The Market Building
October 2, 2008
Yes indeed- this post is on the left side of the blog as a featured Roanoke Vibe good story!
You see a related link on the right side (Dear Shanna…), but this link is all about the exciting potential of this building not the recent history.
The Market Building has been neglected and is in need of cosmetic improvements (very short term and almost finished) and a major renovation. The building has not been perfectly managed. It has become solely a smaller and smaller food court, with the mezzanine and second floor remaining empty, and even worse much of this vital real estate is being used for storage. The building had a major rehab and reinvention around 1983 - like many projects in our city, this renovation and concept has worked wonders, but too much time has been allowed to pass before the next renovation and re-invention of this building.Over a year ago, Roanoke City Council re-prioritized components in the Downtown Master Plan needing to be addressed first. The Market Building was rightfully in my mind put on top of the list. An RFP process was started but only with council’s direction to protect the food court and vendors. This limited responses, limited imagination and even the one response we did get did not meet our criteria due to our desire to protect the food court concept. We then planned on another round of broader rfp’s but then the health department stepped in.
Perhaps council (certainly I have) is learning that rfp’s are not the best way to test the market for imagination and new ways of doing things. What is loud and clear is the food court we have is authentic and original and works- though mostly just for lunch. We also know there are many additional uses for this building- a larger restaurant on the mezzanine with outdoor dining on decks on either side, and the second floor featuring an awesome music and event hall. The building perhaps can retain the food court while allowing for more retail, and the “inside out” concept of more dining and vendors on the outer edge of the building, and even occasionally closing the streets (Wall and Market) with simple, reversible bollards (why not try?). And certainly there will be a new management structure, perhaps with Downtown Roanoke Incorporated, as they have an obvious motivation to see the market thrive. They could manage the building, and help to write leases that assure usage that brings the building into the future while respecting the food court’s successes and authenticity.
Lots of ideas and thoughts- but what is known in my mind is this is a great building, well designed for all these uses, historic, and in an amazing location. I am glad the city has control of it. I believe that this quality of life amenity can undergo a “generational renovation” that will serve the building and those that use it for at least 40 years. I believe, properly renovated and used, this amenity can be revenue positive and not a revenue drain. I cannot imagine that this project will be controversial or anyone will disagree- though I have heard some on council say we cannot close the building again due to the hardship that such a closure would create on the vendors. Agreed. But it is way too early to know if full closure or partial closure makes sense- we need the plans, the usage and the commitment of food court vendors and the leases and management structure before we get there. Getting new and brighter space, more usage at night and weekends, and more activity could make the temporary and shorter closure better in the long run financially for each vendor that will then finally have updated, new space and longer leases. While the city owns the building, though, it was never meant to be subsidized.
I hope council members will not grandstand here- let’s start the process of getting to a sooner than later full renovation (not a coat of paint). That process will include first and foremost public input on usage. The city is undertaking this public input in multiple ways. I am hoping citizens will post their thoughts on renovation, time-frame, usage and vendor issues here on this blog and I will continue to update the blog on my thoughts and council’s plans as they are determined.
Thanks, go at it and be imaginative!
-Dave
Dave,
I simply do not understand why the vendors have been allowed to dominate the debate to this point. Their leases are all set to expire, and beyond that the city owes them no further obligation. We should listen to their input, but the idea that their interests trump everyone else will only serve to hinder truly creative solutions. I understand that some of these people have operated businesses in the market building for many years, but that does not mean the citizens and taxpayers of Roanoke owe them an income. We don’t subsidize other businesses who lose their leases, so why are bending over backwards for them? If we pass along the true cost of the renovations in the form of increased rent, none of them could afford to stay in the building. I am a regular patron of the food court, and part of me would hate to see it go, but the building has the potential to be so much more. Just imagine what our own version of Pike Place Market could do for downtown Roanoke.
Shame on us who “obviously do not understand” and lack the “vision” to see over the horizon the wonders that are there, particularly concerning the Roanoke Farmers Market.
