The folly of a downtown conference center in Ann Arbor
Ted Annis
A tightly-formed, determined cadre of current and past politicians, the Ann Arbor Library executive director and some of its board members, Ann Arbor city officials, Washtenaw County officials, the Chamber of Commerce, and the Downtown Development Authority are determined to build a 1,000-person hotel/conference center on top of or next to the underground library parking lot in downtown Ann Arbor.
They meet frequently in small groups over coffee and lunch to “share the vision” and exchange the latest progress reports. Earlier this year, there was a highly publicized meeting to review proposals in a response to the City’s RFP (request for proposals). Those proposals not offering a conference center were set aside. It has been damn the torpedoes, damn the citizens, damn the City’s precarious fiscal condition, damn common sense, “build it and they will come.”
The stated justification for a downtown hotel/conference center is that Ann Arbor needs an “economic engine.” No data or studies are presented to support this idea. Several members of the DDA Board and the Chamber see their businesses benefiting. I think that they are mistaken because of the feast/famine cycle induced in the surrounding businesses and the dead zone created by such a facility.
I personally interviewed members of the Ann Arbor City Council, the DDA, the Chamber, and the Visitors and Convention Bureau. None of them had data or studies; the new DDA consultant’s report also does not. Their responses were all similarly flawed and went like this: Ann Arbor brings in many millions of dollars due to the Plumbers and Pipe fitters Conference at WCC and the Electricians Conference and other events at the University of Michigan. Now just imagine if we can leverage this. A downtown hotel/conference center will permit us (the City) to do just that. None of them saw the flaws in this reasoning.
There are 10 reasons why a conference center in downtown Ann Arbor as an economic engine is a remarkably dumb idea. The first five reasons are December, January, February, March, and April. I am reminded of the debacle in Venezuela years ago when its government built one of the world’s most expensive and dramatic hotel/convention centers on top of a mountain overlooking its capital city of Caracas. It flopped terribly; one of the major reasons was that it is cold that high up - no one booked a second convention.
Of the five remaining reasons that argue against a downtown conference center, one of them is that we already have a splendid hotel/conference center close by. It is the Ann Arbor Marriott Ypsilanti at Eagle Crest, located at I-94 and Michigan Avenue. It works well, it is accessible, it has amenities including a golf course, and it has free parking. I have used it to host a conference and it was excellent. Like most others, it is suffering economically from a lack of conventions and conferences. Councilman Stephen Rapundalo, a leading advocate for a 1,000-person Ann Arbor downtown Conference Center and who wants to host his annual 1,000-person MichBio Conference in Ann Arbor, argues against using the Ann Arbor Marriott Ypsilanti at Eagle Crest hotel/convention center by saying “It is not Ann Arbor.”
A dead zone usually forms around such buildings. The underground parking will help mitigate that, but, when in use, will drive out regular and occasional downtown visitors because of reduced parking at random intervals. Good luck to light retail.
As for downtown residential, who wants to rent or buy next door to a conference center? What high tech and professional businesses would prefer a conference center next door instead of a people-oriented space (such as presented in the Dahlman proposal)? I would not start my next company or live in the vicinity of a conference center.
Years ago, downtown Ann Arbor had two large downtown hotels, both of which went bankrupt. The Campus Inn was recovered and today serves the community well as an attractive functioning downtown hotel with a (smaller) conference center. Unfortunately, it operates at about a 50 percent occupancy rate, which is well below the hotel breakeven norm of 60-65 percent occupancy. Does it make sense to dilute its occupancy and damage its viability?
The University of Michigan has completed its integrated-living dorm at State and Huron. It makes no sense to me to have 1,000 conventioneers (if you could get them) that close to a 500-student dorm. The university’s behind-the-scenes, pro-downtown conference center support and informal assurances of its usage by the university have been toned down. Perhaps someone up the chain of command brought some common sense to this matter and reined it in.
Ted Annis is the former treasurer of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority board and the retired founder of NanoBio, an Ann Arbor biological pharmaceutical development company.
Comments
Tim Darton
Tue, Dec 14, 2010 : 11:56 a.m.
Unfortunately this project isn't going anywhere and people who don't like it should rest easy. The mayor said long ago he wasn't interested in spending a dime on it and if you read his comments Ryan Stanton posted on the article about the underground structure, you see he does not want this. I believe it has a lot of merit, the city sells the space and pockets several million and the developer dedicates enough money to guarantee it gets built. Downtown would have a big new tax payer, people would be coming into town for conferences and local companies would at last have a place for big meetings, hosting conferences, etc., downtown where everyone wants to be. The restaurants and businesses would be big winners.
Sleeping Dogs
Mon, Dec 13, 2010 : 10:32 p.m.
