http://newsok.com/study-up-to-400m-needed-for-new-okc-convention-center/article/3351973?custom_click=breaking_news

Study reports up to $400 million needed for new convention center in Oklahoma City
BY STEVE LACKMEYER - Business Writer
Published: March 10, 2009Buzz up!

Oklahoma City is faring well as a conference destination, but its convention center is inadequate and must be replaced if the city is to remain competitive, according to a study commissioned by the Greater Oklahoma City Chamber.

The study by Conventions, Sports & Leisure International, released today, suggests that replacing the 28-year-old Cox Convention Center will cost between $250 million and $400 million.

Mayor Mick Cornett has suggested for the past two years that any MAPS 3 should include a new convention center as a priority project. That call is being joined by the Greater Oklahoma City Chamber.

“We believe the convention center plays a vital role in the development of the visitor industry and in the development of downtown,” said David Thompson, chamber chairman. “This study tells us clearly that our current center is not large enough, nor does it boast the amenities we need to be competitive. It is time for us to make an investment in this industry or recognize that we are slowly going out of business as far as conventions are concerned.”

Roy Williams, chamber president, said discussions began with the city and the Oklahoma State Fair Board about launching a marketing study on how to attract more visitors.

Williams said Conventions, Sports & Leisure was chosen because of reputation and prior experience looking at Oklahoma City’s convention market.

Williams said the study is ongoing. The first phase included a comparison to cities Oklahoma City competes with for conventions, and a destination market analysis that considers the likelihood the city can move up to the next tier with a new convention center.

“The destination market analysis looks at other amenities you should have to attract visitors and what amenities you should have to attract visitors,” Williams said. “It looks at the total component of visitor attractions.”

Williams quoted the consultants as advising Oklahoma City is assured increased business if it builds a new convention center.

“There is an element out there who questions should we really try to do something more,” Williams said. “Part of that is cultural — are we good enough, big enough, savvy enough to step out there on the edge? The best consultants in the U.S. say ‘You sure are. You have the product. When you did MAPS, you built a new city and created a new experience, a unique product.’ But it’s not something you can leave alone, you have to improve it.”

Williams said the consultants reported the city is exceeding visitors’ expectations, but is failing to attract many convention planners who won’t even consider the city due to its inadequate facilities.

John Kaatz, author of the study, reported the city’s convention center’s exhibit space is the smallest offered among more than a dozen competing cities including Tulsa, Fort Worth, Texas, and Austin, Texas. He said planners who had been to the city gave it a very favorable rating, but 41 percent of them added they will need more space for future meetings than what is offered at the Cox Convention Center.

Kaatz said improvements done in 1999 as part of MAPS simply aren’t sufficient.

“The expansion in 1999 created modern meeting space at the front of the building, but there is something of a time portal when you go into the exhibit space,” Kaatz said. “Meeting planners today expect the whole package.”

Good article Steve.

I think we all agree this needs to happen.

Thoughts?

More coverage coming on my blog and in the paper.

I don't doubt that a new one is needed. The Cox Convention center is pretty small time. I think the 1999 improvements made it so that it wasn't laughable and that it could be used at least for some smaller conventions, but I don't think it really made it competitive.

I think our convention business is living off the convenience we have created downtown for out of town visitors. It has little to do with our actual convention space as just about every city our size and even smaller can compete with the convention center.

I'll be interested to see if our current leaders can sell it, but it would be nice to see Oklahoma City rise to the top of its convention class. That being said, if we do decide to do it, I just hope it is free of any major compromises and that, when completed, it will be better than anything else available in our market size. We really either need to take it seriously or just accept being a great bargain market.

It def should be built along the river and incorporate some docks to bring people in and out.

