Quote

Leeper noted 3CDC has secured a sale agreement for the Whex Garage, which lies between 4th and 5th streets fronting Elm Street south of the DECC. 3CDC is eyeing a mixed-used development on the Whex block

very very interesting

1) I like some of the things they are trying to do with the rooftop patio.  

2) I do not think the park over Elm is a great use of space. How much outdoor convention space will they really use. It seems as if it will be an underutilized space the majority of the time and really will not help attract additional conventions. More of just an add on space, imo.

3) the cover over Elm street to the outdoor park on Elm just needs to go.  It is ugly, pointless and will probably have the unintended consequence of creating a wind tunnel and nobody will want to be out there for that reason.

4) It seems as if there is no consideration for reclaiming land on the 75 side. Although it appears this is not an expansion, it seems like they should be able to go west for future expansion once the new bridge is built. 

5) While the design is nice and modern, DONT GET RID OF THE CINCINNATI SIGN facing 75. 

I am surprised no one in the group has asked. Where the heck will the Albee Theatre Arch go? Its out of place at 5th and Plum now, but I really do hope it will find a new home...

47 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

1) I like some of the things they are trying to do with the rooftop patio.  

2) I do not think the park over Elm is a great use of space. How much outdoor convention space will they really use. It seems as if it will be an underutilized space the majority of the time and really will not help attract additional conventions. More of just an add on space, imo.

3) the cover over Elm street to the outdoor park on Elm just needs to go.  It is ugly, pointless and will probably have the unintended consequence of creating a wind tunnel and nobody will want to be out there for that reason.

4) It seems as if there is no consideration for reclaiming land on the 75 side. Although it appears this is not an expansion, it seems like they should be able to go west for future expansion once the new bridge is built. 

5) While the design is nice and modern, DONT GET RID OF THE CINCINNATI SIGN facing 75. 

I like the partial cover over Elm ALOT, I would be very disappointed if that is taken out of the plan. It’s sleek and is the only feature that helps visually incorporate the millennium site into the convention center building itself. 3CDC did a clever job adding that feature knowing paying for Expansion it self is probably a long ways off.

 

And yes this plan is not touching anything in regards to an expansion. There is alot of talk on here about going westward but it’s not happening at least for a veryyy long time if I had to guess. Plus the Brent Spence project will take forever. The Convention Center will go east sometime in early-mid 2030s.

Edited October 18, 20222 yr by 646empire

1 hour ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

1) I like some of the things they are trying to do with the rooftop patio.  

2) I do not think the park over Elm is a great use of space. How much outdoor convention space will they really use. It seems as if it will be an underutilized space the majority of the time and really will not help attract additional conventions. More of just an add on space, imo.

3) the cover over Elm street to the outdoor park on Elm just needs to go.  It is ugly, pointless and will probably have the unintended consequence of creating a wind tunnel and nobody will want to be out there for that reason.

4) It seems as if there is no consideration for reclaiming land on the 75 side. Although it appears this is not an expansion, it seems like they should be able to go west for future expansion once the new bridge is built. 

5) While the design is nice and modern, DONT GET RID OF THE CINCINNATI SIGN facing 75. 

I really would prefer that they use part of the Millennium Site to create liner-retail facing the park. It would hide the blank wall, activate the park during non-convention times, and give some sort of use to the break-out space other than adjacency. I would understand in the interest of minimizing costs and for future flexibility if they want to make this a container park (cringe) or at least a food truck court, but multi-story would be ideal.

 

I don't mind the zig-zag wing extension, but if design school stresses anything, it is that when you make a grand gesture, its terminus should be an event. That square better be a heck of a lot more than fenced-in grass (reflecting pool would be nice) and could give west downtown a public space (i.e. Lytle park) it sorely needs.

38 minutes ago, 646empire said:

I like the partial cover over Elm ALOT, I would be very disappointed if that is taken out of the plan. It’s sleek and is the only feature that helps visually incorporate the millennium site into the convention center building itself. 3CDC did a clever job adding that feature knowing paying for Expansion it self is probably a long ways off

I am not an architect but it seems as if that could create a wind tunnel and almost make the park unusable because of the winds? To the architectual people out there, is that something we should be concerned with?

