Market Building Renovation: Now is the time!
January 7, 2009
Well once again decisions that council makes- important ones involving vital amenities used by most citizens- gets caught up in controversy. While I stated it was a tough decision, let me explain how I came to my vote this Monday to proceed to design drawings and true budgets tied to the design.
If I were the only vote on council, I would have voted to head directly to develop construction documents involving plans for this vital building that would include: 8 food vendor areas that can have the fronts individually locked to encourage the opportunity to open for dinner or breakfast and possibly include ABC; a mezzanine that is renovated with outside balconies on the roof on each side for perhaps one larger restaurant; a second floor that is renovated for event use including a full kitchen and appropriate bathrooms (this space should be priced separately as there has been an interest on the part of several businesses to run an event space like this and possibly pay for up-fits as part of their contract); complete HVAC and electrical upgrades; improved restaurant venting; a contained health department approved trash area; appropriate lighting and cosmetic upgrades; increased openings and lighting on the perimeter of the building to show more vitality; improved attractiveness and signage on the Salem Avenue side of the building to encourage visitation from the Hotel Roanoke/ Art Museum area; closing Wall and Market streets with temporary bollards for street seating and usage on Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights. And perhaps most importantly: management by an outside organization that through leasing structures can encourage more 24 hour usage and higher usage of currently wasted square footage. We would also need to give appropriate consideration to the current vendors who want to stay for their inconvenience (which we should give every effort to make minimal)- perhaps in lower initial leases for larger and improved spaces. All of this is taken from the previous studies, public input sessions, surveys and a tour of the building with construction professionals.
But I am only one vote and it does not sound like the majority of council is in agreement about a design for the building. The biggest reason for this, I believe, is we are missing two vital bits of information: what design can really occur based on a true structural and engineering assessment of the building (never done in any earlier study) and what will be the cost of a particular design that can actually be done (again never done). Given our financial crisis and what I believe is a commitment on the part of council that this renovation is a high priority- having three designs and three budgets will help us make the most informed and fiscally responsible decision in as timely a fashion as possible. As a council member, I have heard many comments for and against each of the two studies presented over the last 3 years or so. None are a slam dunk and one potentially removes the food vendors that are enormously liked by visitors and citizens alike. None included structural analysis and none included a true budget tied to the design. There were a lot of “possible”, “tweaks” and “ifs”. But there were also a lot of fantastic ideas in each study.
The option the majority went with last Monday was NOT at all to pursue another ”consultant study” in my mind. It was the next logical step to finally proceed to renovation: gives us three drawings, based on historic and current public and consultant information we have, each tied to a structural and engineering analysis of the building and each tied to a budget. The next step with this firm would be to pick a design and a budget and develop Construction Documents. The next step would then be to put out an RFP for construction and as they say: get it done.
The other option is to vote this down and re-debate what the process should be and whether this is a project we should do. For the record, our local paper today indicated that several previous councils have declared the Market Building renovation a priority. That is simply not true. Prior to my coming on council the priority was the Market Garage, awnings, clean-up and the Spanish Step/Plaza concept coming off the Hotel Roanoke bridge. That council viewed the Market Building as important but a priority. The council that was seated two and a half years ago returned to the subject and eventually reprioritized that the Market Building should be a high priority (as I have stated the highest priority for capital improvement projects in my mind) and not the Stepped Plaza. This did waste some time but I think we made a decision and got the ball rolling. The first RFP perhaps wasted some time as well- few responses due to specific requirments put in the RFP, how it was written and the one response having some great ideas but missing some details.
So yes it has taken too long in my opinion. The process has been flawed again- but we knew that months ago and set this process out to get to a point as quickly as possible to start renovation. If this is a priority and we are making current food vendors suffer under the inquisition of month to month leases and not knowing the future- we need to keep the ball rolling and get useable information, quickly make the next informed decision and get the building renovated in a cost effective manner but a manner that will bring it well into the future and as soon as possible.
That is why I voted the way I did. Your thoughts are certainly appreciated- looks like we have to take a second vote anyway in two weeks- so give me your ideas!
-Dave
[...] Trinkle outlines his vision for the Market Building on his blog, Speak Out Roanoke. [...]
How wonderful it would be if decisions could be made in a vacuum without considering the ramifications!
I believe Councils, previous ones, not necessarily this one, have muddlefutzed around so long, made so many poor decisions, and wasted so much taxpayer money time has run out for the Market Building.
City revenues are down (less money coming in than in previous years) reflecting the overall economy. No surprise there. The school system anticipates receiving $1 million less from the City next year. The school system expects to receive $5 million less in state funding. The school system needs $4 million (in addition to the $6 above) just to stay even with price increases, or a total of $10 million that isn’t going to be there.
The question then becomes: What are Roanoke’s absolutely essential priority requirements that can be funded from the revenues accruing to the City.
