Convention Center

[city]

I thought I had heard there was a need to keep the underground parking for transit needs at the Santa Fe station and downtown parking in general. Can they scrape the top and re use?

[Rover]

I thought I had heard there was a need to keep the underground parking for transit needs at the Santa Fe station and downtown parking in general. Can they scrape the top and re use?

Re-use for a convention center hotel? I don't think it is happening. Won't be "scraped" prior to completion of new CC and the new hotel will most likely be built by then.

[Just the facts]

I don't think the pilings in the parking garage can support any more weight than what is already on them, plus, they wouldn't let you park down there while they were building above it. The best plan is to redevelope the whole site once the new convention center is done. If that includes making a new underground parking garage then that is fine.

[Rover]

Maybe the second convention center hotel can go there.

[Teo9969]

Maybe the second convention center hotel can go there.

Isn't the definition of a convention center hotel that it is attached to a convention center...otherwise it's just another hotel?

[Just the facts]

Isn't the definition of a convention center hotel that it is attached to a convention center...otherwise it's just another hotel?

Not really. they just have to be designated by the CVB as being the convention center hotel. And not to go Bill Clinton on anyone, but define 'connected'. The Renassiance Hotel is the current convention hotel and it is only connected by an elevated walkway. Here in JAX our official convention hotel is the Omni and it is 1/2 mile from the convention center, and is loosley connected by the skyway.

[Teo9969]

Not really. they just have to be designated by the CVB as being the convention center hotel. And not to go Bill Clinton on anyone, but define 'connected'. The Renassiance Hotel is the current convention hotel and it is only connected by an elevated walkway. Here in JAX our official convention hotel is the Omni and it is 1/2 mile from the convention center, and is loosley connected by the skyway.

1/2 mile?! That's ridiculous!

I mean, to be sure, I said attached rather than connected, which are definitely different. The Renassiance *is* attached, even if by just the skyway. The wider definition of attached I was going for was that there would be no unrelated developments dividing the two buildings...which I assume is not the case in Jacksonville.

However, I think you could easily say that any hotel is connected in non-physical via the contracts that happen for various conventions. I assume to be a convention center hotel that incoming conventions are required to reserve x rooms per night of the convention at that particular hotel. So I see what you're saying.

[OKCisOK4me]

I love all the talk on this thread about the new hotel. The focus is amazing.

Lost in Transition...

[OKCisOK4me]

Isn't the definition of a convention center hotel that it is attached to a convention center...otherwise it's just another hotel?

Case in point, again...The Omni in Fort Worth is their convention center hotel. It is across the street & no sky bridges...

[okcfollower]

I don't think the pilings in the parking garage can support any more weight than what is already on them, plus, they wouldn't let you park down there while they were building above it. The best plan is to redevelope the whole site once the new convention center is done. If that includes making a new underground parking garage then that is fine.

If they are getting rid of the Cox parking garage in the near future...several companies such as Continental will have to find a new place for their employees to park. It would have to be planned in advance big time to allow companies to make alternative arrangements

[Just the facts]

Nothing is happening in the near future. They still have to build the new convention center first.

[Spartan]

Possibly even pick a better site for it.

[Spartan]

Maybe the second convention center hotel can go there.

There will only be one facility, the only way of getting two hotels is for two brands from same family of hotels. There are very complicated negotiations for CC hotels...

[Pete]

The final convention center site report has been accepted and there is a resolution that will go before the planning commission on 9/13 authorizing the city to negotiate acquisition of the car dealership site, known as the Core to Shore North site.

I will clip and post the more important parts of that final report later.

[OKCisOK4me]

Well, there goes the uninterrupted view from the Pedestrian Bridge of the MBG.

[Pete]

Here are the most important parts of the report, as 3 finalist had been chosen (see full report here):

[Just the facts]

What a load of crock. According to this the most expensive site cost 19x as much to build on.

[CaptDave]

I still think the optimum location is to push the C2S South location one block east where the truck docks would be along Shields and face only the BNSF viaduct. The issues are the same with the OG&E substation and light industry relocation - BUT - it is only slightly farther from existing hotels then the Ford site AND the CC hotel could be built at the corner of the Boulevard as depicted in the conceptual drawing. This would reserve the majority of the eastern boundary of the Central Park for retail/restaurants, and possibly even a little residential development.

[Oil Capital]

What a load of crock. According to this the most expensive site cost 19x as much to build on.

No. That is not what this says.

The chart to which you are referring discusses site-derived cost premiums, not the total cost. This shows what the particulars of each site add to what construction costs would be at a mythical "ideal" site that causes no additional costs. For example, the south site adds a lot of costs because of having to move the substation. The north site (with basement) adds costs because they have to go below grade. The north site (above grade) adds costs presumably because of having to bridge the street.

[Oil Capital]

i still think the optimum location is to push the c2s south location one block east where the truck docks would be along shields and face only the bnsf viaduct. The issues are the same with the og&e substation and light industry relocation - but - it is only slightly farther from existing hotels then the ford site and the cc hotel could be built at the corner of the boulevard as depicted in the conceptual drawing. This would reserve the majority of the eastern boundary of the central park for retail/restaurants, and possibly even a little residential development.

nm

[Pete]

The problem with their criteria and weighting system is they are only considering the best site for the Convention Center, not what would be best overall for the city and downtown in particular.

So of course they are going to land on the best piece of development property downtown, but by doing so create all other types of issues that we've already discussed ad nauseum.

Also, by moving this project way up in terms of implementation timeline, the South site is greatly disadvantaged because as of now, there is no development in that area which counts against it.

And finally, I think they have greatly underestimated the site acquisition premium for the North site.


However, I've long been resigned to the way this is going to play out: On the North site and way, way over budget.

[CaptDave]

nm

?? Do you have another idea Oil Capital? This convention center discussion gets pretty contentious sometimes and I wasn't trying to go that direction.

[Oil Capital]

No. Not at all. That just was intended to mean "never mind", as in , I started typing something and then realized I had opened the wrong window and had nothing to say... ;-)


but since you asked. I have always thought the south parkside location was the best possible. There should be enough room there to allow for some mixed-use in front of it fronting the park, which was actually the original concept.

[Oil Capital]

The problem with their criteria and weighting system is they are only considering the best site for the Convention Center, not what would be best overall for the city and downtown in particular.

So of course they are going to land on the best piece of development property downtown, but by doing so create all other types of issues that we've already discussed ad nauseum.

Also, by moving this project way up in terms of implementation timeline, the South site is greatly disadvantaged because as of now, there is no development in that area which counts against it.

Good points.

[CaptDave]

No. Not at all. That just was intended to mean "never mind", as in , I started typing something and then realized I had opened the wrong window and had nothing to say... ;-)


but since you asked. I have always thought the south parkside location was the best possible. There should be enough room there to allow for some mixed-use in front of it fronting the park, which was actually the original concept.

Ok - got it. We share a nearly identical preference for the CC. I wonder how it is going to work out once it is done. I would like to hear the reasons the CC Subcommittee selected the Ford site - the real ones and not necessarily ones that have been publicly released. (Not thinking conspiracy stuff, but only hope for a more open process than it seems to have been.)