Century Plaza / Convention Hotel rumoring (archive)

[John]

I may not completely follow your rationale Writruth, but I think you raise points that seems lost with the naysayers on this thread. God forbid, but having a well designed hotel of this size may actually be a strong asset for the city and attract more tourism and national events to occur here (above and beyond conventions). Not to mention the ability to generate more tax revenue for the community. It has all the potential to contribute a lot of energy to an already dynamic city, and give us more stature beyond a provincial outpost. The reality is downtown Minneapolis is joining the big leagues, and we need to start looking and acting like one!

[min-chi-cbus]

I think his point is that a hotel can be financed privately and it can be profitable for them to do so, but the events that come along with the people who need the rooms benefit the city 100%, so why should the private financier have to foot the entire bill for the building if the city is getting a huge benefit as well?

At least, that's the argument as I understood it, and it makes sense. Whether or not the amount/proportion that the city benefits is 1/4 or $100 million out of a $400 million project is well out of the scope of my knowledge, but I understand the principal, and also why this wouldn't apply to just any hotel project (but rather, a convention hotel).

[mattaudio]

I'm not saying I'm categorically against it. I could be convinced if the following things were proven:
- The private market would not meet this need
- This project would not undermine existing private investment in the hospitality sector in the city
- The $100 million is guaranteed to be returned to public coffers through increased tax receipts which would otherwise not exist
- The $100 million doesn't have a higher opportunity cost elsewhere, either in private or public hands

I just doubt this project would meet such a burden, since I can't think of another project which has actually proven itself to be a good public investment.

[writruth]

I think his point is that a hotel can be financed privately and it can be profitable for them to do so, but the events that come along with the people who need the rooms benefit the city 100%, so why should the private financier have to foot the entire bill for the building if the city is getting a huge benefit as well?

At least, that's the argument as I understood it, and it makes sense. Whether or not the amount/proportion that the city benefits is 1/4 or $100 million out of a $400 million project is well out of the scope of my knowledge, but I understand the principal, and also why this wouldn't apply to just any hotel project (but rather, a convention hotel).

This is precisely what I was suggesting. Min-chi, you just said it more artfully.

[VAStationDude]

I'm not saying I'm categorically against it. I could be convinced if the following things were proven:
- The private market would not meet this need
- This project would not undermine existing private investment in the hospitality sector in the city
- The $100 million is guaranteed to be returned to public coffers through increased tax receipts which would otherwise not exist
- The $100 million doent have a higher opportunity cost elsewhere, either in private or public hands

I just doubt this project would meet such a burden, since I can't think of another project which has actually proven itself to be a good public investment.

Well put.

I'll add mega events sponsors are really good about getting exemptions or refunds of local taxes. IIRC the NFL gained exemptions from local taxes during the 2012 Indianapolis SB.

I'm not sure if the city or Meet Minneapolis could refund local taxes without a change to state statue but it's worth keeping in mind the of slight of hand tricks used by the big events.

[John]

I'm not saying I'm categorically against it. I could be convinced if the following things were proven:
- The private market would not meet this need
- This project would not undermine existing private investment in the hospitality sector in the city
- The $100 million is guaranteed to be returned to public coffers through increased tax receipts which would otherwise not exist
- The $100 million doesn't have a higher opportunity cost elsewhere, either in private or public hands

I just doubt this project would meet such a burden, since I can't think of another project which has actually proven itself to be a good public investment.

I agree with parts of what you're saying. But, I think we need to let the process of this potential project unfold a little more before we jump to any conclusions. We need more information and facts. A 100 million dollar subsidy is just a number someone spit out on this thread.

Ethically, I don't believe any subsidy for this hotel should be some passive corporate handout. Minneapolis is an economically strong and desirable city that comes from a position of strength. We're not desperate. The city/county should negotiate a deal with the developer to give back something positive for the community and taxpayers. They should really choose a developer who has a reputation for good collaboration with the public sector. I am a strong believer in that. If a developer is heavy handed in negotiation, they should be told to f*** off.

[kregger22]

Where exactly is this building (assuming & hoping it will be built) going to be? Can someone just put an X on a Google Earth photo?

