New Convention Hotel talk

Issues concerning Downtown as described by the Downtown Council. River to 31st Street, I-35 to Bruce R. Watkins.
Post Reply

Where should a 1000 room hotel be built?

Convention Center area
61
47%
East of Grand near Sprint Center
23
18%
South of 670
10
8%
Power and Light District
24
18%
We don't need a new 1000 room hotel
13
10%
 
Total votes: 131

KC-wildcat
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 3528
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 10:54 am
Location: UMKC Law

Re: New Convention Hotel talk

Post by KC-wildcat »

mean wrote:
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.
loss:  14,000 visitors and 21M in revenue

I cited this information.  In the end, this may not be the quintesential statistic justifying a hotel, but I think you're blindly assuming that proponents just want a nice, shiny, new structure to dot the skyline. 
User avatar
GRID
City Hall
City Hall
Posts: 17272
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2003 12:20 pm
Contact:

Re: New Convention Hotel talk

Post by GRID »

KC-wildcat wrote: loss:  14,000 visitors and 21M in revenue

I cited this information.  In the end, this may not be the quintesential statistic justifying a hotel, but I think you're blindly assuming that proponents just want a nice, shiny, new structure to dot the skyline. 
You don't know what you are talking about.  We just want to spend money and put the city into debt and make the skyline prettier.
mean
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 11240
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 9:00 am
Location: Historic Northeast

Re: New Convention Hotel talk

Post by mean »

trailerkid wrote:The fact is I don't know if a city-subsidized hotel will be successful and neither do you.
Correct, but I'm basing my tentative opposition on case studies of other cities that have invested in facilities like this. I'm just asking to see what the support is based on, and so far it seems to be based on little except numbers funded by the CVB and ridiculing the opposition. This isn't a rational way to approach economic development, and I'd go so far as to argue that basing support for projects like this on bad data can be a direct cause of the stagnation and failure that supporters claim to want to avoid.
trailerkid wrote:We do know that a HQ hotel is a very positive asset to the existing convention facilities.
Even if we assume that a HQ hotel will, in the short term, draw in visitors and conventions we wouldn't otherwise be able to compete for, that doesn't answer the larger questions of how long we can expect that to continue and whether the revenue captured by the project would be adequate to pay off the bonds required to build it. Evidence indicates that gains would be temporary and inadequate, and that more facilities would be required in short order to keep capturing the revenue. The bigger picture here looks like a bad business proposition. It is not sustainable to be locked in a cycle of investing large amounts of revenue to chase a small number of well-heeled but fickle customers with no loyalty, who are going to seek out the competition the second they think they can get a better deal.
KC-wildcat wrote: loss:  14,000 visitors and 21M in revenue

I cited this information.  In the end, this may not be the quintesential statistic justifying a hotel, but I think you're blindly assuming that proponents just want a nice, shiny, new structure to dot the skyline. 
It's extremely disingenuous to try and distill my argument to "you just want a shiny structure". I just want to see some good information. Instead I'm mostly getting snarky, dismissive comments and personal attacks, which don't really advance the argument. If anything, some of the comments here are only helping to make the case that there isn't a good argument, and that's unfortunate, because I wish there was.

The cite you gave is a start, but what is that revenue and where did the number come from? Who calculated it and how? Does it represent gross revenue or net taxes collected? This is why I'm asking for independent studies: the methodologies and sources are made clear. Soundbytes from proponents and opponents are both misleading because the consultants who come up with them are paid to make the numbers say whatever the funding source wants the public to believe, usually at the expense of reality.
"It is not to my good friend's heresy that I impute his honesty. On the contrary, 'tis his honesty that has brought upon him the character of heretic." -- Ben Franklin
User avatar
GRID
City Hall
City Hall
Posts: 17272
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2003 12:20 pm
Contact:

Re: New Convention Hotel talk

Post by GRID »

I can understand where you are coming from mean, but with that kind of thinking, should we have built the Sprint Center, the Ballroom, the P&L district, the BB Experience, the WW1 Museum, Science City, NLBM, the Zoo?

