That is true.Quote:
Originally Posted by RodH
Printable View
That is true.Quote:
Originally Posted by RodH
I say go mixed uses with a 2 story retail arcade, convention space on the third floor connected by skywalk to the main convention center, then 10 floors of office space, 20 floors of hotel, topped by 5 floors of residential, and capped with an upscale bar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_Place
So basically the Sheraton/Century Center complex? Please, no more "retail arcades."Quote:
Originally Posted by Just the facts
Hardly - that is why I provided a link to an example. A windowless concrete box is not what I had in mind. Besides, I thought you wanted to save its cousin down the street (aka Stage center).Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartan
In case some people are 'link clicking' challenged here are some pictures.
http://www.avalonlimo.net/image/40078526.jpg
http://www.hotelsbycity.net/blog/usa...2007/05/56.jpg
In Spartan's defense, as ugly as Century Center is, the REAL problem is that it's a completely abandoned mall that never worked. An indoor mall like that is not right for downtown. But hopefully a retail element will be included, just not a mall.
In the early days it did work - then we had an oil bust. But with few exceptions it never included any destination retail that would attract locals. For most of the life of Century Center downtown OKC didn't have any people living in it either. That is changing.Quote:
Originally Posted by jbrown84
It was never successful. Always had a high turn over of businesses.Quote:
Originally Posted by Just the facts
Downtown malls have not been successful. It was a 1970s concept that many cities tried and failed at. Just ask Tulsa how popular their downtown mall was.
For the record, I am not proposing a mall. I am proposing retail as part of a mixed use building that includes hotel, residential, and office space. You can't tell me it doesn't work because it works in dozens of downtowns every single day.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed-use_development
The question comes down to this: "Do we want to continue to move forward?" We will need a large hotel if we want to attract the type of conventions which will infuse new money into our community. This is not a high stakes gambling investment; we are centrally located and in a position to beef up the convention industry with what we currently have to offer. A lot of positives are being said about Oklahoma City and we need to stake our claim as a new destination. Time to move forward with progress before other cities in our area like Tulsa, Wichita, Amarillo, Albuquerque and Littlle Rock decide to embark on an ambitious plan to attrack convention dollars which could go to Oklahoma City.
We are a city on the verge and we need to continue to invest in ourselves in an industry which is going to pay big dividends if we get on the right track. We will not only need a new large hotel; but continue on with the retail development that was proposed in the original I.M. Pei plan laid out in the late 60s. We don't necessarily need a mall; however, we do need to start retail development in & around the convention center and those areas which will support and complement making OKC attractive as a whole.
The metro-concourse was a great idea; however, it killed the most important element of our downtown which was the people walking the streets. Look at our I-40 strip outlet mall progress; this is an indication of what Oklahoma City left on the table.
" Just ask Tulsa how popular their downtown mall was."
Sacramento tried and failed with a downtown mall as well. That said, some light (not destination) retail could be successful. But it MUST have street exposure.
Keep in mind though that the difference with Tulsa and what was proposed here at one time is that their's was a pedestrian mall instead of a shopping mall. Neither necessarily work particularly well.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChaseDweller
Cleveland is constructing a Medical Mart Convention Center, which is basically a convention center geared more toward research and medical symposiums to take advantage of the Cleveland Clinic and area medical schools up there, and the site has striking similarities to our proposed CC. The footprint is actually even smaller as it only takes up a single block, and the exhibition hall is underground beneath several blocks - the total cost was over $465 million. Cleveland's facility has 230,000 sf of exhibition space, 90,000 sf of meeting space, and a 30,000 sf ballroom. That is strikingly similar to what is planned for ours. Bear in mind that the whole reason we are embarking on this project is because we only have 100,000 sf of contiguous exhibition space and want several times that in the end.
I think there are some staggering questions about how our city expects to pull off the concept at $280 million. And do it in a way that is sensitive to the central park that we are breaking up. And to the boulevard that we are literally bending to create more space. And the other disparate parts that make up downtown that we are sacrificing for the holy convention gods.
