Convention Center

[David]

I'm sure this was over the Francis Apartments, as has been previously posted and discussed.

I have way bigger concerns about how the lingering effects might impact the land around 21c (Fred Hall) and all the remaining MidtownR projects (Bob Howard).

Hope everyone can just move on, regardless of what may or may not happen on the original cc site.

It does put the last few posts in that thread from January in an interesting light. Why the denial, indeed.

[Pete]

Quick question:

We keep saying "City staff"…who exactly is "City staff"?

The parties vary... In the case of the TIF denial I'm not sure if it got nixed at the Brent Bryant / Cathy O'Connor level or at the TIF Review Committee level. All are City staff.

When I talked to Brent about this originally and long before there was any connection drawn to the cc, I got the impression it stopped at his desk but I may be wrong about that.

[Spartan]

This is what I had in mind, conceptually...

Does this satisfy all of the CC needs, Bricktown needs, C2S needs, good urbanism needs?

[hfry]

^^^I think its a great design. It allows for lots of growth. Shields is the entrance to downtown from I40E and what better than a large, stylish CC with the park right behind it. Spartan where would you put the entrance though?

[David]

With the shift of the convention center over to Shields and the new Boulevard, does it help solve the walkability distance problem to local attractions?

Also, since we've over closer to the viaduct underpass, could we cap the Boulevard over there to help with pedestrian access to points north?

[OKCRT]

So does anyone have any idea what plans RHECO has for their expensive property? If they had no intentions on selling they must have some plans for the prop, right?

[Pete]

The CC Committee has called a special meeting for Monday at 3:30.

For anyone interested, it's an open meeting and I'm sure the conversations would be fascinating.


Meeting Date: Monday, March 16, 2015

Meeting Time: 3:30 PM

Meeting Place: 420 West Main Street
10th Floor Conference Room
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

[Spartan]

^^^I think its a great design. It allows for lots of growth. Shields is the entrance to downtown from I40E and what better than a large, stylish CC with the park right behind it. Spartan where would you put the entrance though?

There should be a ton of entrances, really. Most large CC's are designed so that large crowds can filter through quickly without waiting at entrances.

[Zorba]

So my question. When is REHCO going to get their tax assessment upped to the new valuation of $100M. I mean they fought for that valuation, so shouldn't they pay taxes on it?

[Pete]

So my question. When is REHCO going to get their tax assessment upped to the new valuation of $100M. I mean they fought for that valuation, so shouldn't they pay taxes on it?

I know you're joking but since 1996 Oklahoma state law limits the annual increase to no more than 5% per year (3% for homestead or agricultural land).

The only exception is if the property is sold, then the sales price is usually used to set a new assessed value.

Also, property is assessed by the County, not the City.

[NWOKCGuy]

This is what I had in mind, conceptually...

Does this satisfy all of the CC needs, Bricktown needs, C2S needs, good urbanism needs?

I like this - let's get it done.

Where is the parking though? :-D

[jn1780]

I like this - let's get it done.

Where is the parking though? :-D

The retail spaces he indicated on his map are actually vending machines located in the elevator lobbys of the parking garages. lol

[Pete]

In a tough spot: Using Cox site for new convention center could cost 85 pct. of contracts
By: Brian Brus The Journal Record March 10, 20150

OKLAHOMA CITY – Rebuilding the Cox Convention Center to meet MAPS 3 expectations would result in the loss of as much as 85 percent of the contracts for events held in the building, Mike Carrier said.

Merely refurbishing the 50-year-old building piecemeal so that it could remain open for some business would be so challenging that the overall price tag of the project would likely rise and still result in losses, said Carrier, president of the Oklahoma City Convention and Visitors Bureau.

Yet that’s a possibility that he and the rest of the MAPS 3 subcommittee must weigh now that the former Fred Jones automobile dealership property has become too expensive for the city to acquire.

“We now find ourselves in a position in which we have to consider every available option,” he said. “And the idea of not doing anything is equally as bad, because we’ll lose business for lack of a workable facility.

“We’ve got to regroup and figure out where the next best location is,” he said.

City leaders recently ran into a big problem in realizing the promise of the $777 million MAPS 3 sales tax-funded projects that voters approved in 2009: They found out the REHCO ownership group that holds several blocks just south of the Myriad Botanical Gardens expected about $100 million in the condemnation process started last year by the Urban Renewal Authority. The city had intended to spend about $12 million for land.

The original MAPS 3 campaign material from City Hall listed several projects that included an approximately 70-acre park for $130 million, a rail-based transit system for $130 million and a new downtown convention center for $280 million. The final item in that list would ensure the continued health of $2.1 billion in economic impact for central Oklahoma, according to a flier, because the city has been losing business to venues elsewhere.

