It appears most opposers are opposed to the new convention center idea, even though ours will be 50 years old when/if MAPS 3 passes and completes. For those of you who keep touting the "remodel" a few years ago, that was only to the front facade and a few other things. The arena and the southern half of the exhibit space is stuck in 1970's and is pathetic. Heck, even the remodeled part doesn't stand up to anything almost every decent size city offers. One needs to realize even if you don't use the building, we still generate tens if not hundreds of millions in revenue from our convention center, it is used for local graduations and other ceremonies, as well as large private events. For those of you who say it's not busy all the time, that's because we don't have the quality of amentites that most modern groups demand these days, not to mention the lack of a convention hotel or enough hotel rooms downtown. We can't attract larger groups and more groups if we don't offer comparable amenities.

Nashville is going through the same thing debate right now and they are in a far better position than OKC,

Debate Over Metro's Convention Center Heats Up - NewsChannel 5.com - Nashville, Tennessee - (http://www.newschannel5.com/Global/story.asp?S=11214876)

I don't think we should ever point to a structure's age as simply the reason for change. Let's talk usefulness and spaciousness.

Metro, the convention center has had several meaningful renovations in those 50 years. Don't pretend we're really talking about a 50-year-old facility here. That's just not honest.

Mid, can you HONESTLY say that the convention center is up to snuff with other convention centers in other metros? Have you seen some of the exhibit halls? Some of them haven't been touched. I don't know if you traveled to any conventions elsewhere during law school, but ours sure doesn't come close to cutting it, no matter how many renovations it's supposively had. I sure can't tell where parts of the Cox have EVER been renovated.

The "Myriad" still survives... go to many of the exhibit halls and you will still see the original Myriad still in place.... the remodels that have occurred have been Half _ss. New Makeup was put on on one side... with some electronic new gadgets added in place to try to get it up to beauty queen standards. But alas she doesn't even get into the running. Or Miss Congeniality.

I was inside the cox convention center just recently for a yard dogs game and it was quite depressing to look at. I think a new convention center is long overdue..

I think a good word is aesthetics. Our current convention center does have a few ugly arse POS rooms, including the arena inside of it. It still looks like it did when I was a kid in 1982 and saw the Sesame Street Show there!

The arena portion of the center is indeed depressing. I noted that at the Flaming Lips show on New Year's Eve.

Metro, the convention center has had several meaningful renovations in those 50 years. Don't pretend we're really talking about a 50-year-old facility here. That's just not honest.

The only renovation the current convention center has seen since opening in the early 1970's, was the MAPS renovation to the north side of the structure 30 years later. The storage areas on the east, nothing but cosmetics and new utility equipment, as needed. Same for the exhibit space on the west side. Nothing to speak of in the arena itself.

Save for the newer north-side of the building, it's already an almost 40-years old structure, and by the time a new CC would be constructed, if the vote passes, the old lady will be coming up on her golden birthday celebration.

Mid, can you HONESTLY say that the convention center is up to snuff with other convention centers in other metros? Have you seen some of the exhibit halls? Some of them haven't been touched. I don't know if you traveled to any conventions elsewhere during law school, but ours sure doesn't come close to cutting it, no matter how many renovations it's supposively had. I sure can't tell where parts of the Cox have EVER been renovated.

I never said how it compared with other places. Just that comparing it with a 50-year-old facility is disingenuous.

Call me dense, but what is this "new" issue with the convention center?

The current convention center is certainly not anything to be proud of. It's serviceable at best, and looks terribly out of date, at that. It's hard to get excited about spending money on a convention center, but there is certainly some return, and I think it's difficult to figure out precisely how much. Regardless, I spend more buying coffee every month than MAPS will cost me, by a long shot, so I'm just going to trust the city on this one. If nothing else, it will renew an area of blight, be it the cotton gin or area adjacent to the park, and I'm sure it will provide far more benefit than that, even if it's not a financial windfall.

Earnest sincere discussion about the convention center isn't new at all, even if it has not been discussed in the Oklahoman (as far as I recall).

But, it was reported and seriously discussed in the Gazette. Here's what I wrote in my Core To Shore article (http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2009/08/core-to-shore-resources.html) when discussing various issues, the convention center being one ...


2. Do we really need a new convention center? Other than those who favor a total redirection in favor of light rail, a consensus of those commenting on the topic gives a new convention center the green light, even among those who have other criticisms of the overall proposal. In this group, see Dennis Wells' opinion that the Bricktown canal should be extended to the proposed convention center location which reads like tacit approval, and Bert Belanger expressly says, "I am okay with the MAPs 3 Convention Center Idea just South of the Ford Center."

However, this Gazette article (http://www.okgazette.com/p/12776/a/4349/Default.aspx) by Scott Cooper raised the possibility that, in fact, the idea of a sparkling new and larger convention center may be overrated.


There is one person who would like to inform the Oklahoma City Council and residents that a new convention center may not be the answer: Heywood Sanders, a researcher with the University of Texas at San Antonio. He has studied the move by cities to construct mega-convention centers since the 1980s and would differ from the Greater Oklahoma City Chamber's consultant conclusion.

"The reality is, there has been a huge increase in the amount of supply (convention space) over the last 10 to 15 years," Sanders said. "Does that mean you get any more business? And the answer in general is 'no'." Since the late 1990s, convention-generated business has been on a downward slide, according to Sanders' research. Yet, during that same time, the number of cities and amount of convention center floor space skyrocketed, along with an increase in nearby hotel rooms. At least 53 cities either built new or expanded existing convention centers since 2000. Between 1986 and 2006, the number of convention centers across the country increased from 193 to 322. But since 1996, the number of convention attendees dropped. Sanders said the current rate of attendance is at 1993 levels.