Tulsa also had an enclosed shopping mall. It was quite successful, briefly. It is now office space, cafeteria, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by ljbab728
Cleveland's development is not just a convention center. It is a convention center PLUS a medical mart. The medical mart is included in Spartan's quoted $465 million construction cost. But the Medical Mart is NOT included in the square footage Spartan quoted. The Medical Mart adds an additional 235,000 square feet to the project, and I would speculate that the medical mart will be more expensive per square foot then the convention center space.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartan
Plus, Spartan left out the 11,000 square foot junior ballroom.
So... Total square footage according to Spartan: 350,000
Actual Total square footage: 596,000
If Cleveland's 350,000 square foot convention center is strikingly similar to what is planned for ours, we appear to be right on track. At the dollars/square foot that Cleveland is spending on their convention center and medical mart, a 350,000 square foot convention center should cost us just a bit over $273 million. So much for Spartan's "staggering questions" about OKC's $280 million budget.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oil Capital
What are you smoking? I never said that the square footages I listed represented the entire Cleveland project, nor was it equivalent to the scope of the entire OKC project which you seem to think. OKC is not building a 350,000 sf convention center. The MAPS3 portion will be 470,000 sf which is a figure that has already been trimmed down from campaign rhetoric of almost 600,000 sf for $280 million. Then there will be the expansion area to the west (the Vitagraph property).
The square footages I listed were picked because they are so similar to the OKC project. 30,000 sf ballroom - OKC will have a 35,000 sf one. 230,000 sf contiguous exhibition floor underground - OKC will have a 200,000 sf one underground. It wasn't any attempt to be sneaky, nor was it out of ignorance, I am aware that I left out the square footage for the medical mart but also keep in mind that Cleveland isn't the only new medical mart, as this is an emerging trend I believe in post-2008 convention centers (Nashville is planning to build one). Perhaps these will be the ones that remain competitive unlike traditional convention centers that put all their eggs on the contiguous exhibition floor which have been faltering across the country.
My facts are from OKC.gov. Oil Capitol's facts are from... beats me. But he lives in Tulsa.
I heard a rumor yesterday that the W in Dallas is now looking at building something similar in OKC. They are owned by starwood which also has several other high end brands. Could be a good fit if it is in fact true.
Would they build something similar to the W in Dallas with Aloft so close? Aloft is owned by Starwood Brands as is Sheraton.Quote:
Originally Posted by GaryOKC6
I guess the better question would be to ask Why Wouldn't They? There are no W's in Oklahoma/Kansas/Arkansas/Missouri, they may be trying to establish a footprint in this region, makes sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by knightrider
the Vitagraph property is not to the west of the new CC it is to the west of the MBG and is not part of CC future expansionQuote:
Originally Posted by Spartan
Not even for the potential CC hotel?
edit: I was going to link to Ed Shadid's blog where he raises a "myriad of questions" about the Vitagraph sale, but his site is down? :(
the hotel will very likely be on the east end of the CC site .. across from the chesapeake arena .....Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartan
vitagraph site is north of the expansion end and west of the MBG http://www.okgazette.com/oklahoma/ar...questions.html
Even if the Vitagraph site isn't part of the C.C. site per se, it's comp could factor in to how much the C.C. site land is appraised at, right?
i would think so .. i that is a point that council men shadid has brought up more than once ....Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry OKC
if the 4.2-6.9 comp is used ... the CC site is 55-85 mil
the budget for CC land is somewhere close to 16 mil
That's what I was recalling. Sorry for the confusion bouldersooner..Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry OKC
My recollection is sometimes a jarbled mess of all these news headlines that I watch that get compacted into my OKC subconscious after new concerns and projects rise to the forefront.
I saw the site configuration option that put the CC hotel next to the Ford Center, but then that officially throws the "Harvey Spine" off a lot more than the adjustment for the SkyDance Bridge. The spine isn't even preserved at least on paper. I guess I thought the Vitagraph property was one of the other options.
no problem .... i will say that the possibility of the hotel across from the Chesapeake arena and south of the MBG is one of the only "good" things about the site they pickedQuote:
Originally Posted by Spartan