The river would be too far away from the restaurants, hotels and entertainment that are required for convention goers. I think the ideal place is directly south of the Ford center, possibly along the new blvd. That way all of the hotels in the downtown area can still be utilized fairly easily. There is not much chance of aquiring enought space downtown to build in that area. I also think the convention center would be a great jumpstart to the
C2S area and would help facilitate private investments.

so you are saying the area between 3rd and 7th and between robinson and shields? I could live with that. It would be even better to incorporate a rail station right around there as well or room for one. but thats a whole other story

I look at it this way. We are going to fork out around a half billion on a new convention center...do it right and make it count. Start getting C2S really working. I would put it along the waterfront, maybe find ways to expand the amount of water down there. Have an extension to the canal go there as well. With an investment like that, you'll see other secondary development fill in around. I would also consider running a smaller people mover (not specifically a monorail) from the shore to the core. Imagine riding it back and going through the new central park, by the land run monument, or near the gardens, etc. If you do it right, you can definitely increase the value of it as a tourist attraction of sorts (or one feature to pull the whole thing together).

More coverage coming on my blog and in the paper.

Steve, thanks for the update on the survey. My hope is that the update will include David Thompson's relationship to the Oklahoman.

To the others, I SERIOUSLY doubt you'll see the location change, other than the speculated location directly south of the Ford Center along the new Boulevard. There are computer renderings and a video of the concept, although that obviously could change tremendously before things are said and done. I imagine it to go somewhat as already highlighted though.

it will be better than anything else available in our market size.
yes we need to build it so tulsa can build a bigger and better one.

yes we need to build it so tulsa can build a bigger and better one.

No, we need to build it so Tulsa can build a better one, then we can make ours a little nicer and get all the big conventions, but Tulsa will get all the cool ones. Wait... I'm an idiot.

I understand the motivations for wanting it on the waterfront and the aesthetic would be very cool. However, I think from a marketing position, having the convention center near the services currently available in the core is crucial. This way we don't have to create another hospitality infrastructure to support it and/or spread it out farther than it has to be. I think it goes a long way for making up for our market size and amenities to point out how convenient the set up is in that you have a convention center, decent sized hotels, an entertainment district, and an arts district all within a 5 block radius. While we can rarely boast the biggest and the best, we really are getting to a point where we can say visitors have access to a little bit of everything without ever having to get on a bus or hail a cab.

I also think keeping it in the core increases the chances of parlaying a new convention center into attracting a full blown convention hotel, as the hotel's projected feasibility would be boosted by its ability to directly serve all major events in the city, be they at the convention center itself or at the arena, the ballpark, or in some other downtown venue. I also think attracting such a property is key to truly maintaining and elevating the city's position as a convention destination. IMO, a new center without a new large scale convention hotel would be a bust. Placing the center outside the core only increases the possibility that we'll just see more limited service extended stay type hotels move in next to the center as they simply try to supplement the supply in the core.

And if we really want a monorail or some kind of elevated train service, I think we should think of doing it from the airport, up Meridian, through the fairgrounds and on to downtown's core. Then I think instead of building one to create assets, we would be building one to maximize the assets we already have, generating a much better ROI.

Just some thoughts.



yes we need to build it so tulsa can build a bigger and better one.

Actually it sounds like this is an effort to compete with their current facilities, but I don't think anyone is served by approaching this as Tulsa being the primary competition.

I can't even fathom the scope of this in this current economic climate.

^^^Yeah, but eventually the economy will rebound. This convention center will take years to materialize. By the time this convention center is planned, the location selected, and then build (not to mention funded,) the economy should (could?) have rebounded.

Sometimes you have to make investments without totally knowing the outcome. Anything worth having is worth taking a risk for.

We HAVE to do this. Not doing it is pretty much waving the white flag.

Quote:
yes we need to build it so tulsa can build a bigger and better one

I saw in the Tulsa World where this story appeared today, Tulsans are already complaining that OKC are whiners and that Tulsa is still better. Read some of the comments on this story in the TW.

It def should be built along the river and incorporate some docks to bring people in and out.

def not.

well why not jbrown? If it's going to be part of core to shore I think it would be a great idea. Especially if they are promoting using the river boats to bring people to and from the meridian corridor. Not the whole thing built on the river but have the south tip of it around the area. or put a cove of some sort there. if we want it to be seperate from other convention centers is going to have to blow people away.