The Market Building as a drain on Resources. Given the way the City accounts for the Market Building as an Enterprise, it will never show a profit in the sense that Profit = Revenue-Expenses since the revenue from sales taxes goes to the General Account and it is “too hard” (it isn’t) to figure out the amount earned collectively by vendors in the market building. Besides, any loss from the Market Building is but a drop in the bucket compared to the $2 million from the Civic Center or the interest on the loan for Countryside.
I’ve been to most of the markets frequently mentioned, i.e Pike Street in Seattle, Reading, PA and the comparisons are apples to oranges and miss-leading either deliberately or out of ignorance. Perhaps we should just change our name to Star City and start all over?
What bothers me most of all is is what appears to be a process where decision are made, public input obtained, ignored and the decisions confirmed. However, it is taxpayer money that funds the “decisions” and pays the debt service for 20 or 30 years on the bonds for the mistakes like the Civic Center, the Victory Stadium renovation/Multi-use Amphitheater (non-existent) et. el. so it isn’t over till its all paid for and there-in lies my heartburn.
Yet the Reverend Dr. C. Nelson Harris, (and others) responsible for much of the City’s debt is no longer in office to kick around. Adding insult to injury we will be paying him (and Bev Fitzpatrick) a pension for incompetence when they hit sixty something. Neat trick!
Dave, Dave…
As an owner of Burger in the Square for the past nine years, I can agree that this project has been mismanaged since Fralin and Waldron passed on their option to continue as the buildings operator in 2002. The results are obvious and well documented, however, re-inventing the building as the Pike Place Market, or Fishermans Warf, young Mr, Berry, won’t fix precisely what has been allowed to ‘go wrong’.
In the Design ‘79 “Vision”, the Market Building was to be mostly retail, with some restaurant venue, however, the demand was for food in then worker populous downtown. Retail ALWAYS requires lots of free easy access parking, hence the proliferation of malls over the last half century. F& W Realty will tell you that the Foodcourt and its entrepreneurs literally took over the location during the early
years.
That the layouts for the kitchens are small and more happenstance than planning, is obvious, and that having storage on the mezzanine level 150 feet from the kitchens is ludicrous. Even Economic Development chief Brian Brown has marvelled that anyone could operate a business in such disarray, with inadequate electrical service, outdated plumbing, ancient air conditioning ahd hood systems that resemble HVAC more than actually restaurant worthy exhausts.
This is why for eight of my nine years here, I have requested enlarging, then moving my space in the building, or combining both of my restaurants to create a correct venue with outside visibility and seating for operations later in the evening and perhaps on Sundays, so as to more fully promote Burger as Roanokes’ most awarded hometown favorite.
As to the food court becoming smaller and less frequented…well, that comes under the heading of mismanagement. Simply, F & W was able to rent spaces quite easily, where as the City since F & W hasn’t worked as diligently in filling spaces and letting the tried and true ’survival of the fittest’ continue to drive the building. We have also been vocal about the loss of nearly 200 seats in the open dining areas, AND we have constantly reminded management of the need for uninterupted parking around the building AND of the effect of restrooms that for 25 years were better deemed latrines.
Even the removal of the Viaduct parking lot for the Taubman Museum and the loss of its 113 parking spaces can be cited as reason for the loss of transient business that used to push the Market Building to its seating capacity of 340+ during lunch and keep the business’ fruitful’ until closeing time. Compound that loss with more than two years of Salem Avenue being blocked for contruction and the bottle neck effect that had on access to the parking around our location has been enormous.
So, to say that we are loosing our draw due to the dated concept that we represent or that we aren’t just suffering from inadequate cultivation of the Market Buildings facilities is presumptuous.
Also, moving forward with the renovation WILL be detrimental to the current tenants. I for one, will have to return to working for some other restaurantuer or lose my home and my childs potential future and I know that I speak for ALL the other tenants when I say that it would be devastating to their financial futures….
so let’s not mince words when it comes down to what yanking the Building means or who it is good for.
As for Mr. Berry and all those folks who move to Roanoke, and who will in the future, I ask…What does Roanoke owe you?
I came from Orlando, Florida in 1965 at age ten and found Roanoke to be far different from what I was accustomed to…however I did not expect Roanoke to magically become what I had experienced elsewhere or better those places.
