Convention Center

[Urban Pioneer]

Where it is likely problematic is that somewhere along the way you have to account for a massive number of loading docks, and this orientation would make that very problematic.

What if that exit ramp off of Robinson was retained? It dumps right into the southern part of the site. I noticed it for the first time yesterday when I was taking pictures of the tunnel. That would provide a direct almost dedicated connection into the site from I-40 westbound.

[soonerguru]

Honestly I think there are a number of people here who really don't care one way or the other if it succeeds or fails, and a number who would be tickled pink to see it done away with altogether.

I do think that the configuration shown fronting Shields is an interesting, creative idea. Where it is likely problematic is that somewhere along the way you have to account for a massive number of loading docks, and this orientation would make that very problematic. I also think people are still blowing right past how much site acquisition and remediation would be for C2S.

But seriously, I don't think it's going there. And I also don't think it's going to take up any park space. I believe at this point that it is probably moving toward a resolution that is not even being contemplated in this thread.

This seems dramatic and inaccurate. The position would probably be better stated that there are a lot of people for whom this was not a high priority, but fought for MAPS 3 and this is an important element of MAPS 3. There are a lot of other folks who were rubbed the wrong way by the way the CC subcommittee tried to push itself in front of other projects and has consistently lobbied for more money.

That should not be confused with the Mitch McConnell / Rush Limbaugh "rooting for failure" approach. Not at all.

[Urbanized]

Oh, come on Guru. Don't make me go back and find quotes. Just go back and read the last ten pages or so and you'll understand what I mean. Or better yet, don't. I'd hate to subject a friend of mine to all of the dreck in this thread...

[Urban Pioneer]

This should be looked at as an opportunity to build it right in the location that the Planning Department said it should be.

[Pete]

But seriously, I don't think it's going there. And I also don't think it's going to take up any park space. I believe at this point that it is probably moving toward a resolution that is not even being contemplated in this thread.

That is twice you eluded to another site.

Please elaborate.

[Teo9969]

That is twice you eluded to another site.

Please elaborate.

Perhaps they land on a settlement for the C2S North site? An ED lawsuit need not finish for them to settle at something like $50M for the site. . .

[Urban Pioneer]

If it is the Karchmer Parking site that the city owns, I suspect there will be a pretty vigorous fight from the commuter rail folks who want to make sure that the right-of-way necessary for lines out to Tinker, the NE side, and service to Tulsa/Kansas City is preserved into Santa Fe Station.

The Convention Center designers/planners would need to demonstrate how that could be done.

[betts]

Oh, come on Guru. Don't make me go back and find quotes. Just go back and read the last ten pages or so and you'll understand what I mean. Or better yet, don't. I'd hate to subject a friend of mine to all of the dreck in this thread...

That's rather condescending of you. Although, I must admit I have yet to see a single post in this thread by anyone with acknowledged expertise in the field of convention center location determination. At least people posting here care enough for this city that they are thinking about this. And what is a message board like this anyway but a place to share ideas? Clearly, there has never been a perfect solution. If the primary determinant for convention center selection is proximity to lunch, then the original site fails as well. I agree, it's nearly impossible to reliably eat lunch anywhere in the CBD or Bricktown in under 40 min.

[jn1780]

One more thing: Hoya, I almost always agree with you on this board, but the Farmers Market thing is even more troubling than most that have been mentioned. The same people have owned much of that area for more than a decade now, and what do we have to show for it? A single 20x20 (admittedly great) bar.

I simply can't believe the cavalier attitudes thrown around on here regarding ensuring that a QUARTER BILLION DOLLAR taxpayer investment be successful. It's not something that can simply be left to chance, or guessing.

Anyway, all of the guesses and drawings on this board are an interesting distraction, but to be honest I think the solution is going to end up being one we're not even discussing here.

This whole maps program is one big chance and apparently the experts in the industry don't even agree on what makes a good location. Otherwise, I don't get why a crappy location was rated in the top 3. The first two locations we can't even afford.