There are studies that say stadiums do nothing and light rail does nothing.  They only drain the economy.  KC should not have them.

The city is putting some money into the PAC (lucky for KC it's mostly a private venture).  Should the city say no to that?

I just think you either want a city that is vibrant and offers a lot to locals and tourists alike or you move to a town that only does things that will show a positive return on that investment on paper.  A no risk town that doesn’t need to provide anything but a place to work and sleep.

Who does this?  Suburbs do this.

So I would start with Overland Park, KS (minus their convention hotel).  Just never leave that city though.
MidtownCat
Valencia Place
Valencia Place
Posts: 1931
Joined: Fri May 07, 2004 12:05 pm
Location: ~Westwood~

Re: New Convention Hotel talk

Post by MidtownCat »

mean wrote: Even if we assume that a HQ hotel will, in the short term, draw in visitors and conventions we wouldn't otherwise be able to compete for, that doesn't answer the larger questions of how long we can expect that to continue and whether the revenue captured by the project would be adequate to pay off the bonds required to build it. Evidence indicates that gains would be temporary and inadequate, and that more facilities would be required in short order to keep capturing the revenue. The bigger picture here looks like a bad business proposition. It is not sustainable to be locked in a cycle of investing large amounts of revenue to chase a small number of well-heeled but fickle customers with no loyalty, who are going to seek out the competition the second they think they can get a better deal.
Talk about Deja Vu.

It's like I've heard this argument a hundred times before, except instead of "HQ Hotel" it was the Sprint Center and Power&Light District.

And instead of a guy named mean, it was Yael Abouhalkah writing about how a new arena was going to be financial disaster and complete failure for this city.

And then we had some civic leadership with some courage to take a calculated risk, got them built and both have far exceeded any projections and preconceived expectations and flown in the face of all the fear mongering critics that would rather this urban core languish in mediocrity instead of making some real strides in to the future.

For more on another project that was also a "bad business proposition".....

Financially, the Sprint Center is rockin'
KEVIN COLLISON, The Kansas City Star


The Sprint Center is on excellent financial footing, city officials said. Car rental and hotel fee revenues have exceeded projections and a recent refinancing has sliced $15 million from the debt.

The good fiscal news comes on the heels of a report by a respected national trade publication that ranked the nine-month-old arena 30th in the world in ticket sales for all entertainment events, excluding sports. Pollstar magazine found the Sprint Center outperformed arenas in Dallas, Oklahoma City, Omaha, Minneapolis, St. Paul and Denver.

"The arena has been performing quite well when it comes to concerts, and also the hotel and car rental fees are coming in higher than anticipated," City Manager Wayne Cauthen said Tuesday.

"We've been fortunate on this project. We opened it when we said it would be open, and we've got a facility everyone is proud of and is filling the bill."

The $276 million arena, which opened in October, is being financed primarily with a $4 increase in the car-rental fee and a $1.50 increase in the hotel room fee approved by city voters in August 2004 by a 57 percent majority.

At the time of the election, critics of building the arena predicted revenues would fall short and the city's bond rating would be undermined.

But revenues have generated more than $40 million since the city began collecting them in February 2005.

The car rental and hotel revenues are doing so well, in fact, that the city has been able to set aside $15 million in reserve toward eventually providing 514 premium parking spaces required in its development agreement with Anschutz Entertainment Group, which invested $53.2 million in the project and manages the arena.

The city wants to purchase and demolish the Kansas City School District headquarters building at 1211 McGee St. for that parking project.

The property is across the street from the arena's north door and is considered an ideal location for the proposed garage.

City officials are awaiting an answer from the district on their offer.

But it's the debt restructuring deal completed two weeks ago that has particularly pleased city officials.

During a period of turmoil and tightening credit in the financial markets, the city was able to refinance the variable-rate original bonds issued three years ago with new fixed-rate bonds ranging from 4 percent to 5.5 percent.

