Convention Center Expansion

[drummer]

What year was that building built? The wikipedia article doesn't mention that.


On this website it mentions a "Period of Significance" from 1925-1949, but not a specific date of construction.


Edit: And if it were to cease operation as a fire station, only keeping the museum in operation, at least the land around it could be better utilized as a park, right? I mean to say that it shouldn't require the surface lot for fire fighters but rather just have a few spots for museum workers. Folks who may visit the museum could find parking elsewhere (for instance, the massive CC parking garage).

[lzppjb]

Originally Posted by drummer

what year was that building built? The wikipedia article doesn't mention that.


On this website it mentions a "period of significance" from 1925-1949, but not a specific date of construction.


Edit: And if it were to cease operation as a fire station, only keeping the museum in operation, at least the land around it could be better utilized as a park, right? I mean to say that it shouldn't require the surface lot for fire fighters but rather just have a few spots for museum workers. Folks who may visit the museum could find parking elsewhere (for instance, the massive cc parking garage).

1938

[drummer]

On my phone so linking the article is a bit of a pain, but I read on KXAN about the CC Expansion meeting if anyone wants to take a look.

[lzppjb]

Originally Posted by drummer

On my phone so linking the article is a bit of a pain, but I read on KXAN about the CC Expansion meeting if anyone wants to take a look.

http://kxan.com/2017/02/24/plans-to-...before-public/

The proposed expansion is estimated to cost between $400 to $600 million. Five different scenarios have been proposed.

Do nothing
Move
Expand west over Trinity Street, redeveloping a block that has houses and several restaurants
Keep Trinity Street open and use sky bridge to get to the new expansion
Expand south across Cesar Chavez and use a sky bridge to connect the existing building to the expansion

In addition to the Convention Center the city is considering a partnership with Travis County to take over the former Palm School located along Cesar Chavez to utilize it for public space. The county is currently moving its employees out of the building to a different facility and has identified it as a property they might sell. The school has a historical designation so it would be required to stay intact. The school is adjacent to Palm Park, an area slated for redevelopment as part of the Waller Creek revitalization.

[austlar1]

I am pretty sure the fix is already in to expand west across Trinity, and they already know how they want to pay for it. This show and tell session is just window dressing.

[drummer]

^ I had the same thought when I read it.

[We vs us]

They've been telegraphing their preference for the Trinity option for awhile now, and the funding mechanism as well. They still need support of the voters, though, so public town halls and meetings make sense.

[The ATX]

Community Impact has a post-town hall meeting article:

https://communityimpact.com/austin/c...nter-district/

[austlar1]

Originally Posted by We vs us

They've been telegraphing their preference for the Trinity option for awhile now, and the funding mechanism as well. They still need support of the voters, though, so public town halls and meetings make sense.

I thought they just need city council approval, if they opt for funding that wouls increase taxpayer obligated bonded debt. If the bonds are backed by hotel occupancy tax or rental car tax only, I don't think it has to be approved by voters unless there is an increase in the tax rate. Right now that tax throws off a lot of extra cash, but an increase may be needed to pay for a $600 million expansion. Maybe somebody can provide a more certain answer to that.

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by austlar1

I thought they just need city council approval, if they opt for funding that won't increase taxpayer obligated bonded debt. If the bonds are backed by hotel occupancy tax or rental car tax only, I don't think it has to be approved by voters. Maybe somebody can provide a more certain answer to that.

You are correct as far as I know. They are going this route because I suspect they know that voters would turn down a bond referendum.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by austlar1

If the bonds are backed by hotel occupancy tax or rental car tax only, I don't think it has to be approved by voters unless there is an increase in the tax rate.

My understanding is that increasing the tax rate is actually the option that doesn't require voter approval.

https://communityimpact.com/austin/c...sed-expansion/

"The second option involves raising the HOT tax rate by up to 2 percent—the maximum allowed by the state—to generate an estimated $609 million toward the expansion and other tourism-related projects—such as historic preservation and Austin’s cultural arts. If City Council chooses this funding option, council members would decide how much to raise the tax rate."

[We vs us]

Turns out Community Impact has a good backgrounder on some of the funding issue. Isn't entirely clear on what the council can unilateral spend vs what it needs voter approval for, but covers most everything else.

https://communityimpact.com/austin/c...ter-town-hall/

[drummer]

So I was in Bangkok again recently. I am always amazed at the success of convention centers in these SE Asian cities (another one that comes to mind is Kuala Lumpur) that have major convention centers in urban malls, usually on the top floors. These are areas that are frequented by tens of thousands of people, well connected to several modes of transportation and street-level pedestrian activity. The conventions have a limitless supply of hotels, restaurants, etc., nearby, as well as plazas with water features, trees, etc., for breaks...