25 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

I am not an architect but it seems as if that could create a wind tunnel and almost make the park unusable because of the winds? To the architectual people out there, is that something we should be concerned with?

It doesn't seem wide enough to create a wind tunnel, especially no more than a standard urban street wall. However, if it really concerns you, you can write them to make sure that someone studies and verifies.

22 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

I am not an architect but it seems as if that could create a wind tunnel and almost make the park unusable because of the winds? To the architectual people out there, is that something we should be concerned with?

If you look closely in my opinion the “Cover” isn’t actually wide enough to create a wind tunnel so strong the park would be unusable. The Cover (which in my opinion is barely worth being considered a true “Cover” looks high enough and actually tapers off as it approaches 84.51. I would also assume the architects and 3CDC considered that lol.

2 minutes ago, CincyIntheKnow said:

It doesn't seem wide enough to create a wind tunnel, especially no more than a standard urban street wall. However, if it really concerns you, you can write them to make sure that someone studies and verifies.

 
We where typing the same thing at once I see haha.

The cover seems pretty useless if there isn't some form of conveyance, either a bridge or an escalator like at GABP or PBS.

3CDC releases renderings of Duke Energy Convention Center

 

The Duke Energy Convention Center would be radically overhauled under a proposal by the Cincinnati Center City Development Corp., which would demolish and replace all street-facing facades of the aging building and wrap it with glass, as well as adding a rooftop solar garden.

 

3CDC CEO Steve Leeper, who led the efforts to build a new convention center and stadiums in Pittsburgh, previously told the Business Courier the facade should be replaced in an update of the convention center, but Monday was the first time he revealed how encompassing it could be. The proposal calls for an arched roofline aimed at evoking the region’s hilly terrain.

 

3CDC has hired Moody Nolan, a Black-owned architecture firm out of Columbus, and TVS, an Atlanta architecture firm, to work on the project. They worked together on convention centers in Nashville and New York. The goal? Make the convention center more attractive, useful, flexible and environmentally friendly in a way that will last for decades. The city is expected to approve $7 million for the $200 million project on Wednesday.

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2022/10/18/duke-energy-renderings.html

 

 

 

I give it about 95% odds that the cover over Elm Street gets value engineered out of the design.

Just now, taestell said:

I give it about 95% odds that the cover over Elm Street gets value engineered out of the design.

It looks like the put it there so they could  get the seventh “hill” out of the design. I’d assume they would want that in the design somewhere.guess they could wrap it around the side instead. Also what is the building on the lot with the park? 

21 minutes ago, Ucgrad2015 said:

It looks like the put it there so they could  get the seventh “hill” out of the design. I’d assume they would want that in the design somewhere.guess they could wrap it around the side instead. Also what is the building on the lot with the park? 

I think it is there to tie in the space to the convention center, otherwise it will look more like a missing tooth.

12 hours ago, dotunderscore said:

cobblestoned elm!

 

the article mentioned that Elm street will be closed more often than not

 

Notice how that doesn’t require a multi year traffic study for this project as it has in the past for almost any other change downtown… 

 

Anyway if that’s the case I think you could take Elm down to two lanes. Expand the convention center into the current sidewalk footprint and make a sidewalk in the current street footprint. 
 

also should have a smooth through section for bikes

Edited October 18, 20222 yr by thebillshark

How much more money would it cost to expand the cc Elm?  That mocked up area is a complete waste of space.

 

Am I also not seeing a direct connection between the new hotel and the cc?  

21 minutes ago, Cincy513 said:

How much more money would it cost to expand the cc Elm?  That mocked up area is a complete waste of space.

 

Am I also not seeing a direct connection between the new hotel and the cc?  

Well it’s not permanent…… so it’s not a waste, I mean the other option would be to leave it as a parking lot for the next decade like many cities would until expansion happens. I read expansion alone would be about 250 mil so a renovation plus expansion would be in the 450mil range and that’s not happening especially with the bengals 500million plus stadium renovation coming.

 

Also a hotel connection as in a skywalk? Please no. The front doors would be like 50 feet away from each other. 

Edited October 18, 20222 yr by 646empire

16 minutes ago, 646empire said:

Well it’s not permanent…… so it’s not a waste, I mean the other option would be to leave it as a parking lot for the next decade like many cities would until expansion happens. I read expansion alone would be about 250 mil so a renovation plus expansion would be in the 450mil range and that’s not happening especially with the bengals 500million plus stadium renovation coming.