As the new convention center took shape, the MAPS 3 oversight board started looking for a construction site. The Urban Renewal Authority condemned the Fred Jones property, which put the matter before a board of commissioners to set a fair price.

City Council members said Tuesday that turning away from the property was a good decision. If the city had pursued the process and the commissioners’ decision had been challenged and taken to court, Oklahoma City taxpayers could have been stuck paying much more than originally planned, Councilman Pete White said.

Councilman Ed Shadid said he was surprised at another aspect of the situation as the legal staff explained it: Condemned property cannot be used for private development, so if city leaders pursued plans to build a hotel adjacent to the center, the city would have been forced to keep and operate it somehow. Shadid said that detail was not made apparent in earlier discussions.

Carrier said he’s got to keep an open mind until the search committee produces a new list of potential sites. The Cox Center is obviously in a good spot – it made the committee’s list on the first pass a few years ago – but the economic damage that would be caused by rebuilding it into something better presents a big obstacle, he said.

Other city officials said there has also been talk of taking some of the land from the central park project. The new convention center, as it is now envisioned, will need about 500,000 square feet, or 11.5 acres, a significant portion of the park.

“The reality is that if we rebuild the entire Cox Center, I can’t say that we would lose every bit of business that could be relocated to other sites in the city,” Carrier said. “But we would probably lose 85 percent of events at least. And we would lose it for a period of time with no guarantee of ever getting it back.”

In August, the United Pentecostal Church will hold its international youth congress in Oklahoma City, an event of about 20,000 people. And the Oklahoma Indian Gaming Association conference and trade show attracts about 7,500 delegates and vendors from around the country. Many such events cannot simply be shunted to other buildings – at the state fairgrounds, for example – because organizations expect easy connectivity to room and board for attendees.

Carrier said all the businesses that have grown around downtown convention business would be hurt – hotels and restaurants, for example, to say nothing of business supplies companies, caterers, taxis and other services.

“Convention business represents their profit margin,” he said. “Many of them would not be able to stay open.”

[Just the facts]

Even if they go to the park for land, can the hotel go there? Which lots were brought vs. ED? Also, is there an issue about taking land by ED for a park, and then not building the park?

[Stickman]

How much land would be left at Central Park if they went this route? Seems like a great deal is left over, certainly as far as maintenance is concerned.

[Pete]

Even if they go to the park for land, can the hotel go there? Which lots were brought vs. ED? Also, is there an issue about taking land by ED for a park, and then not building the park?

This whole issue is complex and confusing. I've researched it extensively, read all the court documents, watched the City Council meeting yesterday and heard what the City Attorney had to say about it, and I'm still not clear.

Here's what I do know:

1. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2006 that it is legal for a government entity to take land through eminent domain then use it for private development.
2. Oklahoma has a constitutional statute that specifically prevents this, as do other states. And the in 2007 the OK Supreme Court ruled in a landmark case against this very practice.
3. Subsequently, there was a new state urban renewal law passed that allowed the taking of land for private development, but only under strict circumstances that almost certainly wouldn't apply to any site now being considered (as I understand it).

Also, in yesterday's council meeting the City Attorney said the hotel wasn't an issue because it would be owned by the City. But 1) If that was the case, on what grounds could REHCO challenge their right to take (which was identified as THE reason the ED action was dropped, NOT the price); and 2) I'm looking at the hotel RFP right now and is specifically states "The convention center hotel may be either privately or publicly owned".

The CC is different than something like the Santa Fe Station because the Brewers may have given their specific consent to allow private development on that property but even if they didn't, renting out space to a restaurant or retail shop would likely fall under the "insignificant part of the development" clause provided for in #3 above.

The CC hotel would not be an insignificant part of the overall development, obviously. It would be about a third of the land and a $200+ million investment.


So, I honestly don't know where we stand.

I'm sorry to sound like such a harsh critic on this project but why on earth is this issue just now coming up and why wasn't it factored when we started the site selection process SIX YEARS ago.

And as a reminder, the City issued a press release last week and the mayor gave several interviews and in all cases it was specifically said the price gap was the reason the City dropped their pursuit of the property and only after Shadid asked questions in yesterday's council meeting did this issue come out at all.

The attorney also said they knew on February 18th "100%" that REHCO was going to challenge the City's right to take the land from them over this issue. But he also said they knew it was an issue before, they just weren't 100% sure REHCO was going to force it until 2/18.

Shadid also asked why they waited until March 3rd to bring the matter to the council and then ultimately inform the public. There had been another council meeting on February 24th. And the City Attorney said it was because one of the attorneys in their office who had been working on this was out of town on the 24th.

As a further reminder, voters were at the polls on March 3rd when this was announced late that afternoon.

