to make everything pay for itself.  You know, then the private investment moves in and builds on what was started. 

[mean]

20 years of study huh? Wait what exactly doesn't work? Be specific and then show me 20 years of "study" proving your point.

Start here:

Economic Impact Studies: Relating The Positive And Negative Impacts To Tourism Development -- Fleming & Toepper, 1990
Forecasting The Economic Impacts Of Events And Conventions -- Dwyer, Mellor, Mistilis & Mules, 2000
Convention Myths and Markets: A Critical Review of Convention Center Feasibility Studies -- Sanders, 2002

The economic reductionists on this site want to blind and confuse every issue regarding downtown. Please take your head out of Funkhouser's anus.

Thank you for your thoughtful, well-reasoned commentary. I hope you don't think you're being persuasive.

Kansas City's downtown is still dead and in a state of emergency. There are certain pieces of the puzzle that the city can and should line up to increase the city's overall portfolio. Will it cost money? YES. Sprint Center was one of those pieces. Live in your own little dream world where everything pays for itself and the city just plays the watchdog role. It's a nice fantasy, but they are subsidizing private construction in NYC while KC sits on on 845 downtown surface lots where there used to be commerce. Again, KC can stay in 1987 for eternity, but there won't be much of a city left in 25 years.

You're begging the question. Again. That keeps happening in this thread, so let me be clear: the assertion that subsidizing this particular development will be beneficial has not been demonstrated. In fact, nobody has presented any evidence at all to refute the legitimate studies I have now cited twice. All I'm asking for is for someone to present a persuasive argument for this development rather than blithely assuming it will be just dandy, and labeling all arguments to the contrary as "regressionist" or "reductionist"--which is another logical fallacy, by the way.

So, I'm saying, drop the bullshit and do some research. You may believe cities are constructed and maintained on logically fallacious arguments, overzealous optimism, and shouting down facts that disagree with your preordained conclusions; but I tend to think they're constructed and maintained firstly on sound economic principles, and I don't want to screw up this opportunity we have. We can legitimately grow the economy and create the vibrant city we all want to live in, but investing in projects that won't deliver the bang-for-buck that convention boosters and civic cheerleaders claim despite all evidence to the contrary is insanity.

Yeah, other cities have done these projects. And, according to the every bit of evidence I have seen so far, they don't deliver on what they promise. They often don't even pay for themselves, let alone creating an economic bounty. So here's another fallacy shattered for you: correlation does not equal causation. Denver or whomever may have invested in a project like this and may also be thriving, but as far as I have seen, a causal relationship between the two has not been demonstrated by anybody, ever. Assuming a causal relationship is ridiculous, and asserting that we should invest our money into similar projects based on unproven causal relationships is even more ridiculous.

All I want is a case study to the contrary of my position.

Atlanta built the Peachtree Plaza Hotel (70 stories or so) and then the downtown really spread out. 

Is there a causal relationship there, or was the Peachtree Plaza (which is a pretty sweet hotel by the way) merely on the leading edge of a larger movement that was already underway? I don't know nearly enough about Atlanta to say, but it seems like a huge stretch to pin Atlanta's massive intervening growth on that Westin given that the Hyatt Regency Crown Center was built around the same time and, well, look what happened to KC.

[DaveKCMO]

Please take your head out of Funkhouser's anus.

when will you acknowledge that people have different opinions than you? just try and debate the issues on their merits and people might take what you say more seriously. right now, all i see are the words of a raving fucktard.

[trailerkid]

Start here:

Thank you for your thoughtful, well-reasoned commentary. I hope you don't think you're being persuasive.

You're begging the question. Again. That keeps happening in this thread, so let me be clear: the assertion that subsidizing this particular development will be beneficial has not been demonstrated. In fact, nobody has presented any evidence at all to refute the legitimate studies I have now cited twice. All I'm asking for is for someone to present a persuasive argument for this development rather than blithely assuming it will be just dandy, and labeling all arguments to the contrary as "regressionist" or "reductionist"--which is another logical fallacy, by the way.

So, I'm saying, drop the bullshit and do some research. You may believe cities are constructed and maintained on logically fallacious arguments, overzealous optimism, and shouting down facts that disagree with your preordained conclusions; but I tend to think they're constructed and maintained firstly on sound economic principles, and I don't want to screw up this opportunity we have. We can legitimately grow the economy and create the vibrant city we all want to live in, but investing in projects that won't deliver the bang-for-buck that convention boosters and civic cheerleaders claim despite all evidence to the contrary is insanity.

Yeah, other cities have done these projects. And, according to the every bit of evidence I have seen so far, they don't deliver on what they promise. They often don't even pay for themselves, let alone creating an economic bounty. So here's another fallacy shattered for you: correlation does not equal causation. Denver or whomever may have invested in a project like this and may also be thriving, but as far as I have seen, a causal relationship between the two has not been demonstrated by anybody, ever. Assuming a causal relationship is ridiculous, and asserting that we should invest our money into similar projects based on unproven causal relationships is even more ridiculous.

All I want is a case study to the contrary of my position.

Is there a causal relationship there, or was the Peachtree Plaza (which is a pretty sweet hotel by the way) merely on the leading edge of a larger movement that was already underway? I don't know nearly enough about Atlanta to say, but it seems like a huge stretch to pin Atlanta's massive intervening growth on that Westin given that the Hyatt Regency Crown Center was built around the same time and, well, look what happened to KC.

The Hyatt Regency also was site to one of the biggest engineering disasters in US history a year after it opened, but that's a great comparison to an iconic building in Atl.

There is more to the life of a city than economic forecasting on an internet message board. The fact is I don't know if a city-subsidized hotel will be successful and neither do you. We do know that a HQ hotel is a very positive asset to the existing convention facilities. Finances are part of the equation, but ever since Flunkhouse took office his minions act like they're CPAs now.

The fact that there is a strong argument against a freaking hotel (?!!?) shows you backward this city is. The Marriott is ass...the Kemper arena of our hotel stock. Convention facilities, which includes your HQ hotel, need to be spruced up every 30 years or so-- even in Kansas City where time stands still...