 

Also a hotel connection as in a skywalk? Please no. The front doors would be like 50 feet away from each other. 

What's the point of putting $200 million into the cc now if we're not going to make it bigger?  That has been it's biggest problem for 15+ years according to the city.  You're just putting lipstick on a pig with these renderings.  The Bengals upgrades are going to happen over multiple years so it's not like a new build where all that money is needed now.  The Browns are also going to pick up some of that tab. 

 

This convention center "upgrade" just seems so small time which sadly fits with a lot of projects in this city.  Would be nice if we did something big and bold for once.  

 

Also, every convention center hotel in the world is connected.  It's why they're called convention center hotels.  

Edited October 18, 20222 yr by Cincy513

29 minutes ago, Cincy513 said:

This convention center "upgrade" just seems so small time which sadly fits with a lot of projects in this city.  Would be nice if we did something big and bold for once.  

 

Here's my "big and bold" proposal. 

* Cover 71 with caps from the river to MLK

* Reading and Gilbert realignment

* Extend Subway to casino

* Rail to Xavier via 71 ROW

* Banks-like development with an arena and convention center (KC's added in pic), over a transit center and structured parking

 

 

^ The new arena will be by the FCC stadium.

57 minutes ago, Cincy513 said:

What's the point of putting $200 million into the cc now if we're not going to make it bigger?  That has been it's biggest problem for 15+ years according to the city.  You're just putting lipstick on a pig with these renderings.  The Bengals upgrades are going to happen over multiple years so it's not like a new build where all that money is needed now.  The Browns are also going to pick up some of that tab. 

 

This convention center "upgrade" just seems so small time which sadly fits with a lot of projects in this city.  Would be nice if we did something big and bold for once.  

 

Also, every convention center hotel in the world is connected.  It's why they're called convention center hotels.  

Well yes the center needs expansion but it’s also now outdated and borderline ugly so it’s  now having trouble booking some of the most basic events. You can have a nice convention center (with a renovation) without expansion but not the other way around. We cant expand the center without the renovation too, you can’t have a glistening new section and leave the rest of the building a mess until a later date, that would be truly lipstick on a pig. We also can’t say F-it and do nothing to the existing center until we can pay for the expansion too that would be foolish.

 

The Bengals Stadium renovation may happen construction wise in phases but the scope, design and financing will all happened in one big swoop/multi party agreement in the next couple years. And guess what? The Reds will be next in the late 2020s early 2030s, they are just quiet now because the bengals lease is up first.

 

And No, Convention Center Hotels are not inherently connected physically (although some are) to a convention center it’s mostly about being across the street/adjacent.

 

One more thing I think what 3CDC has proposed is very bold and not at all “small time” lol.

 

Edited October 18, 20222 yr by 646empire

10 minutes ago, 646empire said:

Well yes the center needs expansion but it’s also now outdated and borderline ugly so it’s  now having trouble booking some of the most basic events. You can have a nice convention center (with a renovation) without expansion but not the other way around. We cant expand the center without the renovation too, you can’t have a glistening new section and leave the rest of the building a mess until a later date, that would be truly lipstick on a pig. We also can’t say F-it and do nothing to the existing center until we can pay for the expansion too that would be foolish.

 

The Bengals Stadium renovation may happen construction wise in phases but the scope, design and financing will all happened in one big swoop/multi party agreement in the next couple years. And guess what? The Reds will be next in the late 2020s early 2030s, they are just quiet now because the bengals lease is up first.

 

And No, Convention Center Hotels are not inherently connected physically (although some are) to a convention center it’s mostly about being across the street/adjacent.

 

One more thing I think what 3CDC has proposed is very bold and not at all “small time” lol.

 

Liz Keating was pretty much saying that convention business is pretty dead right now anyway. Part of the reason being is that the center is very dated so it is not attracting big conventions.

 

You have to figure such buildings have about a 10 year shelf life before a large renovation needs to be undertaken. Similar to a hotel, styles change, technology changes, preferences change and you constantly need to update to stay relevant. The difference here is instead of a 1-2 million dollar renovation, you need to do a $100-$200 million renovation to keep up with your peer cities.  I know it seems like yesterday that Cleveland opened their renovated center, but I am sure in the next 3-5 years you will be hearing people up there talk about how they need to do a major renovation of their facility. 

