Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Maybe I am reading more into this than I should, but with UAB possibly being involved, I wonder would that mean they would want to put it down on the Southside? That would defeat the purpose of the exibition space that Hallman's been crying about for all these years. Personally I would love to have it down there near Regions Field. I just feel more comfortable in that area, but thats just me. I know it does make more sense to put it at the BJCC. I guess I should go to Uptown and see what it's like before i pass judgement.
Sorry didnt read the comment under the link till after I posted.
After twenty years so many people don't realize this was never about a football stadium.
It has always been about expansion at the BJCC. Since we don't have a truly functional Stadium, it was suggested at some point that if it was built with the ability to serve multi purposes that in the long haul the city/metro would save money by not building two facilities.
And for the sport skeptics, it is not depending on NFL or any other league for financial purposes. It seems from all that I read anywhere about it that most people that whine or complain have not read any one whole article about this. Because it seems incredible that they could keep nurturing these ideas that were never mentioned as part of this project.
Only Larry Langford wanted to move it elsewhere, but I suspect that was a ploy to get some support for the BJCC because people were afraid he indeed was going to stick it out in Trussville.
I don't care if its about sports or not. My point is: if its economically viable, then the city should be able to put very little public money in the game and be able to cobble together private investors. If we have to use a ton of public money, then to me that says that those with the capital don't think its worth investment. A convention center is pretty far down the list of things I want public money to be plunked into. I think the article may be valid, in that there are a lot of convention centers that have been built recently, and in more mature markets than Bham. It doesn't matter if we are "turning away events". The point is are we turning enough away that would make the "dome" an economically viable option. I realize cpg and others think that it is very clear that it would not only provide the benefit of general economic support for the region, be even be financially self-sustaining in a very reasonable amount of time. I'm more skeptical of these kinds of rosy claims. We are coming late to the game, is the market not already saturated? Again, if its such a no-brainer, then it should be easy to line up almost fully private capital for it. If people who understand the market are not interested in plunking down their own investments, why would I think politicians would be any wiser?
I still have the view that it seems to be mostly a vanity project. a very very expensive one.
I think the article may be valid, in that there are a lot of convention centers that have been built recently, and in more mature markets than Bham. It doesn't matter if we are "turning away events".
One of the examples in that article is about a gleaming Taj Mahal of a facility that has ANOTHER ONE THAT IS EVEN LARGER within a short drive away from it that competes for LARGELY THE SAME MARKET AND SAME EVENTS.
That situation does not exist here. Unless you believe it is okay for events to skip Birmingham and Alabama all together and go to other cities over a hundred miles away and out of state.
The other example focuses on Chicago's convention center which is, wait for it, THE LARGEST ONE IN THE COUNTRY. I think we will be okay if we just don't build one bigger then theirs.
Quote:
Again, if its such a no-brainer, then it should be easy to line up almost fully private capital for it.
I still have the view that it seems to be mostly a vanity project. a very very expensive one.
It is always going to be partly a vanity project. Birmingham started its whole revival with a vanity project, really two: RR park and Regions Field. Now the private investors are coming in with all the residential developments. Bell is right, we have to prove we can do the small things first. No one is going to plop down a multi use facility for free in the middle of our city when we ourselves have done nothing to build up the surrounding area.
That situation does not exist here. Unless you believe it is okay for events to skip Birmingham and Alabama all together and go to other cities over a hundred miles away and out of state.
I don't see why that wouldn't happen. When considering an event, even a smaller regional one, wouldn't one look at multiple locations within a 100 or so miles? Why wouldn't convention space in places like Nashville and New Orleans be considered. I don't know the individual situations of each city. I'm just saying that it seems to me that many cities, including in this region, have ample space and are as attractive as here. It seems to be more and more cities putting public money up to chase a market that is not rising as quickly in parallel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tourian
It is always going to be partly a vanity project.
Well, then it is not really mainly about economic viability. Its about opinion. I don't think the city putting up 100's of millions of dollars is worth this. 100's of thousands for lights under the tunnel... I can look past that since its a medium sized budget item for something new and shiny. But a huge vanity item as the budget center-piece, putting the whole city's finances on the line for something that is very questionable about improving the lives of the city's residents... that's not convincing for me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tourian
Birmingham started its whole revival with a vanity project, really two: RR park and Regions Field. Now the private investors are coming in with all the residential developments. Bell is right, we have to prove we can do the small things first. No one is going to plop down a multi use facility for free in the middle of our city when we ourselves have done nothing to build up the surrounding area.
I'm not sure the city has shown that it can easily do big projects in a budget-conscious manner. This city has lately been showing itself to perhaps not be in such a financially rosy picture as though. there are fights over basic budget items, employee salaries and such. They are cutting transportation and other items that I consider more important. If a fraction of the money for a dome went to more basic city functions and organizations devoted to the welfare of people in the city, lives could be measurably improved.
