Convention Center

[betts]

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?

When I go to conventions, I almost always eat lunch at the convention center. I like to have a nice meal at dinner and so I like to eat a light breakfast and lunch. I also don't attend every meeting, so if I were going to leave the CC at lunch, I'd likely skip the pre or post lunch meeting so I didn't have to rush. That's why I've never once paid attention to the location of the CC. However, I will not attend a convention in a city without mass transit to the CC, as I hate driving when I'm on vacation.

[warreng88]

So, David Greenwell said to put the convention center in the new park. I, like most people, hate that idea and think it is terrible. But thinking outside of the box, since we were planning on putting the exhibit halls underground anyways, what about putting the exhibit halls under the park and the meeting halls and hotel above ground to the east of the park?

The underground exhibit halls would run from Hudson to Broadway, from SW 3rd to SW 5th. The hotel would either be above the the exhibit halls on the corner bound by Broadway, Robinson, SW 3rd and SW 4th and the above ground meeting halls would be in the three square blocks to the east and south of the hotel. Not sold on this idea, just trying to think outside the box.

[RodH]

So, David Greenwell said to put the convention center in the new park. I, like most people, hate that idea and think it is terrible. But thinking outside of the box, since we were planning on putting the exhibit halls underground anyways, what about putting the exhibit halls under the park and the meeting halls and hotel above ground to the east of the park?

The underground exhibit halls would run from Hudson to Broadway, from SW 3rd to SW 5th. The hotel would either be above the the exhibit halls on the corner bound by Broadway, Robinson, SW 3rd and SW 4th and the above ground meeting halls would be in the three square blocks to the east and south of the hotel. Not sold on this idea, just trying to think outside the box.

What do you think of orienting the cc north-south instead of east-west? The city could purchase the land between Harvey and Robinson south of Reno. The exhibit hall could run underground, under the blvd and under the park's event lawn. Initially there were plans to put parking under it anyway. The hotel could be put on the se corner of blvd and Robinson or the sw corner of the Cox Center. The meeting rooms could be oriented from the Reno-Robinson corner. This would not take up all of the REHCO property allowing them to develop and profit from their land. They may be more willing to cut a deal with the city since they would still have opportunities. And the city could use land that it already owns to save on real estate costs.

[89er]

Are the submitted RFPs not going to be made public anymore?

*EDIT* NVM just saw the posts on the Hotel Thread.

[Just the facts]

There is still a lot of talk about locating vast parts of the convention center underground. Let me let you in on a secret; vastly miscalculating the cost of the land pales in comparison to how far off they are on building underground. Just look at how much more expensive it is for underground parking vs. a garage vs. a surface lot. Now people are talking about building under major arterial streets. It simply isn't going to happen unless the plan is to spend over a billion dollars.

[Spartan]

And there are known issues with the water table in the C2S area...

[Stickman]

And there are known issues with the water table in the C2S area...

I don't think you have to go deep to hit water. The city has meters hooked up just south of Reno to the river to gauge
the water table for the dams on the river.

[Pete]

Are the submitted RFPs not going to be made public anymore?

*EDIT* NVM just saw the posts on the Hotel Thread.

I'll do my best to summarize them.

It was really more set up as a Request for Interest than that Request for Proposal. Most the responses were very general.

However, they do have to get the list of 7 down to 3 finalists and go from there. Not sure how they are going to do that given the responses; they were all over the map.

[Just the facts]

However, they do have to get the list of 7 down to 3 finalists and go from there. Not sure how they are going to do that given the responses; they were all over the map.

That could be a good thing considering the CC is also all over the map - figurativelyand litterlly.

[hfry]

In today's council meeting they officially voted to stop the proceedings on the Fred Jones site. Dr. Shadid brought up some questions on the timeline of everything. One thing I didn't understand was the City attorney said their decision to stop on that site was because they found out the RIHCO was going to "challenge the take". What is challenge the take? Is it the property and adding the alley ways or streets as has already been talked about?

[hfry]

If anyone else wants to watch the meeting its live on youtube. http://youtu.be/7DnywsBmego Councilman Greenwall just had a comment on the property owners being greedy.

[Pete]

In today's council meeting they officially voted to stop the proceedings on the Fred Jones site. Dr. Shadid brought up some questions on the timeline of everything. One thing I didn't understand was the City attorney said their decision to stop on that site was because they found out the RIHCO was going to "challenge the take". What is challenge the take? Is it the property and adding the alley ways or streets as has already been talked about?

I'm glad this came out because it has not been discussed and seems to be a big reason the City dropped the eminent domain proceeding.

Oklahoma law specifically restricts eminent domain being used to take property for private development.

The convention hotel has been openly discussed as private development; in fact the hotel RFP specifically states that the project could be public or private ownership. In any situation, there would be some element of private development and therefore REHCO could have challenged the City's right to take the property from them, completely independent of cost.

In similar cases, the Oklahoma supreme court has ruled the government cannot eminent domain.

And this is why they are now suddenly proposing the hotel be moved to the Cox site; that site is already owned by the City.

[hfry]

That is very interesting. I know due to the MAPS timeline you have to work on designs and people like to see rendering but it seems it really helped REHCO case. Renderings show the CC using the streets so they want to included those and then ask hotel operators for their interests and then they challenged how they city could take it for that purpose.

[Urbanized]

There are other possibilities besides locating it on the Cox site. I don't think anyone is yet officially "proposing" it be located on the Cox site; that is merely being considered as one option.

[krisb]

Shadid made some pertinent comments regarding Lackmeyer's article on Sunday where he normalizes the quid pro quo relationship between REHCO and the City. We should all be concerned and perhaps need to rethink the value and equity of public-private partnerships.