It's already been expertly argued. It's way too far from the density of services, hotels, and entertainment downtown. Moving the convention center that far away would require all new hotel and entertainment development that (best case scenario) would take years. It would also cannibalize the hotels that already built in the downtown area.

All that just so it can go next to the river and have Devon boats docking in front? Nope.

This is absolutely the best time for OKC to be doing this. The best time to catch up (and pass) other cities is when they are standing still. Pushing forward with MAPS III while other cities are putting projects on hold will reap returns twice as fast and at a much lower cost. As for a river location, is there any chance of expanding the river to wind through Core to Shore? If done right there could even be an opportunity for a downtown marina.

Businesses and groups look at a good convention center for its facility, proximity to hotels/entertainment/dining as well as ease of commute between these things. They are not looking at proximity to a 15 minute boat ride.

How new is this study and/or when was it commissioned?

Okay, they should build a new CC. They should also gerrymander the Devon TIF to include the new location for said CC. Combined with TIF funds and a new hotel tax, this thing is self funding. This way the MAPS 3 can be dedicated solely to transit improvements. Assuming we need a way to get all these convention goers from airport to downtown hotels.

Try to take the airport bus to downtown, or better yet get yourself from the airport to the CC via public infrastructure.

I'm glad to see the city is moving forward with this. I'm pretty familiar with the Cox and the city's plans for a new convention center having designed a concept myself last year at OU. http://www.okctalk.com/okc-metro-area-talk/12778-architects-see-convention-center-anchoring-c2s.html

The location south of the Ford Center on the boulevard is ideal for many reasons:
1. Location next to the Ford Center and near Bricktown, and near existing hotels and downtown businesses.

2. Anchor of the new boulevard and adjacent to planned 'convention hotel' at the corner of the new boulevard and Robinson, either the SE corner actually connected to the conv. center or NW corner with conv. center coming to the corner.

3. Location across from the new park west of Robinson

4. Plenty of land for potentially 1+ million SF of space needs including placing ugly loading docks away from pedestrians on Shields.

5. Mixed-use potential along the boulevard w/ restaurants and shops.

The best time to catch up (and pass) other cities is when they are standing still.

Totally agree. In fact, it may by Oklahoma City's only chance to do so. While MAPS was incredibly impressive because it took a no name town and made it into a viable destination for arts, entertainment, sporting events, and conventions, several other markets that already had a competitive infrastructure when MAPS started spent that time making there's a lot better.

Given our relatively stable economy when compared to the rest of the nation, we are actually in a better position today to elevate our infrastructure beyond other markets that will have to go into a holding pattern as far as community improvements go. No doubt when the economy comes back online, the same markets that have been historically superior in amenities will go right back to making improvements.


Tulsans are already complaining that OKC are whiners and that Tulsa is still better.

I'm not sure how this study constitutes whining, but you get a lot of ridiculous perspectives from those who are into the whole city rivalry thing. In the end, though, this has nothing to do with Tulsa, other than the fact that it is simply another market with bigger convention facilities than Oklahoma City's. Taking effort to improve one's community is not whining and the point is not to garner the approval of Tulsans, but to invest in our city in whatever way we feel will raise the standard of living, improve its competitive position, and make it a viable and desirable place for current and future generations to live, work, and create.

I can't even fathom the scope of this in this current economic climate.

But remember Karrie that Oklahoma City leaders drew the plans for MAPS in 1992 and citizens passed the $309 million package in 1993.

During those years, Oklahoma City's economic climate was horrible, yet MAPS was still able to happen.

But remember Karrie that Oklahoma City leaders drew the plans for MAPS in 1992 and citizens passed the $309 million package in 1993.

During those years, Oklahoma City's economic climate was horrible, yet MAPS was still able to happen.