[hoya]

Taking land from the park is not a viable solution. You don't take from one of the most popular projects (when construction is about to begin) and give it to the least popular (which has been mismanaged). That will cause huge resentment.

[bchris02]

How popular is the park today? When the park was approved, Myriad Gardens had not yet been revitalized and the organic urban growth north of Reno had not yet taken off, hence a greater need for Core 2 Shore. The city needs to evaluate where its at TODAY and determine if the vision laid out a decade ago is still relevant in light of everything that has changed in this city over the past five years.

Personally if there was one project I would cancel it would be the park. I would divide the money between the streetcar and the convention center.

[betts]

We would waste even more taxpayer dollars by using parkland, as it would have to be completely reconfigured. All the money spent on park design and planning would be lost. You'd end up with a park about 2 city blocks in size and you would lose a lot of park side land for housing. Convention Centers aren't hot items to live across from. Worst of all, you would go back on your contract with voters to build what they voted for. It would give anti-MAPS folks tons of ammunition to use to defeat further MAPS initiatives. And if we are worried about walking time to Bricktown, which I am told we are, you just added a few of those critical minutes to the walk. We need to get over this "convention center is the crown jewel" of MAPS 3 idea -it isn't and never was-and look for a reasonable solution that does not have a negative impact on other MAPS projects that were more popular with voters.

[Stickman]

I suppose you are right.....p--ssing the voters off is not a good idea.
MY HEAD HURTS right now.

[jccouger]

We would waste even more taxpayer dollars by using parkland, as it would have to be completely reconfigured. All the money spent on park design and planning would be lost. You'd end up with a park about 2 city blocks in size and you would lose a lot of park side land for housing. Convention Centers aren't hot items to live across from. Worst of all, you would go back on your contract with voters to build what they voted for. It would give anti-MAPS folks tons of ammunition to use to defeat further MAPS initiatives. And if we are worried about walking time to Bricktown, which I am told we are, you just added a few of those critical minutes to the walk. We need to get over this "convention center is the crown jewel" of MAPS 3 idea -it isn't and never was-and look for a reasonable solution that does not have a negative impact on other MAPS projects that were more popular with voters.

Not true regarding walking time. If it was built on park land every single new retail destination that is built around the MAPs park over time will be within site distance. Something that will never be possible with anything in bricktown. Not even it was right beside the railline 50% of people would never know bricktown existed because they couldn't see it.

The cox wasn't built to be close to bricktown. Bricktown didn't even exhist when it was built.

I'll do a mock up soon, but I really think the park land could work. Especially since most of the convention center is below ground.

[Pete]

BTW, if there was a last gasp attempt at working something out at the original site, my understanding is that is now completely over.


I've had a feeling since this blew up the cc would end up on the Cox site because the committee has put the City in a situation where there just doesn't seem to be another option.

I still think that is a very bad idea for lots of reasons and am increasingly worried it will happen despite the concerns of the CVB simply because Cox may be presented as the only workable solution.

[NWOKCGuy]

Does the city own any of the land in Spartan's proposal above? Why wouldn't that work?

[jccouger]

Above is my mock up of the park site. I used the same convention center footprint from what was determined as needed from the old ford dealership sit.

I fit the current park model on the same site with the above ground convention center. All I did was shrink a portion of lake in the park, which is unneeded because the river is directly to the south of the park.

I know we have sunk costs in the planning of the park, but those can easily be changed. Also, don't forget we have the entire south park of the park on the other side of I40.

All of the brown/black boxes are private development that could be turned in to retail/housing/hotels/restaurants. This solves the problem of not being directly next to bricktown, but still close enough that people could visit.

Has great visibility access along the new blvd, and from people exiting I40 in to bricktown.

The hotel isn't located in the new park lands, or land that needs to be acquired so no issues with eminent domain can arise.

Land acquisition costs will decrease, and will also prevent a new "super block" from being built which decreases walk ability.

Now imagine walking out of the convention center & seeing the park & a ton of floor level retail around the park. You can visually see the places you want to visit & can walk directly to your attended destination due to the openness of the park.

[betts]

Not true regarding walking time. If it was built on park land every single new retail destination that is built around the MAPs park over time will be within site distance. Something that will never be possible with anything in bricktown. Not even it was right beside the railline 50% of people would never know bricktown existed because they couldn't see it.

The cox wasn't built to be close to bricktown. Bricktown didn't even exhist when it was built.

I'll do a mock up soon, but I really think the park land could work. Especially since most of the convention center is below ground.

Using that argument, the east side of the park would be fine also. And why build underground if you don't have to? Single story buildings downtown look out of place, IMO. Underground construction is a huge waste of money that could be spent on actually making the building attractive.