[Urbanized]

Condescending? What are you talking about? I'm sure I've made condescending posts on this board but that certainly wasn't one of them.

Go back and read the thread yourself. There are multiple posts from people saying things like

• They think the CC should be scrapped and the budget moved to the streetcar budget
• They don't care where the CC goes, as long as it doesnt take up valuable land downtown
• They don't care where it goes, as long as it doesn't create a superblock downtown
• They don't care where it goes, as long as it doesn't touch a park
• OKC will probably never get much convenion business anyway, so why bother?
• The convention industry is dead and this is just a giant waste of money
• The CC committee is some nefarious group of power brokers who somehow stand to personally gain from its construction, though exactly how has never been explained

Are you suggesting that posts like this haven't been made here? As far as Guru and I are concerned, we've been personal friends for 15 years or more. I'm pretty unlikely to post something that is personally condescending to him.

[Urbanized]

That is twice you eluded to another site.

Please elaborate.

Pete, if you'll read Steve's analysis is in yesterday's paper again, I think he pretty openly hints at the direction this discussion could take. I think everyone was too caught up in the sensational nature of the quotes in Crum's article and in being mad at the whole process to pay attention to his observations.

[Urbanized]

...The first two locations we can't even afford.

Are you certain about this?

[betts]

And there were all sorts of suggestions on the streetcar thread, some of which were unusual, to say the least. I suspect there are suggestions that seem odd and/or grandiose on every thread of a major project, the scope of which has yet to be determined. I didn't think you were being condescending to guru. I know you're friends. But people take the time to post, which at least means they care about something. It may be urban development rather than the CC. Almost everyone who belongs to this forum does because at minimum they're interested in OKC and at maximum they are fervently passionate. Out of unusual ideas, perhaps the seed of an idea that's workable could grow. I hate to see their efforts called dreck. None of us is an expert, even if we've read a paper or two or gone to a meeting. And ideas that are touted as gospel today may be dumped in 10 years. That evens happens in medicine, which is a heck of a lot closer to a science than convention center placement.

[Pete]

Pete, if you'll read Steve's analysis is in yesterday's paper again, I think he pretty openly hints at the direction this discussion could take. I think everyone was too caught up in the sensational nature of the quotes in Crum's article and in being mad at the whole process to pay attention to his observations.

I picked up on the hints, but moving the hotel to the Cox site would only reduce the land cost by about 1/3rd which mean REHCO would still want approximately $66 million for the land, far north of the $13 million budget. Still absolutely no public discussion on how that might be covered.

There is clearly much more to all this and at some point it needs to come out.

I continue to be incredibly uncomfortable with how all this has been handled.

[Urbanized]

LOL. "Dreck" was the condescension? A large portion of what is posted on this board daily is dreck, but I keep coming back and so do you. "Dreck" was said in a joking manner. I wouldn't wish upon anyone the tediousness of going back and reading this thread start to finish, or even the last 10 pages.

[jn1780]

Are you certain about this?

Well, we wouldn't be having this conversation if the original site was. Regarding the Cox site, that really first depends on how much opportunity cost is going to be for not having a convention center for at least 3 years. It may be affordable if were willing to give up a convention center for a few years.

[Pete]

Well, we wouldn't be having this conversation if the original site was. Regarding the Cox site, that really first depends on how much opportunity cost is going to be for not having a convention center for at least 3 years. It may be affordable if were willing to give up a convention center for a few years.

It seems what they want to do now is move the hotel to the Cox site and thus not completely tear it down.

This was one of the ideas that consultants and committees considered early on and they must be coming back to that.

But as I pointed out, the reason given to the press for backing out was due to the cost per SF, and even moving the hotel would not in itself solve that problem.

I'm sure there are lots of things behind the scenes that are not being being shared with the public.