The new arena debt repayment schedule, which stretches out to 2040, projects annual fee revenues running 4 percent above the amount required for debt service, a conservative estimate according to finance officials.

"All and all, this was a really favorable outcome in a tough market," said Randy Landes, the city treasurer. "The city has been able to bank a considerable amount of excess fee revenues over and above the debt service."

The $4 car-rental fee increase approved by voters also earmarked 50 cents for the Convention and Visitors Association. That fee has generated $3.8 million for the association.
mean
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 11240
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 9:00 am
Location: Historic Northeast

Re: New Convention Hotel talk

Post by mean »

GRID wrote: I can understand where you are coming from mean, but with that kind of thinking, should we have built the Sprint Center, the Ballroom, the P&L district, the BB Experience, the WW1 Museum, Science City, NLBM, the Zoo?
The Ballroom, Sprint Center, and P&L are the most similar to what we're talking about. In the case of P&L I always thought it was a good idea, because of Cordish's history of success with this kind of development and because of the obvious untapped market downtown for such an amenity. Obviously there is an element of risk, I do fear that its popularity will wane before it is paid for, but to my mind it is an acceptable and necessary risk. The Ballroom, I don't know enough about it (how it was paid for, how often and for what it is used) to really comment so I won't. The Sprint Center, well, I voted for it. What can I say?
GRID wrote:There are studies that say stadiums do nothing and light rail does nothing.  They only drain the economy.  KC should not have them.
I haven't seen any studies that say light rail does nothing so I can't speak to that. Stadiums, sure, massive public investment in sports facilities has long been something economists have warned against, and I voted NO on those ballot questions and would do so again in a heartbeat. They are bad public investments. Which isn't to say Jackson County shouldn't have them; instead, Jackson County should have invested more intelligently and required more of the ownership.
GRID wrote:The city is putting some money into the PAC (lucky for KC it's mostly a private venture).  Should the city say no to that?
Do you really not know the difference between spending to build and maintain cultural institutions and spending to build and maintain private, for-profit developments?
GRID wrote:I just think you either want a city that is vibrant and offers a lot to locals and tourists alike or you move to a town that only does things that will show a positive return on that investment on paper.  A no risk town that doesn’t need to provide anything but a place to work and sleep.

Who does this?  Suburbs do this.

So I would start with Overland Park, KS (minus their convention hotel).  Just never leave that city though.
I don't think making smart investments and having a vibrant city are mutually exclusive. In fact, I think the opposite.
MidtownCat wrote: Talk about Deja Vu.

It's like I've heard this argument a hundred times before, except instead of "HQ Hotel" it was the Sprint Center and Power&Light District.
Thank you for adding to GRID's straw man, but we're not talking about Sprint Center or P&L, both of which I personally approved of, or Yael Abbadabbadoo, whom I personally want to see talk a long walk off a short pier.
"It is not to my good friend's heresy that I impute his honesty. On the contrary, 'tis his honesty that has brought upon him the character of heretic." -- Ben Franklin
KC-wildcat
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 3528
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 10:54 am
Location: UMKC Law

Re: New Convention Hotel talk

Post by KC-wildcat »

mean wrote:
Thank you for adding to GRID's straw man, but we're not talking about Sprint Center or P&L, both of which I personally approved of, or Yael Abbadabbadoo, whom I personally want to see talk a long walk off a short pier.
Clearly, we can all acknowledge that a convention hotel is different than an arena.  One has rooms and the other has seats.  Point taken. 

I think P&L and SC were being used as examples of succesful publicly funded projects that, in the end, are not economically damaging to the city and the taxpayer.  They both serve as direct contradictions to the regresionist, small-minded, Mark Funkhouser idealogy. 