With every situation, especially as controversial as this, we must ask ourselves, who stands to gain, if it is so obviouse the struggling businesses for 1/2 the year in town would not benefit, the taxpayers would not benefit, who benefits? Someone who stands to make money, thats who. The focus is ill placed, especially during these times. We have the engine, its the several Universities with in a few miles that have and house the current conventions. A closer partnership for potential larger conventions are what is needed, not a plowhorse of a concept like a convention center and one more hotel attached to be supported. This idea is unsubstantiated jibber, designed to make a select few alot of quick money and then burden the residents with is destined failure. We do not have a DESTINATION location that is needed to support longterm growth for a convention center
Bertha Venation
Mon, Dec 13, 2010 : 2 p.m.
I agree with Mr. Annis and many of the posters here. The idea is totally ridiculous and not needed in downtown Ann Arbor.
Left is Right
Mon, Dec 13, 2010 : 12:44 p.m.
I'd be happy to be wrong but a convention center here could actually be detrimental to the downtown that we've worked hard to build over the years. The deadzone is the relevant issue. As a frequent convention attendee, I envision two scenarios in downtown Ann Arbor: First, let's say that the center can be booked with enough conventions to keep it afloat. The additional pressure from those 1000 conventioners on nearby restaurants at lunch, dinner, and breaks would likely force out much of the current local clientele (and last time I checked, downtown restaurants appeared to already be doing pretty well). Downtown will become much less attractive to locals if it becomes significantly more difficult to eat out or even to grab a snack while shopping. Downtown retail may be collateral damage. Of course, the center will have it's own overpriced, mediocre food service (in my experience), and once retail is forced from downtown, every square inch can be filled with restaurant space. The second scenario is even worse, the convention center cannot book enough conferences to stay solvent but still provides enough pressure to discourage locals from coming downtown. All businesses suffer. Sure, locals could check to see if a convention is in town before coming downtown but it's more convenient just to modify habits--Ypsilanti, maybe. I was neither for nor against the center before reading Ted's piece. After thinking about this a bit, Ann Arbor residents definitely need a credible analysis of the economics and collateral effects of such a facility. Maybe 500 or 1000 attendees will not have a "negative" (however, that's defined) influence on downtown businesses but we need an impartial assessment. Seems that most convention centers are built to revitalize decaying urban areas. That's certainly not the case here.
MjC
Mon, Dec 13, 2010 : 10:29 a.m.
"a remarkably dumb idea" - my thoughts exactly!
CynicA2
Mon, Dec 13, 2010 : 12:01 a.m.
"It's similary akin to an alternate, political Scientology, but one tailor-made for the city's administration, council majority, and certain allies among business people and bureaucrats. They've placed themselves in this odd little bubble outside reality, out of touch with the needs, interests, and priorities of nearly all city residents." Wow! I hadn't thought of that before, but it would explain the crackpottyness of the mayor and his buddies - they are SCIENTOLOGISTS!! Like the aliens on the TV show "V", they look and act like humans, but are really scary reptilians with pointy teeth, who are up to no good! Seriously, though, I couldn't have said it better myself.
Speechless
Sun, Dec 12, 2010 : 7:45 p.m.
This piece brings up some interesting, behind-the-scenes story backgound. The convention center proposal rises up like a hungry vampire after sunset, searching for a stiff dose of budget, er, um... blood. In my experience, it represents — for the city council majority — a counterpart to the immensely stupid full greenway proposal, which was heavily pushed not long ago by a strong faction among council's neighborhood opposition. Both of these opposing camps have championed ridiculous boondoggles that would suck up massive amounts of public funding in order to underwrite wasteful, ill-conceived vanity projects. Pure ego. In the past, when trying to describe the dynamics behind the full greenway plan, I've referred to it as being like a political twist on Scientology which holds persuasive appeal to some white, middle-aged, middle class locals with strong environmentalist leanings. There was an aggressive, cult-like flavor to past efforts to promote that plan. (It also helped to own a home near the proposed greenway path, where property values would be expected to rise.) Meanwhile, the obsession over constructing a convention center, while probably less expensive by comparison, otherwise mirrors the costly absurdity of the full greenway idea. It's similary akin to an alternate, political Scientology, but one tailor-made for the city's administration, council majority, and certain allies among business people and bureaucrats. They've placed themselves in this odd little bubble outside reality, out of touch with the needs, interests, and priorities of nearly all city residents. In the end, should the momentum to approve a convention center proposal manage to fall short of success, expect to witness lots of jumping on (indoor) couches by disappointed hot shots. It'll be jaw-dropping, just like on Oprah.
clownfish
Sun, Dec 12, 2010 : 7:07 p.m.
