At its regular monthly meeting on Wednesday, Monroe County’s capital improvement board got a status update on the project that the seven member group was formed to oversee—the expansion of the county convention center.
The current name of the facility at 3rd Street and College Avenue is the Monroe Convention Center. At least the new expansion, which is to be located across College Avenue from the existing building, will get a different name.
The task of recommending a process for deciding a name was assigned on Wednesday to a committee of the CIB—Jay Baer, Joyce Poling, and Jim Silberstein.
Wednesday’s update also included some crucial required approvals, which are cued up for early 2025. The site plan review is expected to be in front of the Bloomington city plan commission on Jan. 13. A hearing on some requested variances is planned for the city’s board of zoning appeals (BZA) ten days later, on Jan. 23.
A request for the city council’s approval of the bonds to be issued is likely to get a first reading on Jan. 22, with a possible vote on Feb. 5.
The bonds, to be issued against food and beverage tax revenues, will support a $71-million all-in total project cost. The schedule for the city council’s consideration was reported to the CIB by city controller Jessica McClellan, who attended Wednesday’s meeting.
McClellan did not give precise dates, saying that the plan is for two meetings, once in January and a second time in February. But that cadence squares up with the Jan. 22 and Feb. 5 meeting dates that appear on the recently approved city council annual calendar.
On the topic of the naming of the new facility, CIB president John Whikehart noted that the selling of any naming rights is subject to the terms of the interlocal agreement between city and county governments, under which the CIB operates. Those terms include the approval of the Bloomington mayor and the Monroe County board of commissioners—which Whikehart indicated is not a possibility that’s currently in the cards.
Offering a suggestion on Wednesday about one possible approach to the naming process was CIB member Doug Bruce, who talked about some kind of contest that would invite participation by residents.
Getting some discussion at Wednesday’s meeting were some landscape elements presented by Bill Riggert, an engineer who is working with Schmidt Associates on the design of the building. CIB member Adam Thies questioned the intention of constructing a 10-foot wide sidewalk along 3rd Street with street trees in the middle of it. The street trees are a requirement of the city’s UDO (unified development ordinance).
Thies put it like this: “This seems a little odd that we would want to propose a street tree in the middle of a 10-foot sidewalk—that leaves maybe three feet, maybe two feet to walk on—that’s barely wide enough for a person.”
Riggert pointed to the possibility of asking the board of zoning appeals for a variance on the street trees. In fact, the requirement on street trees is on the list of possible variances the project will be asking for from the board of zoning appeals.
During the time for public comment, city council president Isabel Piedmont-Smith pointed out that the city council’s mid-summer letter to the CIB about the project had explicitly addressed the idea of variances. The wording from the letter says: “If variances are requested, these should not undermine city policy goals as reflected in relevant city plans and city code.”
Piedmont-Smith noted that the point of the street trees includes the policy goals related to the city’s climate action plan. She questioned why the building had not been set back farther from the street, so that there was room to accommodate street trees and the need for a wide walkway.
A bigger setback from the street would mean a smaller building footprint. One of the design tweaks presented at Wednesday’s meeting was a reduction in the size of the exhibit hall, by about 2,000 square feet. But that area did not represent a reduction in the building footprint. Instead, the exhibit hall space was traded for additional “pre-function space” and a better layout for the kitchen.
The first meeting of 2025 for the CIB is set for Jan. 15.
Could the street trees be placed on one side rather than in the middle?
The center should be called a civic center or event center. Convention Center sounds like it is larger than what it is
Carmichael Center or Hoagy Place (think McCormick Place in Chicago).
If the street trees are about climate goals, then why couldn’t the trees be purchased and planted offsite, maybe somewhere to the south, or along the B-Line? The climate doesn’t care whether the trees are on 3rd street or somewhere nearby, does it? This seems like an eminently solvable problem.
The local climate absolutely cares about the location of trees. The heat island effect can’t be mitigated off-site.
But this is solvable. Just have to follow the rules. It’s really pathetic that the city can’t build something that follows it’s own rules.