It is strangely human to take what one is given and try to change it…
I respectfully submit that it is better to take what is the very best that a place has to offer and accentuate and cultivate that…things are always become false and contrived otherwise.
Good Day.
I write this comment more as a reaction rather than a well contrived thought. But to an outsider, or customer if you will, the Market Building simply represents to me potential. The Market building does not lure me to downtown but it will spark an interest when I am close by. I think the fundamental difference concerning the Market Building follows the same formula as every “project” in Roanoke; pull the band aid off fast or slow. The Art Museum will attract people downtown not catch their eye once they are on the scene. Dining and lodging options on Mill Mountain will entice people, not act as a nice find while looking for the star. See what frustrates me is the story of someone like a Louis Wilson who obviously operates an attractive operation while he cannot invision change for the better. It’s 2008 almost 2009, we have changed very much since the 90’s, 80’s and so on. Why cannot we see that Roanoke needs to simply keep up with the Jones’. The citizens who want change and outnumber the pessemistic vendors who continually want to operate in the was need to simply do what they have been doing, stop going to a dirty place where your needs aren’t being met. Mr. Wilson, I ask you, if I can be a burger lover and a citizen of Roanoke for many years and never frequented your location, then are you and your fellow vendors doing the best job? If so, then I am missing out on what is probably an excellent burger or you and your fellow vendors need to stop holding up progress and allow for businesess who want to grow and reach a larger audience to fill in and allow them to make Roanoke the city it will be.
Brandon,
You are missing an excellent burger!
Mr. Wilson said, “This is why for eight of my nine years here, I have requested enlarging, then moving my space in the building, or combining both of my restaurants to create a correct venue with outside visibility and seating for operations later in the evening and perhaps on Sundays, so as to more fully promote Burger as Roanokes’ most awarded hometown favorite.”
I don’t see a pessimistic vendor - I see a business wanting to expand and the City being unaccommodating.
Brandon said, “citizens who want change and outnumber the pessemistic vendors.”
Who are these citizens? Did you take a poll? What kind of change are we talking about? Tenants are pessimistic - How so? Are you saying if you are a citizen and like eating at these businesses then we are pessimistic too?
These are small businesses that need our support just like any other business. I would wonder if you had a business in any building where your lease was in jeopardy or only month to month how secure you would feel about your economic future.
I definitely expected feedback stemming from the last post and admittedly I do not posses much knowledge about the details of this situation. All I do know is that there is a beautiful building in need of a renovation as to make Roanoke a more attractive place. When I hear vendors complain of their situation it doesn’t resonate very well with some. The city needs to be accountable for the current situation but for a tenant who has occupied a space for nearly a decade also needs to be accountable. In no way should a beautiful building in the middle of downtown be allowed to become such a mess, both literally and physically. What we cannot do is appropriate all the blame on the city and what the city cannot do is allow progress to be constrained for an unnecessary amount of time. If we as a city cannot operate a successful jewel of a building and maintain progressive relationships with profitable retailers, then allow the building to be sold. Now no one should want to agree to that. People are looking for the Roanoke’s of the world to come to. If we expect to grow, to get better, then assess blame for the past quickly and get moving forward.
Mr. Wilson,
The thing that confuses me the most is that if you have been so dissatisfied with the building management for so long, why haven’t you moved out? If you need more space to expand your business, there is no shortage of space available downtown to accommodate your needs. Corned Beef & Company started out in the food court and grew to become one of the most successful restaurant ventures in the valley.
Reading the comments posted by Mr. Berry and Mr. Citwood concerning the Market building reminds me of the children’s rhyme: Fuzzy Wuzzy was a bear, changed slightly to be Fuzzy Wuzzy is the thinking.
To be successful requires a plan. If one believes the “hired help” (aka City Manager and other city employees) there is a plan of everything and a MASTER PLAN as well. However, to quote Mark Hurd, CEO of Hewlett Packard, “Planning without execution is delusion”. What seems to be executed is the idea of the moment.
We’ve been told young, upwardly mobile professionals were going to flock to Roanoke because of our wonderful natural beauty and amenities, particularly the condos in vibrant 24/7 downtown. The only thing missing from the equation is JOBS and sufficient, inexpensive parking downtown.
