You are listening to Midday Edition on KPBS. I am Tom Fudge. The city of San Diego says that expanding the Sanyo manager convention center -- San Diego Convention Center is needed. So just and on the waterfront site or build another convention center a couple blocks away creating people -- what people call the convention center campus. This year of consultant in the name of Convention, Sports & Leisure International has said that could training -- that by creating a continuous expansion would be beneficial. There are many hurdles before anything can get going. Kevin Faulkner address the issue of the convention center. Mayor Faulconer that the study found that the contiguous center expansion would be the biggest Return on Investment. Is that the conclusion you expected it to come to? Tom I will tell you I have an open mind there is one of the reasons that we commissioned the study is to get updated information on what's the right focus for us to go forward. It said pretty clearly as you stated, that the contiguous option is the best for our Return on Investment. And obviously that is what is important. We are looking to not only keep great convention groups that we have like, con and others, but the really the opportunity to grow. Because when we grow our TOT revenue, builder monies that we used to hire new police officers firefighters keep rec centers open, libraries, a healthy oath convention center makes for a huge shot in the arm for economic activity. Here is the big question I might as well get to it here the cost of the expansion was the an estimated $539 million. How do we pay for that? It's really clear. Visitors are going to have to think to the hotel industry. One of the things that I am going to be doing in the next several weeks and months is getting together stakeholders and college on the Council and folks from the tourism industry and developing a financing plan that will have the visitors that are coming to San Diego and staying in hotels pay for our expansion. And get that plan together with the opportunity to put before the voters sometime in 2016. Do you think that plan would require a rise in hotel tax? That is certainly one of the primary vehicles that we're looking at. The industry and the tourism folks that this is critically important for our city. I think that's one of the reasons while expanding the convention center has such strong support. Not only here in the city and the city Council, but also with our state legislators and the coastal companies. Getting this on board and getting visitors to pay is going to be really important as we move forward. After Mayor, is San Diegans have to vote on a higher tax to fund the convention center, wouldn't that require a two thirds majority? It would in that case. And obviously that means that everybody has to be together on the plan moving forward. But I think when you look at it, the strong support that San Diegans have for our tourism economy and what that means to help generate dollars that we use in the neighborhood, that is something that I think is us our best opportunities to continue the good work that is happening at the convention center. With the vote, could it happen as next year? It is and is one of the things were looking at. Honestly there's some litigation that is winding its way through now. No surprise to anybody that has been following this issue. But one of the things that we are doing now that we have the updated setting is to get everybody together to develop a plan that all of us think make sense financially responsible, this is the best return on investment, and then put that before the voters very likely sometime in 2016. Quick question about the lawsuit there still -- lawsuit. In the lawsuit, the bayfront expansion would remove public access to the waterfront and may not be allowed. With an argument in favor of doing a campus plan instead? One of the things that the study looked at is is there a viability for campus facility across the trolley tracks their. That is something that while it is not ideal, the contiguous is the best way to move forward, and I'll tell you when it comes to the issues of public access, one of the strengths of the contiguous plan is one of the reasons that I think the majority of the Council support and community support was the ability for the park that was going to go along with the contiguous expansion. Weather snow park there now in terms of the facility. I think there's a lot of opportunities for us to look at this holistically. That's why will bring the stakeholders together in the coming weeks and months. To make sure we keep our economy going and keep great dimensions like Comicon in San Diego and attract new ones. Those are dollars that we can use for neighborhood services and that is very important to me as mayor. L'Amour quick question for you. The Chargers, if they do not move to LA they said they favor a new stadium next to the convention center. If that option still on the table? As you know, the Chargers have said they were agnostic in terms of the site there this Valley is the site and it make sense for all the right reasons. Our ability to replace the stadium there was right -- with one right in the same footprint as close to the trolley and freeway. That is the best choice and that plan works we continue to press forward with the NFL in the coming weeks and months. Mister Mayor, thank you very much. Always my placer. San Diego Mayor. I spoke with him earlier. I am now join with Scott Lewis and has covered the subject of the convention center quite a lot. I am also joined by Howard blacks and he is an urban designer with Michael Baker international. Scott, what do you make of the mayors determination to pursue this expansion in the face of all these obstacles? There are two main obstacles he talked about. He talked about increasing the hell room -- hotel room tax. They were to do it before but they were not have to vote of the people to approve it. They were