Structurally, the projects are different.  Philisophically, the projects are identical.     
User avatar
GRID
City Hall
City Hall
Posts: 17272
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2003 12:20 pm
Contact:

Re: New Convention Hotel talk

Post by GRID »

mean wrote: Thank you for adding to GRID's straw man.
I'm not even sure what that means, but I would assume it's an insult :)

mean, just admit it.  You are just simply a very "conservative" type guy and could take or leave any of these "taxpayer funded" amenities.  This is not a slam against you or Funkhouser, but you really do have the personality of Funkhouser.  He couldn't care less if the P&L district was there or not.  He honest to god couldn't.  It doesn't make him a bad guy, but he just couldn't care less and if he had it his way, it wouldn't be there and the city may or may not be in better financial shape if it were not there.  But the city would be one more step away from being a “real city” if it were not there.

Seriously.  That's what this is all about.  Why would you really care otherwise?  Why would a convention hotel really matter that much to you?  Or any of the other examples I mentioned, which are very similar to a subsidized convention hotel BTW.

I'll admit it.  I'm extremely pro-development.  So much so that I would have a hard time saying no to anything that would involve a tower crane.  I can let it get the best of me at times.  I do want to see the skyline change, I do what to see the city grow and I do want KC to become a better city.  Every time we improve it, I'm going to want the next thing.  I honestly think KC needs this hotel.  It's not just because I want our skyline to grow, I think it's needed and can justify a certain amount of public funding to make it happen and I really do think this would truly benefit Downtown KC and the city would come out ahead in the long run.

You on the other hand have more interests in the books of city hall.  How do we justify this or that.  Not interested in anything but facts.  If you can't calculate it, it's not a real benefit.

I get that.  Do you?

I’ve been fighting this fight since 1990 when KCMO was the absolute joke of large American cities.  I seriously would not be living in KC (suburbs or city) if our urban core was still a total disaster, if the northland was still a giant belton and KC in general was still nothing but a has been as JoCo grows toward Wichita.

BTW, are you serious about the light rail thing?  Seriously?  There is so much spin out there if you want to make light rail look like a silly investment it's not even funny.  Talk about not justified on paper or risky.

Again, if you are against this hotel and it sounds to me like you would find faults with just about any plan brought forward, I really don't get how you could possibly support the Sprint Center and other public investments.
User avatar
schugg
Hotel President
Hotel President
Posts: 3279
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 3:02 am
Location: kcmo
Contact:

Re: New Convention Hotel talk

Post by schugg »

User avatar
GRID
City Hall
City Hall
Posts: 17272
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2003 12:20 pm
Contact:

Re: New Convention Hotel talk

Post by GRID »

Thanks schugg, I thought about looking it up, but just wasn't all that interested :)
trailerkid
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 11284
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2002 4:49 pm

Re: New Convention Hotel talk

Post by trailerkid »

mean wrote: The Ballroom, Sprint Center, and P&L are the most similar to what we're talking about. In the case of P&L I always thought it was a good idea, because of Cordish's history of success with this kind of development and because of the obvious untapped market downtown for such an amenity. Obviously there is an element of risk, I do fear that its popularity will wane before it is paid for, but to my mind it is an acceptable and necessary risk. The Ballroom, I don't know enough about it (how it was paid for, how often and for what it is used) to really comment so I won't. The Sprint Center, well, I voted for it. What can I say?

I haven't seen any studies that say light rail does nothing so I can't speak to that. Stadiums, sure, massive public investment in sports facilities has long been something economists have warned against, and I voted NO on those ballot questions and would do so again in a heartbeat. They are bad public investments. Which isn't to say Jackson County shouldn't have them; instead, Jackson County should have invested more intelligently and required more of the ownership.

Do you really not know the difference between spending to build and maintain cultural institutions and spending to build and maintain private, for-profit developments?

I don't think making smart investments and having a vibrant city are mutually exclusive. In fact, I think the opposite.

Thank you for adding to GRID's straw man, but we're not talking about Sprint Center or P&L, both of which I personally approved of, or Yael Abbadabbadoo, whom I personally want to see talk a long walk off a short pier.
This is just such a useless "debate" to be having. There is momentum for this to happen because our convention facilities are still a literal joke to outsiders (I know, I know-- opinions of all non-KCMoers don't ever matter). The HQ convention hotel is a small, boring project in the grand scheme of things that should've happened at least 20 years ago. The full project should actually be packaged as a hotel/convention center expansion as AKP suggested.