RR Park can at least be used by everyone that can at least make it there. Also, the finances to RR park are not even certain and bullet-proof.
I'm glad Regions Field has the fan support it does. Now that its already been built, I genuinely want it to succeed. However, I would rather have not had the city put the money up to build it. I think downtown would still be doing well without it.
The multi-use facility is not to be put there for free. Supposedly money is collected from it. My point is that if it is a reasonable investment, then investors would invest. If they don't, that's an indicator that its risky to expect any reasonable return on investment on it.
I don't see why that wouldn't happen. When considering an event, even a smaller regional one, wouldn't one look at multiple locations within a 100 or so miles? Why wouldn't convention space in places like Nashville and New Orleans be considered. I don't know the individual situations of each city. I'm just saying that it seems to me that many cities, including in this region, have ample space and are as attractive as here. It seems to be more and more cities putting public money up to chase a market that is not rising as quickly in parallel.
I do not understand what you are trying to say here. If, let's say a gun show (Heather will see you there), or Baptist convention wants to visit four locations in the south and picks Memphis, Nashville, Atlanta and New Orleans and then says they wanted to come to Alabama but found the facilities to be lacking so they begrudgingly chose a second Tennessee location, then we as a state, a region and a city have missed out on that revenue. That is the reason why one of the examples in the article you posted is silly. If Hoover already had a major multi use center in place that was getting events comparable to what goes on in Memphis, Louisville, OKC, Nashville then I would say it would be silly to build another one downtown. But they don't.
Quote:
Well, then it is not really mainly about economic viability. Its about opinion. I don't think the city putting up 100's of millions of dollars is worth this. 100's of thousands for lights under the tunnel... I can look past that since its a medium sized budget item for something new and shiny. But a huge vanity item as the budget center-piece, putting the whole city's finances on the line for something that is very questionable about improving the lives of the city's residents... that's not convincing for me.
It is a fact that we are losing revenue due to the BJCC being too small and too old and there not being enough hotel rooms downtown to support it. It is an opinion that the new facility needs to be really nice and something that we can all be proud of. There will ALWAYS be an opinion involved when building something. It can't be eliminated by bean counters. We are talking about a facility, that when done right is described by people as "pretty" or "inviting" or "opulent" depending on who is doing it. If we were talking about building a warehouse or a parking deck, then there's less little fluff to be concerned about. You would not want them to do this as cheaply as possible and then have people say it is ugly, or boring or A WASTE OF MONEY. You have to hire designers, people with talent and artistic capability - and they don't work for free.
Quote:
I'm not sure the city has shown that it can easily do big projects in a budget-conscious manner. This city has lately been showing itself to perhaps not be in such a financially rosy picture as though. there are fights over basic budget items, employee salaries and such. They are cutting transportation and other items that I consider more important. If a fraction of the money for a dome went to more basic city functions and organizations devoted to the welfare of people in the city, lives could be measurably improved.
K.
The city voted in a tax to pay for this facility and the money was there at one point, but they used it for some other things.
Quote:
RR Park can at least be used by everyone that can at least make it there. Also, the finances to RR park are not even certain and bullet-proof.
There's nothing that is certain or bullet-proof. I am not worried about RR park.
Quote:
I'm glad Regions Field has the fan support it does. Now that its already been built, I genuinely want it to succeed. However, I would rather have not had the city put the money up to build it. I think downtown would still be doing well without it.
I disagree. I think the glut of $30M+ apartment complexes and other development would not have come about without it.
Quote:
The multi-use facility is not to be put there for free. Supposedly money is collected from it. My point is that if it is a reasonable investment, then investors would invest. If they don't, that's an indicator that its risky to expect any reasonable return on investment on it.
Again, Birmingham collected the money, now they just want a strategic partner. Looks like that will be UAB. The time is now. It seems to me there will never be favorable enough conditions to convince you.
Again, Birmingham collected the money, now they just want a strategic partner. Looks like that will be UAB. The time is now. It seems to me there will never be favorable enough conditions to convince you.
Oh heavens, as a UAB employee that makes me look upon this even less favorably. The finances in many UAB departments have a very rocky road ahead. With the decreases in federal and state funding... times are getting really rough. Colleges are another bubble (look at the debt associated with education...). The last thing I want is both the city and UAB plowing their finances into this.
It obviously just comes down to opinion and outlook. You either think that this facility is worth plowing all this money into or not. I think there are a ton of other worthy issues ahead of this.
Also, we can attract things like gun shows, and still be nowhere near making up the cost of the facility. Its about whether we attract enough money from enough events to make up for the investment. I have not seen any hard evidence we would, and looking at other cities recent experiences make me doubt this. I also have yet to see evidence that building these venues even improves neighborhoods in a meaningful way. The evidence I've seen is that it doesn't.
City pride is better derived from improving people's lives than fancy buildings.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
