Convention Center

[Pete]

Before it was chosen by the convention center committee, the owners (REHCO) had announced a large-mixed use project, although there were no specifics provided.

[shawnw]

Right, but in my specific example of that canal spot, how many announcements had been made and now we get mini-golf after all these years...

[BDP]

Here is the proposal for the Central Park site...

I just threw up in my mouth a little.

[BDP]

Can anyone immediately conjure up an image of the Chicago Convention Center?

What's interesting about it is that the McCormick Place isn't really by that much at all, which is hard to do in Chicago, and it seems to do juuuuuuuuuuust fine down there.

[s00nr1]

Here is the proposal for the Central Park site.

The main exhibit hall would be underground, as was proposed for the original site, and the hotel would be on the other side of Robinson.

The gray above-ground box would be for future expansion.

No, no, and no. It's amazing to me the same mistakes continue to be made.

[Teo9969]

There is no good justification for North Park, when East Park works better in every. single. way. It's a joke that they even considered it.

[David]

I'm guessing that the thinking is "Hey, look at all this land that has already been acquired by the city."

[kevinpate]

Others can view as they choose, but as for me:
Hey, Not this MAPs folks ... looks like you were right to be so danged skeptical after all.

I think going forward, I'll probably just keep my spending here in Norman. The city won't miss it at all, but I'll feel a little better about not being a part of this mess.

[jn1780]

Even if you think the park is stupid or just going to be a place for homeless. It would set a bad precedent if bad planning is rewarded by taking resources away from a project that didn't have problems.

I would probably vote no on the next MAPS unless it only had one or two specific items on it.

[jccouger]

I know its been raining everyday for the past month, but the sky is not falling. I promise.

If they choose the park site (they probably won't) its really won't be that bad. I think it will make both of the amenities more busy then they would alone. The park will draw foot traffic by convention attendees, and having the park connected to the convention center will only help differentiate ourselves in the convention industry. There would be really nothing quite like it in the entire region, especially for the level of conventions we are trying to attract. It makes us a very unique destination & will allow us to host conventions that would require a big open outdoor space nearby.

Seriously, just try to envision you are standing in the park with a beautiful convention center in the corner. Does that really disgust you? I think it would be beautiful.

It also leaves a ton more valuable land downtown for private development. A major benefit of the maps projects is spurring private projects, while also providing public amenities.

Some of you guys saying you won't vote for the next maps because of this are being ridiculous. A vote against maps is a vote against the greater good of OKC & if that is how you feel then we really can't be friends. Stop being the kid who picks up his ball & goes home when he doesn't get his way.

[soonerguru]

No, people are not being ridiculous -- dramatic, perhaps. But it would be an affront to the voters and residents of this city to take land away from the park, one of the major quality of life initiatives in MAPS 3, for a Convention Center that mainly caters to out-of-town guests (and is not always in use). Yes, that would be bad. No reason to sugar coat it.

Also, while some of us here may withhold our contempt against such an action and continue to support MAPS votes, there is no guarantee a majority of voters in OKC would.

It's a bad idea and they need to scrap it.

[hoya]

I know its been raining everyday for the past month, but the sky is not falling. I promise.

If they choose the park site (they probably won't) its really won't be that bad. I think it will make both of the amenities more busy then they would alone. The park will draw foot traffic by convention attendees, and having the park connected to the convention center will only help differentiate ourselves in the convention industry. There would be really nothing quite like it in the entire region, especially for the level of conventions we are trying to attract. It makes us a very unique destination & will allow us to host conventions that would require a big open outdoor space nearby.

Seriously, just try to envision you are standing in the park with a beautiful convention center in the corner. Does that really disgust you? I think it would be beautiful.

It also leaves a ton more valuable land downtown for private development. A major benefit of the maps projects is spurring private projects, while also providing public amenities.

Some of you guys saying you won't vote for the next maps because of this are being ridiculous. A vote against maps is a vote against the greater good of OKC & if that is how you feel then we really can't be friends. Stop being the kid who picks up his ball & goes home when he doesn't get his way.

I don't even know how to respond to this nonsense.

[Urbanized]

Others can view as they choose, but as for me:
Hey, Not this MAPs folks ... looks like you were right to be so danged skeptical after all.

I think going forward, I'll probably just keep my spending here in Norman. The city won't miss it at all, but I'll feel a little better about not being a part of this mess.