Worry about things that actually matter.
User avatar
ComandanteCero
One Park Place
One Park Place
Posts: 6222
Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2004 2:40 am
Location: OP

Re: New Convention Hotel talk

Post by ComandanteCero »

looks like Up To Date will be looking at the convention business (tomorrow, Thursday, morning at 11am)  should be an interesting show:

http://www.kcur.org/uptodate.html#Thursday
Steve Kraske leads a discussion on the business of the convention business in Kansas City.  With him is Rick Hughes, President of the Kansas City Convention & Visitors Association and Herb Warmbrodt of Warmbrodt Hotel Investments Inc. They look at what Kansas City currently has to attract conventions and what some think is needed to convince larger organizations to bring their members for a visit to Kansas City.  Among the proposals is a 1,000 room hotel in close proximity to the convention center.

We also hear from Professor Heywood Sanders author of an analysis on conventions as part of economic development strategies published by the Brookings Institution.  His examination of the convention business included its growth rate, the competition among cities to become convention hosts and the amount of money cities are pouring into "convention amenities" like large hotels to attract the business.  Does Kansas City need more convention business and, is bigger better?
KC Region is all part of the same animal regardless of state and county lines.
Think on the Regional scale.
mean
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 11240
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 9:00 am
Location: Historic Northeast

Re: New Convention Hotel talk

Post by mean »

KC-wildcat wrote:I think P&L and SC were being used as examples of succesful publicly funded projects that, in the end, are not economically damaging to the city and the taxpayer.  They both serve as direct contradictions to the regresionist, small-minded, Mark Funkhouser idealogy. 
And yet I approved of both those projects, so how does this illustrate that opposition to the hotel is only for people who don't support publicly funded development?
GRID wrote:I'm not even sure what that means, but I would assume it's an insult :)
No, not at all, and the definition schugg linked is incorrect. The correct definition (from Wikipedia) is this:

To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the opponent's position).
GRID wrote:mean, just admit it.  You are just simply a very "conservative" type guy and could take or leave any of these "taxpayer funded" amenities.
Funny, because I am often accused by, say, Maitre D, of being a bleeding-heart liberal. I guess I'm just confused? :P

In reality, I have largely approved of taxpayer funded amenities. The only exceptions I can think of that I have actively been opposed to are the stadium renovation and this hotel because they just don't make sense. P&L made sense, Sprint Center made sense, etc.
GRID wrote:Seriously.  That's what this is all about.  Why would you really care otherwise?  Why would a convention hotel really matter that much to you?  Or any of the other examples I mentioned, which are very similar to a subsidized convention hotel BTW.
A convention hotel only matters to me insofar as I think it is a step backwards that will not accomplish the goals it needs to accomplish to justify the investment. I think it is missteps such as this that have led to the perception that KC is a money-wasting, irresponsible municipality amongst the suburbs, destroying virtually all hope for broad-based cooperation; and I believe that squandering resources on projects like this will lead to further stagnation in the future. I don't want stagnation, I want vibrancy.
GRID wrote:I'll admit it.  I'm extremely pro-development.  So much so that I would have a hard time saying no to anything that would involve a tower crane.  I can let it get the best of me at times.  I do want to see the skyline change, I do what to see the city grow and I do want KC to become a better city.  Every time we improve it, I'm going to want the next thing.  I honestly think KC needs this hotel.  It's not just because I want our skyline to grow, I think it's needed and can justify a certain amount of public funding to make it happen and I really do think this would truly benefit Downtown KC and the city would come out ahead in the long run.
That's fine, all I have been asking is why do you think that? What evidence do you have that leads you to that conclusion? Gut feelings and sweeping declarations by convention boosters don't count. For over a decade I have thought of how awesome it would be if we could just connect the loop and Crown Center with towers. Imagine the view coming up I-35 or even coming in off I-70. What an impressive sight! That would be just awesome. But if it isn't feasible, if it isn't sustainable, then we shouldn't be pursuing it.
GRID wrote:You on the other hand have more interests in the books of city hall.  How do we justify this or that.  Not interested in anything but facts.  If you can't calculate it, it's not a real benefit.