"One of the things we know is the demand has not grown in the period since 2003," when the country started to come out of the recession caused by the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, he said. "Most (cities) seem to be doing what they did before. It does suggest that as far as going forward, what we are seeing is not just a temporary downturn, particularly on the convention side, but a ratcheting down that may not ratchet back up."

The article presents Greater Oklahoma City Chamber CEO Roy Williams' counterpoint to Heywood Sanders' observations, and, all in all, I found the article to be one of the better give-and-take discussions of MAPS III that I've read.
The Gazette article was published July 22, 2009.

It is unlikely that an article presenting a serious pro/con discussion on the value of a new convention center will appear in the Oklahoman, in my estimation. Maybe I'll be proven wrong ... but ...

Who is the present Chairman of the Board of the Chamber (I generally like the Chamber and think it has done a lot of good for the city, just so that you'll know)? David Thompson. Who is heading up the Chamber's MAPS 3 campaign? David Thompson. See this video and Oklahoman article (http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-council-calls-for-maps-3-election/article/3403306). Who is president of the OPUBCO Communications Group (http://www.opubco.com/content/about-opubco)? David Thompson.

Under these circumstances, what rational and sans-blinders-thinking-person should expect the Oklahoman to be offering articles which may be seen as critical, even seriously questioning, the value of MAPS 3 during its campaign -- the Oklahoman? David Thompson? In this instance, are the 2 names not synonyms?

The point is that, for any news-source objective analysis of MAPS 3, it will almost certainly have to come from a source other than the Oklahoman. When I have occasion to read an Oklahoman article which presents information like the above Gazette article did back in July on the convention center matter, I'll be very pleased to admit the error of my ways.

Please don't misunderstand ... I'll most probably be voting FOR MAPS 3. More, I'm inclined to favor the construction of a new convention center (even if I'd prefer it to be built in the Oil Coop area south of lower Bricktown). But I'll not be making my personal decision through rose colored glasses. It may well be that I'll chose to vote favorably in spite of those who might have me wear them.

This is the one thing that's so backwards to me - the Convention Center is, in my mind, the easiest sell of all, but apparently polls out the worst. Go figure....

For those interested in seeing how the Cox Convention Center stacks up to other cities click here: US Convention Center Directory | Cvent (http://www.cvent.com/destination-guide/convention-centers.shtml)

Cox is way way way down the list.

For those interested in seeing how the Cox Convention Center stacks up to other cities click here: US Convention Center Directory | Cvent (http://www.cvent.com/destination-guide/convention-centers.shtml)

Cox is way way way down the list.

Because "Oklahoma" begins with an "O" and not an "A", "B", or "C"? :D

My opinion really does not count because I cannot vote. I live in Midwest City.

Anyway... I have no real objections to the actual projects. My obejction is the timing. The Oklahoma Economy could go in the crapper overnight if the government decides to scale back operations at Tinker (chances are about as likely as Tornado in early May) or one of the other major employers like INTEGRIS, Chesapeake, Devon or announces layoffs or goes belly up.

Not to mention what is going to happen if cost skyrocket. Are we going to get stiffed again like we did on the canal and the Ford Center. Everyone expected some kind of grand project with both projects. When they were finally completed most people asked the question "This is it? It's nice and everything but... it's not what I expected. The Ford Center had at least a dozen mistakes.

My main point to the city leaders is, Don't promise a Bentley if all you intend to deliever is a Chevy Impala. Sure the Impala is a nice car but... It is not a Bentley. If MAPS 3 passes, they should do one project at a time, finish it and move on to the next. Don't blow the money on three projects at once in three diffrent parts of the city.

Because "Oklahoma" begins with an "O" and not an "A", "B", or "C"? :D

No, it is because the facilities are ranked by size. There is one part of the site that lists all convention centers alphabetically and the Cox Convention Center starts with a 'C'.

One of the nice things about the site I linked is that it has photos of many of the convention centers. Some are fine hotel quality with stunning architecture and not the brutalism style the Cox Center is done in.

If people don't want a new convention center that is cool. They just don't need to pretend the Cox Center is something it isn't. It is nearly a 50 year old building in an architectural style that should have resulted in architects being burned at the stake and it can't compete with peer facilities for size and functionality.

My opinion really does not count because I cannot vote. I live in Midwest City.

Anyway... I have no real objections to the actual projects. My obejction is the timing. The Oklahoma Economy could go in the crapper overnight if the government decides to scale back operations at Tinker (chances are about as likely as Tornado in early May) or one of the other major employers like INTEGRIS, Chesapeake, Devon or announces layoffs or goes belly up.

Not to mention what is going to happen if cost skyrocket. Are we going to get stiffed again like we did on the canal and the Ford Center. Everyone expected some kind of grand project with both projects. When they were finally completed most people asked the question "This is it? It's nice and everything but... it's not what I expected. The Ford Center had at least a dozen mistakes.

My main point to the city leaders is, Don't promise a Bentley if all you intend to deliever is a Chevy Impala. Sure the Impala is a nice car but... It is not a Bentley. If MAPS 3 passes, they should do one project at a time, finish it and move on to the next. Don't blow the money on three projects at once in three diffrent parts of the city.

That's how MAPS operates, one or two projects at a time as funding comes in, they don't break ground on all 7 or 8 at once.

The reality is that to vote against a new convention center at this point in time is to vote against the city being in the large convention business at all in a couple of decades. Now, maybe it is the position of some people who oppose the convention center that we should just not be in that industry, but arguing that the Cox Convention center will be even remotely competitive in 20 years is just not valid. It's not that competitive now and many markets, even some smaller than ours, have larger and nicer facilities.

It may not always make sense on a direct income analysis, but there is no question that removing traffic from our larger conventions will have a noticeable effect on our city's hospitality and transportation service, as well as have an affect on the flow of "new" money from outside the market, which has a greater positive economic impact than when it's just money that was already in the economy being reallocated by taxes.

