Riverfront Legacy Masterplan

[Rocky Mountain Shock]

It would be interesting, and compelling, to see specific instances and data for what you guys are claiming. I feel like those of us who are neither always rah-rah nor always stuck-in-the-mud are given very little actual information to go on, other than anecdotal 2nd-hand reports.

IMO, there's room for reasonable discussion other than calling everyone who doesn't want to spend a billion dollars a stuck-in-the-mud dumbass and everyone that does want to spend a billion dollars a wasteful dumbass.

I would probably be considered in the "wasteful dumbass" category by others.

With that said, I agree with you. My biggest criticism of the people and organizations that push progressive changes in Wichita is that they usually offer absolutely no compelling information to the public. It's like they expect their ideas themselves to be SO amazing that Wichitans will just jump on their bandwagon. But Wichitans tend to be skeptical by nature and practical to a fault--they're going to assume everything is a snake oil scheme until convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is not.

The folks in charge of replacing Century II (I honestly don't know who that is--the city?) need to get every director of every organization that uses Century II to loudly and frequently talk about the challenges and deficiencies of Century II--and how it negatively impacts their organizations. The Convention and Visitors Bureau needs to inundate public discourse with details on conventions Wichita has missed out on. Folks in the hotel business need to band together to talk about business they've lost because of conventions that won't come here. The restaurant industry needs to do the same. All these groups and interests need to be coordinated and the narrative in the local media needs to be managed. Only on the side do you talk about vision and ideals and the abstract things that are harder for Wichitans to grasp. It boggles my mind that nobody does that. But that's why nearly every initiative fails.

[vbird53]

If anything, this project seems backward. Why not go to the people in a vote for how much the citizens would agree to pay in a sales tax or the like? Then, once you have a ballpark $$ idea, you can begin planning how to spend the $$.

I'm 100% in support of downtown and riverbank development, but for $1,000,000,000, the vision for this project is lacking substantially in my mind.

To this point, my preference would still be to renovate CII. Maybe I like the whole mid-century mod concept, but I feel like this city prides itself on being different, and a renovated CII offers that opportunity. Why go build a cookie-cutter convention center?

[Veritas]

From the Chung Report

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thechun...entury-ii/amp/

City.gov presentation

http://www.wichita.gov/Arts/ArtsDocuments/Analysis%20of%20Wichita's%20Convention%20Center%20and%20Performing%20Arts%20Facilities%20ppt.pdf

[Cdizzle]

I tend to agree there is very little concrete that the city is getting with this plan for what will end up being over a billion dollars. "Mixed use" stuff hasn't really worked out that well in previous attempts to do this. They need more beef in their plan, IMO.

[Cdizzle]

From the Chung Report

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thechun...entury-ii/amp/

City.gov presentation

http://www.wichita.gov/Arts/ArtsDocuments/Analysis%20of%20Wichita's%20Convention%20Center%20and%20Performing%20Arts%20Facilities%20ppt.pdf

Thanks!

From what I've seen before, the Chung Report is pretty biased, but at least they use some data!

[ShockBand]

If anything, this project seems backward. Why not go to the people in a vote for how much the citizens would agree to pay in a sales tax or the like? Then, once you have a ballpark $$ idea, you can begin planning how to spend the $$.

I'm 100% in support of downtown and riverbank development, but for $1,000,000,000, the vision for this project is lacking substantially in my mind.

To this point, my preference would still be to renovate CII. Maybe I like the whole mid-century mod concept, but I feel like this city prides itself on being different, and a renovated CII offers that opportunity. Why go build a cookie-cutter convention center?

The biggest challenge with renovating CII's concert hall to current standards (mainly for music theatre) is the fact that you really can't increase the stage and backstage size due to the way the building is built. All that is at the central core where structural steel and concrete are integral to the building as a whole. In a sense, the unique and visionary 1960s design is what is limiting renovations of lower cost. If the stage and backstage areas were at the perimeter, that might be a completely different story. I think we also need to keep in mind that the actual performing arts center and convention center new construction costs are about half of the total, around $160 million for the PAC and about $300 million or so for the CC part. The rest is for all the other stuff they show.

The order of doing all this, if I were to choose, would be build the PAC first, then the CC, then demolish the existing CII, and then determine the drive and desire for the remaining elements of the project as a whole.

[Shox The Revenant]

It's simple, if you build it, they will come. Out of town folks don't give a hoot about nostalgia and Wichita history, all they care about is ease of use, space and modern amenities. Has anyone driven through downtown Tulsa, OKC, KC, Omaha, Des Moines? Wichita doesn't hold a candle in terms of the optics of their downtown appearance. Right now, Wichita has got a mismosh of old and new architecture that looks like a hot mess. The time is now to start modernize our downtown and a facelift and liposuction of C2 doesn't count.

[NCAABound]

If anything, this project seems backward. Why not go to the people in a vote for how much the citizens would agree to pay in a sales tax or the like? Then, once you have a ballpark $$ idea, you can begin planning how to spend the $$.

I'm 100% in support of downtown and riverbank development, but for $1,000,000,000, the vision for this project is lacking substantially in my mind.

To this point, my preference would still be to renovate CII. Maybe I like the whole mid-century mod concept, but I feel like this city prides itself on being different, and a renovated CII offers that opportunity. Why go build a cookie-cutter convention center?