No offense Kevin, but that comment reveals a (rare for you) lack of context and historical perspective. It's something that's easy to do, because we are in the moment plus frustrated because things aren't going perfectly.

But this round of MAPS has yet to approach the level of controversy or bumpiness of the original. It only SEEMS more messy because we now have social media and dedicated forums like this one for hyper-interested parties (like us) to mercilessly pick apart every step and misstep along the way, ad nauseam. We also live in the age of outrage. Everything moves from curiosity to OMG THIS IS AN ABOMINATION!!!!!!! very quickly, often (usually?) without even the benefit of complete information.

During the first MAPS, I was close to people intimately involved in the execution, and believe me, it got INCREDIBLY ugly. And had you taken a poll during the mid nineties of the general population of OKC, probably somewhere around half would have told you that it would never happen. This AFTER the vote had been passed, after taxes had begun being collected, and after sites had been identified and plans had been released. These days, while those of us here might be variously troubled by the progress or lack thereof, probably 90% of the city's populace is blissfully unaware that there is even significant controversy, OR at least assume that it will all work out. Big difference.

The period we are in right now (nothing yet built, lots of meetings and discussions, many of them disagreeable) was referred to as "the butchering of the steer" by my friend Devery Youngblood, who served as the Chamber's MAPS Private Investment Coordinator during the first MAPS, and later as President of Downtown OKC, Inc. The fact of the matter is, before you enjoy a steak dinner, there is a lot of ugly activity that nobody really wants to think about, and is frankly shocking if watched.

[jccouger]

I don't even know how to respond to this nonsense.

Pete, can you do something about posts like this one and the "I'm going to puke" posts? They don't add anything to discussion, and they are unwarranted attacks just based on disagreements of opinion.

[Just the facts]

No, people are not being ridiculous -- dramatic, perhaps. But it would be an affront to the voters and residents of this city to take land away from the park, one of the major quality of life initiatives in MAPS 3, for a Convention Center that mainly caters to out-of-town guests (and is not always in use). Yes, that would be bad. No reason to sugar coat it.

Also, while some of us here may withhold our contempt against such an action and continue to support MAPS votes, there is no guarantee a majority of voters in OKC would.

It's a bad idea and they need to scrap it.

About 70% of attendees at the Cox center live in metro-OKC. The vast majority of the remaining 30% live in Oklahoma.

[Urbanized]

Where do you even get figures like this? Do you make them up as you go along? That's simply not true. You can't just spout off made-up information to support your position.

While I agree with you that ultimate economic impact numbers used to sell the CC might have been generous guesses, suggesting that conference numbers and attendee makeup will remain static even in the face of a new facility is even more disingenuous. It's like talking about how few NBA fans live in Oklahoma...in 2004.

Though I agree that we will never compete with cities like Vegas, San Antonio, Orlando, etc., anyone who doubts that a new facility will fundamentally change the industry here - resulting in a dramatic uptick in room nights, tax collections and other infusions to the local economy are simply put, "aginners". These changes will be especially dramatic if we continue to play to our current (and main) conference sales strength - an easily walkable destination - through wise facility location selection.

I routinely receive internal industry reports that show a pretty pretty impressive sales effort by the CVB despite a lousy facilities situation. I can't easily find it online, so don't feel right in sharing it here (though I have in the past shared links with certain posters). But here is a public document found online via Google search, which was recently shared with the Mayor and Council. There's lots of dry economic data within, but you can pretty quickly see what type of impact the industry already has on OKC, even with a terrible facilities situation: http://www.okc.gov/councilnotes/2015...B%20report.pdf

[Urban Pioneer]

Interesting feedback from individuals who shall not be disclosed. Apparently the "Park East" site is finally going to be properly assessed. Some significant political support has oriented itself towards that site for many of the planning and urban form related reasons that have been outlined on this forum.

As always, the substation is the issue. A legitimate price tag and resolution will have to be placed on it this month to be able to score the site properly. It has always been arbitrarily evaluated in the past. I suspect that direct contact with OG+E is finally underway.

[CS_Mike]

I would think that the city could come to some sort of reasonable deal with OG&E on relocating the substation, especially with development of the new OG&E headquarters being held up while TIF dollars are being sorted out. Sounds like a good opportunity for some quid pro quo.

[mkjeeves]

About 70% of attendees at the Cox center live in metro-OKC. The vast majority of the remaining 30% live in Oklahoma.

