Uncharted Territory
A downtown Reno without a clear and logical plan is like a rudderless ship.
Over the past few months, an increasing number of individuals representing businesses, casinos, developers, bar owners, and others with issues coming in front of the Reno Planning Commission or City Council have been requesting private meetings with me to share their concerns and perspectives. And believe me, I get it. We don’t have many forums to discuss issues related to Reno’s development, and I know everyone is eager for their perspectives to be heard, amplified, and understood.
I’m honored that these folks have reached out to me, and I genuinely appreciate their desire to explain their stances on the issues and to help me in turn inform the public about their positions. But holding private conversations with parties whose policies and projects are coming up for discussion and decisions by the Reno Planning Commission and/or City Council is something I just don’t feel comfortable doing.
Keep in mind that I’m not a professional reporter or a public official. I’m a citizen writing about civic issues and trying to help others be more informed participants in public processes, and it’s therefore very important to me that the sources of the information I provide here are accessible to everyone (it’s the same reason that I’ve kept this newsletter free to read, although obviously I am extraordinarily grateful for all of you paying subscribers). That desire to provide and encourage universal access to information is why I embed so many links to sources, even though it’s incredibly time-consuming to do so. I believe in shared records and public meetings.
I also strongly believe in equity, and I know that if I agree to meet or chat with certain entities in private, I’d need to make myself available to all, and as this is a side gig for me and not my primary professional endeavor, I simply can’t commit to that.
That said, for all those entities who are seeking a forum to explain your perspectives, please know that I completely support that desire, and I strongly urge you to seek out accessible methods whereby you can explain those positions yourself, whether that be through op/eds, traditional media appearances, websites—or even public comments delivered to the City. If you do, I can link to them, so we can all learn about your perspectives in your own words. It’s so very critical that we have places to do that.
In fact, several items facing Reno City Council this coming week have convinced me that it’s more critical than ever for the public to understand the complexities of the issues facing our city, and avoid approaching them as though there are two competing “sides,” splitting residents into opposing factions rather than helping us find the common ground that will allow us to move forward together.
The Pitfalls of Polarization
Unfortunately, this propensity for polarization is derived in large part from the fact that issues coming before the Reno City Council or Planning Commission are generally subject to an up or down vote (or, rarely, a continuance). That’s true whether it’s a development project, a text amendment, a budget decision, or something else.
At the end of the day, a councilmember, planning commissioner, or resident will either support an item as proposed or oppose it—at least, in its existing form.
The very framework of Reno City Council meetings works against thorough and nuanced discussion. They meet every other week (instead of weekly, like many City Councils in both larger and smaller cities do); unlike the Reno Planning Commission, which engages in many thorough and nuanced discussions, Council has imposed strict time limits on their own questions and discussions (those constant buzzers and bells are enough to drive a person nuts); City staff is often openly urging the public body toward one particular outcome; Council votes, and they move on.
For all of these reasons, I’m troubled at what I’ve seen regarding this week’s scheduled appeals of conditional use permits a) governing live entertainment hours at a nightclub on West Commercial Row and b) enabling the Jacobs Entertainment Festival Grounds, because most of the discussions I’ve seen have been framing these issues in terms of two factions, pitting residents against each other.
Obviously, as with any issue, people bring an array of different perspectives to these, including but not limited to the following (and some of these clearly can overlap):
Downtown residents want to live in a central location where they can have easy access to a range of urban amenities while feeling welcome, safe, and secure.
Residents of other parts of the city want a downtown that offers entertainment at outdoor and indoor venues and in bars and nightclubs that operate all night long.
Reno residents want their downtown area to offer a range of mixed uses that make it vibrant, active, appealing, and safe at all times of the day and night.
Businesses owners and operators are taking a risk by opening in an evolving downtown, are appealing to a clientele with certain expectations, and are competing with other establishments both nearby and elsewhere in the city.
You also have visitors, governmental officials, corporate gaming entities, and more.
