Is this downtown hotel idea good or bad? (Lee's Summit, Center: hotels, tenant)

[brewcrew1000]

"Multiple" developer responses received by city for proposed convention hotel | Dollars & Sense

I kind of like the comments below, i didn't realize KC use to be a convention hub when Wheeler was a large airport, i guess it was due to it's central location.

This is something we would have to compete with in the convention market, it looks like the city of dallas did the same thing.

Dallas Hotels | Luxury Dallas Hotel - Omni Dallas Hotel

[kcmo]

It's a very good idea and long overdue. It's not just Dallas, but almost every major city has at least put a lot of effort into getting one built, if not subsidizing the hotel. Yet KC needs and has needed a hotel much worse than just about every city that has built one.

Here is why KC needs a hotel IMO.

KC has one of the best convention packages a city could offer in a central location and is a relatively in-expensive market.

KC has invested hundreds of millions into a convection center and entertainment district that is all geared to serve conventioneers (along with tourists, residents etc, but conventions are a huge part of the puzzle.)

Bartle Hall is a nice convention center with ample space and it's updated, modern and in a good location. The new ballroom is amazing and one of the nicest and largest in the country. There are two arenas with walking distance, the Municipal and the Sprint Center that could be used as part of a convention or as entertainment options after the convention. There is now an entertainment and dining district within walking distance. The new performing arts center is nearing completion.

So what is missing to bring all this together and offer a complete package?

Hotel rooms. Specifically modern hotel rooms and modern hotel rooms within walking distance of Bartle Hall.

With 30,000 hotel rooms, the metro has plenty of rooms. But downtown has a fraction of the rooms that peer cities have because most center city hotels are in Crown Center and the Plaza (another reason a central city light rail is also needed in KC).

So while San Antonio or St Louis or Denver have 5000 hotel rooms within walking distance of their convention centers, they still see the need to build a convention hotel while KC has like 1400 rooms near its convention center and can't figure out why they can't land conventions with everything else they have done downtown.

Even the owner of the two largest hotels in the downtown area (Hyatt and Westin), are pushing for a new hotel because they know that a convention hotel will help them by bring more people to KC that will no doubt overflow to Crown Center hotels, the mall etc.

A 1000 room hotel will add a huge amount of general activity to the downtown loop. Even without a convention, it would help keep restaurants busy in the P&L District etc. and add to the overall VIBRANCY, yes vibrancy of downtown.

The location is a perfect project that will restore one of KC's top landmarks (the P&L Tower), while adding parking for the arts center and bartle plus a new hotel tower. A large full service hotel has not opened in central KC in decades. KC's existing large hotels are dated and not tied to the convention center.

So yea, I think the city should most definitely build a hotel. A 300 million dollar hotel will need some city subsidy, but it's not like the city is going to pay the entire cost. Probably more like 20-50 million or so via tifs, tourism taxes etc. Remember, the hotel will also have a huge convention center component (ball rooms etc), will rebuild a couple of downtown blocks and infrastruture and restore an iconic tower. It will be basically an expansion of Brattle Hall with 1000 new hotel rooms.

You don't spend 5 billion to renovate a downtown like KCMO did and not do a relatively minor thing (subsidize a hotel) to make sure that investment was worthwhile. A convention hotel is one of the last pieces of the downtown revitalization puzzle along with better fixed transit to connect Downtown to the Plaza.

Sadly, I don't see it happening till funkhouser gets out of office.

Here is a prelim rendering:

[aragx6]

Honestly with its (relatively) far out airport (with no public transit service) and tough winter weather I have a hard time seeing KC as much of a convention hub going forward.

But more importantly I hate to see the city and its residents have to carry the load for another huge downtown development. We're already going to be paying on the bonds from P&L for years.

The sidewalks on my street are stamped with the year 1977. Every time it rains our sewers overflow into our waterways.

To draw permanent residents to the area the city needs to be more livable for the people living there. These big sparkly projects, while great for marketing of the city, have never really seemed to hold up their end of the economic bargain.