Well said BDP. I hope people really get that, the power of "new" money, that's how any economy expands.

Well said BDP. I hope people really get that, the power of "new" money, that's how any economy expands.

Let look at it this way. Is it better to send local decision makers to other cities or to bring decision makers from other cities to OKC? Do you want Larry Nichols traveling to Houston for energy related conventions every year, or would you prefer the CEOs of Houston based companies coming to OKC? The decision is really no harder than that.

Does anyone know what will happen to Cox? I am assuming it will be torn down, but are there any plans to redevelop the land or sell it to the private sector (that is assuming the city owns it, which I have no idea about)?

I think we need a new convention center due in part to Oklahoma City always being in the past.

How are we ever supposed to grow if we care about space?

Half of OKC's space is in the slums. most of 44th and north of it from western to I-35 is downright shameful. Filled with empty ponds, a pet food factory, run down streets, and houses that look slummy.

I hope Maps passes so all of that can be turned into a nice park with a convention center as it shows how far we're moving up, instead of staying behind because people in rocking chairs are content with living out the rest of their lives with the current state this city is in.

I hate thinking that people are afraid to help grow this city, at the expense of a penny.

I too hope to see that **** hole of a building gone, in favor of something new. We need new, not the past.

Because "Oklahoma" begins with an "O" and not an "A", "B", or "C"? :D




torpedoes to midships....rofl!!

Let look at it this way. Is it better to send local decision makers to other cities or to bring decision makers from other cities to OKC? Do you want Larry Nichols traveling to Houston for energy related conventions every year, or would you prefer the CEOs of Houston based companies coming to OKC? The decision is really no harder than that.


I understand we need "new money" to grow our local economy.
But we have so many slum like houses,abandon properties,Downtown is a mess, hell I have a damn abandon property that has 3 to 4 feet of growing grass,across the street, the city can't seem to find...and they want a new convention center?
,show me you can handle your first job!!

Anyway... I have no real objections to the actual projects. My obejction is the timing. The Oklahoma Economy could go in the crapper overnight if the government decides to scale back operations at Tinker (chances are about as likely as Tornado in early May) or one of the other major employers like INTEGRIS, Chesapeake, Devon or announces layoffs or goes belly up.

Same thing could've been said back in the 1990's when we passed MAPS 1.


Not to mention what is going to happen if cost skyrocket. Are we going to get stiffed again like we did on the canal and the Ford Center. Everyone expected some kind of grand project with both projects. When they were finally completed most people asked the question "This is it? It's nice and everything but... it's not what I expected. The Ford Center had at least a dozen mistakes.

I actually think the canal is what we were promised. An approx. 3/4 mile canal is what we were always promised from day 1. Private development along the canal was never guaranteed or promised.....just the canal...which is built.

And the plan for an arena in MAPS 1 was always just a basic, barebones sports arena with enough seating and size for possible use for NBA/NHL at a later date. We were never promised the Taj Mahal of arenas. Not for $80 million. I'm not really sure what mistakes you're referring to with The Ford Center. Maybe the size of the seating? Specifics like that weren't mentioned when MAPS 1 was proposed. You can't get that specific when you make broad proposals initially. We were simply promised a general basic sports arena with seating for around 20,000 folks.


Sure the Impala is a nice car but... It is not a Bentley.

For $360 million in MAPS 1, we were never promised a Bentley.


If MAPS 3 passes, they should do one project at a time, finish it and move on to the next. Don't blow the money on three projects at once in three diffrent parts of the city.

That's what they did with MAPS 1. They started with the fairgrounds improvements, then the convention center, then the ballpark, then the canal, then the river dams, and then the library. It pretty much went one project at a time as the money was collected.

I think we need a new convention center due in part to Oklahoma City always being in the past.

How are we ever supposed to grow if we care about space?

Half of OKC's space is in the slums. most of 44th and north of it from western to I-35 is downright shameful. Filled with empty ponds, a pet food factory, run down streets, and houses that look slummy.

I hope Maps passes so all of that can be turned into a nice park with a convention center as it shows how far we're moving up, instead of staying behind because people in rocking chairs are content with living out the rest of their lives with the current state this city is in.

I hate thinking that people are afraid to help grow this city, at the expense of a penny.

I too hope to see that **** hole of a building gone, in favor of something new. We need new, not the past.
Whether one be for, against, or undecided about Maps 3, Megax11, you are vastly oversimplifying all of the numerous issues which are involved in MAPS 3 and I'll not elaborate here.

But, on one point, I take serious issue with you, where you said

We need new, not the past.
We need both. Our past heritage is every bit as important as our present and future. After numerous grand buildings were destroyed in the 1960s-1980s, would you also have torn down the Skirvin, as many thought best to do?

That's how MAPS operates, one or two projects at a time as funding comes in, they don't break ground on all 7 or 8 at once.

Maybe they should because there was one big issue with all of the MAPS I projects, they were all underfunded, and the City had to come back and ask for more money or shift money from one project to another.

Just saying do it right the first time, put together as accurate a cost estimate as possible, include a large contingency for potential unknown problems, issues which may arise, etc............

I understand we need "new money" to grow our local economy.
But we have so many slum like houses,abandon properties,Downtown is a mess, hell I have a damn abandon property that has 3 to 4 feet of growing grass,across the street, the city can't seem to find...and they want a new convention center?
,show me you can handle your first job!!

So the city shouldn't do anything until they mow your neighbors grass? When did lawn care become the cities highest priority?

i agree with Kerrie - no matter what, the stupid trivial stuff is going to happen. I'm not going to hold the city back because they can't get someone's yard mowed...or a park needs more plants in someone else's eyes. That little stuff isn't really the big picture.