Now we have virtual banners all over downtown hyping “The Tourists are Coming” the ultimate manifestation of build it and they will come – the Taubman Museum and that it will be an economic engine (until Carilion gets up and running). I wish the Taubmen well. However, I’m skeptical there will be the 233 paid admissions a day and $720,000 in profits from food service operations which is what is required to meet the projected $3.8 million operating budget. Half the upscale restaurants and most of the caters in town would have to go out of business.
Given that background relative to the Market Building – rumors are flying that extensive renovations are going to begin next March. If so there must be a plan on the drawing boards already. I hear a constant refrain that there should be “retail” in the market building. Has anyone noticed that the only retail entering the downtown Roanoke area lately is art galleries? Art galleries are like restaurants. Only so many can be supported by the existing demographics and in my opinion the market is saturated.
Local farmers peddling fresh produce in the market year round? Given a growing season where locally grown fresh produce arrives at the farmers market during late April and disappears around the middle of October I don’t think that is a viable idea. I can buy “fresh produce” peddled by Roanoke Fruit and Produce to local grocery stores year round.
Do we really want to turn the Farmers Market Building into a grocery store for those living in condos downtown, with other junk thrown in as teasers? I don’t think that is what the majority of the taxpaying citizens of Roanoke want and they pay the bill. Seems to me, despite their inability to see over the horizon the wonders of the may-be, possibly, perhaps, vision of the self appointed, self anointed visionaries whose self interest may or may not intersect with that of the population, taxpayers have the final say. Trust me they are pragmatic and more often than not right.
Lets be clear about something. The selection of Avantis to manage the Market Building back in 2002, if memory serves me correctly was, in my opinion questionable. Their performance was totally and wholly incompetent, with minor discrepancies. The management by the City since then has been even worse. My question is whether the blatant neglect and incompetence, again in my opinion, was by design or sheer ineptness. I vote for the latter- exacerbated by weak willed, dis-engaged, and dis-interested city councils. For those who are not running a business upon which their economic livelihood depends it is easy to give advice such as pick up and move, having no idea what that involves – as well as having no idea what “economic power” the landlord holds over your head or is perceived to. If your advice doesn’t work out for “them” there is no impact on you. I have another term for it, but it would not pass the censor.
I give the current council a passing grade for addressing the Market Building issue in a more public manner than their predecessors have. They don’t get a passing mark for good communications, per se although Mr. Tinkle gets high marks for providing a forum such as this.
At best I hope the current financial environment, where municipal bonds are commanding 7% interest will put a break on what seems like a headlong drive of “we have to so something – now”. Well, we don’t have to do something – now, and certainly not if there isn’t an acceptable PLAN.
DRI and the 40, count them 40 unnamed prominent businessmen who seem to be unwilling to put up any of their own money, have a plan. It is a half vast derivation of the $100,000 plan the City got bilked for in 2006, and was done off a 120 word RFP. The $100,000 PLAN was worth, about $2.98 in my opinion. The consultant committed the cardinal sin in producing it – expecting the users to come to him instead of vice versa. The plan, as such is impractical, but it was what the hired help wanted of that I am convinced. Seems to me, before the about face, Italian Palazzo steps at the $8 million overpass to the Roanoke Hotel was the number one priority. Go figure.
In my opinion, any lucid discussion concerning the Farmers market building can’t take place without considering any and all of the above.
Did I mention short-term inexpensive parking? There is nothing written in stone that the parking garages, run as an “enterprise” by the City can’t be subsidized by the City’s General Revenue Fund. What about validated parking, or reduced parking fees from 11 AM to 1.30 PM or some variation of that. Or isn’t that innovative enough.?
Of course that might require some hard thinking at City Hall about what is REALLY important in Roanoke – may-be even a rank order listing of priorities.
Now there is a truly visionary thought.
Vendors Move Out?
Location, location, location, Chris.
The historic location makes the tenants successful.
If the plan goes forward and the tenants are dispersed elsewhere, will they come back? Will the rent be affordable for them?
Why pay to park downtown for upscale retail when I can go to Valley View - a mall with more affordable options and easy access. The City is in jeopardy of pricing Downtown out of reach for the majority of Roanokers. Lets see how the Taubman Museum fares before we reinvent the City Market.