[aragx6]

There's no way downtown is still considered blighted is there? How do they plan to use TIF money? If they're really asking for only 25 million, I'd probably agree with kcmo and give it to them, but if I know anything about corporate welfare, they'll be expecting the city to carry much more of the burden than that.

[kcmo]

Originally Posted by aragx6

There's no way downtown is still considered blighted is there? How do they plan to use TIF money? If they're really asking for only 25 million, I'd probably agree with kcmo and give it to them, but if I know anything about corporate welfare, they'll be expecting the city to carry much more of the burden than that.

You gotta figure your return on investment. You are adding something that will at minimum be an economic wash and the end result is a more desirable city to live and visit which "should" ultimately lead to more money to replace your street. At least more than they had before.

So yo do nothing and what do you get? Look at towns that are constantly taking chances and making investment like this. (Denver, Indianapolis etc). I think ultimately it pays off.

Regardless, KCMO has already started. The city has invested billions into downtown and this is one project that will help justify and sustain that much larger investment which all together will create a city that more people want to live in and visit.

Even the P&L district's debt is so overblown. 90% of the subsidy the city pays for that went to public infrastructure improvements that needed to be done anyway, not the buildings in the district. The parking garages, the new streets, new signals, new underground utilities and storm drains, demolition of the blightend buildings that were there before etc.

If the P&L district was not built, the city would have still had to build parking garages for the Sprint Center and there would be no revenue at all from the retail and restaurants coming in. The city would still be paying 15 million a year to clean the area up and add parking, but there would be no entertainment district. Just parking garages.

It was a solid investment that completely rebuilt several blocks of the heart of downtown and added 1000's of parking spaces.

Most people think the city is writing Corish a check every year. That's not the case.

That's why downtown tifs make sense, even in areas that are not considered blightened. A tiff in JoCo or the Northland or Lee's Summit or Village west? Not so much. Projects like this are the original intent of tifs because half the cost of the project is related to clearing buildings, urban infrastructure replacement and structured parking and a tiff can make the project financially viable.

Using a tiff to build a box on a farm field surrounded by surface parking in the suburbs is abuse and corporate welfare. All the incentives basically go to the developer or tenant and it hurts urban cities trying to use them for what they were intended for because it give no incentive stay in the city vs going to the suburbs.

[Samantha S]

Originally Posted by kcmo

Here is a prelim rendering:

I don't care for the look/location of it only because it crowds so close to the P&L tower and IMO will detract from what a cool building that is. I kind of like the P&L tower visible from all angles by itself.

But that's just me. The concept itself doesn't seem like a bad idea. I just hope the investment pays off.

[brewcrew1000]

Your right, i don't really like that look either. There are tons of people protesting the new building on the plaza but I guarantee nobody will care what this building looks like.

[kcmo]

Originally Posted by Samantha S

I don't care for the look/location of it only because it crowds so close to the P&L tower and IMO will detract from what a cool building that is. I kind of like the P&L tower visible from all angles by itself.

But that's just me. The concept itself doesn't seem like a bad idea. I just hope the investment pays off.

I agree, but you do know that side of the tower has no windows and is actually rather ugly. I think it would be fine so long as the new tower is no taller than what is shown in the rendering.

The competing location would have been much more intrusive to the views of the P&L tower even though it was a block away because the 40 story building would have completely blocked the P&L tower from the south (and the Performing arts Center from the east) and really screwed up the aesthetics of the skyline.

I just hope they do something with the garage. That's a terrible design from an urban planning standpoint unless that first floor is retail or something.

[2011member]

I think it would compliment the KCPL Bldg just nicely and it's the perfect location to add a Hotel. It's sad that KC has such a nice and large convention center but not nearly enough hotels. It would be great to see the KCPL turned into a hotel, maybe a Hyatt.

[lovekcmo]

It's a good plan, the city needs to move forward with it and sooner the better. Would be nice if they could move the stadiums downtown.