I’m not here to take a side on these issues because I don’t think there should be sides on this one—because I think that if the City had been doing a better job of acknowledging the dire need for a coherent plan to help us navigate the future of this core area and building community consensus toward that plan, we wouldn’t continue to have such conflicts over projects being proposed for this part of town.
This section of Reno’s downtown more than any other is the victim of a constant stream of short-sighted, short-term decisions that largely consider each proposed new addition to the landscape in a vacuum rather than placing it in the context of the bigger picture, in the service of a clear endpoint that we can all visualize together.
So let’s get into it.
The False Expectations of the “Entertainment District”
This week’s two appeals (details below) involve two sites in the so-called “Entertainment District.” This actually isn’t a membership-driven and marketed “district” at all, like the MidTown District or Riverwalk District, but a zoning designation labeled MD-ED in the land development code.
This zoned area extends from Ralston Street on the west to Record Street on the east, bordered on the south by Second Street and on the north by an irregular border that steps up at its northernmost point to 7th Street to include the Circus Circus parking garage but remains at 6th Street between West Street and Record Street.
Here’s a view of it on a satellite map (click on the map to zoom in further).
One of the arguments I often hear in support of anything involving entertainment downtown, in dismissal of any concerns being voiced by downtown residents, is “this is in the entertainment district, so if you don’t like it, don’t live there.”
Without taking a position in support or denial of these permits (and please read the Staff Reports below for full explanations of what these actually entail), anyone who looks at that map will quickly realize that not everything located within those boundaries is dedicated to entertainment. Rather, the intention with this zoning designation was to try to create one contiguous area, “traditionally the 24-hour gaming area that includes the major hotel casinos in the core, the Events Center and National Bowling Stadium” (Downtown Action Plan, p. 44), centered on Virginia Street, that would capture most of the downtown casinos, the ballpark, and the city’s own special events venues.
That does not make it coherent.
The narrative that this is a boisterous, rowdy, and loud downtown area and that residents should just leave if they don’t like it has some clear flaws. Outside of completely misrepresenting what most of these savvy urban dwellers who moved downtown for a reason are actually voicing concerns about, it also fails to accurately represent the current physical composition and function of these city blocks.
What types of entertainment are found in Reno’s zoned “Entertainment District”? Casinos and hotel-casinos; non-gaming hotels and motels; bars and nightclubs; restaurants; and several venues that are only open on selected occasions and dark otherwise, including the National Bowling Stadium, Reno Events Center, Reno Ballroom, and Greater Nevada Field.
That’s, of course, in addition to apartment buildings and condominiums, pawn and souvenir shops, the RTC 4th Street Station, the Reno-Sparks Gospel Mission, businesses like Reno Vulcanizing and HBM Technology Partners, lots of parking lots and garages, a great deal of undeveloped space, and more.
What attractions are NOT in the area zoned “Entertainment District”? Reliably active draws like the National Automobile Museum; the Nevada Museum of Art; the Pioneer Center for the Performing Arts; Bruka Theatre (or any other independent theater); a movie theater (the Riverside Movie Theater was not in this zoned area); Birdeez Reno, and Reno Axe—just to name a few types of venues one might expect in such an area.
So here we have an area whose designation as a 24-hour zone is derived from its history as a casino center (which has itself seriously shrunk), that includes a large number of special event venues where there is only entertainment at selected times.
It is, ironically, one of the least consistently visibly “active” areas in the city.
And it’s rapidly changing, as I’ve brought up many times, including last October, with reference to the signage allowances in the “Entertainment District.” In fact, so much has changed since that 2017 Downtown Action Plan was created that it’s increasingly less and less possible to use it as an accurate representation of the current landscape, much less as a viable blueprint for the future (which, as a reminder, it was only intended to be for 5-7 years and largely to justify and guide the creation of the DRP).
