Skirvin Expansion / Convention Center Hotel (dead)

[Patrick]

Another option to consider: make the FNC complex the convention center hotel, and build the CC in place of EK Gaylord and the Santa Fe parking garage. Attach the two with a skywalk.

[Spartan]

EKG/parking garages is an interesting idea.

Well, this is just a first draft. So, why not have Marcus build the tower north of the Skirvin, but require that it be built larger and that it be branded as a W, Hyatt, or whatever?
I think you could still include Marcus, without making the Skirvin become the actual convention hotel.

Except those aren't Marcus brands.

[Pete]

my big motive fear, why I think the obvious (that Marcus is a money-making corporation) is relevant here (and I think I failed to develop this point earlier), is that I suspect the real goal here is to keep outside big-name hoteliers out of OKC. I think among existing hotels there might be hesitation to fully embrace the idea of a Hyatt, or Four Seasons, or W, or Marriott, or some other big-name hotel becoming the new biggest fish in the pond.

In Milwaukee (where they own the Skirvin-esque Pfister and the Hilton Convention Hotel) Hyatt came in afterwards and everyone seems to be happily co-existing and creating a critical mass of rooms needed for a thriving downtown and to lure big conventions.

They are also very generous in that community, helping fund the performing arts center -- it's named after them and it's bigger and nicer than our Civic Center.


I think this is a simple case of 1) knowing OKC and already having a great property here; and 2) seeing a golden opportunity.

[Pete]

Except those aren't Marcus brands.

In addition to Hilton, they own/operate: Crowne Plaza, Intercontinental, Sheraton and Westin brands. They could easily add one of these or something entirely new.

[okcboy]

I'm also hopefull that we will we extend the canal system someday. I'm not so sure we could connect the convention center if it were at this site.

[ljbab728]

I always thought that a CC hotel would serve the guests of the CC.? If this proposal is accepted then the Skirvin Hotel will serve only convention goers correct? I am not so sure this is a good idea.

There is no "convention center hotel" anywhere that will turn down business from non convention goers when they have rooms available.

[ljbab728]

I'm also hopefull that we will we extend the canal system someday. I'm not so sure we could connect the convention center if it were at this site.

While there is nothing wrong with the idea, I see no particular need for the convention center to be served by a canal extension.

[Larry OKC]

WOW. This thread really took off since I left it less than 24 hrs ago!

MAPS is a program designed to build new state of the art facilities and entice new development. All of the discussions about tearing down or using existing facilities are good, but not in the context of what the MAPS program is all about. I'm fairly certain The Skirvin will do very well on its own and still be the landmark hotel that it is now.
Which might be better for them in the long term.

Have to interject with a slight technical correction. The Convention Center hotel is NOT a MAPS project. Although obviously related, there is no funding in MAPS 3 for the C.C. hotel. This need and funding were glossed over at best during the campaign. As far as I am aware there is no identified source of funding for the estimated $60M or so the ULI folks suggested the City would have to be willing to put into it. They said in the article that the Skirvin expansion wouldn't require as much (and I may have missed it) but didn't say how much would be required.

...I'm simply tired of trying to ride too many horses with one behind. Let's concentrate on the areas closest to critical mass first before we forge yet another frontier on the edge of downtown.

Classic! I am saying this one (agree with the rest of your points as well).

No, it's actually the God honest truth. Just ask anyone on the MAPS 3 oversight committee. I speak to several of them regularly. In fact, just got off the phone with one of them this afternoon, who said you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Marcus Hotels is the first and only hotel operator to come to them with any proposal like this. They haven't had anyone calling them, busting down the door for an opportunity to be involved in this. At least not yet. But it's still early. ...

Really? This runs counter to what we were led to believe during the campaign. But as you pointed out, it might be too early in the process and they are sitting it out waiting for the C.C. site to be selected. Just as other development may be waiting for the Streetcar routes to be chosen and possibly the actual laying of track (no turning back now type of thing). Hard to make a proposal when you don't know where it is going to be, footprint, adjacent structures etc etc etc. At this point any proposal from outside interests would have to be 4-fold. Then there is the unlikely possibility that the Council could reject the Oversight recommendations for the C.C. site and go with another (such as the Mayor's preferred C2S Park adjacent one).

I don't care what deal you go with, or what company you work with, there isn't a company out there that's going to do this project without any guaranteed incentives. It's just too big of a risk.

Where's the risk? Guaranteed incentive from the near maximum occupancy from the C.C. Unless the Chamber was blowing smoke on all of this from the beginning (see above). Unless we build it and they don't come (this was brought up during the campaign, that many cities have built new C.C. centers and there just isn't enough C.C. business to go around).

