SkyscraperCity Forum banner

San Jose McEnery Convention Center

6K views 2 replies 2 participants last post by  DarkEconomist 
#1 ·
Continued from San Jose Development News thread.

Well... some of your points may be valid if taken in the short-term. But the city's long-term viability is much more important. Any economist would agree.

Take the San Jose Airport, for example. Another facility that requires large land area like the convention center. San Jose (surprisingly) actually thought long-term years ago and spent many millions expanding it.

They caught a lot of flak for this as the economy spun downward & it looked like it was a bad decision. However, now look at the benefits. We are finally getting flights direct to Europe from San Jose & many more airlines are coming in and expanding service.

This not only boosts the city's reputation & pride, but ALSO provides the return on investment that you argue for as an economic practicality.

The same is true for the convention center. Most cities (especially San Francisco) would kill for the kind of available land that San Jose has right behind the convention center for center expansion. To kill that off just to provide Cafe Friscati with some extra walk-ins is not only shortsighted, but will kill the future of that facility & ultimately the huge economic benefits that were the reason so much was originally invested to begin with.
Strictly speaking according to GAAP, AFAIK, Team San Jose's facilities operate at a loss, and have year-on-year-on-year-on-year. The way they show a profit on their annual reports is by including the hotel tax and excluding several essential city-funded items, including debt service.

Unfortunately, I don't have the data to compare apples-to-apples the net impacts of high-density residential and convention center attendance. Team San Jose doesn't even break-out convention center attendance away from its other facilities, AFAIK. And the reported economic impact is generalized across the region. But, without local foot traffic to support businesses year-round, there'd be no "there" for convention goers to visit after hours, that much is certain.

Also, please understand, I've argued that the convention center should expand...via elevated pedestrian concourse across Almaden to the Boston Properties site. Anyone who argues that's too much walking has never been to a major Vegas convention. I've also agreed with others and argued that a blended approach--ground-level convention space topped with one or more hotels and one or more residential towers--on the south site would be appropriate.
 
See less See more
#2 ·
Continued from San Jose Development News thread.



Strictly speaking according to GAAP, AFAIK, Team San Jose's facilities operate at a loss, and have year-on-year-on-year-on-year. The way they show a profit on their annual reports is by including the hotel tax and excluding several essential city-funded items, including debt service.

Unfortunately, I don't have the data to compare apples-to-apples the net impacts of high-density residential and convention center attendance. Team San Jose doesn't even break-out convention center attendance away from its other facilities, AFAIK. And the reported economic impact is generalized across the region. But, without local foot traffic to support businesses year-round, there'd be no "there" for convention goers to visit after hours, that much is certain.

Also, please understand, I've argued that the convention center should expand...via elevated pedestrian concourse across Almaden to the Boston Properties site. Anyone who argues that's too much walking has never been to a major Vegas convention. I've also agreed with others and argued that a blended approach--ground-level convention space topped with one or more hotels and one or more residential towers--on the south site would be appropriate.
I've also argued that a hotel should be included, but at the end fronting Market St., which would provide a similar setup to the 23-story Marriott hotel with a porte cochere for cars on Market St.

This would leave the rest of the land for exhibit & meeting space. Exhibit space requires a tall ceiling & column-free span. It is very hard to build a hotel on top of that. Only meeting space can be configured under a hotel in that type of layout.

The convention center needs to double its event space to compete with other facilities. A larger space would also allow for multiple conventions/conferences at the same time, which is one of the reasons the facility might be underperforming.

The Boston Properties site can also be used, but that would be a better location for the hotels (and it has a river view adjacent).

I've also argued that the current Silicon Sage 3-story development on Balbach St. is a total missed opportunity for further expansion.
 
#3 ·
Okay, that all makes sense.

But there's a third way forward.

So build a nice, wide (as in Vallco-over-Wolfe wide) pedestrian concourse over Almaden leading to convention space atop parking at the BP site. Book-end that on the south at Woz with a nice hotel tower. Top the convention center expansion with a public park.

On the south site, build another hotel, fronting Market like you said. Provide some large-scale, but divisible, ballroom/meeting space as part of the hotel. And flank that with a couple residential towers.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top