I realize that Austin's culture, density, and economic situation may differ from these two cities in particular, but I think they would do well to learn from them. These places that are packed to the brim with people and everything needed to serve them and have learned how to be creative in getting the most efficient and profitable uses out of their land. I think of this especially as Austin hopes to expand the Downtown Station and, eventually, have it serve as a multi-modal station if streetcars ever come into fruition.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by drummer

So I was in Bangkok again recently. I am always amazed at the success of convention centers in these SE Asian cities (another one that comes to mind is Kuala Lumpur) that have major convention centers in urban malls, usually on the top floors. These are areas that are frequented by tens of thousands of people, well connected to several modes of transportation and street-level pedestrian activity. The conventions have a limitless supply of hotels, restaurants, etc., nearby, as well as plazas with water features, trees, etc., for breaks...

I realize that Austin's culture, density, and economic situation may differ from these two cities in particular, but I think they would do well to learn from them. These places that are packed to the brim with people and everything needed to serve them and have learned how to be creative in getting the most efficient and profitable uses out of their land. I think of this especially as Austin hopes to expand the Downtown Station and, eventually, have it serve as a multi-modal station if streetcars ever come into fruition.

What would be nice and more akin to what is done in Asia, is have the MetroRail train station inside the Convention Center instead of being outside. Like Disney World's momorials entering hotel lobbies. Of course that would be difficult because Metrorail trains are diesel powered and including these trains within the convention center will probably smoke everyone out. But there's no reason why the station couldn't be connected directly to the convention center. As a balcony with the platforms inside but the trains outside a glass wall, similar to what happens in downtown Toronto with its UP trains.

[brando]

https://www.austinmonitor.com/storie...mpaign=AM_Head

A new coalition of Austin business, political and civic leaders is putting its support behind the proposed expansion of the Austin Convention Center and will be taking the message to local groups in the coming months.

Known as A New Vision for Austin’s Convention Center, the coalition is operating with some assistance from the Austin Convention & Visitors Bureau public relations and marketing resources.

Its members include former Austin Mayor Lee Cooke and several prominent business owners in the engineering, architecture, real estate and entertainment fields, all of whom view the proposed expansion as a potential job engine and chance to revamp a large portion of downtown Austin.

Members tout estimates that in 2015 conventions and tourism brought 24.1 million visitors to Austin, contributing $7 billion in economic impact and helping support the area’s 124,000 jobs in the leisure and hospitality workforce. They say the convention center is already so booked that it has to turn down nearly half the requests for business it receives because it doesn’t have enough space.

Cooke said the current predicament is similar to the one the city faced in the 1980s when it became apparent that Palmer Auditorium (now the Palmer Events Center) was too small to keep Austin competitive for conventions and other large activities. The current convention center was completed in 1992 and then expanded to 881,000 square feet of space in 2002.

“Back in ’89 everyone said this is going to be a white elephant that will just sit there,” Cooke said. “Tourism and conventions was a very small industry here in my first year as mayor and was a pretty inconsequential part of our economy. Back then we had 9,000 hotel rooms in the city, and there are 37,000 hotel rooms in Austin now.”

There are currently five scenarios under consideration for the convention center’s expansion. The top price tag is $609 million; that proposal would add 447,450 square feet of exhibition space, 120,800 square feet of meeting space and 120,600 of ballroom space.

The most likely method for funding the expansion would come from a 2 percentage point increase to the city’s Hotel Occupancy Tax, which can be approved and enacted by a City Council resolution.

A vote by referendum would be necessary only if city leaders opted to pursue one of the less expansive expansion options – totaling $397 million – which would see the city refinance and add to the existing debt on the 2002 expansion.

While the New Vision group has already lined up appearances with local civic groups to discuss the advantages of the expansion, opponents have been vocal as well. Debates about the need for a larger convention center and the center’s actual impact on local hotel business has been a frequent component of meetings for the city’s Visitor Impact Task Force, which is tasked with recommending the best way to allocate the roughly $100 million generated by the current Hotel Occupancy Tax.

Cooke said the convention business the center is missing out on and the demand for events in Austin means it is time for the city to make a decision.

“We’ve got to decide if we stay in the (tourism) business or get out and let it drift away from us,” Cooke said. “This is a big decision for Council. I saw (bond proposal votes) go down three times, and now the convention center is a vital part of our economy.”

Tom Noonan, president and CEO of the Austin Convention and Visitors Bureau, said the New Vision group will take up the community outreach portion of the expansion effort so his staff can focus on running the convention center and building its business.

The recommendations from the Visitor Impact Task Force will include suggestions on the future of convention center, with those weighing in on Council’s budget process through the summer. That makes late summer or fall the likely time frame for a decision to be made.