Continue with upper floor renovations and usage so the City can start collecting rent or usage fee on these dormant floors. As Brian Townsend said at the Retreat “once you get to the actual design and put a construction cost on them and other factors then we’ll be in a better position to tell if that concept translates into reality and functionality.” He very political correctly translated “pie in the sky” to a more palatable “reality and functionality.“ He also said that the building would not support outdoor seating on the mezzanine. $7 million dollars will require issuing general obligations bonds.
Past City Council imposed the following to ensure the “AA” rating is not jeopardized. Tax-supported general obligation debt service will not exceed 10% of General Fund expenditures. The City in 2009 will be at 9.3% and in 2010 will be at 9.6% primarily due the new high schools. These percents are assuming a 3-4 % growth per year. That begs the question is 3-4 % growth sustainable in these economically depressed times. There is another measure that involves 5% of real estate assessment that presumes 3-4% growth. So our real estate assessments need to go up by at least 4% a year but lets not go there. For 2008 the City is at 4.3%.
Dragon, I had brought City parking subsidy and parking validation in the past. I think it is time again to float the parking validation idea again. I understand that the downtown businesses did not want to subsidize parking validation and it died. Free parking for spending $50 or more in one store or restaurant or multiple store purchases at 5 stores or restaurants. The downtown merchants should come up with the formula that suits them as they will be reimbursing the City.
Center in the Square $25 million renovation is a higher priority. They asked for 2 ½ million over 5 years from the City and 1 million from the County over 5 years. The City needs to fund this as it will produce a much greater ROI than spending $7 million on the City Market build now.
Re - Validated Parking Downtown
Downtown property owners pay a 10% premium on their property taxes because they are in a designated tax district. The proceeds for the special levy go to fund the activities of Downtown Roanoke Inc. including Mr. Carder’s $80,000 direct salary. Mr. Carder’s “cost” considering benefits is probably closer to $112,000 which in combination with DRI’s rent for prime a prime Market St. location is a big chunk of change.
For those merchants who rent space downtown, the additional tax assessment is factored into their rent. I advocate the city pick up the tab for validated parking, between 11 AM and 1.30 PM in the Church St and Campbell Ave garages (assuming one can find space) as an inducement for shoppers to come to vibrant downtown and “shop” retail in what currently consists mainly of art galleries, plus the farmer’s market food court.
One would think the City’s transportation “Enterprise” fund was divinely ordained. it isn’t and the give-away to developers of the parking garage across from the police station should not have happened, in my opinion - but then a lot of seemingly incomprehensible things happen in Roanoke.
Here is a truly visionary thought - since there are those who keep calling on the unwashed to think over the horizon. It is that the City, which has plans for everything and executes none of them well, if at all stand fast until it figures out what is truly important to the City of Roanoke in ranked order priority with an associated cost and an expected return on investment.
Were I Czar, I’d probably start with the aging storm and sewage system. Granted it isn’t sexy, but think what it would be if they failed!
The problem with infa-structure is you don’t see most of it until it fails and you don’t want to be around when it does.
In the meantime, for instance, Center in the Square says the building is wearing out and oh by the way it would like the City to pony up $4 million for it’s do over.
Could Center in the square fix the aging systems (electrical, plumping, heating and air conditioning) and forego the exterior facade and roof-top outdoor dining that would only be open six months a year and not be profitable anyway? Could they raise the money from private donations to do the systems fix, or has the Taubman sucked the well dry?
Rather than look at the Farmer Market Building as something that needs to be done NOW - how about considering it for what it is, part of an integrated whole for which there doesn’t seem to be any coherent plan at the present time.
Ms. Garner is correct by the way - the finances of Roanoke City, if it wants to retain an AA bond rating can’t support diddly - so there is an opportunity to take the time and do it correctly.
A quick comment on the Center in the Square - it is a modernization to keep up with the technological times. The plans are quite amazing and allows for greater flexibility in changing the displays programmatically. The infrastructure is stable.
Why is Roanoke so willing to languish in the past?
Sorry, I forgot The Market Building has new chairs.