I say accruing to the City because there is little – if any – capacity for the City to raise money by selling bonds, or borrow money without paying an outrageous interest rate. The City’s pension fund is under funded by approximately $150 million, revenues are down, the financial markets are (still) in disarray. The City’s bond rating would not be good and this is absolutely not the time to go to the capital markets to sell debt.
Excuse me for saying this, but I fear that Councilman Trinkle believes in the funding fairy. Even if the Council votes for another study (unneeded in my opinion) decisions are made, yadda, yadda, yadda – nothing is going to happen because there isn’t going to be any money. Unless, four council members think the Market Building is Roanoke’s number one priority.
Roanoke’s number one priorities, right now, are:
The school system.
Maintaining the city’s infrastructure, and
Jobs.
You can pretty well scratch “jobs” since the City’s Economic Development effort seems to be oriented towards selling sunshine rather than bringing jobs to the City/area.
I look at the vote to waste $169,000 on another market study as symbolic. Symbolic in that those who vote to do so, either don’t understand financial austerity, or don’t care.
The money would be better used, for example, being rolled over into next year and applied towards the $500,000 promised (conditions permitting as stated in the fine print) to the school system by Reverend Doctor C. Nelson Harris in his attempt to buy votes, but subsequently validated by the council. That $500,000 is allocated by the School System to fund the Community College program for any student graduation for a Roanoke High School with a 2.0 GPA.
That worthwhile program is going to have a greater Return on Investment than making the Market pretty pretty for the tourists, with a high or medium end restaurant in a market already saturated with such venues.
So, given there isn’t any money for the market – even if the City wastes another $169K on a study, reality is – Chico is Happy because he is leaving on 1 March. Tokyo Express may already be gone by then. The month-to-month lease BS, so the city can keep its options open will have succeeded in killing the market, which I think was the intention all along. There are already two vacant stands in the market. I would not be surprised to see other vendors leaving shortly as well.
The result. An empty building sitting in the middle of vibrant 24/7 downtown standing as a monument to the City Manager’s Vision Thingie and City Councils that muddlefutzed around until it was too late.
Let’s hear it for “good” government and efficient use of taxpayer’s dollars in Roanoke!
My apologies for the errors spell check didn’t find and I missed in editing because I knew what was supposed to be there.
First, I have to say that I, in many ways agree with some of the things Dr. Trinkle has put forth in his ideas for renewing the Market Building.
His ideas for individualizing spaces for each business’ needs is spot on and not unlike what I have asked to do with my operation in the building for years.
When I bought Burger in the summer of 1999 it had already been in business since 1983, and as its’ third owner, I had many ideas as to how I wanted to grow my store and customer base. I liked what Al Pollard had done with Corned Beef while in the Market Building and applauded what he and his partner were able to accomplish once they outgrew their space here.
Needless to say, I have sought to enlarge Burgers’ footprint in the structure and give it outward visbility and a greater range of hours, but constantly run into the need of the City to recreate the food court before allowing me to upsize my presence here. If I had been given the chance sooner, my store would be the size of Tavern on the Market, with an expanded menu and perhaps alcohol.
After reviewing Dr. Trinkle thoughts on his vote, I can understand his concerns in this matter. I personally feel that having a defined idea of the result to give to a design firm would be best and then move on with work on the plans and then execution of the plan . The smorgasboard approach reminds me of the piece meal approach that many architects and builders take to a basic design. By adding features and additions, the buyeris lead to spend more than was origionally intended.
Knowing what is wanted and needed is key to the desired result. The recommendations of the study firm in 1999’s City Master Plan said that the food court was working and only needed updates. The PPS recommendation that DRI supports is fancy and attempts too much in a building this size.
The general public has weighed in on a poll by Economic Development done on the street AFTER our recent infestation, and seems adamant that the food court be upgraded and continued by what…nearly 70% of those asked.
Given these points, I would have to say, bring in the design firm, preferably local so that the money stays in the Valley and so that someone local is accountable if there are future problems, then outline the project . More input by the public and council can insure a useable attraction, (Dr. Trinkle is right) with a top floor venue for music and performance , that can bring people downtown not only from the burbs but from the surrounding area.
This should create a Market Building that serves downtown, and also creates a pull of new business’ to downtown, along with a greater volume of area and visiting customers.
After all, isn’t drawing people to the downtown vital to growth, maintained property values, increased revenues and protecting our inner city from backsliding into disuse and disrepair.
That is what I would love to contribute to, both personally and as a business owner.
Thanks, Dr. Trinkle, I feel that I can agree with you and Mr. Rosen on many things
and the Harbinger has many points as well.
[...] Trinkle and Mason have been meeting regularly with vendors at the Market Building in an effort to address [...]
[...] should apply. Nash concluded that FOIA prohibits companies from doing business with the city. Trinkle and Mason have been meeting regularly with vendors at the Market Building in an effort to address [...]