You also must realize it is much cheaper to build now as material prices like concrete, steel, copper, etc. have fallen with the economy. You can build something that would've cost $500 million for much less now. That doesn't even factor labor which results in more competitive bidding and thus less expensive.

Yes, it needs to be done, and the prices make this a opportune time to do so.

We've known this was part of the reason for loosing the bid for the American Legion national convention and it will continue it's negative impact to our economy.

The best time to catch up (and pass) other cities is when they are standing still. Pushing forward with MAPS III while other cities are putting projects on hold will reap returns twice as fast and at a much lower cost.

From today's Las Vegas Review Journal
ReviewJournal.com - News - Signs go south for LV (http://www.lvrj.com/news/41078067.html)


The downturn has side-tracked the authority's drive to complete an $890 million renovation of the Las Vegas Convention Center. Board members voted unanimously to suspend the project until at least the middle of 2010.

Brenda Siddall, the authority's vice president of finance, said the suspension is necessary to help keep the agency in the black in light of declining room tax revenues, its primary source of income.

A year ago, the authority projected it would receive $243 million in room tax revenue this fiscal year, a projection that has been downsized to $190 million.

The decrease threatens to leave the authority with a $7 million shortfall in its ending fund balance, which isn't allowable under law, Siddall said.

Suspending the convention center renovation, with other measures, will help the authority maintain an adequate ending fund balance.

"It is the only solution which does not impact our mission of filling hotel rooms," Siddall said.

The vote occurred Tuesday, but the plan to suspend the project has been public since last week.

Michael Hughes, vice president of research and consulting for Tradeshow Week magazine, said the suspension is understandable. But he added that the authority should get the project back on track as soon as possible.

"If this renovation is not done eventually ... one day a major event might say the facility is not up to best practices," Hughes said. "You walk into the facility, and it feels like the early '90s. Today, these events are about the attendee experience."

That pretty much sums up why OKC should proceed full steam ahead.

That pretty much sums up why OKC should proceed full steam ahead.

So we can get halfway through it and quit because the economy downturn sooner or later will hit here?

So we can get halfway through it and quit because the economy downturn sooner or later will hit here?

So we can further diversify our economy, so the effects of downturns, especially in our isolated sectors, will not be as devastating.

One bonus of having strong convention traffic, is that it brings current and future decision makers to your market. Beyond the direct economic impact of bringing in outside money and tax dollars, conventions are a chance to showcase your market. It brings in thousands of people every year that otherwise would have no reason to come to Oklahoma City.

So we can get halfway through it and quit because the economy downturn sooner or later will hit here?

So why do anything? The next downturn is always around the corner .

...
the point is not to garner the approval of Tulsans, but to invest in our city in whatever way we feel will raise the standard of living, improve its competitive position, and make it a viable and desirable place for current and future generations to live, work, and create.

Bravo!

I have a concern that a couple of peope have mentioned. The price tag of a new convention center is large enough to completely devour the next MAPS funding. I've seen $400 million to $450 million tossed around. I think a first class, million SF center could easily surpass this figure. If we try to add this to the next MAPS, what will become of our transit funding? Or, funding for most other projects? We might see a new CC and a couple other minor projects. But that's about all the money there will be.

I don't know why i even try...this board is full of people who only dream - not that dreaming is bad, but you have to have a touch of reality too...you guys are crazy if you think that the downturn in the economy isn't going to hit here eventually.

I don't know why i even try...this board is full of people who only dream - not that dreaming is bad, but you have to have a touch of reality too...you guys are crazy if you think that the downturn in the economy isn't going to hit here eventually.

No one said you were wrong about economic downturn eventually reaching Oklahoma City. But the question is how can we avoid or diminish its impact and the impact of future downturns, and the answer is by having a wide range of industries- including the convention business.

