Convention Center

[jn1780]

So here's an idea. What if we only built half or even a quarter of the exhibit hall underground at the Ford site, built some temporary walls along Robinson and then demolished the Cox center and continued the convention center to half of the Cox site. I'm sure we are still way off from the land budget, but that would allow some convention business to continue. Maybe this is the idea they are having.

[Urbanized]

Also, the suggestion that the CVB would be happy to place the CC in the middle of the MBG is pretty disingenuous; the MBG is a major part of the CVB's sales efforts. I know the CVB staff very well, and few people in this city have a more genuine interest in seeing the entire community thrive, or in protecting the things that make us unique.

I think one of the things that bothers me the most in this discussion is the constant drumbeat that good people who serve this community well are somehow nefarious in their plans and uncaring about the success of other MAPS projects and the rest of the community.

One more thing: despite the constant fretting that the CC is somehow going to steal money from other projects, it remains the only one to have double digit millions plucked from its bottom line (since restored), and I have never - NEVER - heard of someone in a position of influence suggesting defunding one project to the CC's benefit (other than recent grasping-at-straws comments from a council member suggesting using some land acquired for the park). As a matter of fact - and I'm sure this will plunge a dagger into any small popularity I ever may have had here - the only suggestions I have ever heard like this are calls from streetcar supporters to defund the CC and add streetcar miles (made often over the years but also recently in this very thread, in fact) or from park partisans suggesting doing away with the CC and shifting the budget to the park (ditto).

And for the record, both UP and BoulderSooner can vouch for the fact that I am an enthusiastic streetcar supporter. I'm only holding a mirror up to hypocrisy and irony.

[Stickman]

As far as the REHCO deal still being alive, I hope they don't try some 50 yr lease deal. If they want to swap for some land down by the airport; fine, and buy just 2/3 of the original property and build taller. I would rather own the land we are going to spend close to a 1/2 billion(including the hotel).

[Pete]

Just to be clear, the Convention Center is the only project to draw from the general contingency fund set aside for all projects.

And it did that before it had even purchased land, finalized a design or put the project out to bid.

[Urbanized]

It's fine to hold a negative opinion of that, but it is NOT the same as taking away money earmarked for a specific project.

[Pete]

Not saying it's the same, just saying that it's the only project to take money from that common pool (for expansion beyond the original scope) while others which have already gone to bid had to cut back substantially.

[jccouger]

Kind of off topic from current discussion, but exactly how long has the Ford site sat vacant? It seems like it has been a decade if not longer.

At the $100 million price tag, how realistic is it that this property will ever be developed? This seems to happen far too often in OKC, where land owners hold on to their property for ions waiting for the perfect deal to fall in to their lap. Sure, its "business" playing hard ball with OKC but I really hope they have an intention of doing something with this land instead of just sitting on it.

[jn1780]

Kind of off topic from current discussion, but exactly how long has the Ford site sat vacant? It seems like it has been a decade if not longer.

At the $100 million price tag, how realistic is it that this property will ever be developed? This seems to happen far too often in OKC, where land owners hold on to their property for ions waiting for the perfect deal to fall in to their lap. Sure, its "business" playing hard ball with OKC but I really hope they have an intention of doing something with this land instead of just sitting on it.

They were only sitting on it because they thought they were going to get the city to pay a good price on it or more importantly there was uncertainly with the land because of pending eminent domain action on it. I'm sure they are eager to develop it now and start collecting rent.

If the city is going to try to negotiate a modified proposal, it will have to happen relatively quickly.

[Pete]

Just before the site was chosen for the CC the owners had announced plans for a large, multi-use development.

The people involved have plenty of money to make it happen and the two main parties have done great work with more planned (all the Midtown Renaissance stuff plus the 21c and surrounding properties).

[soonerguru]

It's fine to hold a negative opinion of that, but it is NOT the same as taking away money earmarked for a specific project.

While I agree with this, by taking contingency funds they are draining revenues that could be applied to cost overruns with other projects. Remember what happened with the sidewalks?

[Urbanized]

Kind of off topic from current discussion, but exactly how long has the Ford site sat vacant? It seems like it has been a decade if not longer.