1 minute ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Liz Keating was pretty much saying that convention business is pretty dead right now anyway. Part of the reason being is that the center is very dated so it is not attracting big conventions.

 

You have to figure such buildings have about a 10 year shelf life before a large renovation needs to be undertaken. Similar to a hotel, styles change, technology changes, preferences change and you constantly need to update to stay relevant. The difference here is instead of a 1-2 million dollar renovation, you need to do a $100-$200 million renovation to keep up with your peer cities.  I know it seems like yesterday that Cleveland opened their renovated center, but I am sure in the next 3-5 years you will be hearing people up there talk about how they need to do a major renovation of their facility. 

Yupp, and the price tag seems high but that’s because our center is wayyy over due for a renovation, rather than sticking to a modest 7-10 year plan of decent upgrades Cincinnati is now 17 years since the last big one. Also if you leave the center for dead until you can pay for an expansion too the city looses even more convention and meetings dollars along with todays renovations costing 300 plus million in the future. Do them now.

I'm just failing to see where we're getting $200 million to pay for this but can't possibly get $400 million to upgrade and expand it.  It's not some astronomical difference in money.  It will also be cheaper then if we do this $200 million upgrade now and then do another upgrade and expansion in 10 - 15 years. 

1 minute ago, Cincy513 said:

I'm just failing to see where we're getting $200 million to pay for this but can't possibly get $400 million to upgrade and expand it.  It's not some astronomical difference in money.  It will also be cheaper then if we do this $200 million upgrade now and then do another upgrade and expansion in 10 - 15 years. 

Well 400 million is astronomical in comparison to 200 million. It’s double, hundreds of millions more lol. The way they are planning to finance this is very complex and because the financing tax source is already committed to other projects too banks/bonds can only be issued for so much without going to voters and asking for a tax increase. Because this planned renovation is so extensive and bold When the center is expanded say in 8-12 years (which in my opinion is a normal cycle) renovations to the existing space will be much smaller and involve things like lighting, tech and carpeting to match the new building not re wrapping the entire building and such.

If they are going to remove the Cincinnati sign it needs to be moved elsewhere ngl

21 minutes ago, stashua123 said:

If they are going to remove the Cincinnati sign it needs to be moved elsewhere ngl

The sign museum! I like the Cincinnati sign but it's time for it to go somewhere else.

Something tells me that DECC and 3CDC aren't going for bigger conventions... they are going for better conventions.

Making upgrades to the space instead of expanding the space will attract smaller, more exclusive conventions. This is all just my personal conjecture, but I just don't see how doubling the size of the Duke Energy Convention Center just to compete for the same conventions at Columbus would work out as a business plan.

5 minutes ago, Miami-Erie said:

The sign museum! I like the Cincinnati sign but it's time for it to go somewhere else.

Me and my followers suggest a Hollywood sign

 

59 minutes ago, Chas Wiederhold said:

Me and my followers suggest a Hollywood sign

 

YES please!

Yes, and I'd love for the city to incorporate a new "resort" like the old days at the top of the inclines, run by the Parks department to fund further Parks improvements.

 

Thinking mainly of a public park that doubles as a biergarten so you can enjoy the views with a drink and a spot you can bring your own food to. Maybe include a small hotel at the top so you can stay atop the Cincinnati sign. 

 

Now I'm imagining the opportunity for a hotel where you stay behind the sign, with a biergarten at the top of the sign. Maybe figure out how to get a selfie station at the corner of the sign with a fisheye lens that can get you a selfie where you're standing on top/adjacent to the sign, etc.

 

Honestly, the opportunities are endless (and probably expensive, haha).

5 hours ago, stashua123 said:

If they are going to remove the Cincinnati sign it needs to be moved elsewhere ngl

Columbus?

3 hours ago, ryanlammi said:

run by the Parks department to fund further Parks improvements.

 

Thinking mainly of a public park that doubles as a biergarten 

 

 

 

 

I've long thought a residential tower overlooking eden park where the current park maintenance facilities are (at the south end of Sinton) could have an observation deck/restuarant/etc. run by the parks. The views in all directions would be stunning.