[RailBaronYarr]

I'm just confused when the change happened. At one point, it used to be a partnership where the city (or state/fed, whatever) provided the infrastructure at a cost to everybody in its municipality, and the private sector (through banking, VC, their own saved up ca$he, etc) built their own structure/enterprise and expected it to be profitable on its own terms. The resulting infrastructure capital and ongoing maintenance (and replacement) costs would be paid for by property taxes and user fees.

Now, for some reason, the city itself is expected to pay some lump of money for the benefit of having a beautiful building in its midst, in hopes that it will attract tourists and possibly residents to live there. Regardless if the tourists that come spend enough in the area to pay back the initial investment of city money (sales tax receipt cuts and a possible, slight increase in property value for other buildings resulting in higher property taxes). Why does any company feel entitles to free money to make their own business be profitable (or, more profitable than it otherwise would be) at everyone else's expense through property taxes? Perhaps big projects like this should be avoided entirely unless a developer feels that they will be profitable on their own accord, and smaller, incremental, local businesses and buildings will fill in the gaps without the need for city subsidies?

[seanrichardryan]

Didn't work... http://goo.gl/maps/gCnSm

[mister.shoes]

I'm just confused when the change happened. At one point, it used to be a partnership where the city (or state/fed, whatever) provided the infrastructure at a cost to everybody in its municipality, and the private sector (through banking, VC, their own saved up ca$he, etc) built their own structure/enterprise and expected it to be profitable on its own terms. The resulting infrastructure capital and ongoing maintenance (and replacement) costs would be paid for by property taxes and user fees.

Now, for some reason, the city itself is expected to pay some lump of money for the benefit of having a beautiful building in its midst, in hopes that it will attract tourists and possibly residents to live there. Regardless if the tourists that come spend enough in the area to pay back the initial investment of city money (sales tax receipt cuts and a possible, slight increase in property value for other buildings resulting in higher property taxes). Why does any company feel entitles to free money to make their own business be profitable (or, more profitable than it otherwise would be) at everyone else's expense through property taxes? Perhaps big projects like this should be avoided entirely unless a developer feels that they will be profitable on their own accord, and smaller, incremental, local businesses and buildings will fill in the gaps without the need for city subsidies?

This doesn't answer the "when," obviously, but it does answer the "why."

[Minneboy]

God I miss that cartoon.

[Didier]

Is that cartoon new? Somebody randomly posted that to my Facebook like one day earlier.

[mister.shoes]

It is a re-run, of course; it just happened to re-run this Sunday. The timing was serendipitous.

[kregger22]

Thank you seanrichardryan for the map. What a great spot for a tower - off the beaten path. The Mpls skyline would have such a different look (certainly enjoy it now) if the IDS, Wells Fargo & 225 S 6th towers were spead out a bit more. IMO, the skyline of the city would look much larger.

[John]

Thank you seanrichardryan for the map. What a great spot for a tower - off the beaten path. The Mpls skyline would have such a different look (certainly enjoy it now) if the IDS, Wells Fargo & 225 S 6th towers were spead out a bit more. IMO, the skyline of the city would look much larger.

A hotel tower on this site would make a visually striking entrance into the core from the south. And I agree, all we really need are just a few more tall buildings downtown and we would have one of the most impressive skylines in the US.

[m b p]

Thank you seanrichardryan for the map. What a great spot for a tower - off the beaten path. The Mpls skyline would have such a different look (certainly enjoy it now) if the IDS, Wells Fargo & 225 S 6th towers were spead out a bit more. IMO, the skyline of the city would look much larger.

Like Atlanta? ick. I don't like the idea of anything too big going on here. It's too far from the core. Anything high will stick out like a sore thumb... no matter how beautiful.

[Nick]

People talking about liking tall buildings has been moved here.

[bapster2006]

All this talk about the Convention Center made me nostalgic for when I watched the Minneapolis Auditorium get domolished in 1989. Kinda looked like the Hindenburg. Now back to the hotel...

[seanrichardryan]

Where did they put that organ? I bet it's in Barbara Flanagan's basement.

[Avian]

The organ is installed - sort of - in the CC's 2nd domed hall from the west. But it is in pieces:

http://www.tcago.org/Voice%20of%20Minneapolis/

You can see pictures of it here:

http://www.tcago.org/Voice%20of%20Minne ... imball.pdf

The building was built to accommodate the organ but it has never been re-assembled for lack of money. Sort of like the Planetarium at the Library