Friday, May 23, 2014

Vinik Building Hotel - Not Stadium - in Downtown Tampa

My WTSP colleague Dion Lim took a look at Lightning owner Jeff Vinik's latest project: a luxury hotel, next to the Forum, now awaiting city approval. 

Some people will hear that news and think, "he's going to build a stadium next!"  But I don't think so.

I think Vinik has an interest in something greater and more comprehensive.  I think Vinik sees how Downtown Tampa is thriving right now and knows how valuable his developments in the urban core will be.

That's not to say the city couldn't one day build a baseball stadium where the ConAgra plant currently sits downtown; I'm just not convinced the Lightning's owner, who also happens to have a minority interest in the Red Sox, wants anything to do with a competing franchise downtown.

Additionally, if I said, "let's spend hundreds of millions of dollars to build a retail complex downtown that will sit empty nearly 300 nights a year," you'd laugh.  Vinik would too.  Plus, Tampa already has one of those.

15 comments:

  1. Wonder what these numbers will increase to when the Rays build a new ball park in Channelside, among everything thing else around the park? Again, when Hillsborough does "invest" in helping build the park...

    http://tbo.com/news/business/hillsborough-countys-taxable-value-increases-nearly-56-percent-20140523/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So you're saying Hillsborough Co. is doing just fine even without a ballpark? Or you're saying the Rays should build a park themselves?

      FYI, from Times' coverage of Vinik hotel:
      "Vinik has remained tight-lipped about the Rays or Tampa's baseball hopes. He could also probably make more money putting more mixed-use development on that land than a stadium."

      Delete
    2. Com'on Noah, a "mixed-use development" won't make nearly as much as a Major League stadium will. My point was (which I've stated in past post) that the "taxable value" of Channelside itself would go through the roof w/ sports & entertainment year round, which would drastically cushion Tampa's investment in that area. Like putting money in the bank. Again, we can't look at building expensive stadiums w/out looking at the whole picture to understand the benefits, and just "the sticker shock" of invested money...

      Delete
    3. There's not a commercial real estate agent in the country who would agree with you.

      Delete
  2. I bet there's many that would in areas that this has happened. Ask commercial real estate agents that has made money from the rise of Washington DC's shipping yard, SoMa in San Fran, Seattle, San Diego, Phoenix, Pittsburgh, hell look at the housing being built around the Trop. Nothing is ever guaranteed, because a lot has to do with those in charge of building around the park. But for you "the investigative report" to totally disregard these facts shows your true colors...

    Agrees - http://www.zillow.com/blog/do-new-mlb-parks-create-all-star-neighborhoods-10129/

    http://www.citylab.com/design/2012/05/dc-baseball-oriented-development-seems-last-be-working/1995/

    just to reference a few

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're missing the point. Vinik's property is worth less with stadium on it than with something profitable on it.

      He doesn't own all these kinds of properties you claim will be worth more. No developer builds a stadium out of charity for his neighbors. Not to mention, an LA Live concept and condos would probably be better for Tampa property values than a stadium right now.

      Delete
    2. Newsflash! "LA Live" is anchored by sports w/ Lakers, Clippers, Kings, and a NFL & MLS stadium on the way. And, I think "you're missing the point". A MLB stadium will be profitable, and it's not about his properties, it's about the city of Tampa & Hillsborough being more valuable which translates into more property taxes. Now I'm sure they'll cut them a break on that, but for everyone else, the higher the value, the more taxes. Besides, your kidding yourself if you think the value of those thousands of condos & apartments that are & will surround Con Agra won't rise with great development (like new & shiny ballpark), especially once everything is in place & supply n' demand starts to take effect...

      Delete
    3. Yes, MLB stadiums are profitable...unless you have to pay for them yourself.

      And yes, the value of condos & apartments are on the rise with development...even without baseball. So spending hundreds of millions may not make sense.

      Delete
    4. Just like a Bahstonian, stubborn, lol! I can't believe I have to rebut this as if you don't get it, but even if "you have to pay for it yourself", it's still profitable, what you don't have to give back to the county or city being that they own it, you get to keep it all. Besides, either or, no one said stadiums are an instant money maker, but ask Mr. Fenway about how long they been profiting from Fenway...
      And again, I can't believe I have to explain this, but yes they're going up because of the improved economy & the demand to live in Channelside, but no one on the planet would say it won't increase faster with a new MLB ballpark around the corner, along w/ everything else that will come w/ that...

      Just in case you still don't get it... Agrees - http://www.zillow.com/blog/do-new-mlb-parks-create-all-star-neighborhoods-10129/

      http://www.citylab.com/design/2012/05/dc-baseball-oriented-development-seems-last-be-working/1995/

      just to reference a few

      Delete
    5. Here's a hint, in case you want people to be interested in the ideas you try to communicate. It would be easier to overlook everything that's wrong with what you write -- to continue paying attention and trying to understand you -- if it weren't accompanied by such hostile tone. I don't think you have noticed how generously Mr. Pransky is treating you. http://paulgraham.com/disagree.html

      Delete
    6. Actually, I routinely cite people "on the planet (who) would say (prop values) won't increase faster with a new MLB ballpark around the corner."

      You cited a blogger that made several mistakes in its first paragraph (St. Louis & Atlanta were both subsidized), and conveniently forgot to include Tropicana Field in its comprehensive comparison of new ballpark neighborhoods.

      Then, you cite a blogger who is a LEED advocate, who is basically just excited they built a LEED complex near the stadium and tries to rationalize the costs through that lens. When your best argument for stadium subsidies is Washington, where modest development was happening BEFORE the stadium even went in...and its only RECENTLY skyrocketing...its hard to claim all successes were because of the stadium.

      Delete
    7. Awwa, Noah knows my competitive banter is nothing personal, and it's brought with respect for his hustle. It's funny how he always surprises with his more mature rebuttals then most would expect from a Red Sox from Bahstun, lol. And on the flip side, I always felt that my "other side of the coin" & progressive ideology creates healthy debates on these topics. Either or, we all just want whats best for the Tampa Bay area...

      Delete
    8. B, this is the thread where I learned to read each of your comments as *snort*

      Delete
  3. Above all that, common sense will tell you the thousands of condos & town homes along Merdian, Harbor Island, Encore, etc., current & to be built, including the city of Tampa's overall value will climb with the rise of what the area of Con Agra will be in 5-10 years...

    ReplyDelete
  4. Words of clarity and insight Noah despite the sound and fury signifying nothing from fan(s).

    ReplyDelete