trying to get around that. That was thrown out by an appellate court. Now they have to go back and ask for permission. That is no easy matter as he said. Everyone has to be on board because you need to thirds vote. If there is any organized or funded opposition to the plan, it dies. I think it is a very interesting thing. A basically said it would be impossible to get this tax increase for Chargers Stadium combined with the convention center but now they're saying it would be possible without just gas with just the convention set -- with just the convention center. The hotel industry was probably making it clear they would oppose with organized opposition and funds to any kind of initiative to raise taxes for Stadium convention center. I asked him if the idea of the Chargers Stadium near the convention center was off the table, I think what he said, I took it as a no. Did not say no -- he did not say it was off the table. He just got making the case for the Mission Valley one there. It is off the table there he is pursuing a contiguous plan along the waterfront. And unless that fails, I don't know how that Chargers idea downtown is revived. Scott, why would a two thirds Geordie is San Diegans go for something like this? They are to make the case as he did that the convention center creates all this wealth, that benefits all kinds of things in the city. I think one thing to understand that is helpful for people, San Diego has a 10% stake in the performance of the hotel industry. The with our 10.5% tax, we have a stake in that performance. His argument is that we need that to grow and we can use that money for other things. There to try to make that clear. Howard comedy go to you. Let's bring you in the conversation. We put this consultant has said, you get more bang for your buck if you build a contiguous expansion and put that expansion on the waterfront where the rest of the convention center is. What do you think about that? Way I read the plan it seemed to be doing a good job of saying that's the best way to do it right now. This was a short-term plan. In the convention center and the probability on the public waterfront we will eventually fill this waterfront up with this round. But there will be conventions in the future and it doesn't plan or give an assessment of future needs. We know this is an inevitable reality of the campus plan. It will have to come and at what time they're just making a choice to say looking at this today, in my opinion, if you're planning to fix -- to meet the needs of today, you are actually planning in the past. Because of lack of built for a few years. That is my understanding of looking at the contiguous versus campus plan. We will need a campus in one day so why not start now. Tell us why. Why do we need campus plan? $0.43. One is history. This is a long-standing architectural discussion between either putting it all in one building or breaking it up into a village. Had County administration building used to be city staff, County staff, and harbor commission all in one of authoritarian position on the waterfront. The big building. That we can't do that anymore. The Civic Center became a campus plan where City Hall is an Golden Hall and the opera house are. We have been doing this world affairs, Crystal Palace in London was the first major modern glass all under one canopy building, then the next city in Chicago and the panel X. It's always going to be either a campus or pick building when it comes to these sorts of large public structures. From an architectural point of view, and aesthetic point of view, you favorite campus plan because of what? It while doors to go to the next building? And in San Diego. The other campus bands that were studied in the report were San Francisco, and Orlando. Which has campus bands. San Francisco and Orlando had terrific weather just like San Diego. The others were Vegas and Atlanta and New Orleans where you do not want to be outside most of the year they're very hot for a very long period of time. Therefore, the context makes the decision for you. Are not making a decision based on being outside which is a great place to be. Scott, what do you think about this debate between the campus plan and the contiguous plan? We have to remember there is a formidable lawsuit plan. The idea being that the coastal act access to the waterfront for the public. So if you wall that off, that can be deemed illegal. Their argument is, no. Provide access with the park. While the park is on top of the building. It with an interesting decision to make as a family, like, let's go to the convention center Park on top of the convention center aspires access go. I don't know how many people go behind the convention center now. That is the big debate. The reason the campus plan has come up as ideal alternative is, the point that you protect access to the waterfront while you still expand the convention center. The in the study was one large convention is not going to like that split plan. And two large medium-size conventions aren't maybe going to fit. But they only looked at the conventions of today. They're not looking at the conventions of the future. You can look at place SXSW, they -- it is in Austin Texas, it is music, it is business, it has all the things that we love it has high-tech. We cannot host that we know that's where Comicon is going. And it is incorporate in the city as opposed to one disc you. Howard I would assume that you believe our waterfront should not be taken up by a building that big that excludes so many people. Do you agree with that argument? Not 100%. It is their. It is there and how do we make best of the lemonade there it is filling a public land with user private interest working that out is something that we have to vote on. But a campus plan has more of a public private interface and is better for the city overall. Scott was it you that talked about Comicon and is saying that they want to go to a place like Austin