TLDR: https://www.change.org/p/save-northgate

January 9 at 6pm, College Station City Council is meeting, in part to discuss the development of Northgate, specifically and especially the ~2 acres that is currently the parking lot on the promenade behind the Chicken/Backyard/etc.

Background
Some time ago, the city resolved to sell the Northgate parking lot. A local developer already involved in another project in the area invested significant time and resources in creating a plan for the whole of that stretch of Northgate, recruiting the time, expertise, and experience of the businesses, citizens, peacekeepers, and patrons of Northgate. They took into account the stated goals of the city, to include NOT prioritizing more student housing while providing more parking, and facilities and space for law enforcement and first responders. The result was a phenomenal plan that would have positioned Northgate - and College Station - as a year-round entertainment destination, fully embracing and preserving its history.

Current Status
When the city staff - I repeat... city staff, not city council - saw that plan, it is my belief that they saw an opportunity the scale of which they didn't see before. They walked away from the proposed plan and developer who provided it and opened the property for bids, ultimately receiving a $13,000,000 offer from a student-housing developer. Saying nothing of the fact that this bidder has yet to render a plan or meet with served parties, or that this developer has zero experience with entertainment districts, the selection of a student housing developer stands in complete opposition to the initial proposed vision to not prioritize student housing. This paints a pretty clear picture - to my interpretation - of a moving target set by city staff, with motives beyond if not in direct conflict with the preservation of Northgate.

What you can do
The city is now deciding whether or not to approve and enter into a contract with a student-housing developer, and to enter into that contract without a plan. If that doesn't make sense, you are in fact reading it correctly. What your reasoned voice can and WILL do is to cause the city to hit pause, come up with a concrete plan first, and then reopen the process to the bids and proposals of developers with demonstrated experience with respect to that plan.

A Note on City Council
That a contract (without a plan) was not already pushed through is a product of a city council that is at least in part led by individuals who value Northgate and our history - and, again, in my opinion - the spirit of propriety and fair dealing, especially by city government and its staff. Please show the council members respect. Not all see this issue the same way, but to bring them together with those that do, it would be counterproductive to attack them. The issue - again, in my opinion - informed as it may be - is with staff and city planning. We need to encourage and empower - as citizens and/or patrons - to stop and do this right.

I strongly encourage any- and everyone to make your voices heard - in a positive and solutions-minded way - directly with council members and Mayor Nichols, by email to the same, and in person at the council meeting.

I'm not much for petitions, especially online. But for anybody who can't make it to town or carve out the time to connect directly otherwise, there is an online petition here: https://www.change.org/p/save-northgate

Based on what you've reported, the city's actions seem short sighted and duplicitous. Without knowing the details of the original plan, it sounds like the tax revenues from the a comprehensive plan that would make CS a destination would significantly outweigh a few extra bucks on the land sale.

Not all see this issue the same way, but to bring them together with those that do, it would be counterproductive to attack them.

So you brought this to the Zoo for the quality of good spirited, respectful debate for which it is known. Kudos!

Tldr

Fire the staff!!!

NoahAg said:

---

Tldr

---

Old plan: good, new plan: bad. Call someone, or something

Developing without including sufficient parking (or even developing existing parking into something else) seems to be all the rage these days. Makes you think.

I used to walk by mud lot and watch the drunks backing into each other on my way to my car (parked at the Presbyterian church).

Regarding the " makes you think " comment

Nothing nefarious about the lack of parking The new consumers they are chasing don't drive
Olds like us will change, put up with the lack of parking aggravation, or find somewhere else to spend our money

Who is the student housing developer, what's the delta of the bids, and why can't the Aggie led group afford to pay the $13mm ask?

Does the property tax revenue + $13 million LS payment of student housing exceed the sales and property tax revenue for retail use? My guess is yes, likely by a large margin.

MyComputerCareer said:

---

Who is the student housing developer, what's the delta of the bids, and why can't the Aggie led group afford to pay the $13mm ask?