Now is the time to do it, and we need to move on it. Do it once, do it right.

Maybe they should because there was one big issue with all of the MAPS I projects, they were all underfunded, and the City had to come back and ask for more money or shift money from one project to another.

Just saying do it right the first time, put together as accurate a cost estimate as possible, include a large contingency for potential unknown problems, issues which may arise, etc............

What proof do you have that they were underfunded? Furthermore we were told up front the Ford Center would be built bare bones, but to NBA/NHL standards (of that time), but that if we landed a permanent team we would have to update. What other projects came in under funded?

Again, unknowns and potential problems will always exist with anything. Furthermore, City leaders are also leaving a $17 Million Cushion in this MAPS to cover such problems you state. This cushion was not built into MAPS 1 and it still came out great and propelled our city into a place to live.

So the city shouldn't do anything until they mow your neighbors grass? When did lawn care become the cities highest priority?

Well it says they have a hard time doing what their primary job is, and it calls into question of how trustworthy they are when they prefer the shiney PR stuff over their primary jobs.
As far of them not mowing lawns I just want them to hire a contractor after they take pictures of the abandon property, condemn it. tear it down and put up for sale.in a day..lol

Architect5311, I agree with what Metro said for the most part. By necessity, construction spending must be spread out over the time that tax revenues are generated which make construction possible in a multiple project program like MAPS, MAPS for Kids, or MAPS 3.

During Ron Norick's administration, it did become evident toward the end that not enough money would be generated to complete a few final projects, most notably the Ford Center and, unless my memory fails me, the new library and learning center was in that group as well.

As for the city coming back to ask for "more money," as you put it, that did occur but only that one time. Whether to extend the tax for an additional 5 or 6 months (I don't recall which off the top of my head) was the hot topic in the mayoral race when Kirk Humphreys was elected. In his term, the sales tax extension vote carried by a whopping 69% to 31%.

Had the Ford Center project started before the revenue shortfall became evident, and before the half-year extension vote which wound up funded it was done, we'd have something like a skeleton standing there looking rather pitiful had it begun before funding to complete it was available.

Sales tax projections aren't all that precise and the money generated isn't known until after the fact. I agree with Metro that the inclusion of a $17 M contingency cushion into MAPS 3 was a wise decision.

While several other important and contentious issues remain about MAPS 3, elsewhere discussed, I don't think that the one raised here presents a problem at all.

For those interested in seeing how the Cox Convention Center stacks up to other cities click here: US Convention Center Directory | Cvent (http://www.cvent.com/destination-guide/convention-centers.shtml)

Cox is way way way down the list.

My goodness I had no idea how small the Cox Center was comparatively. Even Tulsa's is almost twice as big. Does anybody know if this includes the arena? (I am assuming it does since the bigger shows use the floor of the arena). This should be stressed in the advertising campaign.

My goodness I had no idea how small the Cox Center was comparatively. Even Tulsa's is almost twice as big. Does anybody know if this includes the arena? (I am assuming it does since the bigger shows use the floor of the arena). This should be stressed in the advertising campaign.

The number does include the arena floor. The Myriad is way smaller than most people think it is. What is sad are all of the cities a lot smaller than OKC that have convention centers with 3 or 4 times as much space.

Convention Centers larger than OKC (ranked by size)