Because they are cookie-cutter for a reason...they work. A circular piece of art doesnt work.

[NCAABound]

In your opinion--or perhaps you have a factual answer--how many hotel rooms are missing downtown?

Serious question. Not trolling.

Well hotel rooms also depend on the convention center. We could add 500 rooms, but with a useless CC, they would be wasted. So build a new CC, then expand the Hyatt by 250-300 rooms. Most larger conventions want a headquarter hotel where they can put majority of their folks, with a few additional overflow hotels nearby. But the Hyatt can't sustain 550+ rooms without serious convention business. If they build a forward looking CC, and additional 250 hotel could be built at some point in the future nearby.

[NCAABound]

If anything, this project seems backward. Why not go to the people in a vote for how much the citizens would agree to pay in a sales tax or the like? Then, once you have a ballpark $$ idea, you can begin planning how to spend the $$.

I'm 100% in support of downtown and riverbank development, but for $1,000,000,000, the vision for this project is lacking substantially in my mind.

To this point, my preference would still be to renovate CII. Maybe I like the whole mid-century mod concept, but I feel like this city prides itself on being different, and a renovated CII offers that opportunity. Why go build a cookie-cutter convention center?

Because people need a vision. With just asking Wichitans for money...they'll vote for no money. Just look how hard they fought against a small sunset tax for the arena.

[Aargh]

The cost of this plan is $2,750 for every man, woman, and child in the city. Throw in the $500 million we're already spending for the water plant, which is $1,250 for every person in the city. That's a total commitment of $4,000 per person. That includes infants, school children, people in nursing homes. The burden on those working would be incredible.

I realize there is a private portion not funded by taxpayer dollars, but if those private investors were not expecting to recoup their investment and realize a profit, there would be no private portion. The profit expectation actually raises the cost to every person in Wichita.

Tax and spend seems to be really popular in Wichita.

Looking at the success of various recent city projects (Waterwalk, selling land along the river for $1 an acre), I have little confidence in the city doing well by writing them a check for $1.2 billion. On the program on KPTS this evening, the 2 members of the City Council seemed adamantly opposed to any public vote. They insist the public has already had a chance to be heard, so now it's just up to the City Commission to approve the plan.

I think this project is too controversial and far too overreaching and costly to ever get voters in Wichita to approve a sales tax for it. I expect that when it can't be funded, we will end up with absolutely nothing other than what we have now and the voters will be so burned out on the subject that it won't get brought up again for another 10 or 20 years.

What's with all the support out here for a massive tax and spend project? I thought this board was mostly made up of people who were politically and fiscally conservative?

[NCAABound]

Tulsa is currently spending $55 million for an upgrade of their already much better Cox Center. They have 2,000 rooms within walking distance. Omaha has 3,000 rooms within 3 miles.They have a 600 room Hilton connected. Just look around at our "competitor" cities and its sad how far ahead they are.

[NCAABound]

The cost of this plan is $2,750 for every man, woman, and child in the city. Throw in the $500 million we're already spending for the water plant, which is $1,250 for every person in the city. That's a total commitment of $4,000 per person. That includes infants, school children, people in nursing homes. The burden on those working would be incredible.

I realize there is a private portion not funded by taxpayer dollars, but if those private investors were not expecting to recoup their investment and realize a profit, there would be no private portion. The profit expectation actually raises the cost to every person in Wichita.

Tax and spend seems to be really popular in Wichita.

Looking at the success of various recent city projects (Waterwalk, selling land along the river for $1 an acre), I have little confidence in the city doing well by writing them a check for $1.2 billion. On the program on KPTS this evening, the 2 members of the City Council seemed adamantly opposed to any public vote. They insist the public has already had a chance to be heard, so now it's just up to the City Commission to approve the plan.

I think this project is too controversial and far too overreaching and costly to ever get voters in Wichita to approve a sales tax for it. I expect that when it can't be funded, we will end up with absolutely nothing other than what we have now and the voters will be so burned out on the subject that it won't get brought up again for another 10 or 20 years.

What's with all the support out here for a massive tax and spend project? I thought this board was mostly made up of people who were politically and fiscally conservative?

Would you spend money on anything for the city? And, if so, what?

[Kung Wu]

Would you spend money on anything for the city? And, if so, what?

Increased number of lanes on the highways to Omaha and Tulsa so we can go to some sweet conventions!

[shocktown]

[QUOTE=Aargh;n1212924]The cost of this plan is $2,750 for every man, woman, and child in the city. Throw in the $500 million we're already spending for the water plant, which is $1,250 for every person in the city. That's a total commitment of $4,000 per person. That includes infants, school children, people in nursing homes. The burden on those working would be incredible.

Is this the misleading argument you give to the simple minded uninformed crowd. This is so disingenuous. Most tax revenue to the city and county comes from property tax. Everyone pays indirectly (renters) but property owners carry most the load. But commercial property pays a lot more than residential. I looked up one box store, there Bill is $185000 annually.
Everyone is not responsible for a proportionate share.
So let’s be honest and lose the every man woman and child bs for starters. These type of smoke screens make it impossible to get through to the anti-everything crowd.