Jim, not to pick at you too much, but, notice the bright blue lettering at the top of the page: "Opinion: then, under that: Topics: Opinion ----------- A convention center in A2? White elephanto-plasty. " A big hole in the ground makes a wonderful money pit" (apologies to The Pythons) Certainly the tax payers should be asked to pony up exactly zero money for anything resembling such a building. Looks to me like the libs and cons on this site finally found something to agree on! WooHoo!
Jim Sullivan
Sun, Dec 12, 2010 : 6:10 p.m.
I know that Mr. Annis is a "guest columnist" - but it is presented like an article in a "paper". That is the problem I have with Ann Arbor.com versus the old Ann Arbor News - it is hard to differentiate a "blog" item from a a "news" story. My comments are simply my feelings - I don't claim to have prepared a column where I can test out my journalistic chops - which I think should be held to a higher standard. As for how far away the Eagle Crest is from Ann Arbor: I commuted to Eastern for 3 years, and it can turn into a 40 minute drive very easily with traffic. That is some bike you must have
CynicA2
Sun, Dec 12, 2010 : 5:47 p.m.
The mayor and his ban of boomer brigands have been pulling half-baked ideas like this out of their butts for years and the voters keep re-electing them, so I guess we got the government we deserve. Get rid of the mayor and his buddies come next election, dismantle all his commissions filled with political appointees and toadies, and you won't have to worry about delusional politicians seeing "visions". Until then, we are kind of stuck with them. Don't you just love how all the street lanes downtown don't even line-up from one block to the next so a few folks can ride their bikies? Just thank your car-hating mayor for jeopardizing traffic safety for no good reason.
Macabre Sunset
Sun, Dec 12, 2010 : 5:21 p.m.
Speaking of unfounded and under-researched... According to Google, Eagle Crest is 11 miles and 15 minutes from the center of downtown Ann Arbor. Maybe 40 minutes by bicycle, though, so I can't entirely discount the Ann Arbor-centric analysis.
Jim Sullivan
Sun, Dec 12, 2010 : 4:55 p.m.
Mr Annis' article illustrates the problem I have with Ann Arbor.com. This isn't journalism - it is one man's unfounded and under-researched opinion. To validate his view, he states: "It makes no sense to me to have 1,000 conventioneers (if you could get them) that close to a 500-student dorm."??? What is wrong with holding a business convention 10 blocks from a dormitory? It happens in every major city in the world. Is he concerned for the University of Michigan students or our business guests? If his concern is for the students - then we've got a problem, because we have a lot of students - and it would be a shame to quit doing business downtown for that reason. I hope that North Quad residents are co-existing with the business travelers who stay at Campus Inn - because they are a lot closer than the new hotel would be. Although I don't understand Mr. Annis' logic, I assume that having a conference center 2 blocks from the shops and restaurants on Main Street would be okay. I disagree with Mr. Ted Annis on every point he makes. A nice hotel and convention center would be a "build-up - not out" idea and add to the vibrancy of our downtown. And I look forward to a nice weekend stay at a downtown hotel that is close to all that makes our city great! The Eagle Crest facility is a good 40 minute drive from downtown Ann Arbor. It was a bad idea when EMU built it, and a bad idea when Marriott took it over. Ann Arbor doesn't benefit from the Eagle Crest's business. and I, for one, don't care about Marriott's profitability. They do fine without our city government worrying about their viability. The existence of the Eagle Crest has no bearing on the viability of a nice hotel and conference center in downtown Ann Arbor. I'm sorry about the Campus Inn - but I've lived in Ann Arbor for 45 years and have never wanted to go there. I miss the Ann Arbor Inn and look forward to another great hotel downtown!
AlphaAlpha
Sun, Dec 12, 2010 : 4:09 p.m.
Thank you, Mr. Cahill. So, John, Roger, Diane Keller, who at Valiant, are the do-ers, and the entire Council are the rubber stampers? Anyone else? We need you Ted Annis...
sh1
Sun, Dec 12, 2010 : 3:53 p.m.
Thank you, Mr. Annis. I would like to add, as someone who lives downtown adjacent to this space, that at no time has the community been asked to give input toward this project. And when we do show up to meetings or write letters, we are placated or ignored.
Kim Kachadoorian
Sun, Dec 12, 2010 : 2:32 p.m.
Excellent article - keep in mind that there are a lot of other convention areas in almost all of the hotels that "ring" the city of Ann Arbor as well as WCC. They all have free top level parking, and they are easy to access from the highway. There are also places on U of M campus to have a conference just no sleeping arrangements that I am aware of. Ted maybe you can find this study. Years ago I read a study about how almost all conference centers go through 2-3 owners before they show a profit. I have not been able to find it but I know I read it sometime in the past.
David Cahill
Sun, Dec 12, 2010 : 2:20 p.m.