McCormick Place IL - Chicago 2,700,000
Orange County Convention Center FL - Orlando 2,539,559
Las Vegas Convention Center NV - Las Vegas 2,157,235
Georgia World Congress Center GA - Atlanta 1,673,563
New Orleans Morial Convention Center LA - New Orleans 1,508,763
Sands Expo and Convention Center NV - Las Vegas 1,326,807
Dallas Convention Center TX - Dallas / Ft. Worth 1,116,307
The Moscone Center CA - San Francisco 1,037,988
Phoenix Convention Center AZ - Phoenix 1,029,088
George R. Brown Convention Center TX - Houston 1,006,958
Donald E. Stephens Convention Center IL - Chicago 879,000
Jacob K. Javits Convention Center NY - New York 844,780
San Diego Convention Center CA - San Diego 814,035
The Colorado Convention Center CO - Denver 785,403
America's Center MO - St. Louis 781,240
Boston Convention & Exhibition Center MA - Boston 712,799
Tampa Convention Center FL - Tampa 699,643
Henry B. Gonzalez Convention Center TX - San Antonio 691,936
Reno-Sparks Convention Center NV - Reno / Tahoe 656,673
Salt Palace Convention Center UT - Salt Lake City 653,541
Walter E. Washington Convention Center DC - Washington 643,170
Atlantic City Convention Center NJ - Atlantic City 631,856
Miami Beach Convention Center FL - Miami / Ft. Lauderdale 629,830
Kansas City Convention & Entertainment Facilities MO - Kansas City 610,087
Savannah International Trade & Convention Center GA - Savannah 543,742
Indiana Convention Center & RCA Dome IN - Indianapolis 507,030
Greater Columbus Convention Center OH - Columbus 506,149
Oregon Convention Center OR - Portland 490,926
Birmingham-Jefferson Convention Complex AL - Birmingham 485,216
Connecticut Convention Center CT - Hartford 435,395
Cleveland Convention Center OH - Cleveland 431,836
David Lawrence Convention Center PA - Pittsburgh 425,028
Long Beach Convention & Entertainment Center CA - Los Angeles 412,639
Georgia International Convention Center GA - Atlanta 412,477
Charlotte Convention Center NC - Charlotte 404,241
Mississippi Coast Coliseum & Convention Center MS - Biloxi 397,111
Mobile Convention Center AL - Mobile 386,154
Baltimore Convention Center MD - Baltimore 383,352
Carolina First Center SC - Greenville 379,019
Fort Worth Convention Center TX - Dallas / Ft. Worth 374,501
Austin Convention Center TX - Austin 366,893
Hawaii Convention Center HI - Honolulu 363,192
Washington State Convention & Trade Center WA - Seattle 359,881
Spokane Convention Center WA - Spokane 356,870
Palm Beach County Convention Center FL - West Palm Beach 356,162
Greater Fort Lauderdale/Broward County Convention Center FL - Miami / Ft. Lauderdale 324,852
Hot Springs Convention Center AR - Little Rock 314,175
Pennsylvania Convention Center PA - Philadelphia 313,446
Puerto Rico Convention Center PR - San Juan 310,569
Nashville Convention Center TN - Nashville 308,890
San Jose McEnery Convention Center CA - San Francisco 308,495
Duke Energy Convention Center OH - Cincinnati 297,596
Iowa Events Center IA - Des Moines 292,586
Kentucky International Convention Center KY - Louisville 286,162
Memphis Cook Convention Center TN - Memphis 269,556
Cashman Field Center NV - Las Vegas 265,527
Saint Paul Rivercentre MN - Minneapolis / St. Paul 260,100
Greater Richmond Convention Centre VA - Richmond 258,479
Century II Performing Arts & Convention Center KS - Wichita 256,482
John B. Hynes Veterans Memorial Convention Center MA - Boston 256,265
Shreveport Convention Center LA - Shreveport 245,438
Albuquerque Convention Center NM - Albuquerque 242,716
Alliant Energy Center WI - Madison 240,057
Ontario Convention Center CA - Los Angeles 236,389
Santa Clara Convention Center CA - San Francisco 229,807
DeVos Place MI - Grand Rapids 224,207
Tucson Convention Center AZ - Tucson 218,914
Knoxville Convention/Exhibition Center TN - Knoxville 214,018
Anaheim Convention Center CA - Los Angeles 212,710
Ocean Center FL - Orlando 211,560
Raleigh Convention Center NC - Raleigh 211,060
The Virginia Beach Convention Center VA - Norfolk 210,470
Sacramento Convention Center Complex CA - Sacramento 202,690
Oakland Convention Center CA - San Francisco 202,261
Von Braun Center AL - Huntsville 201,804
Cobb Galleria Centre GA - Atlanta 190,182
Prime F Osborn III Convention Center FL - Jacksonville 187,480
American Bank Center Convention Center TX - Corpus Christi 182,758
Oncenter Complex NY - Syracuse 182,321
Columbus, Georgia Convention & Trade Center GA - Columbus 182,232
Hampton Roads Convention Center VA - Norfolk 176,488
Palm Springs Convention Center CA - Los Angeles 174,866
American Bank Center TX - Corpus Christi 170,316
Duluth Entertainment Convention Center MN - Duluth 169,343
Greater Tacoma Convention & Trade Center WA - Seattle 163,785
Rochester Riverside Convention Center NY - Rochester 162,949
Tulsa Convention Center OK - Tulsa 156,694
New Jersey Convention and Exposition Center NJ - Northern New Jersey 154,200
Pasadena Convention Center CA - Los Angeles 150,459
Monona Terrace Community and Convention Center WI - Madison 145,460
Chattanooga Convention Center TN - Chattanooga 143,846
Rhode Island Convention Center RI - Providence 143,789
Gwinnett Center GA - Atlanta 136,377
Statehouse Convention Center AR - Little Rock 136,228
Myrtle Beach Convention Center SC - Myrtle Beach 131,932
M.C. Benton Jr. Convention Center NC - Greensboro 131,751
La Crosse Center WI - La Crosse 128,206
AmericasMart Atlanta GA - Atlanta 127,380
Overland Park Convention Center MO - Kansas City 127,116
Lee Civic Center FL - Fort Myers 124,500
DCU Center MA - Boston 124,180
Charleston Area Convention Center SC - Charleston 117,730
Seattle Center WA - Seattle 114,323
Hopkins County Civic Center TX - Dallas / Ft. Worth 113,902
Amarillo Civic Center TX - Amarillo 113,577
Charleston Civic Center WV - Charleston 112,869
Buffalo Niagara Convention Center NY - Buffalo 112,705
Roland E. Powell Convention Center MD - Salisbury 111,346
Sioux Falls Convention Center SD - Sioux Falls 111,156
Peoria Civic Center IL - Peoria 110,000
The Macon Centreplex Coliseum and Convention Center GA - Macon 109,006
Wildwoods Convention Center NJ - Atlantic City 107,031
Gatlinburg Convention Center TN - Knoxville 106,504
Pasadena Convention Center & Municipal Fairgrounds TX - Houston 105,036
The Stonegate Conference Centre IL - Chicago 104,751
Los Angeles Convention Center CA - Los Angeles 103,405
Dayton Convention Center OH - Dayton 102,225
Bismarck Civic Center ND - Minot 101,882
Mayo Civic Center MN - Rochester 101,115
Dixie Center UT - Salt Lake City 100,879
Minneapolis Convention Center MN - Minneapolis / St. Paul 100,000
Crown Center NC - Charlotte 99,553
Asheville Civic Center SC - Greenville 97,208
Lansing Center MI - Lansing 97,118
Lancaster County Convention Center PA - Harrisburg 95,743
Lubbock Memorial Civic Center TX - Lubbock 95,338
Monroe Civic Center AR - Monroe 94,488
Fresno Convention Center CA - Fresno 93,334
Qwest Center Omaha NE - Omaha 93,303
The Lakeland Center FL - Tampa 92,740
St. Charles Convention Center MO - St. Louis 92,549
Rushmore Plaza Civic Center SD - Rapid City 91,535
Northern Kentucky Convention Center OH - Cincinnati 90,068
Seagate Convention Center OH - Toledo 88,671
McAllen Convention Center TX - Harlingen 87,206
Branson Convention Center MO - Springfield 87,170
Lexington Convention Center KY - Lexington 86,494
Cox Business Services Convention Center OK - Oklahoma City 85,023

Maybe they should because there was one big issue with all of the MAPS I projects, they were all underfunded, and the City had to come back and ask for more money or shift money from one project to another.