In truth, for much of this area, we’re in seriously uncharted territory. So many changes in use, at substantive scale, are happening simultaneously that we don’t have any basis for evaluating their potential future impact, individually or collectively.
Just think of some of the developments over the past few years and even months:
A single private entity purchased approximately one-third of the properties in the central downtown area, removing most of what was once standing there.
Landmark gaming property Harrah’s Reno closed, to be replaced by an as-yet unannounced mix of restaurants, apartments, hotel rooms, and potentially more.
The Ballpark Apartments and 245 N. Arlington have together added hundreds of units that have only just begun leasing, whose viability is yet to be determined.
The Glow Plaza, downtown’s first privately-owned permanent outdoor entertainment venue—a type of use completely unanticipated by the Downtown Action Plan—opened several blocks west of the MD-ED District.
Jacobs Entertainment wants to open an outdoor Festival Grounds with a maximum capacity of 15,000 people on the west side of Arlington Avenue.
More apartments have opened south and SW of the MD-ED District, in close proximity to the J Resort’s Glow Plaza and proposed Festival Grounds, including Vintage at Washington Station, a senior complex at 265 Washington Street.
The future of downtown is not entertainment alone.
When you look at the changes to this area over the past decade, it makes even less sense than ever to base the zoning of this “Entertainment District” on the outdated premise of a 24-hour casino-based economy.
Don’t freak out. I’m not saying there shouldn’t be 24-hour uses there. Keep reading.
The Downtown Action Plan was super duper optimistic about how this area could integrate a wide mix of “activity-generating uses,” including residential development, retail, entertainment, and more. This is from the Reimagine Reno Master Plan, p. 103:
Essentially, in this area, almost anything goes. The goal is to encourage investment of practically any type. And is a mix of uses desirable for a central downtown area? Absolutely! And I’ve been saying so for years (here’s one example).
But downtown Reno’s mix of uses is not typical, in form, scale, or function. And even this description above acknowledged the “potential conflicts” between a 24-hour environment and residents. Every single “Entertainment District” anywhere acknowledges that potential conflict. And it’s clearer than ever that the residential presence in this zoned “Entertainment District” will not be limited to the edges of this district but appear throughout it—along with, ideally, many other types of uses.
Every urban planner everywhere (and let’s face it, most people) understand that not every use is compatible with every other use. Several years ago, one of my favorite websites, Strong Towns, published a piece called “The Pitfalls of ‘Entertainment Districts.’” In it, Nathaniel Hood writes about two types of entertainment districts: “overnight” districts that are created in one fell swoop (as the Freight House District was intended to become) and the “naturally-occurring” district, where bars, nightclubs, and other venues organically arise in the same area. “Unfortunately,” he writes, “these types of environments don’t help in attracting other sorts into the urban settings; baby boomers and families with young children aren’t going to be attracted to these places and surrounded by the airport of late-night noise pollution.” They can create, in essence, an “adult theme park.”
Here’s the crux of the issue, according to Hood:
“The reason the adult theme park exists is because leaders are too focused on bringing people downtown for entertainment, or drawing in tourist dollars. Policy needs to shift from making cities places to visit, and concentrate on making them places to live. Entertainment districts, even the best ones, can fail at creating a lively mix of retail, residential, commercial and civic space. Unless you're a certain demographic, these are isolating locations, usually not worthy of the public affection beyond the handful of large sporting events, conventions or Friday night bar excursions. In fact, show me an existing or proposed entertainment district and I’ll show you a struggling city.”
Hood concludes that “The problem boils down to over something very simple: We are disconnecting our downtowns from all other aspects of life when we attempt to turn them into “entertainment districts.”
Downtown Reno’s MD-ED zoning area is never going to be a wall-to-wall entertainment district, and as a result, the default argument for allowing any type of zoning-enabled activity there no matter how loud or potentially disruptive can’t be that “it’s the 24-hour area, so get over it.” This isn’t South Beach Miami, West Hollywood, the French Quarter, or Fremont East. But at the same time, due to the presence of 24-hour casinos and nightclubs, it’s also not Boise, or Austin, or Tucson, or San Francisco.