While there is nothing wrong with the idea, I see no particular need for the convention center to be served by a canal extension.

If you believe former Mayors Norick and Humphreys, they have insisted from the very first MAPS that it was critical that the Canal do just that. They made the case when they proposed getting $25M included in MAPS 3 to accomplish it.

Getting back to some of my earlier concerns with the parking. Apparently there are going to be 2 parking structures but at a net loss of total available spaces (the article stated that the existing inventory would be taken up by the relocated Continental Resources. Under this proposal we are adding 400+ rooms and those people are going to have to park those rentals someplace. Unless everyone takes the Streetcar from the airport to downtown. Oooops doesn't run there. Maybe they can all board the Devon River boats and make there way to the Canal. Oooops, the Canal extension doesn't exist either and they are going to have to tote their luggage up the 17 ft elevation change when it does get built. (Sorry for being snotty).

I still have questions that I didn't see answered yet. Where in the pics does it show the hotel expansion is going to be? I incorrectly thought it was the "ghost" building directly across the street. Then someone said it was the building on the otherside of the Gateway/arch structure (to the right, behind the ghost building. The caption on the pic that ran in the paper indicated that was the office space to be used to house the Chamber and CVB. Is the hotel extension to the left side of the pic (nearly cropped out), behind the Skirvin? Looks like meeting rooms, support structure separating the two? If it is indeed behind the Skirvin, that addresses some of my placement/design concerns (that the existing Skirvin be the "front door" to the property.

I see this as an opportunity for the City to do some "big picture" thinking and seeing how it all works together (as this plan is doing). Think it is entirely too early to make any sort of commitment on it but it can certainly get the ball rolling when the time is appropriate.

[ljbab728]

[QUOTE=Larry OKC;420452]

If you believe former Mayors Norick and Humphreys, they have insisted from the very first MAPS that it was critical that the Canal do just that. They made the case when they proposed getting $25M included in MAPS 3 to accomplish it.

Getting back to some of my earlier concerns with the parking. Apparently there are going to be 2 parking structures but at a net loss of total available spaces (the article stated that the existing inventory would be taken up by the relocated Continental Resources. Under this proposal we are adding 400+ rooms and those people are going to have to park those rentals someplace. I still have questions that I didn't see answered yet. Where in the pics does it show the hotel expansion is going to be? I incorrectly thought it was the "ghost" building directly across the street. Then someone said it was the building on the otherside of the Gateway/arch structure (to the right, behind the ghost building. The caption on the pic that ran in the paper indicated that was the office space to be used to house the Chamber and CVB. Is the hotel extension to the left side of the pic (nearly cropped out), behind the Skirvin? Looks like meeting rooms, support structure separating the two? If it is indeed behind the Skirvin, that addresses some of my placement/design concerns (that the existing Skirvin be the "front door" to the property.QUOTE]

Larry, irrespective about what may have been stated in the past, there is nothing critical about the canal serving the convention center as nice as that might be.

And there is nothing to indicate that is would have to be net loss of parking spaces. According to the proposal it could very well be a net gain. The proposal says that the restructured current parking area could have as many as 895 spaces in addition to as many as 1260 in a new parking area. That would be 2,155 spaces compared to 1500 in the current parking garage.

The depiction of the proposal clearly shows that the new hotel tower would be behind or north of the current Skirvin Hilton so your concerns are answered there.

[iMAX386]

Larry, hopefully this helps:



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[RodH]

And there is nothing to indicate that is would have to be net loss of parking spaces. According to the proposal it could very well be a net gain. The proposal says that the restructured current parking area could have as many as 895 spaces in addition to as many as 1260 in a new parking area. That would be 2,155 spaces compared to 1500 in the current parking garage.

Don't forget to count the parking spaces where the convention center would be located and those that are currently south of Main.

[Spartan]

Larry, irrespective about what may have been stated in the past, there is nothing critical about the canal serving the convention center as nice as that might be.

And there is nothing to indicate that is would have to be net loss of parking spaces. According to the proposal it could very well be a net gain. The proposal says that the restructured current parking area could have as many as 895 spaces in addition to as many as 1260 in a new parking area. That would be 2,155 spaces compared to 1500 in the current parking garage.

The depiction of the proposal clearly shows that the new hotel tower would be behind or north of the current Skirvin Hilton so your concerns are answered there.

Two things about this, ljbab. I think you're right that the canal doesn't matter anymore, but I think that more or less simply reflects that our desires and goals have clearly shifted and the Bricktown Canal has been totally forgotten and left behind. Look at it today.

Secondly, it is a net parking loss because there is a third factor, the spots that are going to be taken up by Continental Resources. And I will almost be willing to bet that the "as many as 1260 spaces" is completely contingent on how much they're able to destroy the fabric of Main Street. Whether they are forced to preserve the Sherman Iron Works building and have to build on top of it, or whether they can just tear it down and just do a parking garage...

