Convention Center

[Just the facts]

So in the meantime - what happens, nothing? It just seems weird that this project was pushed up as super urgent, and then all goes quite.

[Pete]

I believe this is just the way the process works: Council approves the intention to buy, the property owners are verified and asked for a asking price, they are allowed a certain amount of time to run comparables and respond, the City does the same in the counter-offer, etc.

[kevinpate]

So in the meantime - what happens, nothing? It just seems weird that this project was pushed up as super urgent, and then all goes quite.

What happens is in the background. the push up by council just means this happens now, not later, and goes on while other bits of shiny keep the attention of the masses, lest the masses begin to try and do a Shadid style press against the cc. So long as enough shiny exists to keep anyone from paying too much attention, they can be more methodical on the cc and not be in the bright light of public flashlights (or so goes one theory of thought anyway.)

[warreng88]

I am curious if the reason for moving it up in the timeline is because they knew the negotiation for the site would take a while whereas the park already had a predetermined location, as did the state fairgrounds improvements and the Oklahoma River improvements. The wellness center, trails and sidewalks are all ongoing with multiple locations so it can be broken up into different phases. Also, the convention center is one of the few parts of the Maps3 vote that actually make money, the other being the state fairground improvements. So, if they build those first, more sales tax revenue for the later projects can be brought in.

[OKVision4U]

I am curious if the reason for moving it up in the timeline is because they knew the negotiation for the site would take a while whereas the park already had a predetermined location, as did the state fairgrounds improvements and the Oklahoma River improvements. The wellness center, trails and sidewalks are all ongoing with multiple locations so it can be broken up into different phases. Also, the convention center is one of the few parts of the Maps3 vote that actually make money, the other being the state fairground improvements. So, if they build those first, more sales tax revenue for the later projects can be brought in.

...just spin'n wheels. There is not ONE Single Reason for delays. These "tasks" should be hit on each day. One more thing, when a Consultant says "they need 60 days"...lets, put it in 20 days, and make them "push as well".

[Just the facts]

I am curious if the reason for moving it up in the timeline is because they knew the negotiation for the site would take a while whereas the park already had a predetermined location, as did the state fairgrounds improvements and the Oklahoma River improvements. The wellness center, trails and sidewalks are all ongoing with multiple locations so it can be broken up into different phases. Also, the convention center is one of the few parts of the Maps3 vote that actually make money, the other being the state fairground improvements. So, if they build those first, more sales tax revenue for the later projects can be brought in.

I know people like to think the Convention Center will make money - but it won't. No convention center makes money. It is going to cost over $250 million to build. Any idea how many conventions it would have to host recoup $250 million in rental fees? Most convention centers require operating subsidies just to keep the doors open, let alone pay back the cost of construction. If they made money we wouldn't need MAPS, banks would be lining up to loan us the money based on a projected financial statement. That's why you don't see a lot of private sector convention centers unless they are attached to a casino or theme park.

[OKVision4U]

I know people like to the Convention Centers will make money - but it won't. No convention center makes money. It is going to cost over $250 million to build. Any idea how many conventions it would have to host recoup $250 million in rental fees? Most convention centers require operating subsidies just to keep the doors open, let alone pay back the cost of construction.

Their ( R O I ) is an In-Direct manor. The sooner we get it going, the quicker that $250 M gets softened up.

[warreng88]

I know people like to think the Convention Center will make money - but it won't. No convention center makes money. It is going to cost over $250 million to build. Any idea how many conventions it would have to host recoup $250 million in rental fees? Most convention centers require operating subsidies just to keep the doors open, let alone pay back the cost of construction. If they made money we wouldn't need MAPS, banks would be lining up to loan us the money based on a projected financial statement.

Sorry, I am not talking about making money in terms of paying off the building, I may have phrased it wrong. What I meant was it would make money in that it would bring in people who would produce a lot of sales tax revenue for the city and other MAPS projects. I know the river improvements will bring tourists in to watch rowing competitions, but not as much as a new convention center would make off people coming in from out of town, getting a per diem, staying at hotels, eating out, etc.

[OKVision4U]

Sorry, I am not talking about making money in terms of paying off the building, I may have phrased it wrong. What I meant was it would make money in that it would bring in people who would produce a lot of sales tax revenue for the city and other MAPS projects. I know the river improvements will bring tourists in to watch rowing competitions, but not as much as a new convention center would make off people coming in from out of town, getting a per diem, staying at hotels, eating out, etc.

The more "attractive" we make the Convention Center & Hotel Experience, the more up-side we will have w/ ( outside money / revenue ) coming in. If we settle for average, then we will get below average returns. I want that HOTEL to be 55 stories of RITZ Carlton...(ok, but that level) and this will be the Conversation Piece for Convention goers. ...pluse all the other River / Bricktown / Central Park events & attractions.