Not having a top 40 sized convention center is pretty embarrassing for the city. 

35 minutes ago, Cincy513 said:

Not having a top 40 sized convention center is pretty embarrassing for the city. 

 

Is it? Harrisburg, Reno, Tulsa, and Louisville are on that list. I don't think it has given them any type of big city clout. 

7 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

 

Is it? Harrisburg, Reno, Tulsa, and Louisville are on that list. I don't think it has given them any type of big city clout. 

Louisville is the exception in the list of three. Louisville does a huge amount of convention business in both the expanded and renovated center downtown, and the expo center out by the airport. Its a city that is becoming the next Nashville, as cool place to visit for a weekend trip. I like Tulsa but it be a lot harder for them to attract bigger conventions. 

33 minutes ago, Cincy513 said:

Not having a top 40 sized convention center is pretty embarrassing for the city. 

To a certain extent I agree. But before we attempt to get there I think they need to shore up the existing infrastructure. Right now, they have a giant white elephant that generates very little income and business. Let's get that generating revenue first and then work to grow it from there. Cincinnati has treated the convention center as an afterthought with fits and starts where something is done only when it absolutely needs to be done. The thing about Columbus and Indianapolis is that they are doing things to their centers on a continuous basis. This is where Cincinnati needs to move toward if they truly want to compete for large conventions. 

 

What Cincinnati should do is leverage their current assets that their peer cities. St. Louis and Indy offer the concept of the domed stadium within easy access to their Convention Centers. Columbus has an arena that can be incorporated if need be.  What Cincinnati has, within walking distance and blocks from their center is 3 stadiums with some cool meeting space (for some meetings in good weather months, this can be a selling point) We have NKY center which could be utilized in some bids (I know not likely, but it could and should be a selling point), Cincinnati can compete with the larger centers by offering walkability and compactness and allowing events to be spread within a few blocks to make up for the lack of contiguous space. Not ideal but it is something that could be packaged. 

 

I think Cincinnati should make a push to what you suggest, but before going there, they need to right the ship first and renovate the center and BUILD THE HOTEL. Without the hotel, nothing is going to happen. Plus, once the hotel is built, there will be much more clarity on the BSB project and how much land they can reclaim to the west of the current center. Once that is known, there are a lot of different opportunities that could present themselves, including having a potential footprint large enough for an arena. Let's right the ship first and then worry about expansion. 

 

 

4 minutes ago, savadams13 said:

Louisville is the exception in the list of three. Louisville does a huge amount of convention business in both the expanded and renovated center downtown, and the expo center out by the airport. Its a city that is becoming the next Nashville, as cool place to visit for a weekend trip. I like Tulsa but it be a lot harder for them to attract bigger conventions. 

 

I love Louisville. But outside of the derby, I think its tourism draw is limited to couple hundred miles. Not really the kind of national draw that Nashville has.

 

But that's kind of a non sequitur. I'm not saying that their convention center isn't a net positive, or worthwhile. Just that a city's reputation doesn't really revolve around the size of its convention center. 

2 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

 

I love Louisville. But outside of the derby, I think its tourism draw is limited to couple hundred miles. Not really the kind of national draw that Nashville has.

 

But that's kind of a non sequitur. I'm not saying that their convention center isn't a net positive, or worthwhile. Just that a city's reputation doesn't really revolve around the size of its convention center. 

While it may not be the same now as it was 15 years ago, the main reason why Cincinnati did not go big back then was because the market was such a hyper competitive market that to compete in the space with Vegas, Chicago, New York, etc was going to take a lot more effort than trying to carve out a niche in the mid-sized space. Columbus and Indy had pretty much cornered the region on the super large space so it was determined better to use Cincinnati's resources to have a smaller more compact facility. It did work out very well for the first 10 years until around 2015 and the biggest challenges was not the center itself but the convention hotel.  The peer cities to Cincinnati did not have the hotel hurdle to overcome so they could invest in their centers more.  

 

Another reason why we need to build the hotel before worrying about the size of the center and get the center in as good of shape to compete once the hotel is built

11 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

 

I love Louisville. But outside of the derby, I think its tourism draw is limited to couple hundred miles. Not really the kind of national draw that Nashville has.

