The new drain loses a showpiece of the entire project. An “open air plaza” in this context means “place to sweat your brains out for most of the year.”
Agreed. I feel like the courtyard would have been a nice compliment to whatever ultimately happens to the second parcel behind the Hyatt (particularly a reasonably-sized convention center).

On the plus side, it looks like the final deal reduces the due diligence period from a year down to 4 months, which should hopefully get things moving more quickly.
Question for you development guys:
In a city where downtown/riverfront development tends to move at a glacial pace, despite the public pushback, is there really any downside to these giant REV grant commitments?
For projects like the Hardwick, Four Seasons, and the tower proposed at the Landing, isn't it preferable to collect 25% of the property taxes for 20 years than to collect nothing for another decade on the gamble that another developer comes along willing to build a similar project without the grant? Particularly when it allows us to have some say over uses?
For example, is the general fund really going to suffer that much over the next 20 years if we hand out $200 million in REV grants to jumpstart the river and redevelop vacant properties?
Wouldn't it still be a net-positive on the tax rolls?
Hearing a lot of pushback on the "$41 million we're giving the developer," but this figure also feels a little misleading, right?
Of that $41 million:
- $27 million is a 75%/20-year REV grant
- $9.6 million is a completion grant
-$4.6 million is a discount on the property
If we assume that the Hardwick is a great use of this space (evidenced by the RFP process and its selection from amongst 6 suitors) but the market is such that, absent the tax abatement, it wouldn't be feasible for years to come (hopefully DIA is performing gap analyses on these projects instead of just handing out blanket 75%/20-year grants), than the grant isn't really "costing" us anything versus letting the property sit vacant, right?
On the $9.6 million completion grant, based on the amount of the REV grant, the property is expected to generate $36 million+ in tax revenue over the next two decades. After the REV grant, that leaves a good $10 million+ in incremental tax revenue during the REV window. So the city will ultimately break even on the completion grant too, right?
Even the discount on the land might knock $4.6 million off the balance sheets as an asset - but it's not coming out of the general fund.
Is it inaccurate to suggest that this "$41 million in taxpayer money" isn't really costing the city much of anything in the long-run, aside from opportunity cost that something better will magically come along?
And that offering a large, temporary tax abatement on a $150 million project like the Hardwick will generate more revenue in the long-run than offering a smaller abatement (or no abatement) on a $50 million stick-frame apartment complex from Spandrell in the same location, for example?
If we're ultimately going to offer max abatements (75%/20-year) on all of these major projects anyway (the Hardwick, the Landing, the District, the Shipyards, Related's Development), would be it be beneficia/attract more interest to just advertise the grants upfront when we're doing these RFPs?
Just curious what you gents think.