Downtown Reno is completely unique, and we have to chart a unique path for it. It won’t look like other cities, but it still has to make logical sense.
Right now, with this zoning, it does not. Say Caesars Entertainment decides they want to build their own outdoor festival grounds on the site of their current parking lot just east of St. Mary’s Regional Medical Center. It’s zoned Entertainment District. How about a 24-hour nightclub across West 6th Street from Canyon Flats? That is, too.
It’s time to stop leaning on the outdated Downtown Action Plan and the flawed premise of a massive but mislabeled “Entertainment District” and craft a new plan based on the realities of this area and everything we’ve seen and learned over the past decade. We need to decide together, as a City, where we think certain uses are desirable, practical, and enforceable, and then take steps to build that vision together.
If we don’t, we’re going to face these kinds of conflicts over and over and over again.
Without working with the community to craft a new plan for this area that makes sense, the City is just leaving residents to duke it out themselves. And that’s not fair, when every resident raising their voices about issues like the two this week wants a revitalized area that we can all be proud of, where we all feel welcomed and safe.
Where do Live Entertainment Zones Fit Into All of This?
Of course, these two appeals are happening as the City has just commenced holding advertised public meetings to discuss a potential future ordinance to standardize regulations for live entertainment throughout the City. I wrote about this last month here. These meetings apparently have not been recorded, but you can find News 4 Reno’s coverage of the March 25 meeting here, and here’s Channel 2 below.
Although not exclusively focused on the downtown “Entertainment District,” these discussions could help provide more certainty regarding locations and allowed parameters for live entertainment and amplified noise there, a critical piece of the larger puzzle for establishments located anywhere near residences. While it’s encouraging to see these discussions occurring, it’s unfortunate that they did not predate the two projects being appealed this week, as they could not be more relevant.
City of Reno Meetings: Week of April 7, 2025
Below are the regularly scheduled City meetings this week. Links to agendas and supporting materials are on the City’s Current and Upcoming Meetings webpage.
Tues., April 8, 9:30am - Washoe County HOME Consortium Technical Advisory Committee (Agenda) (Register to Watch/View online). Read about the consortium and this committee here; possible approval of project funding recommendations for FY 2025/2026 HOME and Affordable Housing Trust Funds.
Tues., April 8, 2:00pm – Senior Citizen Advisory Committee (Agenda) (Register)
Wed., April 9, 10am - Reno City Council (Agenda) (Register) See below for more.
Thurs., April 10, 3:30pm – Civil Service Commission (Agenda) (Register)
Thurs, April 10, 3:30pm - Financial Advisory Board (Agenda) (Register). Updates on the City budget including augmentations and revisions; current debt position; annual risk assessments of departments, activities & processes, and more.
Thurs., April 10, 4:00pm - Historical Resources Commission (Agenda) (Register). Selecting recipients for annual Historic Preservation Awards and recommending a consultant to prepare a nomination for the East 4th Street Historic District.
April 9, 2025 Reno City Council meeting
NOTE: This week’s previously scheduled meeting of the Redevelopment Agency Board (comprised of the Reno City Council) has been CANCELLED.
Here are a few highlights from the agenda with connections to development. As always, be sure to scan through the entire agenda for items of interest to you and consult the agenda for all supporting materials related to these items.
Item D.1 - City Budget
Financial update presentation and discussion; Resolution to augment the budget of the City of Reno, Nevada, for FY24/25; and approval of budget revisions for the period of January 1, 2025 through March 31, 2025. (Staff Report)
Item D.4 - Potential sewer user rate increase
Presentation, discussion, and potential direction to staff regarding the sewer user rate sufficiency analysis, including direction to initiate a community feedback process on a potential rate increase and bring back an ordinance for consideration at a future meeting. (Staff Report) [NOTE: Wouldn’t this information have been helpful when discussing sewer connection fee credits during the last meeting?]