Just saying do it right the first time, put together as accurate a cost estimate as possible, include a large contingency for potential unknown problems, issues which may arise, etc............

Arch - have you ever tried to go out and model how much money you are going to need over the next 10 years? Its easier if you work on a salary but city tax revenues are like someone who works on commission, they can vary widely year over year depending on conditions.

Lets be real, I think the city DID put together as accurate a cost estimate as possible and DID include a contingency for potential unknown problems and inflation. It just turned out to be less than they needed. Would you rather have them do this or end up making what they needed a year early and then have a bunch of leftover tax revenue?

Metro
What proof do you have that they were underfunded? Furthermore we were told up front the Ford Center would be built bare bones, but to NBA/NHL standards (of that time), but that if we landed a permanent team we would have to update. What other projects came in under funded?

Again, unknowns and potential problems will always exist with anything. Furthermore, City leaders are also leaving a $17 Million Cushion in this MAPS to cover such problems you state. This cushion was not built into MAPS 1 and it still came out great and propelled our city into a place to live.




Arch - have you ever tried to go out and model how much money you are going to need over the next 10 years? Its easier if you work on a salary but city tax revenues are like someone who works on commission, they can vary widely year over year depending on conditions.

Lets be real, I think the city DID put together as accurate a cost estimate as possible and DID include a contingency for potential unknown problems and inflation. It just turned out to be less than they needed. Would you rather have them do this or end up making what they needed a year early and then have a bunch of leftover tax revenue?


From City of OKC website..
MAPS was funded by a temporary one-cent sales tax approved by city voters in December 1993, and later extended an additional six months. The tax expired on July 1, 1999. During the 66 months it was in effect, over $309 million was collected. In addition, the deposited tax revenue earned about $54 million in interest. That's being used for MAPS construction, too.

The majority of MAPS projects were completed between 1998 and 2000 with the exception of the Arena(2002)and the Library(2004) the wheels were rolling on these projects far before the tax expiration date. The Ballpark came in 7 million over budget at bid, due to a cost estimating error, went back to redesign and 7 million worth of good stuff was cut. The Cox Center was bugeted some 40 odd million and ended up costing 60. The Civic Center was budgeted some 30 odd million and ended up costing 53. The Arena was the only project to come in under budget due to an error in estimating, the contractor stuck to their submitted bid to save face, and what do you get, a bare bones arena as it was put earlier. Now today we are spending 100 million more to improve and enhance the 87.7 million dollar Arena and it still won't stack up to the BOK Center, design wise. Are all or any of these MAPS I projects world class? No

Question is can the City, in general, do a better job with MAPS 3?

Can they do it right, with the numbers they are throwing out there?

I don't know, but hell ya, I would like for there to be a bunch of leftover tax revenue.

...... By necessity, construction spending must be spread out over the time that tax revenues are generated which make construction possible in a multiple project program like MAPS, MAPS for Kids, or MAPS 3.

During Ron Norick's administration, it did become evident toward the end that not enough money would be generated to complete a few final projects, most notably the Ford Center and, unless my memory fails me, the new library and learning center was in that group as well.

As for the city coming back to ask for "more money," as you put it, that did occur but only that one time. Whether to extend the tax for an additional 5 or 6 months (I don't recall which off the top of my head) was the hot topic in the mayoral race when Kirk Humphreys was elected. In his term, the sales tax extension vote carried by a whopping 69% to 31%.

Had the Ford Center project started before the revenue shortfall became evident, and before the half-year extension vote which wound up funded it was done, we'd have something like a skeleton standing there looking rather pitiful had it begun before funding to complete it was available.

Sales tax projections aren't all that precise and the money generated isn't known until after the fact. I agree with Metro that the inclusion of a $17 M contingency cushion into MAPS 3 was a wise decision.

While several other important and contentious issues remain about MAPS 3, elsewhere discussed, I don't think that the one raised here presents a problem at all.


Of course unknowns and problems will arise and contingencies should always be included. But the city has to learn from past experience.

I am all for a new convention center and MAPS 3.............then I look at the Cox Center and think what a waste of planning, time and money to renovate that facility after only what 6 years?

I worked on a MAPS I project, we had to cut alot out of the project and still didn't get it in a limited budget. Could have made the diffrence in being a world class facility. Also worked on a MAPS For Kids project and had to cut 1/3 of the square footage out of the building. The school won't have a gymnasium.

Question: Can Oklahoma City do it right?

so architect, are you saying the City did not learn anything from MAPS 1? are you stating they didnt' put the $17 million cushion into MAPS 3 because they did not learn from the previous MAPS?

Sounds like we're getting too much of Tulsa's mindset here lately.

Disagree, metro. Were the present ballot like the original MAPS ballot, the types of concerns being mentioned wouldn't be occurring. If it true that the city ballot cannot us a logrolling approach (and I do not know whether that's actually so), some are concerned about the absence of teethier safeguards than are present in the overall proposal. Equating those who express their concerns about the methodology used for MAPS 3 as being the equivalent of the "vote no" mentality of some if not most Tulsans is false logic.

Besides that, don't we have an ordinance that says if one Oklahoma City resident describes another Oklahoma City resident as having Tulsa mindset, that such person shall be guilty of slander?

Of course unknowns and problems will arise and contingencies should always be included. But the city has to learn from past experience.

I am all for a new convention center and MAPS 3.............then I look at the Cox Center and think what a waste of planning, time and money to renovate that facility after only what 6 years?