[Larry OKC]

Sorry Spartan, didn't intend to trump your post ...

ljbab, thanks for the pic with directions and labels (it really does help)

If you don't agree with them, thats fine. The past you are referring to wasn't just from 1993, but reiterated by Norick & Humphreys most recently just before MAPS 3 was unveiled and the election set (but for whatever reason, didn't make the final cut).

How do you figure there is a net gain of parking? You helped clarify the other things, now what am I doing wrong with the math?

1,518 Existing spaces in Santa Fa garage minus 1,518 spaces when the bulldoze the place = Zero spaces

Unknown quantity of spaces in the surface parking lot that the new C.C. will sit, also gone (is this what RodH was talking about?).

575 to 895 spaces in the replacement structure. The replacement structure will be completely occupied by the relocating Continental Resources Leaves us with the same Zero spaces (net loss of 1,518)

Add back in the 800 and 1260 from the 2nd new structure and you are still short 258 to 718 spaces from the existing inventory. Factor in the parking needs of the added 425 room expansion and you have even fewer spaces. Right?

The perception is parking is horrific and I have no idea what the current demand/supply of parking is currently. But shouldn't we be looking at growth needs? Just as with the new C.C. itself, they are only funding/building what it will take to meet the CURRENT needs of a Tier 2 city (much less what those needs are going to be 10 years or so when the C.C. gets built). This makes as much since as having an Arena that was already too small and taking out nearly 1,000 seats. I am not sure how this proposal relates to the MAPS 3 Park, but remember it was supposed to have parking that has been eliminated (the parking was to serve both the Park and the C.C.). The city thinks the parking in that area is sufficient for the Park (but again, not sure if the Santa Fe garage figures into that or not). If MAPS 3 brings everything that it is supposed to, won't the parking needs grow even more? What is the logic of shooting yourself in the foot at the beginning of the race?

Help me here!

As an aside, the location of the 2nd parking structure puts it farther away from the Skirvin, seems like a better location would be in what looks like a surface lot on the other side of the C.C. and next to the Skirvin expansion (where your handy compass is placed).

[Kerry]

I can't believe people are opposed to this plan because of parking spaces. That is like turning down a winning lottery ticket because you have to scratch the silver off the numbers. If parking is an issue new garages can be built; it isn't like downtown doesn't have the space. This proposal takes what are now atleast 5 surface lots and turns them into multi-story strucutres, gets rid of the second ugliest parking garage in the city, and creates more class A office space.

As for the canal connecting to the conventioned, it is much more important that the streetcar reaches the convention center.

[NWOKCGuy]

Interested to hear what Steve has to say...

"This is an interesting pitch, but have no doubt, there ARE other major hotel groups engaged in quiet conversations with the city about getting a shot to add a convention hotel to downtown as well."

http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/20...sy-week-again/

[Rover]

"- If all goes according to plan, you’ll love what’s set to appear in the business section in next Sunday’s Oklahoman."

Okay, what's the tease about? Throw us a crumb Steve.

[bdhumphreys]

I say just remove EKG completely then. I don't really see what purpose it serves.

This is exactly right and a key component of making this concept successful. E.K. Gaylord represents excess traffic capacity that has an overall negative impact on the quality and character of downtown.

And it should be reiterated (as Pete pointed out) that a skybridge is unnecessary as there is already an opportunity for an at-grade crossing on line with the continuation of Park Ave (see here).

The Skirvin proposal is an idea that leverages the CC investment to solve other problems and make OKC better. There are similar proposals emerging for other sites. All are worthy of further study and consideration.

[Urban Pioneer]

I wish that the proposal would address the rail concerns head on. The reality is that the N Bricktown parking lots provide a key current and future rail corridor for the Midwest City/Tinker, Adventure Line, Tulsa connection and repeatedly being promoted to the Feds as our HSR alignment.

I have seen buildings built above and around rail lines, and doing so is possible. The real question is what would it cost to make the parking lots work considering another barrier is involved? Will $250 - $280 million do it?

The developers started to promote the idea that the rail connections can be made further south at the Cotton Seed Mill. Because of grade issues and other barriers, connections there are extremely complicated.

Plus it would make the proposed intermodal hub not work.

Kudo's to the people who desperately want more core infill and barriers to be removed. However, be aware that the combined proposal can have greater effects on other issues that haven't been "flushed out" yet and what the real costs actually are.

[Spartan]

These are all concerns that need to be addressed. I like this site above all, but I can only support very specific things. I would not be in favor of giving them carte blanche authority to turn the area along the tracks around Main Street into a convention universe.