For those keeping score at home, the first version secret plan for the Valiant conference center was passed around by the City Administrator at a City Council retreat in January, 2009. Then, in the summer of 2009, a a later version of the plan, which was being passed around in City Hall, was revealed by Vivienne Armentrout in her blog. It was later reported that the City Administrator, the Mayor, and the head of the Chamber of Commerce had met with the Valiant people early on, and helped design the project. Now Mr. Annis says that these secret meetings continue, with a somewhat expanded list of players. Terrific.
vicki honeyman
Sun, Dec 12, 2010 : 2:20 p.m.
macabre sunset: brilliant point!
vicki honeyman
Sun, Dec 12, 2010 : 2:19 p.m.
Well-spoken argument, Ted Annis! I agree with you and sense that, if taken to a vote in the community, the majority of Ann Arbor citizens would say NO. What I hear is people wanting the space to be used as open park and art space: ice-skating, rotating art displays, benches and areas for people to congregate, etc. But, hey, big surprise that your list of proponents for a convention center couldn't care less about residents' opinions and preferences. How do we gather that energy to stop building this unnecessary downtown eye-sore?
Macabre Sunset
Sun, Dec 12, 2010 : 2:05 p.m.
I would also argue that if Ann Arbor needed a conference center of this size, the University would already have built one.
rusty shackelford
Sun, Dec 12, 2010 : 1:54 p.m.
Well reasoned points. You turned me from mildly pro-convention center to moderately opposed. However, I am saddened that literally nothing any citizen says or does will stop our autocratic council once it has made up its mind. Cf: Heritage Row debacle.
Maple
Sun, Dec 12, 2010 : 11:36 a.m.
Excellent piece, thank you. I will reiterate here what I said in a previous thread that the lot next to the public library should also serve a community-centered purpose.
Basic Bob
Sun, Dec 12, 2010 : 11:29 a.m.
Yes, this is the nature of consultants and urban planners. They prepare a bunch of pretty presentations to invoke popular support for a predefined conclusion. They can show lots of pictures and offer anecdotal evidence of what other communities have done. And they don't have to be based on any real need or viability. The consultants are not to blame, we need to look to their Masters. I don't understand why the 'dead zones' exist around convention centers, but I think a lot of it is where they are usually built, as redevelopment in otherwise undesirable areas. At least this parcel in Ann Arbor does not meet this description.
PersonX
Sun, Dec 12, 2010 : 10:23 a.m.
Thank you for a well reasoned discussion of the issue; AAresident's focus on the failure of the consultants work is important. Why they are being paid is a mystery. All they did was rubber stamp what they had.
David Briegel
Sun, Dec 12, 2010 : 10 a.m.
This whole idea is silly. It needs to be stopped. NOW!
say it plain
Sun, Dec 12, 2010 : 9:53 a.m.
So what can we do at this point to make them stop their steamrolling on to a disastrous end? If they are willing to commission a report that merely rubberstamps their erroneous assumptions, clearly committed to doing what they want without consideration for the city or the people, what do we do now?
AlphaAlpha
Sun, Dec 12, 2010 : 9:07 a.m.
Excellent work Mr. Annis! At last we have a better understanding of the situation. Your analysis is spot-on correct; congratulations. May we respectfully request you name the public officials having these visions? It's time to shine some light on them.
AAresident
Sun, Dec 12, 2010 : 8:43 a.m.
The city hired the Roxbury Group consultants to determine the feasibility of a conference center. Roxbury simply used the financial assumptions provided by the city. They did not do an independent analysis of the economics of a conference center. Here's what they wrote about the economic potential for a conference center on the Library Lot: "It should be noted that this report does not include and is not intended to serve as a feasibility study for the concepts included in the two proposals. Accordingly, for purposes of this report, it is generally assumed that the overall concepts included in the uses for the Library Lot contained in each proposal are valid and supportable from a market and demand standpoint." It's painful to watch our leaders behave this way.
Leslie Morris
Sun, Dec 12, 2010 : 7:59 a.m.
In addition to Ted's excellent points, I would like to add one more. The latest version of the Valiant partners' convention center proposal, which was recommended in the consultant's report, states that the convention center would be city-owned. This was listed as one of the benefits to the city. But the real reason that the Valiant partners do not want to own the conference center is that all conference centers require an operating subsidy, and the Valiant partners do not want to be responsible for this subsidy. This "public-private partnership", which amounts to socializing the loss, is likely to be important in their plan to get financing. A city government which is considering which of its current services to citizens to eliminate should not be subsidizing a conference center.
clan
Sun, Dec 12, 2010 : 7:54 a.m.
Annis has it right.
Butch
Sun, Dec 12, 2010 : 7:47 a.m.
Rapundalo has never had 1000 attendees at the MichBio Expo. When pushed to give a count they claim 400 to 500. If you do a count at the Keynote session it is closer to 200 or less. And, because the MichBio organization is state-wide, it needs to move around the state each year, not AA every year.