Doofus,
By your rationale we should just sit on our thumbs and save our pennies? There is no doubt the downturn will hit us, probably a little worse before it gets better. Fact of the matter is that this center will not be completed for 4 or 5 years. If we are still economically hurting really bad at that time, the one cent tax would be the least of our or our countires problem.

the word "economy" is starting to join the list of words I cringe at because it is overused. stimulus, evil doers, maverick, joe the plummer are also on this list.

everything will work itself out with that E word. everyone has or will tighten thier belts but it shouldn't deter us from looking and planning on the future. do you think cities like dallas or houston just woke up one day and snapped thier fingers and thier convention centers and other civic projects? if you want to be big time you have to pay for it. we just need to be smart how we use our money.

this board is full of people who only dream

We're just trying to counter the general apathy and complacency that permeates the community, both online and in the real world. : )


you have to have a touch of reality too...you guys are crazy if you think that the downturn in the economy isn't going to hit here eventually.

I don't think anyone here has said that the downtown wouldn't affect the city. If anything, many are simply looking for ways that Oklahoma City can position itself to take more part in the good times whenever they may return and to better diversify the local economy going forward so that the effects of collapse in our core industries will be mitigated in the future. That's not dreaming. That's called planning.

And, btw, it already has hit here. It just doesn't seem as bad because we didn't have as much to lose.

Fox 25 had a LOVELY tease for this story the other night:

"The Ford Center and the Cox Arena. Now the mayor want's ANOTHER convention center. And he wants YOU to pay for it!"

Completely irresponsible...

We're just trying to counter the general apathy and complacency that permeates the community, both online and in the real world. : )



I don't think anyone here has said that the downtown wouldn't affect the city. If anything, many are simply looking for ways that Oklahoma City can position itself to take more part in the good times whenever they may return and to better diversify the local economy going forward so that the effects of collapse in our core industries will be mitigated in the future. That's not dreaming. That's called planning.

And, btw, it already has hit here. It just doesn't seem as bad because we didn't have as much to lose.


Very well said. I think there is a fine line between dreaming and, like BDP said, planning for the future. There doesn't seem to be enough of either in OKC which is why this forum is so great. For big projects like a new convention center, light rail, etc. you must start planning well ahead of the actual construction and that is what the city is doing, even in the midst of a recession.

BDP, well said!

jbrown, if that is true, that is completely lazy journalism as usual and irresponsible.

Right.

Forget the fact that this has nothing to do with arenas. It won't have another arena.

Forget the fact that the Cox would be 50 years old by the time we could get this built.

Forget the fact that peer cities are all ahead of us in size and most are ahead of us in quality.

Very well said. I think there is a fine line between dreaming and, like BDP said, planning for the future. There doesn't seem to be enough of either in OKC which is why this forum is so great. For big projects like a new convention center, light rail, etc. you must start planning well ahead of the actual construction and that is what the city is doing, even in the midst of a recession.

I don't think it's so far out. The modus operandi of our city government is to put forward votes to 'continue' the MAPS tax, promising tons of neat stuff without having to raise taxes. I think they need to be as "shovel ready" as possible [I threw that in just for worthy cook] by the time the Ford Center tax expires so that they can more effectively market the tax as a continuation of the status quo rather than a departure from the norm, or worse, a tax hike.

OKC needs so much stuff to make it competitive with other cities that I'd like to see MAPS continue for the next twenty years, at least. I mean, we've been paying that one cent sales tax since, what, 1993? We have seen first hand the benefits of that tax and the improvements it paid for. It's not like businesses are going to be hurt by paying the same taxes they've already been paying. It's not like 16 years down the road, the tax suddenly becomes too much to bear.

Now, I'm not one for higher taxes, but as long as Mayor Mick and crew can continue finding worthwhile projects, I will support them. MAPS has been a fantastic success so far, and we could see a huge benefit by having a new convention center downtown.

Now the mayor want's ANOTHER convention center.

Well, good. At least we have a mayor that not only thinks we have a future, but thinks about how it could be better.


And he wants YOU to pay for it!

No problem. I'm happy to pull my weight around here. ; )

build a new convention center and refurb the cox center as simply a second downtown arena.

