Convention Center

[warreng88]

I think one of the main concerns of putting the CC south of arena was the proximity to restaurants and hotels, at least early on until the area was built up. Also, it would require tearing down some buildings people thought could be reused and the power station between 4&5 and Robinson. The idea of moving the convention center was that we wouldn't have to use the $30 million to move the sub station. Of course, as we know now, that is not the case.

[betts]

But many on here bashed the mayor's idea. Acted like it was a good ole boy move. Doesn't look so bad now, I guess.

I always thought the substation block should be the preferred site. Not only does it make more sense to put the CC there due to the simple fact that it can be built above ground, but also because I think it's ridiculous to have a substation adjacent to your premier park. You lose an entire block of developable land, and I guarantee we'll be shocked by how much money it will cost to disguise it. I'd rather put that money towards moving the substation.

[Urban Pioneer]

I'm not worried about the location of the new convention center. It isn't going on the Ford dealer site. It will end up going either in East Bricktown or right where the Mayor said.

Politically, I don't see the possibility of a change. It would probably be due to land costs or underground utility relocation costs if it were to happen.

[Just the facts]

Politically, I don't see the possibility of a change. It would probably be due to land costs or underground utility relocation costs if it were to happen.

That is what I am counting on. The cost to not only acquire the site, but the cost to actually build the convention center there will doom it. They are talking about having to go 50' or more below the surface.

[BoulderSooner]

i bet we will see a land swap under the guise of getting land for the CC hotel before we see a site change

[Just the facts]

i bet we will see a land swap under the guise of getting land for the CC hotel before we see a site change

That might solve the land acquisition cost but it does nothing to cover the construction cost - and that is what is going to break the bank. Here is my guess how the CC subcommittee hopes it goes down.

1) City does land swap + cash deal
2) Find out it cost too much to build on site
3) MAPS IIIB - finish the CC Right Campaign comes to life (includes regional rail funding to get the masses aboard)
4) City issues bonds against future MAPS IIIB funds so they can keep CC on schedule

Why that plan won't happen: People aren't stupid and MAPS IIIB doesn't pass

How it should happen

1) City realizes the site is a bad choice from a cost/benefit perspective
2) Picks new site

[Urban Pioneer]

I don't think that the underground is as big of a dealbreaker as you might think. Utility relocation yes. Basements these days, no.

[Just the facts]

I don't think that the underground is as big of a dealbreaker as you might think. Utility relocation yes. Basements these days, no.

You are talking about a basement covering several acres with 35' ceilings and little to no interior columns with at least 2 floors over the top of it - for less than $250 million.

[Urban Pioneer]

JTF- I'm talking about the earlier claims that the water table and former riverbed would make the project cost prohibitive. Whether the overall building complex can be built within budget remains to be seen.

My point, to be more blunt, is that the Cox CC has an underground parking garage across the street and that water mitigation technology has improved and become much cheaper.

[Just the facts]

My point, to be more blunt, is that the Cox CC has an underground parking garage across the street and that water mitigation technology has improved and become much cheaper.

I am not concerned about the water really. I am more concerned about how much it cost to hold back the earth at that depth. That will be some intense pressure pushing on a large open space. Also, look how many columns it takes in the Cox parking garage to hold up the COX building. I'm not saying it can't be done - modern engineering can do almost anything. I'm just saying it can't be done for $250 million. And of course, that is only for phase I. We have already been told a phase II would be required to meet the goals the Chamber put out on attracting big (and more) conventions.

[CuatrodeMayo]

An underground exhibit hall will cost more than an above ground hall, but the order of magnitude greater is likely not cost-prohibitive. (However, at the $/SF costs we might be looking at for the project, Even small premiums could be an issue) Ultimately, Populous has been "around the block" with these types of projects, so I trust their judgment.

[Just the facts]

Well, I am content to wait and see. We will all know for sure in about a year.

[Larry OKC]

I always thought the substation block should be the preferred site. Not only does it make more sense to put the CC there due to the simple fact that it can be built above ground, but also because I think it's ridiculous to have a substation adjacent to your premier park. You lose an entire block of developable land, and I guarantee we'll be shocked by how much money it will cost to disguise it. I'd rather put that money towards moving the substation.

The cost to disguise it was significantly less than moving it. IIRC it was less than half???