I worked on a MAPS I project, we had to cut alot out of the project and still didn't get it in a limited budget. Could have made the diffrence in being a world class facility. Also worked on a MAPS For Kids project and had to cut 1/3 of the square footage out of the building. The school won't have a gymnasium.

Question: Can Oklahoma City do it right?

The work on the Cox Center was great. I don't know what in the world you are talking about. The Cox Center isn't a place for mass conventions and expositions that need a million square feet of space. There's no room around it for expansion so unless you want to go up, they did what they can do. Its for small and medium sized events or it can handle large arena events. It would be a great complement for a large-exposition center. I'm glad you worked on those projects but they weren't open wallets or checkbooks. There had to be limits put on what was done.

so architect, are you saying the City did not learn anything from MAPS 1? are you stating they didnt' put the $17 million cushion into MAPS 3 because they did not learn from the previous MAPS?

Yes, No

The work on the Cox Center was great. I don't know what in the world you are talking about. The Cox Center isn't a place for mass conventions and expositions that need a million square feet of space. There's no room around it for expansion so unless you want to go up, they did what they can do. Its for small and medium sized events or it can handle large arena events. It would be a great complement for a large-exposition center. I'm glad you worked on those projects but they weren't open wallets or checkbooks. There had to be limits put on what was done.

FYI, a study was commissioned shortly after the Cox Center was completed. The study explored the possibility of taking out the arena and putting in a second level over a ground level in the volume of space which the arena occupies. Don't know what became of that, I'm guessing the cost and talks of future MAPS projects.

As far as limits to spending on projects, additional money was used or raised or whatever to finish some projects. The city had to finish the projects for MAPS I to be a success...........

I feel like its been kind of a surprising benefit to the city to have the luxury of two arenas across the street from each other for things like the Big 12 Basketball. I'm glad they didn't redo the Cox Arena.

I actually think the canal is what we were promised.....just the canal...which is built.

As promised? Not exactly...voters were told the Canal was going to cost $9 million, total cost was $23M ($14M or 155% more).


And the plan for an arena in MAPS 1 was always just a basic, barebones sports arena with enough seating and size for possible use for NBA/NHL at a later date. We were never promised the Taj Mahal of arenas. Not for $80 million. ... We were simply promised a general basic sports arena with seating for around 20,000 folks.

Again, not exactly. I have asked for this many times in other threads but have never received a reply: please show an article WRITTEN AT THE TIME that indicates the Ford was built "bare bones". If by bare bones, you mean that due to the significant cost over runs of the other MAPS projects, things were scaled back some and it was built "builder's white", that is one thing (it was always the City's intent that the tenant for the Ballpark (89ers/Redhawks) and the eventual tenant for the Arena, would pay for the "finishing out" costs of those facilities.

In the MAPS ballot it states that the Arena would meet the standards of the NBA and NHL (doesn't mention just seating capacity standards).

While "Taj Mahal" may not have been specifically mentioned when it went to the voters, he were told since it's opening and in following years, it was the "crown jewel of MAPS" ... "First-rate Facility" ... "a Top-quality Arena" ... "the Premier Project of Maps" ... "Oklahoma City wanted The Best. Now it’s here." ... "the Ford Center is the area’s Premier Entertainment and Sports Complex" ... and finally, the “Ford Center is State of the Art” (This last one isn’t an isolated quote, but a descriptive phrase m entioned by at least 5 different sources).

It was described that way while the Hornets were here and didn't start being called "adequate" and talk of REPLACING the Ford happened right about the time Bennett bought the Sonics. Then it was determined the Ford "needed" $120M in improvements (more than it cost to begin with) to bring it back up to NBA standards. Even though Stern said we didn't necessarily need any improvements to the Ford to land a permanent team. At the time of the vote, the Ford had just turned 5 years old. The Mayor admitted it was all his idea (no one at the NBA said we needed the improvements).

What proof do you have that they were underfunded? Furthermore we were told up front the Ford Center would be built bare bones, but to NBA/NHL standards (of that time), but that if we landed a permanent team we would have to update. What other projects came in under funded? ... City leaders are also leaving a $17 Million Cushion in this MAPS to cover such problems you state. This cushion was not built into MAPS 1 and it still came out great and propelled our city into a place to live.

Please show me an article were we were told "up front" any of what you claim. Everything I have read about it indicates otherwise.

Reportedly only 1 of the 9 MAPS projects came in on time and on budget.

Which projects came in underfunded? The Canal for starters, voters were told $9M, actual cost $23M or $14M more (255%)

Overall, MAPS was nearly 50% more than what voters were told (voters told $238M, actual cost $351M, or $113M more (47.5%). If the $120M Ford/NBA tax is included to "finish" the Ford, MAPS cost is almost double.

$17M sounds like a lot but when you consider the above, is 2.2% of the MAPS 3 budget enough? Unlikely.

I feel like its been kind of a surprising benefit to the city to have the luxury of two arenas across the street from each other for things like the Big 12 Basketball. I'm glad they didn't redo the Cox Arena.

If a new convention center is built I would be in favor of keeping the Cox Arena. What I would like to see is a college or university move to downtown OKC and the Myriad be donated to them providing they keep the arena in-tact and make it available for public/city use like the Big XII tournament. The rest of the building could be turned in to classrooms. Otherwise, it would make a really good location for an intermodal train, trolley, bus station.

I apologize in advance

Some of my posts have been caught up in the new member time warp, believe I have a post coming that may have some math errors in it (misplaced decimals in % figures or something like that), will just have to wait until it shows up and I will make corrections where needed.