Just because we build another convention center doesn't mean the Cox Convention Center will go unused. This month alone we are expecting around 150,000 guests from various conventions and events held at the Ford & Cox Centers. Having a third, world class convention center would only increase the number of conventions we have here. Cities like Chicago, etc are well equipped to handle multiple events and conventions simultaneously. OKC can too if people would just give us a break.

I do agree that mass transit needs to be built as priority right next to the new convention center because they will go hand in hand with our city's growth and development.

what was originally the MAPS tax, now the Thunder House Tax,will likely continue for far more than 20 years. Perhaps 50+ years. And perhaps, rarely, if ever, more than 5 years at a time, but it's a fixture now, and so long as they don't propose anything vastly dumb, it'll change its flavor, but remain in force like the good little energizer bunny penny that it si. now saying that's a bad thing, just saying a penny sales tax that never goes away is not really a temporary tax, no matter whose undies you dress it up in

Fox 25 had a LOVELY tease for this story the other night:

"The Ford Center and the Cox Arena. Now the mayor want's ANOTHER convention center. And he wants YOU to pay for it!"

Completely irresponsible...

Just who does Fox 25 think pays for everything government does?

I sincerely apologize in advance, for injecting politics into the discussion, but... are we in agreement? Does it appear that Keynesian economics (i.e., large scale public spending) has a useful purpose and can be an effective tool? Is OKC not much better off due to MAPS? Please don't tell the Laissez-faire righties. It will spoil their dinners. It seems that public spending indeed can spur private investment.

Just because we build another convention center doesn't mean the Cox Convention Center will go unused. This month alone we are expecting around 150,000 guests from various conventions and events held at the Ford & Cox Centers. Having a third, world class convention center would only increase the number of conventions we have here. Cities like Chicago, etc are well equipped to handle multiple events and conventions simultaneously. OKC can too if people would just give us a break.

I do agree that mass transit needs to be built as priority right next to the new convention center because they will go hand in hand with our city's growth and development.

Ford Center is an arena, not a convention center, although some conventions do use arenas. I totally agree that we need multiple venues, but a large enough, world class convention center could handle this role, and the COX Center could be better used as a mixed use development or transit center.

I sincerely apologize in advance, for injecting politics into the discussion, but... are we in agreement? Does it appear that Keynesian economics (i.e., large scale public spending) has a useful purpose and can be an effective tool? Is OKC not much better off due to MAPS? Please don't tell the Laissez-faire righties. It will spoil their dinners. It seems that public spending indeed can spur private investment.

Actually, I'm willing to bet just as many righties if not more voted for MAPS than lefties. The only people I know who were against it were lefties.

Ford Center is an arena, not a convention center, although some conventions do use arenas. I totally agree that we need multiple venues, but a large enough, world class convention center could handle this role, and the COX Center could be better used as a mixed use development or transit center.

If they are smart they will include an auditorium in the design of the new convention center, along with the exhibit halls, ballrooms, meeting rooms, kitchen, etc. That way you really wouldn't even need the Cox anymore, except for the Big 12 tournament. In that case they could have all the games in the Ford Center or split between the Ford Center and LNC in Norman, or if OCU was to build a new larger arena.

now saying that's a bad thing, just saying a penny sales tax that never goes away is not really a temporary tax, no matter whose undies you dress it up in

It is temporary, in that we vote a new tax to spent on new assets each time. It's only a de facto permanent tax if we vote for it every single time.

The good thing about doing it this way is that it puts the pressure on the city leaders to propose new things that we feel are needed and makes it more transparent in such a way that we can closely monitor what it is used for.

I think it's debatable whether this is the best way to fund our projects, but it does seem like it has worked in Oklahoma City.

If they are smart they will include an auditorium in the design of the new convention center, along with the exhibit halls, ballrooms, meeting rooms, kitchen, etc. That way you really wouldn't even need the Cox anymore, except for the Big 12 tournament. In that case they could have all the games in the Ford Center or split between the Ford Center and LNC in Norman, or if OCU was to build a new larger arena.