I get that.  Do you?
Yes, absolutely. I do get it. But to me, economic realities are dictated by things like facts and justification. We don't live in a world where reality bends to our wishes and whims. We live in a world of cold, hard reality, a world of reality defined by facts, and we have to accept that if we want to improve anything, from our human selves, to our cities, to our country, to our planet. If I want to lose 20 pounds I can't just wish really hard and think about how cool it would be to lose 20 pounds, and yet ignore the unpleasant facts of the exercise and diet required to get there. Neither can you improve your city by ignoring economic facts.

And I would argue that if you can't calculate it, it obviously isn't a real benefit. If you pray to a god who answers your prayers at exactly the same rate as you could expect your prayers to be answered by random chance, then there is obviously no benefit to your prayer. This is just reality as measured by rational evaluation, dude.
GRID wrote:BTW, are you serious about the light rail thing?  Seriously?  There is so much spin out there if you want to make light rail look like a silly investment it's not even funny.  Talk about not justified on paper or risky.
What light rail thing?
GRID wrote:Again, if you are against this hotel and it sounds to me like you would find faults with just about any plan brought forward, I really don't get how you could possibly support the Sprint Center and other public investments.
So in your view, either you support all public investment or you support no public investment, regardless of the realities of each plan? That's pretty silly.
"It is not to my good friend's heresy that I impute his honesty. On the contrary, 'tis his honesty that has brought upon him the character of heretic." -- Ben Franklin
WoodDraw
Hotel President
Hotel President
Posts: 3424
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 8:53 pm

Re: New Convention Hotel talk

Post by WoodDraw »

The nature of this forum leads to a position where nearly every single project downtown is great, regardless of the finances.  If the money was in order, this project would be well on its way right now.  But, there is no agreement on whether we can or cannot justify a huge hotel right now.  I have no problem with the current approach.
KC-wildcat
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 3528
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 10:54 am
Location: UMKC Law

Re: New Convention Hotel talk

Post by KC-wildcat »

WoodDraw wrote: The nature of this forum leads to a position where nearly every single project downtown is great, regardless of the finances.  If the money was in order, this project would be well on its way right now.  But, there is no agreement on whether we can or cannot justify a huge hotel right now.  I have no problem with the current approach.
If the "current approach" were in place five years ago, Kansas City would not have the P&L District or the Sprint Center.  Case Closed. 
trailerkid
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 11284
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2002 4:49 pm

Re: New Convention Hotel talk

Post by trailerkid »

WoodDraw wrote: The nature of this forum leads to a position where nearly every single project downtown is great, regardless of the finances.  If the money was in order, this project would be well on its way right now.  But, there is no agreement on whether we can or cannot justify a huge hotel right now.  I have no problem with the current approach.
The financing needs to be worked on like in every other city that built similar hotels several years ago. Discounting every big project without first looking at the numbers and the pontetial outcome is a very ignorant approach.

The question at this point is not can the city afford it, but can the city not afford it?
mean
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 11240
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 9:00 am
Location: Historic Northeast

Re: New Convention Hotel talk

Post by mean »

KC-wildcat wrote: If the "current approach" were in place five years ago, Kansas City would not have the P&L District or the Sprint Center.  Case Closed. 
Another straw man. Case closed.
trailerkid wrote: The financing needs to be worked on like in every other city that built similar hotels several years ago. Discounting every big project without first looking at the numbers and the pontetial outcome is a very ignorant approach.
Who is discounting every big project without looking at the numbers? I'm personally discounting one singular project by looking at the numbers. I agree that discounting every big project without looking at the numbers is ignorant, I'd even say irresponsible and abhorrent. But unlike many people here, I'd say the same about approving every big project without looking at the numbers.
"It is not to my good friend's heresy that I impute his honesty. On the contrary, 'tis his honesty that has brought upon him the character of heretic." -- Ben Franklin
trailerkid
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 11284
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2002 4:49 pm

Re: New Convention Hotel talk

Post by trailerkid »

mean wrote: Another straw man. Case closed.

