Renderings of West 2nd Street District

by Mike Van Houten / Apr 27, 2016

Check out renderings of the proposed West Second Street District, including phases! RGJ did a great job of breaking the project down here. Check it out. 

• 1,900 Residential units
• 450,000 sq. ft. of office space
• 250,000 sq. ft. of retail space
• On-site wastewater treatment facility
• On-site central plant, reducing energy consumed by the district by ~30%
• 20% of apartments will be affordable to those earning 80% of median income
• 70% of condos are expected to qualify for Nevada Home is Possible Program, which
provides qualified applicants up to 5% down payment assistance for homes under
• Exploring inclusive housing programs
• New model for use of Tax Increment Funds
• Gigabit fiber to every address in the West 2nd District

Story on funding on RGJ: Click here

Additional resources:








Post your comments
  • April 27, 2016 - 10:36:01 AM

    Have they posted renderings yet of the sources for the money to make it happen?

  • April 27, 2016 - 10:49:17 AM


  • April 27, 2016 - 10:54:03 AM

    HUGE! This looks amazing

  • April 27, 2016 - 11:29:52 AM

    I don't like the new look of the extremely tall buildings that might be built in Reno. It changes the whole feel of the downtown area and not in a good way.

  • April 27, 2016 - 11:38:21 AM

    Where might one procure the drugs Don Clark & Co. are obviously on? Asking for a friend.

  • April 27, 2016 - 11:39:09 AM

    Looks amazing!!!!! soon Reno won't be the biggest little city anymore!

  • April 27, 2016 - 1:18:55 PM

    Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me 2, 3, 4 times shame on me. Not this time! Why not present something reasonable and feasible?

  • April 27, 2016 - 1:32:24 PM

    Sara Lee, I should pull all your comments from my database and feature a Best of Sara Lee Comments have some gems. Love it. Rory, yes, this reminds me of Wingfield Towers. Except even more expensive. I am eagerly awaiting the city council presentation, it will be interesting to see how the new council reacts to their first major proposed development project and agreement.

  • April 27, 2016 - 1:34:02 PM

    This does seem a bit like all the other ambitious projects planned for the downtown area, though if it should happen, it would change the face of downtown in a great way.

  • April 27, 2016 - 2:46:40 PM

    I'm sorry, but some of the pictures look like future tenements down the road. I know we need affordable housing, but these renderings give me mixed feelings, with dismay being at the forefront.

  • April 27, 2016 - 4:29:24 PM

    So much negativity on here! This is a relatively low risk, high reward plan. See no reason to wish against this

  • April 27, 2016 - 8:26:31 PM

    I am really excited about the project! The 40 stories building looks great! Although I am skeptical without knowing the funding sources, I really hope this get built. It would make downtown much better

  • April 27, 2016 - 9:39:25 PM

    My husband is sure this is just a big scam, I on the other hand am excited and hopeful this will happen.

  • April 27, 2016 - 9:42:45 PM

    Looks great. Unfortunately this will not happen at least not on this scale. Developers still love to dream big even if the city's demographics can not support such a plan of this size.

  • April 28, 2016 - 7:24:39 AM

    Right on cue, the city council will be asking the developer if they have enough skin in the game to make good on promises before they even begin to negotiate the property tax issue, which is a prudent move, IMO.

  • April 28, 2016 - 8:57:26 AM

    why doesn't the project include a monorail?

  • April 28, 2016 - 9:40:27 AM

    Marge, including a monorail in this project would be silly. How would the spaceships land with monorails zipping about?

  • April 28, 2016 - 12:24:25 PM

    Naturally, those who love and are in favor of improving Reno's cityscape and lifestyle encourage investment. But, to believe *this* plan can happen as illustrated are sold on a fiscal and procedural fantasy, much like the "Hope and Change" hogwash slopped on us 7 years ago. If you've ever lived in a large metropolitan city, you know such a vision is only achieved with 20-years of constant work that aligns to a masterplan. I'm confused. Is this a masterplan? Who funds the master plan? Who profits from the plan? To what extent are taxpayers on the hook for this? Is a sales tax increases untouchable in such funding? Who votes on the masterplan? Those inconvenient details must be addressed at THIS time. I'm all for pretty illustrations that get me all warm and fuzzy. So are many people who desire change. But, let's get to the operational facts surrounding this idea.

  • April 28, 2016 - 6:57:23 PM

    What has the city got to lose if the developer pays for everything in advance?

  • April 28, 2016 - 7:36:13 PM

    I think the thing that makes a project like this is investors with deep pockets who are true believers and willing to lose money while they prove and generate the market demand they need. It doesn't take a master plan or a central plant to make that happen -- it takes true believers with deep pockets. I hope these developers can find such people to pay for this, because as it happens, the area bounded by the river, I-80, Keystone, and Wells is exactly where this type of development should be occurring. If they can build 20% of what they're proposing, it'll change Reno's direction.