[Urbanized]

One more thing betts: regarding the idea that none of us here has much of anything legitimate upon which to base an opinion on regarding location (oops, I think I found the condescension in this thread!): though I certainly have never claimed to be a site location expert myself, I haven't just "read a paper" on the matter.

I've spent the last 13 years working regularly and directly with not only the people who go out and sell our city and our facilities but also with the convention planners who decide whether to book here or not. I've met with these people, I've been a part of pitches to them, I've hosted events and tours, I've had drinks with them. I've heard from their own mouths what they think is great about OKC as a conference destination (and what is not great). They have told me what will make OKC more bookable, and what will make it less bookable. Overwhelmingly, the thing that gets us and keeps us in the game is our current (and until recently planned) dense walkability to hotels and entertainment for their attendees. Period.

Their opinions, BTW, are based upon best practices in their industry, established by years of practice and observation of things that work vs things that don't. Sort of like science, if you will. I know it's not medicine, but believe it or not it's not all guessing either (was that even MORE condescension on your part, BTW)?

So again, while I don't claim to be an expert on CC site location, my background probably makes me at least as qualified to comment on this topic as say - for instance - a medical doctor might be qualified to help plan streetcar routes.

[Urbanized]

Well, we wouldn't be having this conversation if the original site was...

Are you certain about THIS?

[Pete]

One more thing betts: regarding the idea that none of us here has much of anything legitimate upon which to base an opinion on regarding location (oops, I think I found the condescension in this thread!): though I certainly have never claimed to be a site location expert myself, I haven't just "read a paper" on the matter.

I've spent the last 13 years working regularly and directly with not only the people who go out and sell our city and our facilities but also with the convention planners who decide whether to book here or not. I've met with these people, I've been a part of pitches to them, I've hosted events and tours, I've had drinks with them. I've heard from their own mouths what they think is great about OKC as a conference destination (and what is not great). They have told me what will make OKC more bookable, and what will make it less bookable. Overwhelmingly, the thing that gets us and keeps us in the game is our current (and until recently planned) dense walkability to hotels and entertainment for their attendees. Period.

Their opinions, BTW, are based upon best practices in their industry, established by years of practice and observation of things that work vs things that don't. Sort of like science, if you will. I know it's not medicine, but believe it or not it's not all guessing either (was that even MORE condescension on your part, BTW)?

So again, while I don't claim to be an expert on CC site location, my background probably makes me at least as qualified to comment on this topic as say - for instance - a medical doctor might be qualified to help plan streetcar routes.

And while I (and I'm sure others) completely respect all of that, if we left it up to the CVB they would build the thing in the middle of the Myriad Gardens if we let them.

Their wants and desires are only a very small part of this whole thing and should not be the driving force.


I also reject the claim the cc would 'fail' if it wasn't ideally located. First of all, this thing is being paid for with cash by tax payers so there is little financial risk. Secondly, I can't imagine any scenario where we do less convention business than we are now, and the annual economic impact of the Cox Center is estimated at about $30 million a year.

You can argue a new cc might be less successful if it was in one location over another, but I can't see any way it would fail.

[jn1780]

It seems what they want to do now is move the hotel to the Cox site and thus not completely tear it down.

This was one of the ideas that consultants and committees considered early on and they must be coming back to that.

But as I pointed out, the reason given to the press for backing out was due to the cost per SF, and even moving the hotel would not in itself solve that problem.

I'm sure there are lots of things behind the scenes that are not being being shared with the public.

I guess the idea is that they can make the cost overrun bill an easier pill to swallow and may involve making big cuts to the actual building.

[Urbanized]

...But as I pointed out, the reason given to the press for backing out was due to the cost per SF, and even moving the hotel would not in itself solve that problem.

I'm sure there are lots of things behind the scenes that are not being being shared with the public.