Who is discounting every big project without looking at the numbers? I'm personally discounting one singular project by looking at the numbers. I agree that discounting every big project without looking at the numbers is ignorant, I'd even say irresponsible and abhorrent. But unlike many people here, I'd say the same about approving every big project without looking at the numbers.
OK..let me play a round of your economic reductionist twist of reality: when was the final financing for the current incantation of the 20-year old project released by the city or the cvb?
mean
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 11240
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 9:00 am
Location: Historic Northeast

Re: New Convention Hotel talk

Post by mean »

trailerkid wrote: OK..let me play a round of your economic reductionist twist of reality: when was the final financing for the current incantation of the 20-year old project released by the city or the cvb?
As far as I know it wasn't, so I have nothing to go on except case studies from other cities.
"It is not to my good friend's heresy that I impute his honesty. On the contrary, 'tis his honesty that has brought upon him the character of heretic." -- Ben Franklin
User avatar
GRID
City Hall
City Hall
Posts: 17272
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2003 12:20 pm
Contact:

Re: New Convention Hotel talk

Post by GRID »

wow mean, looks like you are in the typing mood tonight :).

I honestly don't know what else to say, I think we just have to agree to disagree.

The bottom line is I look at KC's Downtown and I think about what it could be.  I see the potential that is still far from being reached.

I have stayed at some of the new convention hotels and know how much activity they generate.  I have worked between two large hotels in Crown Center now for 8 years and see everyday the kind of activity those 1500 hotel rooms generate.  They basically support the 400,000 sq ft Crown Center Mall all by themselves.

I watch taxi cabs come and go all day long with tourists, I see the mobs of people flowing through the link every few days with people in town for conventions (of every size).  I give people directions and show them where to eat and where the attractions are.

I think about what that kind of activity would do for downtown, for the P&L district, for light rail, for the sidewalks.

I see the potential and to me, it seems like one hell of a wasted opportunity.

KC has a top notch convention center, a top notch entertainment district and top notch venues all within walking distance of each other.  Few cities are set up the way KC is.  We have finally figured out how to create some critical mass.

But we are still lacking something.

People.

There are barely 1500 high quality hotel rooms within walking distance of the convention center.  Indy has 2-3 times as many hotels downtown and they are building a 1500 room hotel.  I would say that we need a hotel long before Indy does.

The same can be said about most towns.

KC could justify a new major hotel before just about any other city that has or is building one.  We need one much worse than San Diego, San Antonio, Baltimore, Dallas, Portland etc.

It's the same reasoning I use to justify that we need to subsidize a residential tower or two and the same reason we need to subsidize some low rise affordable apartment buildings and the same reason we can justify a new office tower even though vacancy is 20%.

We are so close, but not close enough.  I see what KC could do and I see the fact that if we stop now, all that "activity" will just end up in the Northland, Western WyCo and JoCo just like it has for the past 40 years.

May as well put it downtown and at least help justify what we have done so far and a convention hotel would go a long way in making downtown more viable.

If we don't find a way to grow our downtown, especially (in spite) of this downturn in the economy, I don't see anything but a continuation of one place closing and another opens only to close as another place try to make it.

No net gain.  At this rate, it will take 500 years for downtown to sustain the amount of retail/restaurants we all would like to see.  It’s the same 5000 people going to the same places over and over again and moving with the places that open and close.

Call it a "hunch" or whatever you want to, but I want to see downtown KC grow and become what it can become.  A new hotel is just one more thing we can do to make up for decades of blight and abandonment.

That's my opinion, so again, we will just have to respectfully disagree.
Post Reply