Where do you even get figures like this?

Looking at the list of what's booked this year, most appear to be local draw type events to me.

Cox Convention Center :: Events

Sure seems like we would have a really good idea of those numbers but they don't appear to be spelled out in the various consultants' reports, or anywhere else. Why is that?

[Urbanized]

Interesting feedback from individuals who shall not be disclosed. Apparently the "Park East" site is finally going to be properly assessed. Some significant political support has oriented itself towards that site for many of the planning and urban form related reasons that have been outlined on this forum.

As always, the substation is the issue. A legitimate price tag and resolution will have to be placed on it this month to be able to score the site properly. It has always been arbitrarily evaluated in the past. I suspect that direct contact with OG+E is finally underway.

Substation is not the only issue. East park also places most amenities and hotel rooms outside of the desired industry-standard walkability radius, behind major barriers to walking, in the form of the below grade and highway-like boulevard, Reno Avenue and Shields/Gaylord. The other matter, as you discuss, is saddling the CC with the cost of relocating OG+E, which should absolutely be lumped into the site acquisition cost when doing apples-to-apples comparison. But I agree that it is apparently gaining traction.

[Just the facts]

Where do you even get figures like this? Do you make them up as you go along? That's simply not true. You can't just spout off made-up information to support your position.

I went through all the attendance figures for events at the Cox Center, Something like half of all Cox Center users were Barons fans (and half of them were no-shows). Look at the event calendar, who do you think is attending high school graduations and the Oklahoma Bridal Show?

[Urbanized]

Looking at the list of what's booked this year, most appear to be local draw type events to me.

Cox Convention Center :: Events

Sure seems like we would have a really good idea of those numbers but they don't appear to be spelled out in the various consultants' reports, or anywhere else. Why is that?

Very comprehensive numbers are available on a monthly basis from the CVB, online. They can be found at http://www.visitokc.com/about-the-ok...tion-calendar/

Again, judging the performance of the convention business with completely inadequate facilities in place is like griping about how few major league sports events we held prior to the construction of the Chesapeake Arena (previously Ford Center), or how few rowing events we held before the damming of the North Canadian and construction of boathouses, or complaining about lousy shopping before there were decent retail centers in OKC, or a bad music scene when we had no decent music venues. It may seem corny and naive to say "if we build it they will come," but this has repeatedly worked for OKC.

Right now the CVB is performing admirably considering no adequate building to sell. They are blowing people away in the sports category, because we have venues. They would perform even better JUST in the sports category with an improved CC situation and better ability to block rooms. But we are also missing convention sales opportunities, local, regional AND national. This happens every month. If you would like to look at a fuller and more comprehensive breakdown of our upcoming meetings (and see how heavily we are relying on venues other than Cox), I would suggest you click here: ISSUU - Convention Calendar - May 2015 by Oklahoma City Convention & Visitors Bureau

[mkjeeves]

Again, judging the performance of the convention business with completely inadequate facilities in place is like

So you do or do not dispute the vast majority of people who attend the COX center activities are local? That's what I addressed.

[Urbanized]

Interesting feedback from individuals who shall not be disclosed. Apparently the "Park East" site is finally going to be properly assessed. Some significant political support has oriented itself towards that site for many of the planning and urban form related reasons that have been outlined on this forum.

As always, the substation is the issue. A legitimate price tag and resolution will have to be placed on it this month to be able to score the site properly. It has always been arbitrarily evaluated in the past. I suspect that direct contact with OG+E is finally underway.

Another number that should be considered when taking on a site outside of the industry-standard walkability bubble is any additional streetcar construction and/or operational expenses driven by a more remote location. These should absolutely be added to the "land acquisition" equation. If a location is fully walkable, that number is zero. If it is not, and it drives more streetcar expense, the number is in the millions.

[Urbanized]

So you do or do not dispute the vast majority of people who attend the COX center activities are local? That's what I addressed.

I don't dispute that the majority currently are, in large part thanks to the fact that we don't have a salable facility and adjacent controllable room blocks. When convention planners look at OKC they have to book for reasons other than facilities, and in fact in spite of them. You can't sell out of an empty basket. Where I was taking issue with JTF is that the numbers in his original statement left almost no room for out-of-state attendees, and that is simply not true at all.

But even after the new CC is built there will be a large number of local and statewide events, and that is no different than any other CC around the country and certainly not a bad thing.