[Pete]

So goes yet another dubious chapter in this project.

1. If using eminent domain to acquire land for the hotel was an issue, why did the City try and do this in the first place and why is the public (and City Council) just learning about it now. (I happen to know the City Council had absolutely no idea about this until the previous council meeting where they called a hurried executive session and told them the entire action had to be scrapped.)

2. They've already dropped the case. So today, they ask the council to approve that action completely after the fact? What if the council voted no? Answer: wouldn't have mattered because what they were voting on had already been done.

3. Now, we really can't put the cc anyplace where there isn't immediately adjacent publicly owned land for the hotel.

4. Why wasn't this discussed when they had the press release about dropping the site? It was all about "Oh, we just found out the land was too expensive." That part isn't even true. Court documents show the parties met last September and REHCO made it very clear they expected the streets and alleys included. Also, they wouldn't have filed eminent domain in the first place if they weren't way apart on price. The City's initial filing even said the basis for their petition is they couldn't agree on price.

[hfry]

Shadid asked the question but how was the Cox convention center land acquired? If it was imminent domain then we will run into the same problems.

[shawnw]

I would be okay with things underground as we were looking at but I think the major problem with being under the park is that if you need to demo it in 50 years because there's a replacement you have to destroy a big portion of the park...

[Urbanized]

BoulderSooner can't post right now, but texted me and asked me to post on his behalf.

First, he says that the Oklahoma Urban Renewal Act, Title 11, Sections 38-101 through 38-123 specifically allow eminent domain for economic development purposes (private development, that is).

He says that the regular ED law only allowed for public development, but that this language changed that.

Also said that Council specifically added CC site and Santa Fe site to urban renewal area, because City would be leasing retail space in depot and because of potential for hotel on CC site.

[Pete]

BoulderSooner can't post right now, but texted me and asked me to post on his behalf.

First, he says that the Oklahoma Urban Renewal Act, Title 11, Sections 38-101 through 38-123 specifically allow eminent domain for economic development purposes (private development, that is).

He says that the regular ED law only allowed for public development, but that this language changed that.

Also said that Council specifically added CC site and Santa Fe site to urban renewal area, because City would be leasing retail space in depot and because of potential for hotel on CC site.

This is all true but the circumstances with this site are completely different than Santa Fe; not the least of which being the Brewers may have expressly given their consent.

Also, that Urban Renewal Act only provides for taking for private development without owner consent if 1. it's for public utilities; 2. the private development was on an incidental part of the taken property; or 3. the property posed a health risk.

None of these standards apply here which is no doubt why the City dropped their case once REHCO threatened to challenge them.

If there was clear law in the City's favor, the judge would have merely made that ruling.

[soondoc]

It appears that our city leaders are now holding us back as much as the state gov't and that is sad. I have a couple of quick questions. If they propose the CC Hotel to be at the Cox site, does that mean they plan to somehow renovate the current CC and will they stack the hotel on top of it? I can't picture it any other way because it takes up the whole super block? I like the idea of the C2S and the parking garage being hidden from the park.

I still LOVE and dream of what could be if the city went in with some investors and chose the Lumber site. They could literally link it to BT and expand the canal. I loved the ideas of keeping the silos and doing some cool stuff with them and incorporating them into the CC. The investors could build the BT Residential Tower perhaps consisting of around 30 stories and we could have a 25-35 story CC Hotel as well. Then we could leave the option for building and MLS caliber stadium on that site and the expanded canal from BT that would further link us to the River. Pete or anyone else, could you please do a rendering of something like I just described. To me, that has vision and big league city writtten all over it. It would impress convention people or anybody from around the country without a doubt. This is the vision and action this city needs to take, it is what got us here when we dug a ditch in the middle of no where and you can see where we are now because of it. Combine the new rail system and street car and we are nothing short of amazing. Our city leaders need to redeem themselves and show some vision because they are losing the masses and people are getting tired of their actions.

[Pete]

The bottom line on this eminent domain issue is the Municipal Councilor stood before City Council today as they were asking to formally vote to dismiss the case and stated the reason for this was because the owners were challenging the City's right to take the land from them.

So, why is this just now coming out? They issued a press release last week. The mayor gave several interviews as did Cathy O'Connor. It was all about the price.

This is clearly a big issue because the case to acquire the land was completely drooped over it. So why wasn't this discussed anywhere before now?

Why does the public (and council) only find out in an off-handed way by the City's attorney?

And why wasn't this considered six years ago when we started looking for a convention center site and had already established a hotel had to be a part of it?

[jerrywall]

All this seems to confirm the only viable option is the Cox site, which sucks as an option (good location, bad in the short term, IMO).

[Stickman]

The bottom line on this eminent domain issue is the Municipal Councilor stood before City Council today as they were asking to formally vote to dismiss the case and stated the reason for this was because the owners were challenging the City's right to take the land from them.

So, why is this just now coming out? They issued a press release last week. The mayor gave several interviews as did Cathy O'Connor. It was all about the price.

This is clearly a big issue because the case to acquire the land was completely drooped over it. So why wasn't this discussed anywhere before now?

Why does the public (and council) only find out in an off-handed way by the City's attorney?

And why wasn't this considered six years ago when we started looking for a convention center site and had already established a hotel had to be a part of it?

Lots of mistakes made, just coming to lite. We can probably point fingers from now on but it might be better served to regroup and learn from life's lessons. I'm peeved about it to and as guilty as the next at being a Monday morning coach. I really enjoy all the info on this site.

[Urbanized]

^^^^^^
Not necessarily. It only suggests that in hindsight eminent domain was probably the wrong approach, and that perhaps some reconfiguration and reexamination of land requirements is in order.