Texas? That was Howard's point. Howard, so you are saying that this is where conventions are going? Yes 21st century conventions are more tech-based there is more technology businesses and high-tech. It needs multiformat's, you need film, you need sound, you need music, any food that you need the whole experience. This high technology is able to give you a get you to a better face-to-face experience. That is what the millennial's are looking for. These are green and they feel morally better being in your town then having it in a big giant convention center. The argument would also be that if you could incorporate Comicon more into the village downtown, then it would be more test to San Diego as opposed to just being part of a building. Because of in any building in the country. But if you start to identify the way SXSW is with Austin, you can identify Comicon then you might make it less difficult task more difficult for them to ever move. I think that's actually is the interest to some of the waterfront hotels who prefers people to stay on that side of the street and not leave. Next fall, Scott, when Donald Trump runs for president, there is going to be an election in the fall. Do you think the presidential election is what Mayor Faulkner is looking for in terms of getting this question of funding the convention center on the ballot? I have actually heard they might be interested in more special elections or the June election. I'm not sure particularly why. The argument usually is that if you go for November election with the presidential race war liberal voters vote and they are modified to support a tax. I'm not sure if that's true with the text of the convention center. We will have to see. I would predict more towards the June ballot. We will find out and see how San Diego can race live hundred $50 million. I think that will be a different design that will be little smaller. We will see. Maybe it will be the campus design. My guess have been Scott Lewis and how are blacks and Scott is editor-in-chief of voice of San Diego Scott thank you. And how are blacks and is an urban planner and designer and he works with Michael Baker international Howard thinks. Thank you very much. Coming up on midday edition we are going to talk to Ari Shapiro well-known as an NPR reporter but is also a rockstar. We will explain why in just a minute.
A revised report on San Diego Convention Center options was released Wednesday to correct a financial cost-benefit analysis impacted by a consultant's use of an incorrect construction cost estimate.
The recalculation did not, however, change the conclusion of Convention, Sports & Leisure International that it would be best for the city of San Diego to pursue the contiguous option — attaching the new floor space to the old, rather than building an annex a block or two away.
In figuring the cost of the contiguous option, CSL International originally used a projected construction cost of $410 million. The actual anticipated price tag to add 210,000 square feet of exhibit space, more than 101,000 square feet of meeting space and 60,000 square feet of ballrooms is $539 million.
That compares to a $428 million projected cost to build a separate building, called the "campus" alternative, that would be of similar size.
The consultant based the preference for the contiguous option on the return on investment, which would be larger since most current and prospective clients of the convention center prefer keeping everything within one structure, according to the report, originally released Monday.
City and tourism officials commissioned the report to get a handle on market conditions after previous plans for an expansion of the meeting facility were stalled by a court ruling that found the funding mechanism to be unconstitutional.
Center and tourism officials have long said their customers prefer keeping the new and old floor space together, but the earlier plan was only approved by the California Coastal Commission with modifications that reduced the impact on views and public access to the waterfront.
According to the report, a contiguous expansion of the center would generate $157.1 million annually in direct additional attendee spending and give a $6.3 million boost to hotel room taxes, compared to the average amount of the last seven years.
Putting new floor space a few blocks away in the campus option, would bring in an extra $61.2 million in annual spending and $2.4 million into city tax coffers.
"This study reaffirms that the contiguous expansion is the ideal approach for the most immediate impact, and provides the best return on investment," Mayor Kevin Faulconer said after its initial release Monday. "It's time to expand the convention center."
Faulconer said his administration will begin talks with the tourism industry, City Council and "other stakeholders" to lay the groundwork for moving forward with the contiguous project. Because it would be mostly funded with a hotel room tax hike, the plan would go before voters, likely next year.
The city still has to resolve a lawsuit challenging the Coastal Commission's approval of the project. City officials will also continue to explore the off-site expansion idea, according to the mayor.
CSL International conducted phone and email surveys of 200 current, past and potential convention center customers, held focus group sessions in Chicago and Washington, D.C., and met with representatives from the hospitality industry, elected officials and the Port of San Diego, which owns the land.
According to the consultant, the city could expect one additional large convention or trade show annually with a contiguous expansion, but one fewer if the campus option is adopted, because such events are outgrowing the current building. Organizers of the large shows had little interest in the campus option, according to the report.
The city would also receive seven to eight more medium-sized conventions and 11-14 smaller shows, the report said.