[Just the facts]

Sorry, I am not talking about making money in terms of paying off the building, I may have phrased it wrong. What I meant was it would make money in that it would bring in people who would produce a lot of sales tax revenue for the city and other MAPS projects. I know the river improvements will bring tourists in to watch rowing competitions, but not as much as a new convention center would make off people coming in from out of town, getting a per diem, staying at hotels, eating out, etc.

If that was the goal let's not build the convention center and just recycle the $250 million directly. The City get's like 4 cent for each dollar spent so it would take $5,000,000,000 in visitor spending just to break even on construction cost. Since only 1/3 of the events attract out-of-town visitors the convention center would have to generate $15 billion in spending. That isn't going to happen

Just sell it as a 'quality of life' project. It is okay to have nice things without having to justify them with pie in the sky financial projections. My TV doesn't make me a dime in revenue (in fact - it cost me money to operate), but I like having it because it enhances my life.

On edit - maybe I read your last post wrong. Yes, if I owned a hotel and upscale restaurant across the street I would want it built as soon as possible because I get to keep 92% of all the money spent.

[betts]

I'm not sure how attractive a $250 million convention center can be. That's why I wish it were going to be more out of the way. But what attracts convention-goers is not how beautiful the convention center is, but rather, how much else there is to do when you get there. The streetcar will work well for convention attenders, as eating is one of the chief forms of entertainment, and there's some good dining along the streetcar route. But I think if we could entice more retail to downtown, Auto Alley, Midtown or Bricktown, if we made it easy to get to the Adventure District, if we finished the Native American Cultural Center and get UP permission to open that walkway/canal under I-40, that's what will bring in visitors and conventions.

[OKCisOK4me]

If that was the goal let's not build the convention center and just recycle the $250 million directly. The City get's like 4 cent for each dollar spent so it would take $5,000,000,000 in visitor spending just to break even on construction cost. Since only 1/3 of the events attract out-of-town visitors the convention center would have to generate $15 billion in spending. That isn't going to happen

Just sell it as a 'quality of life' project. It is okay to have nice things without having to justify them with pie in the sky financial projections. My TV doesn't make me a dime in revenue (in fact - it cost me money to operate), but I like having it because it enhances my life.

On edit - maybe I read your last post wrong. Yes, if I owned a hotel and upscale restaurant across the street I would want it built as soon as possible because I get to keep 92% of all the money spent.

Your avatar is scary so I agree with you.

[GaryOKC6]

I know people like to think the Convention Center will make money - but it won't. No convention center makes money. It is going to cost over $250 million to build. Any idea how many conventions it would have to host recoup $250 million in rental fees? Most convention centers require operating subsidies just to keep the doors open, let alone pay back the cost of construction. If they made money we wouldn't need MAPS, banks would be lining up to loan us the money based on a projected financial statement. That's why you don't see a lot of private sector convention centers unless they are attached to a casino or theme park.

It is not the rental that is the revenue generator. It is tax dollars. Larger conventions for longer periods of time. Not to mention that it is new dollars brought in from outside the community. Cities like Chicago have done it for years. They keep adding on to McCormic so they are the largest convention center in the world. When someone builds a bigger convention center Chicago adds on to McCormic again and so it goes.

[Plutonic Panda]

Your avatar is scary so I agree with you.

good note...good note

[ljbab728]

An update by Steve.

http://www.oklahoman.com/article/3896494?embargo=1

The Oklahoma City Urban Renewal Authority is awaiting response on offers totaling $13.5 million for properties targeted for construction of a new convention center and conference hotel.

Tom McDaniel, chairman of the MAPS 3 Citizens Advisory Board, said he expects the designs to be submitted for vote this fall.

“It will fit on the site,” McDaniel said. “The site will accommodate future expansion and development. The site will also accommodate a convention center hotel needed. And the architects indicate it will fit within the budget — so we feel good about that.”

The conceptual design narrowed the plaza between the convention center, which would be built facing Reno Avenue just west of Harvey Avenue, and a proposed conference hotel, which could be built at the corner of Reno and Robinson Avenues.

[UnFrSaKn]

Oklahoma City awaits response on offers for property for MAPS 3 convention center, hotel | NewsOK.com

[Just the facts]

It is not the rental that is the revenue generator. It is tax dollars. Larger conventions for longer periods of time. Not to mention that it is new dollars brought in from outside the community. Cities like Chicago have done it for years. They keep adding on to McCormic so they are the largest convention center in the world. When someone builds a bigger convention center Chicago adds on to McCormic again and so it goes.

That is what I said. The convention center runs at a deficit and requires a constant subsidy. Since 2/3 of all visitors to the current convention center come from metro OKC how much growth is required from the other 1/3 to meet the revenue projections from the Chamber. Someone did the math a while back and it was 900%. Does 900% growth seem reasonable to expect? It doesn't to me.

They should have promoted the convention center as a 'quality of life' project. It is okay for the city spend money on nice things for the people to enjoy and enhance their experience, but making up financial impact numbers is so 1990's - and insulting.