At the $100 million price tag, how realistic is it that this property will ever be developed? This seems to happen far too often in OKC, where land owners hold on to their property for ions waiting for the perfect deal to fall in to their lap. Sure, its "business" playing hard ball with OKC but I really hope they have an intention of doing something with this land instead of just sitting on it.

The land was the site of an active and successful automobile dealership until 2010, when the owners announced a plan to redevelop it as mixed use housing/retail/entertainment. As Pete points out they certainly had the means to accomplish this, and as he again pointed out those plans were only interrupted by the city's choice of that location as the site of the new CC.

[jccouger]

Are there renderings for what their plans were? Any possible legal action against the city for interrupting their plans, and basically holding them hostage?

[Pete]

There were never any specific plans but there were articles in the press about it.

[hfry]

Wasn't this the fres jones dealership though? Years ago I had heard, that in his will he stated the land was to go to the city at a reasonable price and the current owners where just handling that? It could be completely false so I don't mean to start a rumor but that was this person understanding of the situation.

[Pete]

Here is an Oklahoman article from 11/20/2010 about the dealership closing and the group's plan to redevelop:

Bob Howard Downtown Ford closing; site being eyed for redevelopment | News OK

[Jersey Boss]

Wasn't this the fres jones dealership though? Years ago I had heard, that in his will he stated the land was to go to the city at a reasonable price and the current owners where just handling that? It could be completely false so I don't mean to start a rumor but that was this person understanding of the situation.

If that is true, then you get into what is defined as "reasonable". If it went to court you would have a hard time attacking a finding by neutral arbitrators as being unreasonable.

[Pete]

Just to clarify the eminent domain process in Oklahoma (and it works similarly in most other states):

1. A municipality files condemnation for property it wants but has not been able to obtain through mutual agreement with the property owner either due to price or willingness to sell.
2. The court appoints three independent commissioners (usually attorneys) which review documents from both parties and conduct their own research.
3. The municipality submits instructions for the commissioners (what property is being evaluated, other general info.)
4. The property owner has the right to review the instructions and request changes.
5. Ultimately the judge decides on the final instructions.
6. There is a hearing where both sides present their case to the commissioners.
7. The commissioners make a decision of fair value which is binding. If no appeal, the municipality must promptly pay (I believe within 60 days).
8. Either party can appeal and that appeal would be heard by a jury.

In this particular situation, the commissioners had been appointed and there was a ton of back and forth on the instructions over the streets and alley issue. Ultimately, the judge ruled that the commissioners would determine that issue along with reviewing property sales and other pertinent information before determining the value.

The City abruptly cut this short only after a judge ruled Cathy O'Connor had to testify; the City had filed a motion to quash her deposition. That decision was on a Friday, the City Attorney then told the city council on Tuesday they planned to dismiss, the dismissal was filed later that day and O'Connor was scheduled to be deposed on Thursday of that same week.

[shawnw]

Just caught (mostly) up with the weekend posts. Count me in as a convert to Pete's layout with the CC along Shields and private dev along the park with parking garage in the middle. Though I'm a fan of Sid's thoughts on the Cox site. While I'd love to get rid of the superblock, I'd be cool with his lemonade.

[Bullbear]

What about this idea... If we leave Broadway open, you could put the parking garage in the middle of this area, push the cc to the east and away from the park and allow private development all along the park.

One of the properties on the east side of this area is already owned by a hotel developer... Swap it for the property along the park. Think he's probably go for that deal and we'd probably get another hotel deal pretty quickly.

Then, we could put our RFP's for the remaining commercial development and use their capital to help buy the required property.

OH I like this a lot!. love the garage being hidden instead of what we are getting with the sheridan project. this solves a lot of problems and would be a great set up IMO

[Urbanized]

Remember, this is NOT a negotiation...

Uh...it is NOW...

[Pete]

Uh...it is NOW...

I was referring to the Oklahoman's account of what happened in the case, not to what may be happening now.

[Spartan]

Also, the suggestion that the CVB would be happy to place the CC in the middle of the MBG is pretty disingenuous; the MBG is a major part of the CVB's sales efforts. I know the CVB staff very well, and few people in this city have a more genuine interest in seeing the entire community thrive, or in protecting the things that make us unique.

