I know this it isn't the property being discussed here, but was it ever publicly announced why the sale of the Nelson Building to the Nevada Historical Society fell through? That seemed like such a win-win for downtown and the university; it would have been great to have another museum downtown while freeing up more office space for the university.
I know Jacobs ended up purchasing the Nelson Building a year or so later, and this is likely why they're interested in the west st and former townhouse property. Those three parcels combined are an absolutely massive chunk of land for a downtown property. I sure hope they have something in mind.
Yes, the Division of Museums and History withdrew their offer for the Nelson building in June 2020. It was a budgetary decision that was deemed necessary after COVID hit and the state required additional budget revisions from all agencies. The Historical Society was also severely understaffed at the time and hiring was frozen, leaving I think only three, and later two employees. Since the transaction would have secured the building but no renovations or any other work, it was deemed unfeasible. I agree, it was really a shame. I'd love to see another museum downtown, too. A while back when Washoe County was talking about constructing a new courthouse facility on the surface parking lot just to the south of the current courthouse complex, I was thinking about what a wonderful museum the historic courthouse could become. https://renohistorical.org/items/show/19
That's a good thought. I get the sense they want to keep the whole Fire Department collection together because it's not just vehicles but artifacts, too--plus they're owned by the Fire Department and the non-profit Reno Fire Antique and Classic Apparatus Inc. and the dream is to include the Reno Fire Museum Collection in some kind of Reno history museum someday. But I will pass that along--thank you!
Who gets to see the rest of the collection now? the only pictures the RFACA post are of the vehicles out at events, not the rest of the collection. If the rest is in storage now with no viewing, that wouldn't change in a different storage location. The NAM is also a 501c3, and definitely hosts "visiting exhibits" sometimes, not just vehicles they own.
We have been getting our apparatus out as much as we can. We have had an "open house" at the warehouse each October for the last 10 plus years. We announce it on our FB page and also through HRPS. We had one last Oct. but only announced it on our FB page because of COVID. There is not enough room in the warehouse to open it to the public unless we pull the rigs out like we do at the open houses. Every time we move these antique rigs it is an experiment to see if they will run! There is not enough room between the rigs to fit a wheelchair. Most of the material at the warehouse is boxed up. Our best case scenario is to have another RFD Museum co-located with a fire station. That way people can stop by for a tour almost anytime and an on-duty firefighter can escort them on a tour. This worked really well when the Museum was located at the main fire station at 200 Evans Ave. That fire station was given to the developer of the Aces Ballpark. It was replaced with 2 temporary stations composed of "soft-sided structures" and modular housing units that were supposed to have a 10 year life. In other words- no chance of a Museum at either of those locations.
I wonder what TMFPD is doing with the old Garson station? Not a good location for visitor tours, but it at least has permanent walls and roof for secure storage.
Hi, I would like to add a little to this conversation. I am Jon Wagner, the president of RFACA. For the last several years Harrah's NAM has had a warehouse full of trucks over on Mill St. they got from the Hayes Truck Museum in Sacramento. They don't have room to display these trucks. Its not really fair to ask them to display ours. Prior to the start of the COVID we were in talks with Harrah's NAM to participate in a big remodel/expansion they were planning. We were looking at having our own 7000 sq ft gallery. The price tag was going to be around $3 million for our gallery. I don't know if we could have done that but we were going to try. When the pandemic shut down businesses, the funding for Harrah's expansion dried up. Harrah's NAM graciously offered to work some of our apparatus into their rotating special displays. That was supposed to start last spring but due to some personal issues I never got around to following through on it.
Alicia, I don't get your hating on the 700 Riverside project. It was vetted and approved under the applicable building and planning codes at the time it was submitted. Today, no parking would be required, but the unit count would be limited to 15 -would that be some sort of "win" for Reno? The Hearing Officer's report is VERY clear that the original appeals had no merit, yet you refer your readers to a response and not to the original document. Why the bias?
Hi, Mike - Sounds like you may not have been following my series of posts on this subject, where my position has been very consistent (and exhaustively explained). I'll add a reference to my original and subsequent posts in the entry for those who aren't familiar with them. In this one, I refer readers to the agenda item, where they're free to read all the materials provided and I draw particular attention to the document that best explains why this specific hearing is occurring. I see a win as a project that is allowed, profitable for the developer, and not deleterious to the neighborhood. It's not always about numbers of units.
How unfair of people to characterize asking for a project to be shorter, with fewer units and more space for cars as NIMBYism and opposition to density. I guess we should just run the city planning based on what the loudest people feel is fair rather than what is written in code and deed.
