cowboyeagle05 wrote:I get your point but honestly what you are suggesting is they move the Convention Center all together to lets say close to the Sheraton. Buy land build something new to fill the meeting space gap etc. Maybe incentivize more ground level entertainment/restaurants in a already more walkable area. How is that any different than the consultant saying hey rebuild it where its at but just do it in a way that is more conducive to new growth around the convention center and the Cedars?
Like I totally get your point about the site being a big part of the problem but rebuilding it entirely in another area is only sidestepping the problem as well. It could be just as pricey with new land acquisition, new hotel incentives, retail development incentives plus tearing down the old one.
I think your point is really do we keep chasing conventions on a city level or not. If not tear it down and sell off the land. If Yes then rebuilding the center on land the city already owns is the cheaper option than trying to shoe horn another CC in another area with existing hotels. Considering we already have a Omni Hotel and a high speed rail station coming nearby it makes some sense to tear down the CC as it is and rebuild to what we need now, not what conventions used to be and sell off the excess land to more surrounding development opportunities.
The cheapest option will always be to shut down the CC or make gambling legal and sell the thing to a casino.
No, I am not suggesting they move the convention center all together to somewhere else. Not even close. I am suggesting that whatever they do, they at least honestly attempt to address the stated issues, rather than exacerbate those issues. I guess we are expected to accept at face value that a new convention center will "spark more development downtown and bring in billions in spending and new property taxes from the area..." Does anyone actually believe that? Weren't we pretty much told the same thing to justify the Omni Hotel (not to mention that the Omni would solve all of the convention center's issues and make it once-again competitive...).
Note the additional dishonesty used to justify this nonsense. "Per the report, the city staff also mentioned the . . . convention center, constructed in 1957, lacks the modern updates that could give the city access to lucrative events". "Constructed in 1957"?!?!?!? One very small end of it was built in 1957! The Center was actually built in 1957, 1973, 1984, 1994 and 2002. Of all those dates, 1957 is probably the least relevant (and most dishonest).
If we are going to spend any more money on this, I think a phased remodel and, if necessary, addition to the current facility would be the way to go.
If they go with their current plan (and given the Dallas City Council's history, it's hard to see them NOT going this route), it's only a matter of time before you'll hear pleas for another tax-subsidized hotel and/or restaurant/retail complex in order for the new convention center to be fully marketable ... not enough walkable hotel rooms, neighborhood amenities, yadda yadda yadda. We all know the drill.