It’s partially due to larger climate goals, like you alluded to, but often also seeks to accomplish more hyperlocal climate goals, like reducing the heat island effect, drainage, habitat connectivity, etc.
These could possibly be accomplished via other design means, of course, in combination with planting trees offsite for the larger carbon footprint goals.
I do not understand the need for the new building to have a different name separate from the original convention center, especially as the two buildings will effectively serve one purpose and audience. I suspect that John Whikehart hints at the real reason while saying that selling the naming rights is “currently not in the cards.” They must anticipate needing more money and we will see a future article announcing the selected corporate name for the new building.
i guess this is a nit pick, i’m probably the only one that even noticed but
on page 17 and 18 they have renders of the inside ‘pre-function’ space. that’s the lobby / hallway that wraps around the north and west sides of the building that lets people access the different sides of the big open event space. and both of those renders show sunlight very clearly coming from the north-north-west. which never happens.
i don’t know if it’s even ‘deceptive’ but it sure is not representative of reality! 🙂
more substantively…they are absolutely determined not to correctly interface this thing to the b-line. there’s a truck loading dock on the old convention center right where the connection to the b-line belongs, and they are preserving that facility. they are really phoning it in when it comes to actually integrating with our urban fabric. i’m not saying it would be easy to do better, but i’m saying, they’re not doing very good.
especially when the b-line is the rational grade-separated connection to a possible hotel north of the convention center, that kind of detail matters a lot.
on top of that, even the existing convention center traffic that is crossing the b-line there to get to the back parking lot is at risk. they step out from behind a giant truck ramp and suddenly appear on the b-line. it’s easy to do it safely but the design of it forces people to be ignorant about what they are encountering. they can’t really see what it is until they’re already on it. and as a result, there have been a lot of uncomfortable interactions where they step out in front of cyclists and everyone has to say “i’m sorry. my bad. no, you’re good.” probably a dozen times a day when there’s a big conference going on. i don’t know of any collisions yet but the proper design to avoid this problem is a solved problem in transportation planning / engineering disciplines. and they just aren’t bothering.
the irony is they said the reason they need a gerbil tube across college ave is so that they can move large cart-loads between the buildings more efficiently. they specifically mentioned for catering, so that they could combine the buildings to one kitchen. if that desire was genuine, they wouldn’t need to preserve the kitchen / loading dock area in both buildings. but it was a smokescreen, a fraud. and you can tell because they are preserving separate kitchen and loading dock facilities in each building. because the two buildings are being designed to function separately, despite the dishonest representations we’ve seen so far.
I agree with this “truck loading dock..where the connection to the b-line belongs”. B-line would/should be a super highway for these walking visitors to reach downtown areas, yet current ConvCenter puts its dirty backside to B-line. Please consider changing this.
Really good feedback, thanks Greg.
Please know that there have been a lot of studies and conversations about B-Line integration.
Currently, it’s not in this project spec to dismantle the current kitchen, remove the loading dock, and related activities. Partially because of the location of the heating systems for the current facility.
The priority for now – driven primarily by budget realities – is to get the new facility built, with minor retrofitting of the existing facility.
But everyone involved VERY much understands and desires the need to tie the project to the trail. It’s also one of the Mayor’s top priorities with regard to the convention center.
Some of that integration may come in conjunction with the hotel to the north. Some may come in conjunction with a more comprehensive parking plan in the future. We do not have a solution at this time. But it is not something that is being overlooked or ignored.
In terms of the connector, yes safely moving food and AV between the buildings is an objective. But more so pedestrian safety and not clogging a major street when hundreds of people may need to move to/from a main plenary session and breakout sessions in the adjacent building.
Your eye for detail on this project is excellent. Please do feel free to attend the meetings. Public comment always welcomed. January 15 at 3pm is our next one.
Make the sidewalks 10 feet wide, then make the street narrower and plant the trees there.
Indeed, I see some unnecessary street parking spaces that could be replaced with sidewalk and street trees.