What bout all the developable land along the length of the Park that you would lose if the CC had been placed there??

[Larry OKC]

That might solve the land acquisition cost but it does nothing to cover the construction cost - and that is what is going to break the bank. Here is my guess how the CC subcommittee hopes it goes down.

1) City does land swap + cash deal
2) Find out it cost too much to build on site
3) MAPS IIIB - finish the CC Right Campaign comes to life (includes regional rail funding to get the masses aboard)
4) City issues bonds against future MAPS IIIB funds so they can keep CC on schedule

Why that plan won't happen: People aren't stupid and MAPS IIIB doesn't pass

How it should happen

1) City realizes the site is a bad choice from a cost/benefit perspective
2) Picks new site

That's debatable since the MAPS plans keep passing even though City leadership keeps lying about little things like everything being built as promised, on time & on budget. And the precedent for the Finish MAPS3 Right has been set. They did it with the Arena and subsequent NBA Improvement Tax. They set up the Convention Center into two phases (not to mention the unfunded CC hotel) so voters wouldn't balk at the true cost and make an unpopular project even more so, thus putting all of MAPS 3 in jeopardy.

[hoya]

That's debatable since the MAPS plans keep passing even though City leadership keeps lying about little things like everything being built as promised, on time & on budget. And the precedent for the Finish MAPS3 Right has been set. They did it with the Arena and subsequent NBA Improvement Tax. They set up the Convention Center into two phases (not to mention the unfunded CC hotel) so voters wouldn't balk at the true cost and make an unpopular project even more so, thus putting all of MAPS 3 in jeopardy.

It's only in jeopardy if they don't pull it off. MAPS has benefitted from being generally successful. There are some projects that didn't get completed on time, or that cost more than promised, but all I have to do is walk around Bricktown to see the positive impact it has had on our city. The average citizen expects a certain amount of under-performance and over-expense when it comes to government work. Surprise, this cost more than we thought, it didn't quite work out as planned. Until something is an unmitigated disaster, MAPS will continue to have public goodwill. The Thunder have assured that. Right now, to most Oklahoma Citians, MAPS = Thunder.

[Just the facts]

You make a good point Larry but I truly believe the Chamber did their best to hide the true cost, scope, and benefit of the convention center. For example, they predict a 900% increase in out of state conventions but they don't tell us that number is based on the second phase and the hotel being developed. There are many people under the impression that the MAPS III component of the convention center will increase conventions above what the COX does now. It might even lose business because the rent will go up which will push some local groups (the vast vast vast majority of current COX users) into other metro venues, or even out of the metro completely. Of course, what we also don't get told is the substantial subsidies that go into luring groups in the first place - which eat in to the supposed economic benefit (I don't know if OKC does that but it is common practice in the industry).

But like I said - I have time to wait and I hope the they put up a giant bronze plaque with everyone's names on it so we know who was responsible.

Now having said that, I still want a new convention center because I want to see the Cox site redeveloped (which might have been a better sales pitch for them to push in the first place)

[GaryOKC6]

That's debatable since the MAPS plans keep passing even though City leadership keeps lying about little things like everything being built as promised, on time & on budget. And the precedent for the Finish MAPS3 Right has been set. They did it with the Arena and subsequent NBA Improvement Tax. They set up the Convention Center into two phases (not to mention the unfunded CC hotel) so voters wouldn't balk at the true cost and make an unpopular project even more so, thus putting all of MAPS 3 in jeopardy.

You have a valid point but with that being said; I would vote YES for a finish MAPS3 right sales tax today. I look back on OKC 20 years ago and don't think about what we were back then but more importantly what we were not. We have become a greater place to live and finishing the arena as well as adding the NBA improvements were all a key part. It was a small price to pay.

[Bellaboo]

That's debatable since the MAPS plans keep passing even though City leadership keeps lying about little things like everything being built as promised, on time & on budget. And the precedent for the Finish MAPS3 Right has been set. They did it with the Arena and subsequent NBA Improvement Tax. They set up the Convention Center into two phases (not to mention the unfunded CC hotel) so voters wouldn't balk at the true cost and make an unpopular project even more so, thus putting all of MAPS 3 in jeopardy.

Larry,
How many years are you going to keep this going ? This has beaten to death over and over again.

