Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Classic Center Redevelopment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Consultants present options to monetize Classic Center-area sites; commissioners ask for more market analysis
Summary
On July 17, consultants updated the local government committee on alternatives for redeveloping publicly adjacent sites near the Classic Center, recommending options that include selling or leasing the Kelly diversified parcel, outlining three revenue levers and requesting additional market and design study before final recommendations.
Consultants for the Classic Center-area planning effort presented a business-plan update to the local government committee on Friday, July 17, outlining options to generate near-term proceeds and long-term recurring revenue from several publicly adjacent sites.
The presentation emphasized three financial levers: one-time external capital (grants or competitive funds), value-capture mechanisms such as a tax allocation district (TAD) or a special service district (SSD), and asset commercialization (leasing or sale of publicly owned land). Consultant Christian said hotels ‘‘stand out because they activate about every long term revenue mechanism available to the district,’’ and the team recommended advancing options to sell or otherwise price the Kelly diversified parcel so the city can consider a sale or ground-lease as part of a phased strategy.
Why it matters: the committee is weighing whether to prioritize quick proceeds from a property sale or to pursue longer-term revenue that depends on private investment and district administration. The choice affects future development types, tax revenue, and how the arena and downtown connect to nearby sites.
The consultants presented three design alternatives that center on three anchors—hotel, multifamily and parking—across five candidate sites. The team said hotels and mixed uses could yield the most tax and occupancy-related revenue, while student housing is attractive for density but may reduce ground-floor retail activation near the arena. On the recommendation to move the Kelly site toward market disposition, a consultant said, ‘‘we did, make that recommendation, to sell the Kelly diversified site or to at least have it moving forward, where it could be approved’’ (presenter).
Cost and feasibility issues surfaced during discussion. The team estimated one technical option—building a platform over the multimodal hub—at roughly $175 per square foot for about 50,000 square feet (roughly $8.5 million), a level of capital that could make some development scenarios infeasible without public subsidy. Consultants said they will test market feasibility with additional financial modeling and developer input.
Commissioners pressed for more visuals, clearer site boundaries, and market intelligence. One commissioner raised concerns that heavy student housing immediately adjacent to the arena would create ‘‘a Berlin Wall’’ effect that limits riverfront activation and pedestrian flow; consultants and other commissioners pushed back that additional ground-floor retail and improved circulation strategies could mitigate that risk. Presenters reported that downtown retailers had privately told the team they were ‘‘extremely concerned about sucking business away from them,’’ a concern the consultants said they would study further as part of retail and parking analysis.
Next steps: the consulting team will refine financial models, expand stakeholder outreach—particularly to hotel operators, retail operators and potential developers—and return with visuals and updated market work. The team said it remains on schedule to deliver a final product by 12/08 and proposed a follow-up check-in in late August or early September to review the next phase of analysis. The committee adjourned after the scheduling discussion.
The meeting also recorded routine procedural votes: voice approval of the meeting agenda and the May 29, 2026 minutes earlier in the session.