But if you again look at Steve's commentary there are defensible comps nearby that are a fraction of the price. They took a hard-nosed position with a top-of-market price, which as he points out is just business. It sounds like where things went off the rails was with the court case. Probably part of the problem there was that the city would have been obligated to buy all of the land at whatever the determined price was, and as Steve points out in the article it might be possible to pull off the project with less land assembly than the City's "in a perfect world" plan called for. A smaller site would also please a lot of the people who are worried about superblocks and park frontage.

Either way, it seems obvious from Steve's article that a deal might still be in the offing, and that getting one done might be a way for all parties to save face.

[Urbanized]

And while I (and I'm sure others) completely respect all of that, if we left it up to the CVB they would build the thing in the middle of the Myriad Gardens if we let them.

Their wants and desires are only a very small part of this whole thing and should not be the driving force.

I also reject the claim the cc would 'fail' if it wasn't ideally located. First of all, this thing is being paid for with cash by tax payers so there is little financial risk. Secondly, I can't imagine any scenario where we do less convention business than we are now, and the annual economic impact of the Cox Center is estimated at about $30 million a year.

You can argue a new cc might be less successful if it was in one location over another, but I can't see any way it would fail.

I agree with you that it might be marginally successful - it certainly would host events and it's not like it would be boarded up or torn down - but that could still be a failure depending upon how view success/failure.

I think quarter billion building that only books about the same amount of business as the Cox (your example, not mine) would/should be considered a RUNAWAY failure. I also think a building that doesn't stay booked - and by extension becomes a maintenance drain on City resources and the general fund - would also be a failure.

True success, IMO, would include the following:

• A significant uptick in bookings
• OKC pulls above its weight in convention business (we already have the amenities to do this)
• The new building sees enough bookings to significantly offset its operating costs, perhaps even making it cost less to maintain and operate than the Cox
• The building is well-integrated enough with its surroundings that they each help the other to achieve even more success

To achieve these points wise (rather than casual) location planning MUST be a part of the equation.

[Pete]

Remember, this is NOT a negotiation. It's a legal process initiated by the City because direct negotiations failed (their own filing said this) and thus a fair price was to be arbitrated by the three appointed independent commissioners.

So, it doesn't flipping matter what comps REHCO was citing. They were merely advocating for the best possible price as anyone would in that situation. And the City was doing the same thing on their side: presenting evidence the land was worth less.

In the end, the objective commissioners would have weighed all the evidence and made a ruling.

So, if the City was so sure they were right with the lower comps, why not just continue the process they themselves initiated? Because they knew there was a very good chance that the commissioners would decide on the the higher end, which is another way of saying the City knew REHCO was right and justified in their asking price.


And to imply the City is 'mad' and that future requests for TIF grants and other public assistance might be treated differently -- or that past awards should have caused a private owner to reduce their asking price -- is simply incredible. If that was implied by the City, that is not only concerning, but an admission of out-right corruption. And if the Oklahoman is drawing that conclusion on their own and printing in their paper, that's simply ridiculous.

[AP]

Remember, this is NOT a negotiation. It's a legal process initiated by the City because direct negotiations failed (their own filing said this) and thus a fair price was to be arbitrated by the three appointed independent commissioners.

So, it doesn't flipping matter what comps REHCO was citing. They were merely advocating for the best possible price as anyone would in that situation. And the City was doing the same thing on their side: presenting evidence the land was worth less.

In the end, the objective commissioners would have weighed all the evidence and made a ruling.

So, if the City was so sure they were right with the lower comps, why not just continue the process they themselves initiated? Because they knew there was a very good chance that the commissioners would decide on the the higher end, which is another way of saying the City knew REHCO was right and justified in their asking price.


And to imply the City is 'mad' and that future requests for TIF grants and other public assistance might be treated differently -- or that past awards should have caused a private owner to reduce their asking price -- is simply incredible. If that was implied by the City, that is not only concerning, but and admission of out-right corruption. And if the Oklahoman is drawing that conclusion on their own and printing in their paper, that's simply ridiculous.

+1 on all of this.