That's what I was saying, if (and it should/will be) done right, we won't need the COX Convention Center.

That way you really wouldn't even need the Cox anymore, except for the Big 12 tournament. In that case they could have all the games in the Ford Center or split between the Ford Center and LNC in Norman, or if OCU was to build a new larger arena.

That first part isn't 100% true. My wife does a lot of event planning for a law firm and she says that there is a need for the CCC, but there is also a need for a larger venue to attract larger conventions. Also, there are always events that can be booked at the CCC that are too big for an auditorium, but too small for the Ford Center like large HS Graduations, smaller concerts, rodeos, etc. Not to mention the Yardawgs and the Blazers are probably going to play there because they can't fill up the Ford Center.

In regards to the second part of your statement, it is great to have two venues right next to each other "58 steps away" where people can gather with the street blocked off and have a good time. If they were to tear down the CCC, build a new one and the Big 12 championship were to be between the Ford Center and OCU's Freede Center, we would lose a lot of the luster with it being so close and with BT being right next door.

...a penny sales tax that never goes away is not really a temporary tax, no matter whose undies you dress it up in

Technically, not so far, but it's always an option for the voters not to approve it, so it also cannot be called a permanent tax. If we had a permanent tax that was available to do whatever the city needed, then the plans for its use might not be so well thought out. The fact that the possibility of a tax not being approved always exists, means that the mayor and city council have to determine not only what the city needs, but what the citizens want for the city. I think that's a good thing, as I think a permanent tax might sometimes lead to projects the citizens didn't want. But, so far, I've been really pleased with what my penny has been able to purchase, and I'll probably usually vote "yes".

The Ford Center will eventually become what the Cox Center is and the Cox Center site will become the site of our 'new' Ford Center. This will happen within 15-20 years.

Not to mention the Yardawgs and the Blazers are probably going to play there because they can't fill up the Ford Center.


GOOD!! That means they can take those gay ass black curtains down so when they potato gun t-shirts into Loud City there won't be a chance of them getting stuck up there anymore!!!

The Ford Center will eventually become what the Cox Center is and the Cox Center site will become the site of our 'new' Ford Center. This will happen within 15-20 years.

That would be interesting, and definitely could happen down the road. I'd really like to see the Cox torn down once the new conv. center is built and the street grid restored above the underground parking garage i.e. Broadway extending from Sheridan to Reno and California rebuilt from E.K. Gaylord to Robinson. Then infill that area with mixed-use development creating the flagship TOD in the heart of downtown (assuming Santa Fe is the central hub for commuter rail and LRT).

That would be interesting, and definitely could happen down the road. I'd really like to see the Cox torn down once the new conv. center is built and the street grid restored above the underground parking garage i.e. Broadway extending from Sheridan to Reno and California rebuilt from E.K. Gaylord to Robinson. Then infill that area with mixed-use development creating the flagship TOD in the heart of downtown (assuming Santa Fe is the central hub for commuter rail and LRT).

Interesting re: restoring the street grid, but I'd like to see the new arena take up the entire block very similar to how the Verizon Center in DC does, with street level retail/dining that creates pedestrian traffic/activity even on non-event nights.

I sincerely apologize in advance, for injecting politics into the discussion, but... are we in agreement? Does it appear that Keynesian economics (i.e., large scale public spending) has a useful purpose and can be an effective tool? Is OKC not much better off due to MAPS? Please don't tell the Laissez-faire righties. It will spoil their dinners. It seems that public spending indeed can spur private investment.

To most righties, there's a big difference between a local tax initiative and a federal spending program. One of the great things about MAPS is that we see the benefits of our tax dollars at work. If it doesn't work, we stop funding it. Most righties don't like massive federal programs where there's no way to determine if it works or fails. "Fighting poverty" or similar missions are so vague and poorly defined that there's no way to determine if they are successful or not. On the other hand, it is easy to see if "build NBA arena" is getting the results we want.