[betts]

They're ahead of schedule, having moved up conceptual design because delaying the boulevard delays the park. Kind of ironic, as many of the people promoting lowering the boulevard are least enameled of the convention center site.

[okseer]

That is what I said. The convention center runs at a deficit and requires a constant subsidy. Since 2/3 of all visitors to the current convention center come from metro OKC how much growth is required from the other 1/3 to meet the revenue projections from the Chamber. Someone did the math a while back and it was 900%. Does 900% growth seem reasonable to expect? It doesn't to me.

They should have promoted the convention center as a 'quality of life' project. It is okay for the city spend money on nice things for the people to enjoy and enhance their experience, but making up financial impact numbers is so 1990's - and insulting.

That kind of growth is possible given that there is very little actual convention space in the cox center. The new cc will allow Okc to bring in larger groups that typically stay longer. If it makes you feel better to look at it as a quality of life issue I can agree with they too.

[Larry OKC]

I am curious if the reason for moving it up in the timeline is because they knew the negotiation for the site would take a while whereas the park already had a predetermined location, as did the state fairgrounds improvements and the Oklahoma River improvements. The wellness center, trails and sidewalks are all ongoing with multiple locations so it can be broken up into different phases. Also, the convention center is one of the few parts of the Maps3 vote that actually make money, the other being the state fairground improvements. So, if they build those first, more sales tax revenue for the later projects can be brought in.

I argued the same thing when before the vote, the Mayor stated that it was his preference that the Convention Center be "staged last". Seemed like a no brainer to get it up and running ASAP (although with it being the most expensive MAPS 3 project, it would take about 2.5 to 3 years of tax collections to have all of the money in hand with no money being spent on anything else). The same argument was put forth by the Chamber/those on the C.C. subcommittee when they were pushing for it to be moved up. Up until then, the C.C. was sold as a revenue generator (the Chamber/consultants claimed that revenue would increase 3-fold or 300%). It was during the push that they were selling it in terms of the local "quality of life" use, and revealing that 2/3 of the business is local. As JTF pointed out, that means that only 1/3 of your business is from out of area and to get the 3-fold (300%) increase in revenues claimed, that out of area business will have to increase 9-fold (900%). I haven't heard anyone from the Chamber claim that is even a possibility.

The problem with the revised timeline is that the C.C. won't be open until after the MAPS 3 tax has ended. So not one dime of additional revenue for other MAPS 3 projects from getting it moved up. Projects that are being pushed to the back of the line are getting some more money but when adjusted for inflation, is probably a wash.

[Plutonic Panda]

Won't the river improvements bring in some money? How about the streetcar? Won't that spur more development and indirectly make money for the city?

[Just the facts]

Not sure about river improvements since most spending on events there will come from local wallets anyhow - but the streetcar will fundamentally change the economics of development along the route. Development that wasn't possible anywhere in the city will now become possible because the automobile is taken out of the equation. When you can build an apartment building, retail, or office space and either greatly reduce the parking required (or in some cases drop it completely) it significant changes the costs and allows the entire lot be used for revenue generation.

[Urbanized]

OK, there is a difference there. The streetcar will likely bring new investment to the downtown area, no question. Without a doubt a good thing. But what they are suggesting - and I know some here dispute this - is that the convention center will bring NEW MONEY into the economy, thereby increasing the tax base without additional burden on the local taxpayer. That is a benefit of luring more visitors (and visitor $$) to the city. I don't think you are giving the river improvements enough credit in this regard, as the regatta events heavily draw outsiders (similar to Womens College World Series and some other sporting events). So what they are saying is that finishing generators of new revenue first will increase the overall pot. The logic really isn't disputable, although the projected revenue is, as has been pointed out here.

[Larry OKC]

Urbanized: I agree completely, bringing NEW out of area revenue is what is needed. The question is, will a new C.C. center (the way we are doing it) accomplish that goal? According to the Chamber's consultants and the Chamber's guest speaker pre-vote, what we are building in Phase 1 barely meets their CURRENT needs, much less what those needs may be by the time it gets built. In other words, we are building it too small and will have already outgrown it before it opens. Then to get to the needed capacity it will require funding which won't be available until and if MAPS 4 is passed and the additional time lag from passage to tax collections to completion. Most likely the cycle will repeat itself.

I have always been a bit leery of the revenue projections promised and think it reality our new convention center might be at an operational break even (rather than the multi-million operating loss of the Cox). In direct revenue, the C.C. will never pay for itself (from a construction standpoint) but can be mitigated by indirect revenue.

[GaryOKC6]

I have heard all of this before. Particularly in 1994 when the first MAPS proposed an arena across the street from the Cox Center. Hid sight is always 20/20 and I am really glad that the project to build the Chesapeake arena did not get killed. I have said it before, Maps is the best thing that this city has ever done. I voted for all of them and I see no reason to worry that this one won't be even better. Heck, I am ready to vote yes for MAPS 4 if there is such a thing. Just my personal opinion.