---

Because sufficient investment in all of the other development - outdoor space, music venue, parking, law enforcement operations center, etc. - eats significantly into the total the developer can invest in the initial purchase. Even if for-pay, parking is a loser financially and represents a service provided by the developer that eats into annual revenue to recoup the investment. Especially if the intent is to provide more parking than what exists already. That was the original developer's proposal.

Conversely, the $13 million bid is only tenable for a developer who does not intend to invest in all of that which the businesses, citizens, patrons, and city have already indicated were priorities. This would explain the lack of a plan or vision from the big-bid developer.

Long term, Northgate existing how it is without changes is untenable. Everybody knows that. Development is necessary. The economics to this point supported a model where businesses could thrive off of one big quarter per year. That barely maths the way it used to, certainly not for the long term. The Northgate of the future - if we want to preserve it as a familiar entertainment district - needs to be a year-round destination. And that will require significant investment far outside (physically and financially, but attached to) whatever structure goes on the parking lot.

City staff "planning" deficiencies …. Failed baseball complex, Purchase of Macy's. Have become less and less confident in the current city staff…

Passwordgone said:

---

City staff "planning" deficiencies …. Failed baseball complex, Purchase of Macy's. Have become less and less confident in the current city staff…

---

Get this: At the last city council meeting, council rightly asked city staff/planners if they had any other examples of contracts of this nature - especially ones that the city had ever entered into. Specifically, a contract structured to be entered into without the plan or guarantees of performance that would be defined later. The first example, eagerly pointed to by the staff representative: "Macy's".

To my ears, it sounded like that answer was offered with something like pride(?). A nice comic moment in an otherwise overly drawn-out presentation.

Passwordgone said:

---

City staff "planning" deficiencies …. Failed baseball complex, Purchase of Macy's. Have become less and less confident in the current city staff…

---

The list is long and running. College Station is watching Bryan - one move at a time, often a better planned and executed version of a CS failure - claim the eyes and business of Aggieland outside of TAMU. College Station has one real gem all its own left, in my opinion, especially with respect to attracting and serving year-round patrons. And they're about to bury it.

Couple of thoughts from a purely objective view. And while I agree with your sentiment (Northgate has enough purpose built student housing), I generally believe in allowing the market to select winners/losers versus the political allocation of resources/capital. City has a fiduciary duty to its taxpayers to maximize value.

Also agree, the current use as a parking lot isn't sustainable. That real estate is just too valuable. The local group will have to find a way to meet the market. Can't ask the City staff to take risk on a parcel this valuable.

If the student developer is a national one, there's much less risk for the city in going this direction. Does not matter if they have anything designed. They can point to their portfolio nation-wide for a number of case studies and examples. These developers are partnered with institutional investors and have tons of experience de-risking their plans for city staff.

For $13mm they'd likely need 650+ beds to make it pencil. However, think there are also height restrictions that close to University Drive, so there's likely a ceiling on what they can pay.

Agree a parking heavy use will be hard to support. You should ask why such a heavy parking count is necessary here? People are willing to walk to Northgate or already live nearby. Ride share is another solution and likely one the City prefers with all the adjacent bars. If you need to get creative with parking maybe the Methodist church will lease surface parking off hours to a local group (versus national one)? The local plan sounds nice and thoughtful but unless they have partners willing to forego a return on their investment it doesn't sound feasible. They probably can't even get to a $6mm land value with their current plan.

The local group could get creative with a ground lease structure (pay the city an annuity), earn-out structure, or some type of "percent rent" partnership that shares profits over time to help make the city indifferent economically.

The "local" developer is a major, well-funded developer, one of the biggest in the State, with experience in entertainment districts and major downtown revitalizations. You are right. There is a fiduciary duty, and selling out future gains - and the past, exploiting good-faith efforts and investments and putting developers in a position to not ever want to work for you again, all for a little extra money in the pocket today to cover for your litany of other mistakes is the opposite of that.