Item F.1 - Case No. LDC25-00033 (NDI Office Rezoning)
Ordinance to amend Title 18, Chapter 18.02 of the Reno Municipal Code, entitled “Zoning,” rezoning a ±0.99 acre site located on the north side of Vassar Street, ±430 feet east of its intersection with Harvard Way (Staff Report)
PUBLIC HEARINGS
The following items will be heard no earlier than 6:00pm but may be heard later.
Keep in mind that to be “in favor” of these appeals would be to support the denial of these permits. To “oppose” these appeals would mean supporting the permit approvals. Consult the agenda for links to all the supporting materials for these two items.
Item I.1 - Case No. LDC25-00031 (J Resort Festival Grounds)
Appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to approve a request for a conditional use permit to allow “Amusement or Recreation, Outside” and “Live Entertainment” land uses to facilitate outdoor festivals, concerts, recreation, and events. (Staff Report) [NOTE: The applicant for Item I.1 also appealed, to preserve their right to judicial review.]
Item I.2 - Case No. LDC25-00027 (214 West Commercial Row Live Entertainment)
Appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to approve a request for a conditional use permit to allow live entertainment activities accessory to a bar use between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 10:00 a.m. (Staff Report) [NOTE: The applicant for Item I.2 also appealed, citing concerns about the Planning Commission’s restriction of the hours when live entertainment including a DJ would be allowed.]
To comment on any items on the April 9 Reno City Council agenda, you can deliver comments in person or virtually by registering here. Comments can also be delivered in advance by submitting public comment via Reno.Gov/PublicComment; by emailing Publiccomment@reno.gov; or by leaving a voicemail at 775-393-4499.
Comments must be received by 4pm on Tuesday, April 8 to be provided to City Council in advance of their Wednesday meeting. You can also find Councilmembers’ individual email addresses in my Citizen Guide.
Friday, April 11 - Biggest Little Council Connect: Ward 1 City Councilmember Kathleen Taylor
The next “Biggest Little Council Connect” is with Ward 1 Councilmember Kathleen Taylor on Friday, April 11 from 9-10am at Star Village Coffee at 560 Mill Street.
Outcomes from the Planning Commission’s April 2 meeting
Cold Springs developer faces setback as board rejects shift from housing to industrial (Ben Margiott, News 4 Reno, 2/3/25)
Reno planning commission green lights GSR arena's phase 1 with conditional-use permit (Jaedyn Young, Reno Gazette-Journal, 4/3/25)
NEWS DIGEST: The latest in local development news
Which Reno-Sparks neighborhoods have the lowest and highest rent? (Jason Hidalgo, Reno Gazette-Journal, 3/25/25)
Here’s how Lombardo proposes fixing Nevada’s housing affordability crisis (Tabitha Mueller, Eric Neugeboren & Isabella Aldrete, Nevada Independent, 4/3/25)
Legislature resurrects proposal to reset property tax valuation when home is sold (April Corbin Girnus, Nevada Current, 4/1/25)
Study: California visitors continue to drive area tourism (Bob Conrad, This is Reno, 4/3/25)
Lastly, I was delighted to appear recently on the podcast “A Book & Its Author” with host Marc Oxoby to discuss my book, Reno’s Big Gamble. In addition to our chat, I had the rare opportunity to record myself reading from the book. Take a listen, won’t you?
Be sure to check out my Citizen Guide for helpful resources and links for anyone hoping to become more informed and engaged in issues related to urban development (& more) in Reno.
You can view this and prior newsletters on my Substack site, subscribe to receive each new edition in your email inbox, and follow the Brief (and contribute to the ongoing conversation) on X, Facebook & Instagram. If you feel inspired to contribute, you may purchase a paid subscription through Substack or contribute via Venmo at @Dr-Alicia-Barber or via check to Alicia Barber at P.O. Box 11955, Reno, NV 89510.