I think one of the things that bothers me the most in this discussion is the constant drumbeat that good people who serve this community well are somehow nefarious in their plans and uncaring about the success of other MAPS projects and the rest of the community.

One more thing: despite the constant fretting that the CC is somehow going to steal money from other projects, it remains the only one to have double digit millions plucked from its bottom line (since restored), and I have never - NEVER - heard of someone in a position of influence suggesting defunding one project to the CC's benefit (other than recent grasping-at-straws comments from a council member suggesting using some land acquired for the park). As a matter of fact - and I'm sure this will plunge a dagger into any small popularity I ever may have had here - the only suggestions I have ever heard like this are calls from streetcar supporters to defund the CC and add streetcar miles (made often over the years but also recently in this very thread, in fact) or from park partisans suggesting doing away with the CC and shifting the budget to the park (ditto).

And for the record, both UP and BoulderSooner can vouch for the fact that I am an enthusiastic streetcar supporter. I'm only holding a mirror up to hypocrisy and irony.

You're trying too hard to accuse the streetcar supporters of hypocrisy. As for the nefarious CVB people, nobody ever said that or used that language. That's "grasping at straws," as you related to Greenwell's comments, except apparently comments from the horseshoe don't strike you as concerning compared to comments in OKC Talk posts.

I know you're a streetcar and urbanism supporter, and we all know that the CVB has the best intentions. I would have a beer with anyone from the CVB or Chamber, and actually know a lot of them personally. We all have the best intentions - isn't that amazing? However when they systemically discredit an entire profession and school of thought (urban planning) and hold theirs (economic development) up as the one true way (I'm reminded of religious wars), your best intentions fall short. Sorry they just do, and those "best intentions" don't mean a whole lot in the end when you've got a train wreck that didn't need to happen.

The CVB and assorted junta people, and to be fair all the pet interests behind each of these projects that have ensured those pesky city planners remain removed from any of this (ie the consultant gold rush that has been MAPS), are willfully doing things the wrong way. Each side is doing things THEIR way and no single MAPS project is being pulled off collaboratively.

By the way, it's also absurd that somehow the CC is the angel project that would never touch any other budgets. There is a bad vibe towards specifically the CC subcommittee for a reason. The "restored" $30M was a faulty "agreement" that I suppose the mayor had with a particular CC site (Mayor Mick put the cart before the horse). Like Pete said, only one project has already gotten into the contingency. I really hope and pray that nothing else runs over. The riverfront and sidewalks/trails were even forced to reduce scope bc we need that contingency for the CC! Not to leave anything unaccounted for, the CC people have been talking openly about getting their hands on even more money for a project nobody wants. Who knows how they talk privately.

This all goes back to the spirit of MAPS and the will of the voters, who were forced to accept the CC or get nothing at all. I can't say enough how opposed I am to any changes to the original plan bc I know the CC interests just need the door opened a little bit, and it will have been a long 7 years once all the funding trickles in. All that said, we shouldn't be doing this, and instead of feeling lucky or appreciative of the other projects that they owe their huge piece of the pie to (for passage back in December 2009), the CC project is not playing nice.

My point with all this being that it's not a credible or tenable position to balk at the CC's bad rap. This project actually needs a lot more scrutiny than it is getting, even now, with the subcommittee's propensity to not play nice. And then it needs to work collaboratively with other interests to deliver exactly what was initially proposed, nothing more, and nothing less.

[kevinpate]

not for nuttin, but if the cc will have multiple interior food operations, and if someone can figure out a setting just outside for a number of food trucks and if a couple of eateries can arrange shuttles fm cc to their tables and back, like some do now for Thunder games, wouldn't that cover a passle of lunch time needs of convention goers?

[Motley]

Isn't the point that you want people to stroll around at lunch and shop and dine and spend expense-account $$ on food and generally add to the street scene, not run to a shuttle and get dropped off back at the cc?

[Spartan]

Isn't the point that you want people to stroll around at lunch and shop and dine and spend expense-account $$ on food and generally add to the street scene, not run to a shuttle and get dropped off back at the cc?

But we also want that park to be activated when it's not lunch time on a convention day. That's everything, make or break.