So College Station needs revenue. They're just trying to get the price higher.

But this guy is probably the one leading this process …though he was appointed to the position just last year…and might not be the idea person…city manager serves at the pleasure of the City Council so the buck stops with the council.

The only thing I ever hated about College Station was the lights never switching when I rolled up to them at ridiculous hours…

https://www.cstx.gov/departments___city_hall/CMO/city_mangers_office_biographies#Ostrowski

Sumlin has lost control of Northgate.

Putting student housing in the small Northgate lot is an obvious money grab and is selling the soul of NG to the highest bidder. So dumb this is even being considered

a. not football related.
b. not going to northgate.

so, don't care.

Mega Cowhop!

SteveA said:

---

a. not football related.
b. not going to northgate.

so, don't care.

---

Then you're commenting because???

Football related because it's where both many in-towners and visitors pre-game and post game for every game.

StinkyPinky said:

---

SteveA said:

---

a. not football related.
b. not going to northgate.

so, don't care.

---

Then you're commenting because???

Football related because it's where both many in-towners and visitors pre-game and post game for every game

---

Exactly. You do away with this I feel like you are cutting the soul out of CS. With the way our team continues to underperform, this might be time to give the tickets up and move on.

For all the good the donor money is doing in the football program maybe it would be better spent giving the fans a better place to drown their sorrows after another embarrassing loss.

Quote:

---

Exactly. You do away with this I feel like you are cutting the soul out of CS. With the way our team continues to underperform, this might be time to give the tickets up and move on.

---

I have been to CS a couple times in the last year, and there isn't much "Soul" left.

Quote:

---

Then you're commenting because???

Football related because it's where both many in-towners and visitors pre-game and post game for every game.

---

Because I can?

MyComputerCareer said:

---

Couple of thoughts from a purely objective view. And while I agree with your sentiment (Northgate has enough purpose built student housing), I generally believe in allowing the market to select winners/losers versus the political allocation of resources/capital. City has a fiduciary duty to its taxpayers to maximize value.

---

The city has a fiduciary duty to act in the best interest of the public trust. More money doesn't necessarily mean it's in the best interest. I'd say the taxpayers don't want or need more student housing, so that isn't in the best interest.

jrgypsum said:

---

So you brought this to the Zoo for the quality of good spirited, respectful debate for which it is known. Kudos!

---

FtnTXAg03 said:

---

The "local" developer is a major, well-funded developer, one of the biggest in the State, with experience in entertainment districts and major downtown revitalizations. You are right. There is a fiduciary duty, and selling out future gains - and the past, exploiting good-faith efforts and investments and putting developers in a position to not ever want to work for you again, all for a little extra money in the pocket today to cover for your litany of other mistakes is the opposite of that.

---

Well if the local group is that sophisticated then good. They should have their own case studies and examples for their proposed use and have confidence in their projections. They're still going to need to meet the market. A long term ground lease structure could be a good alternative to an out right fee simple land sale and may the only way to circumvent the sale to a student developer. Student developer won't like the GL structure, and local developer probably won't either but if it's the only way to compete they should propose it.

Sorry but that's a purely subjective opinion. Current and future students as well as their parents surely won't mind additional housing supply putting downward pressure on rents.

This deal can't be awarded based on subjectivity and emotion.

SteveA said:

---

Quote:

---

Then you're commenting because???

Football related because it's where both many in-towners and visitors pre-game and post game for every game.

---

Because I can?

---

But why? You have a knack of wanting to derail people's threads for no apparent reason.

fightintxaggie10 said:

---

Putting student housing in the small Northgate lot is an obvious money grab and is selling the soul of NG to the highest bidder. So dumb this is even being considered

---

Zero wrong with selling to the highest bidder.

Long term value vs short term value. Which is higher? Kept in mind most city governments are excellent at lighting cash on fire and watching it burn.