I know this it isn't the property being discussed here, but was it ever publicly announced why the sale of the Nelson Building to the Nevada Historical Society fell through? That seemed like such a win-win for downtown and the university; it would have been great to have another museum downtown while freeing up more office space for the university.
I know Jacobs ended up purchasing the Nelson Building a year or so later, and this is likely why they're interested in the west st and former townhouse property. Those three parcels combined are an absolutely massive chunk of land for a downtown property. I sure hope they have something in mind.
Yes, the Division of Museums and History withdrew their offer for the Nelson building in June 2020. It was a budgetary decision that was deemed necessary after COVID hit and the state required additional budget revisions from all agencies. The Historical Society was also severely understaffed at the time and hiring was frozen, leaving I think only three, and later two employees. Since the transaction would have secured the building but no renovations or any other work, it was deemed unfeasible. I agree, it was really a shame. I'd love to see another museum downtown, too. A while back when Washoe County was talking about constructing a new courthouse facility on the surface parking lot just to the south of the current courthouse complex, I was thinking about what a wonderful museum the historic courthouse could become. https://renohistorical.org/items/show/19
Wouldn't the national automobile museum be a natural host for the RFACA fire truck collection?
That's a good thought. I get the sense they want to keep the whole Fire Department collection together because it's not just vehicles but artifacts, too--plus they're owned by the Fire Department and the non-profit Reno Fire Antique and Classic Apparatus Inc. and the dream is to include the Reno Fire Museum Collection in some kind of Reno history museum someday. But I will pass that along--thank you!
Who gets to see the rest of the collection now? the only pictures the RFACA post are of the vehicles out at events, not the rest of the collection. If the rest is in storage now with no viewing, that wouldn't change in a different storage location. The NAM is also a 501c3, and definitely hosts "visiting exhibits" sometimes, not just vehicles they own.
All good points, thanks!
We have been getting our apparatus out as much as we can. We have had an "open house" at the warehouse each October for the last 10 plus years. We announce it on our FB page and also through HRPS. We had one last Oct. but only announced it on our FB page because of COVID. There is not enough room in the warehouse to open it to the public unless we pull the rigs out like we do at the open houses. Every time we move these antique rigs it is an experiment to see if they will run! There is not enough room between the rigs to fit a wheelchair. Most of the material at the warehouse is boxed up. Our best case scenario is to have another RFD Museum co-located with a fire station. That way people can stop by for a tour almost anytime and an on-duty firefighter can escort them on a tour. This worked really well when the Museum was located at the main fire station at 200 Evans Ave. That fire station was given to the developer of the Aces Ballpark. It was replaced with 2 temporary stations composed of "soft-sided structures" and modular housing units that were supposed to have a 10 year life. In other words- no chance of a Museum at either of those locations.
I wonder what TMFPD is doing with the old Garson station? Not a good location for visitor tours, but it at least has permanent walls and roof for secure storage.
Hi, I would like to add a little to this conversation. I am Jon Wagner, the president of RFACA. For the last several years Harrah's NAM has had a warehouse full of trucks over on Mill St. they got from the Hayes Truck Museum in Sacramento. They don't have room to display these trucks. Its not really fair to ask them to display ours. Prior to the start of the COVID we were in talks with Harrah's NAM to participate in a big remodel/expansion they were planning. We were looking at having our own 7000 sq ft gallery. The price tag was going to be around $3 million for our gallery. I don't know if we could have done that but we were going to try. When the pandemic shut down businesses, the funding for Harrah's expansion dried up. Harrah's NAM graciously offered to work some of our apparatus into their rotating special displays. That was supposed to start last spring but due to some personal issues I never got around to following through on it.
Alicia, I don't get your hating on the 700 Riverside project. It was vetted and approved under the applicable building and planning codes at the time it was submitted. Today, no parking would be required, but the unit count would be limited to 15 -would that be some sort of "win" for Reno? The Hearing Officer's report is VERY clear that the original appeals had no merit, yet you refer your readers to a response and not to the original document. Why the bias?
Hi, Mike - Sounds like you may not have been following my series of posts on this subject, where my position has been very consistent (and exhaustively explained). I'll add a reference to my original and subsequent posts in the entry for those who aren't familiar with them. In this one, I refer readers to the agenda item, where they're free to read all the materials provided and I draw particular attention to the document that best explains why this specific hearing is occurring. I see a win as a project that is allowed, profitable for the developer, and not deleterious to the neighborhood. It's not always about numbers of units.
How unfair of people to characterize asking for a project to be shorter, with fewer units and more space for cars as NIMBYism and opposition to density. I guess we should just run the city planning based on what the loudest people feel is fair rather than what is written in code and deed.