 

But that's kind of a non sequitur. I'm not saying that their convention center isn't a net positive, or worthwhile. Just that a city's reputation doesn't really revolve around the size of its convention center. 

I was going to say the same thing. Louisville and Nashville are worlds apart as entertainment destinations. And yes outside of derby i honestly never hear many people mention Louisville at all. 

18 hours ago, Chas Wiederhold said:

Me and my followers suggest a Hollywood sign

 

You could move it to the River in front of Paycor and it could pop right there or in front of GABP or freedom center. It would be a better addition over the stupid "sing the queen city" sign that is currently there (a Laure Quinliven special)

I don't think you realize how large that sign is.  No way would it fit in front of the freedom center.  It would also be underwater for a good part of the year if you put it on the river. 

 

I'm team keep the sign at the renovated cc.  

Edited October 19, 20222 yr by Cincy513

4 minutes ago, Cincy513 said:

I don't think you realize how large that sign is.  No way would it fit in front of the freedom center.  It would also be underwater for a good part of the year if you put it on the river. 

 

I'm team keep the sign at the renovated cc.  

I prefer it on the new CC too. It still looks like there is a spot it could hang from there. I like how it enhances the view from the West Side of town which was lacking in the past. The East Side generally has better views of the city anyway. 

2 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

To a certain extent I agree. But before we attempt to get there I think they need to shore up the existing infrastructure. Right now, they have a giant white elephant that generates very little income and business. Let's get that generating revenue first and then work to grow it from there. Cincinnati has treated the convention center as an afterthought with fits and starts where something is done only when it absolutely needs to be done. The thing about Columbus and Indianapolis is that they are doing things to their centers on a continuous basis. This is where Cincinnati needs to move toward if they truly want to compete for large conventions. 

 

What Cincinnati should do is leverage their current assets that their peer cities. St. Louis and Indy offer the concept of the domed stadium within easy access to their Convention Centers. Columbus has an arena that can be incorporated if need be.  What Cincinnati has, within walking distance and blocks from their center is 3 stadiums with some cool meeting space (for some meetings in good weather months, this can be a selling point) We have NKY center which could be utilized in some bids (I know not likely, but it could and should be a selling point), Cincinnati can compete with the larger centers by offering walkability and compactness and allowing events to be spread within a few blocks to make up for the lack of contiguous space. Not ideal but it is something that could be packaged. 

 

I think Cincinnati should make a push to what you suggest, but before going there, they need to right the ship first and renovate the center and BUILD THE HOTEL. Without the hotel, nothing is going to happen. Plus, once the hotel is built, there will be much more clarity on the BSB project and how much land they can reclaim to the west of the current center. Once that is known, there are a lot of different opportunities that could present themselves, including having a potential footprint large enough for an arena. Let's right the ship first and then worry about expansion. 

 

 

Once again, the new arena is going by the FCC stadium. Arena aside, that narrowing of 75 looms large for the future of our city.

 

Not sure where you think an arena is fitting by FCCs stadium or who is paying for it.  But I'd sure love to see it. 

^ The project is north of the stadium. In planning and design stage.

2 minutes ago, CincyIntheKnow said:

Once again, the new arena is going by the FCC stadium. Arena aside, that narrowing of 75 looms large for the future of our city.

 

I know it has been floated to place it near FCC stadium, but the reality is there is not much besides speculation and loose proposals about building it at this point and the likelihood of a new arena in the next 3-5 years is pretty minimal. So a lot can change in that period and unless more tangible serious talk about an arena going where the FC stadium is located occurs, then that location really is no more realistic/unrealistic than building at the Banks or Convention Center area.  Until something tangible comes forward, there is no arena that will be built and there are no current plans for an arena anywhere in downtown.  

As far as I can tell they are beyond speculative, they are planning their "village" redevelopment around it for a year-round draw.

13 minutes ago, CincyIntheKnow said:

Once again, the new arena is going by the FCC stadium. Arena aside, that narrowing of 75 looms large for the future of our city.

 

 

When you say "narrowing of 75" are you referencing the Bridge-Forward plan? https://www.bridge-forward.org/

Yes. If Aftab can rally support behind it. Historically, downtown landowners have been against increasing competition (other developable land)