[stdennis]

Sorry Spartan, didn't intend to trump your post ...

ljbab, thanks for the pic with directions and labels (it really does help)

If you don't agree with them, thats fine. The past you are referring to wasn't just from 1993, but reiterated by Norick & Humphreys most recently just before MAPS 3 was unveiled and the election set (but for whatever reason, didn't make the final cut).

How do you figure there is a net gain of parking? You helped clarify the other things, now what am I doing wrong with the math?

1,518 Existing spaces in Santa Fa garage minus 1,518 spaces when the bulldoze the place = Zero spaces

Unknown quantity of spaces in the surface parking lot that the new C.C. will sit, also gone (is this what RodH was talking about?).

575 to 895 spaces in the replacement structure. The replacement structure will be completely occupied by the relocating Continental Resources Leaves us with the same Zero spaces (net loss of 1,518)

Add back in the 800 and 1260 from the 2nd new structure and you are still short 258 to 718 spaces from the existing inventory. Factor in the parking needs of the added 425 room expansion and you have even fewer spaces. Right?

The perception is parking is horrific and I have no idea what the current demand/supply of parking is currently. But shouldn't we be looking at growth needs? Just as with the new C.C. itself, they are only funding/building what it will take to meet the CURRENT needs of a Tier 2 city (much less what those needs are going to be 10 years or so when the C.C. gets built). This makes as much since as having an Arena that was already too small and taking out nearly 1,000 seats. I am not sure how this proposal relates to the MAPS 3 Park, but remember it was supposed to have parking that has been eliminated (the parking was to serve both the Park and the C.C.). The city thinks the parking in that area is sufficient for the Park (but again, not sure if the Santa Fe garage figures into that or not). If MAPS 3 brings everything that it is supposed to, won't the parking needs grow even more? What is the logic of shooting yourself in the foot at the beginning of the race?

Help me here!

As an aside, the location of the 2nd parking structure puts it farther away from the Skirvin, seems like a better location would be in what looks like a surface lot on the other side of the C.C. and next to the Skirvin expansion (where your handy compass is placed).

You subtracted the spaces take up by Continental but did Devon not already use those spaces before? Or do they have another place to park?

[Doug Loudenback]

Here's a YouTube slide show I've put together from the PDF file containing the proposal:



I've also extracted all pages in the 45 page PDF file and will have them posted in my blog this evening. Here are 4 that might be significant in this discussion:

[Urban Pioneer]

The idea of opening up Park Avenue underneath the BNSF is a novel idea, but expect years of negotiation with BNSF. Plus, when penetrating to the east side, I think you might be in direct alignment with the proposed declining articulated ramp for the trains. Documentation is being generated for this stuff by several transit entities.

[Pete]

Here's the full PDF file:

http://s3.amazonaws.com/content.news.../a9skirvin.pdf

Regarding the parking, there is a large surface lot immediately east of the proposed CC site that could easily be made into a multi-level garage.

Really, the last thing we should be worried about is parking. There are still acres of surface lots and undeveloped properties in and surrounding this area. Heaven forbid that real density actually drives even more!

[Spartan]

This convention center needs to utilize all of the space on the south side of the abandoned rail yard. They can't just eliminate another rail yard that was an option for the high speed link to Tulsa. Also, I don't believe they should be demolishing all of these nice and RENOVATED buildings on both Main St and 2nd Street, across from the lofts. There is enough space BETWEEN the tracks and the buildings fronting Main Street, and they could certainly use certain parts of Main Street for convention center street frontage, but certainly not all of it. They need to preserve the buildings right across from the Sherman Iron Works (the new Standley Systems bldg, or whatever company that is, for example) and they need to let 2nd Street be.

At least the Ford site would not be bastardizing our most important historic district. As pessimistic as I am about Bricktown these days, that shouldn't change the fact that IF it was a perfect world within the confines of Bricktown, it would still have the potential to be the best urban district in the state. I am not for bastardizing Bricktown by replacing its historic buildings with a convention center.

[Spartan]

This site plan suggestion from the Skirvin is preposterous. Move the loading bay to the west of the facility and give it egress and ingress off of Main. Put the truck freight and all the loading stuff up against the tracks. Why is there an expansion area unused, when they've had to take out the railyard to have enough room for phase one? Expand somewhere else, perhaps across Walnut.

As for the Main Street frontage, the only way I would be okay with the convention center taking up the entire side of the block is if it utilizes the existing buildings and at least preserves the facades. I've had enough demolition, no more.

By the way, I seriously doubt that Deep Deuce residents want the freight loading right in front of their house, esp where they used to have a nice renovated building, a plaza, and then a proposed Aloft Hotel.