Noonan and Cooke said it’s too early to know if the New Vision group will turn into a more formal lobbying group with an advertising arm in the event that a public referendum on the expansion issue takes place.

“This is a group of business, community and political leaders who feel (the expansion) will be great and have an even bigger impact than the previous two,” Noonan said. “At the end of the day, it’s the mayor and Council who have the opportunity to grow this industry and the number of jobs coming online.”

This story has been corrected. Originally we reported that the public relations and marketing resources were coming from the convention center, when they are in fact from the Austin Convention & Visitors Bureau

Photo by Fredlyfish4 (Own work) [CC BY-SA 4.0], via Wikimedia Commons.

The Austin Monitor’s work is made possible by donations from the community. Though our reporting covers donors from time to time, we are careful to keep business and editorial efforts separate while maintaining transparency. A comple

[KevinFromTexas]

http://kxan.com/investigative-story/...book_KXAN_News

Critics question cost of expanding Austin Convention Center

AUSTIN (KXAN) -- The Austin Convention Center. A hub meant to harness visitor spending and boost the local economy. But industry leaders say they're actually missing out on a lot of money because the center is too small. The Austin Convention and Visitors Bureau say last year alone, 130 groups decided to not hold their events in Austin because of a lack of room or availability at the center. It meant the city lost out on a $481 million economic impact.

[We vs us]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

http://kxan.com/investigative-story/...book_KXAN_News

Sigh.

That dude from San Antonio is such a pain in the ass.

1) using a single study from 1997 as the primary benchmark to measure how Austin's convention market has evolved is ludicrous.

2) Would love to see Sanders (the PITA dude from San Antonio) comment on other metrics in the article -- like Austin's CC size vs. competitor CC sizes. Or growth in ADR at DT convention properties. Or whether the type of conventions that we draw have grown in value, rather than attendee number. It's easy to argue against him -- that the attendee number hasn't much budged because it's at max capacity.

Blah blah. It's hard to know the right blend of stats to adequately summarize my daily experience turning meeting planners away due to lack of ACC availability or lack of space for exhibits, breakouts, etc. It's a real thing, without a doubt.

[We vs us]

Here's a datapoint:

We just found out today that the city just lost a bid for a convention that would've brought approximately 12,500 room nights (all doctors) to town in July of 2023. We were bidding against Chicago, Houston, and Minneapolis. We lost to Houston because they have plenty of easy, unencumbered space at the CC; our bid was complicated because in order to fit in the city, they would've have had to use every inch of ACC as well as all the meeting space at both Fairmont and Hilton. According to the meeting planner, Austin was the sentimental favorite, but was at the bottom of the list from a practicality standpoint.

The planner also emphasized -- several times, actually -- that it would've been an easy decision for Austin if the ACC expansion had been greenlit.

It's worth noting this because there are many meetings that are essentially waiting for an expansion to book Austin. Of course, that and $7.65 will get you a Unicorn Frappucino, but I always feel like people will get more energized about something like this if they see the business slip away in real time. Which it continues to do.

[KevinFromTexas]

That sucks, especially when you think of the new medical center that UT is planning just a few blocks to the north. That would have been a great opportunity to advertise it.

[We vs us]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

That sucks, especially when you think of the new medical center that UT is planning just a few blocks to the north. That would have been a great opportunity to advertise it.

You're right about the Dell Med School, Innovation District, etc. This is actually a core business strategy of our hospitality community.

Broadly speaking -- and aside from a lot of the marquee tech events you know of -- Austin has had great success as a host to state groups from around Texas -- mostly Texas associations. These all come with certain budgetary restrictions -- cheaper guestroom rates, lowish spends on food and beverage, the expectation that certain costs might be waived or reduced to allow the event to happen. This is true of all states and all state associations, btw, not a TX phenomenon. State Associations are just cheaper business, though usually very reliable and usually more than enough to keep a destination going.

Austin -- just like in so many other ways -- has been going through a hospitality metamorphosis, and has been slowly outgrowing this state association market. Our reputation is now national, and we're competing on a level that no one here could've expected even five years ago.

(One of my national reps recently told me -- when I asked her why I should even bother to bid on a group that traditionally sourced luxury resorts on either coast -- that Austin is living in its own space right now, and that certain groups view Austin not as just a mid sized city in a popular state, but as a special experiential destination -- similar to, but distinct from, other types of luxury places that these groups want to go.)

So what we're seeing is a slow pullback on the hotel level from groups that we used to rely on as bread and butter (aforementioned state associations, and similarly priced groups etc) and new outreach to groups and conventions that might be able to pay the rates we're demanding/getting. That brings us to Health and Medical business. Especially if Dell Med, Brackenridge, and the Innovation Zone live up to their collective promise, the potential to in turn transform our convention (and hotel-only group) business is really huge.