  • April 29, 2016 - 9:11:18 PM

    Ken, and "NN2036", I like your optimism -- but that's about it. You're both advocating for positions that are really quite revealing. Civil planning is more difficult than thinking that all the costs can be assumed by deep-pocket people (read: the popularly loathed 1%), without a municipality taking any risk. That's just not how the real world works. It may work that way with your mom and dad, but not the real world. What's more, flippantly believing there's no need for a masterplan in such a development -- where several billions of dollars are at risk in the first phase of buildout -- is not only stupid, but it's dangerous. Think again. Don't get me wrong. I'm all for making downtown Reno as great as it can be. In fact, having traveled the world, I've come to live and invest in Reno when I could have literally chosen anywhere to reside. We live in one of the truly great cities in the world, I'm totally convinced. But let's build and grow with a target in mind. A target built on an achievable plan, a plan built on need, with heavily-researched market analysis, with local builders and service people for a great and predictable outcome. Constructing tall, beautiful buildings doesn't make a city. Make no mistake. It's how the dynamics of the building's functionality serves the community, exponentially, that does. Slouching through the upfront due diligence work -- as some have shown a willingness to do in this forum -- is a certain recipe for disaster. Let's do this right.

  • April 30, 2016 - 10:13:32 AM

    JackCheese, I'm not suggesting skipping due diligence, I just perhaps see it differently than you do. First, there's already a master plan, it calls for denser, more urban development in downtown's west end. This proposal is taller and more intense than what the master plan already calls for, but the master plan already calls for increasing density and urbanization in this neighborhood. Second, the due diligence that is most required is costing out the infrastructure this developer claims they will build out up-front, to ensure that the reimbursement that the city would eventually be on the hook for is priced appropriately; secondly, ensuring that the agreement is water-tight so that it is true and verifiable that, as the developer says, [paraphrasing], "if the revenue is not coming in, the city is not on the hook to pay anything." Where we seem to disagree is the need for a market analysis. I don't think it's possible to get an honestly written market analysis that indicates a need for this project, in this city, today. If this developer has or will be given control over a pot of money big enough to build this development, which is my primary concern with this proposal, then they will need to assume the risk and do the due diligence on their side, to fill that class A space, to generate the demand to fill the housing. When they are finished, future developers will be able to honestly solicit market analyses that indicate demand for more similar product. But, if the developer doesn't have access to and control over the required capital to build a project of this magnitude, it doesn't matter what the city agrees to, doesn't matter what the master plan says, not a single shovel full of dirt will be moved, not a single crane built, not a single steel beam or pane of glass or pvc pipe or spool of copper wire will be purchased, not a single construction worker will be hired. I want to know where their money comes from and what conditions they need to satisfy to have control over that money. Capital is capricious, especially when it's taking a chance to create someone's vision, especially in Reno. No true believers with deep pockets, no West 2nd District.

  • May 1, 2016 - 9:29:42 AM

    Ken -- thanks for your thoughtful response. For the sake of clarity on my side, all me the following high-contrast observations. Developers do no have deep pockets, simply put. They don't. They approach financiers to take a lionshare of the risk, for the lionshare of the reward. The only deep-pocket interests who are spending predictably today are the communist Chinese. They (HNA Tourism Group) announced the purchase of the Raddison brand just last week, for instance. No other US capital firms were interested. Do you know how many properties in Reno the Chinese already hold? You'd be surprised. Building downtown slow and steady will assure that US capital firms a better chance of competing for our property, patronage and successes. And don't flip-out on me for any latent anti-Asian bias herein. I work for Chinese firms Monday through Friday. They're great, great people. But, do we want to overbuild and assure they own a majority of our new developments? To that point, you mention, "This proposal is taller and more intense than what the master plan already calls for,...". You've made my point for me. Taller and more intense means more expensive, and out-of-reach for US investors. It's interesting to me that when people reflexively tin-cup for deep-pocket investors, they themselves have no skin in the game. How much money are you willing to sink into your city's project? Finally, don't be fooled about the need and *requirement* for market research. No funding gets done without it. Investors -- even Asian interests -- depend on it to move ANY development conversation forward. As much as you find market research dispensable, the fact is all of today's well-run businesses are required to provide overlapping market research that triangulate and prove market TAM, SAM, and SOM to investors. Google it. Thanks.

  • June 9, 2016 - 3:54:30 PM

    This W2 group consists of a bunch of white guys and a wife. I think the project is way too much. I think if it was scaled down to lower buildings and townhome like structures it will be much better. What about the infrastructure. Are they going to build a new fire house and pay for the police and fire personal and what about the congestion that this will cause. Already parking is getting tight around the area. I think their website is propaganda and they are just like all the rest of the big developers and only care about money and want the city to take the risks. If they had put forward a more reasonable proposal that took in the surrounding neighborhoods and historic buildings it would be better received. That is a quant historic neighborhood that they are butting up against. Not to mention ruining the Arlington Views.