[Larry OKC]

To the other posts: no one is disputing that MAPS was successful and that it brought it many times more in private development than what they anticipated or that it did change OKC for the better. That said, why keep lying about how it was done? Funny that someone mentioned "disaster" as that is exactly how our last 3 mayors collectively described it when projects are behind schedule, aren't built as promised and are over budget. "some projects that didn't get completed on time, or that cost more than promised". Some? See below

Bellaboo: As long as they keep repeating the lies (the City Manager did it again this past Sunday in the Oklahoman see below), i will keep pointing it out.

Thunder thrives in Oklahoma City | News OK

Thunder thrives in Oklahoma City
April 28, 2013

"We really haven’t spent dollar one on MAPS 3…"

Really? While the City has only spent a small fraction of what was proposed (which would lead one to believe that projects are way behind schedule), according to the City's yearly budget reports over $12.8 million has been spent thru 2012. With over $107.7 million adopted for this year.

and the whopper…

"Can we get everything built with good quality, on time and on budget, like we’ve done in the past?"

If quality equates to what voters were told, this isn't true. Many instances of over promising and under delivering, cutting things back due to cost over-runs (yet still going over budget).

The getting everything built "on time and on budget" just simply isn't true either. Mr. Couch should know this since he has been there from the first MAPS thru the present (he was the MAPS manager before becoming City Manager).

"On budget"? Nope, not even close (according to what voters were told pre-vote and what the City says was spent on each project). Not a single MAPS project came in under or on budget. Every project came in over budget and some significantly so (the Canal was 2.5 times over budget). Overall, MAPS came in nearly 47.75% over budget.

The "on time" claim is also doubtful as many of the projects (if not all of them) were well behind schedule. Beginning with the Ballpark. It was over a year behind. That pushed other projects back, so I don't see how any of the projects could have been built "on time".

[betts]

The cost to disguise it was significantly less than moving it. IIRC it was less than half???

What bout all the developable land along the length of the Park that you would lose if the CC had been placed there??

But, you then have the current proposed site for the CC to develop as well. If I'm doing math correctly, if you remove the substation, no matter where you put the CC center, you increase the land around the park available for development. Of course it's going to cost more to move the substation than to hide it, but you gain prized developable land you can sell as well. In many cities, the land around major parks is prime real estate.

[Larry OKC]

Betts: I agree but didn't you just say you wanted the CC to go there, that means you are eliminating "prime real estate" from being developed with higher ROI...the current site takes up the width of the park instead of the length, right? I don't think it should be fronting any of the Park. Will the higher cost of removing the substation be covered by any development revenue gained?

[PhiAlpha]

You are talking about a basement covering several acres with 35' ceilings and little to no interior columns with at least 2 floors over the top of it - for less than $250 million.

It could have pleanty of interior columns without taking away from the space. I know george r brown in Houston does and it's much larger than this will be.

[CaptDave]

The cost to disguise it was significantly less than moving it. IIRC it was less than half???

What bout all the developable land along the length of the Park that you would lose if the CC had been placed there??

If the CC is pushed east so that the loading docks are adjacent to Shields, then build the CC hotel on the "cloverleaf" site, there would be plenty of room for mixed use development along Robinson facing the park.

[Just the facts]

It could have pleanty of interior columns without taking away from the space. I know george r brown in Houston does and it's much larger than this will be.

Yep, I receive a PM to look at the Cleveland Convention Center which is underground and they were able to use a limited number of very large columns. However, the big difference is that the George R Brown and the Cleveland Convention Center don't have 2 story buildings and a hotel above them. All their support beams have to hold up is the roof.

[PhiAlpha]

Yep, I receive a PM to look at the Cleveland Convention Center which is underground and they were able to use a limited number of very large columns. However, the big difference is that the George R Brown and the Cleveland Convention Center don't have 2 story buildings and a hotel above them. All their support beams have to hold up is the roof.

I'm pretty sure george r brown has one story worth of conference and exhibit space and a mini arena type thing above the main convention hall. It's 3 stories, big exhibit hall on bottom, second story is on top of part of the exhibit hall and overlooks the higher ceiling portion, and the third floor is over both the 2nd floor and the 2 story tall part of the main exhibit hall. Granted its not two stories on top, but the 3rd floor does have about 20-30 foot ceilings.