Kerry posted the following info:

Convention Centers larger than OKC (ranked by size)

McCormick Place IL - Chicago 2,700,000
Orange County Convention Center FL - Orlando 2,539,559
Las Vegas Convention Center NV - Las Vegas 2,157,235
Georgia World Congress Center GA - Atlanta 1,673,563
New Orleans Morial Convention Center LA - New Orleans 1,508,763
Sands Expo and Convention Center NV - Las Vegas 1,326,807
Dallas Convention Center TX - Dallas / Ft. Worth 1,116,307
The Moscone Center CA - San Francisco 1,037,988
Phoenix Convention Center AZ - Phoenix 1,029,088
George R. Brown Convention Center TX - Houston 1,006,958

and waaaaaayyyyyyy down the list...

Cox Business Services Convention Center OK - Oklahoma City 85,023



WOW. That is staggering to see how far behind we are CURRENTLY (lost count trying to see exactly what number we are). How much farther will we have dropped in 10 years (that's how long the Mayor said it will take before the New Convention Center is open...Chamber said 6 years).

Is the 85,023 number correct? Presume that the numbers given are all the same category: Total Building Space square footage (sf) OR total Sellable Space, OR subdivisions of Prime Exhibit Space, Meeting Space and Ballroom/Multi-use Space.

According to the chart on page 14 of the Convention Center report the Mayor and Chamber have mentioned, the OKC number is close to the "Prime Exhibit Space" figure of 81,500. Looks like the total building space number is skewed by the arena, as it says the Cox currently has 1 million sf (153,600 sf of it "Sellable"). The Sellable number helps the Cox move up some but not a lot.

Are we allowing for growth in those 10 years? Phase 1 (which closely corresponds with the amount reportedly budgeted in MAPS 3) will give OKC 285,000 sf (moves it up significantly but in todays buildings size, not ones 10 years from now). To be competitive with Cities 10 years in the future, you have to be competitive with the buildings that are going to be around then. Hard to imagine them getting bigger than 2.7M sf but after the first million sf one was built, who thought there would be a 1.5M, then 2M? Understand OKC is not trying to be in the same tier as whatever tier the 2M sf ones are in, we are trying to get into the Tier II category (whatever sf range that is).

Unclear if the numbers in the chart for Phase 2 (MAPS 4?) are in addition to the numbers from Phase 1 or a total, so difficult to discuss them (besides, that is probably another 5 to 10 years after the initial 6-10 years).

This is eerily reminiscent of the Ford Center improvements when no growth was planned. After the improvements, seating capacity decreases by 960 seats dropping the Ford from last years NBA arena ranking of #14 all the way down to #28 (and farther down when new, bigger arenas open)

Sorry, but I don't have a direct link, but here is the article that has the link to the report (in the More Info side bar to the left):

NewsOK (http://www.newsok.com/new-cox-convention-center-is-priority-for-oklahoma-city-study-finds/article/3352281)

The above listed cities are almost assuredly always going to have higher convention volume. I understand what you're saying above, Larry, about needing to plan for growth, but I've heard almost everyone complaining about building a convention center....period....much less making it bigger and presumably even more expensive. We'll be lucky to get any convention center passed, much less one in the million square foot range, I'm thinking.

But, we're also shooting for second tier status, not first tier, so I suppose we can hope that square footage will make us competitive for the kind of conventions a city of our size could hope to attract.

betts: to clarify, I am an favor of the Convention Center because it does bring in NEW, mostly out of area/out of state money into the economy and that can only be a good thing. Some of my concerns are spelled out in the above post (allowing for growth), then there are the other issues the Report cited as challenges in order to get to that goal of Tier II status (which aren't being addressed, some the City has control over and some are chicken/egg)

From the Report:

Strengths of the local Oklahoma City market that contribute to the success of a convention center include:
• Downtown/Bricktown Development and nearby visitor amenities.
• A highly unique and authentic Western and Native American heritage and attraction base.
• Recent attraction of the Oklahoma City Thunder NBA franchise.
• Large local corporate and government base.
• Affordable cost structure.
• Supply of visitor attractions, events and other amenities.

Some challenges facing the Oklahoma City market as they relate to functioning as a convention destination include:
• Building the brand awareness of Oklahoma City as a convention destination.
• Challenges due to the size and quality of the existing Cox Business Services Convention Center.
• Limited air accessibility.
• Limited supply of convention-quality hotel properties.

... The Cox Center was bugeted some 40 odd million and ended up costing 60. The Civic Center was budgeted some 30 odd million and ended up costing 53. The Arena was the only project to come in under budget...

Hi,

Interesting article (Cost Hike Warning on MAPS) that ran in the Journal Record back in 1995:

Cost Hike Warning on MAPS | Journal Record, The (Oklahoma City) | Find Articles at BNET (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4182/is_19950211/ai_n10074270/)

Do you happen to have any links on those? (Please say yes) I have been piecing together the “voters told” amount for MAPS and haven’t been able to locate specific numbers for the Cox and the Fairgrounds (final numbers were all available from the City’s website). Also, the number I found for the Civic Center indicated $45.6M (instead of an even lower $30M).

According to the various articles I have located, it looks like only the Oklahoma River improvements came in on budget all of the the rest of the projects were well over (ranging from 116% for the Civic Center to 255% for the Canal) I HATE PERCENTAGES-one minute I look at them, and they seem right, the next, not so much ... but I know the math works out correctly that the Canal was 1.16 times more and the Civic Center was 2.55 times more...LOL.

The Ford is more complex, originally voters were told $64.8M and it was built for $87.7M ($22.9M or 1.35 times more). One article in the Journal Record from 1998 indicated that the estimates had increased to $94.5M and that may be what you are talking about, that they got it back down to the $87.7M amount.

Any assistance is appreciated!

One of the advantages of building south of Reno is that space is not so tight, and at least initially, perhaps land will not be as expensive as it would be in the CBD. If I were the city, I'd purchase land adjacent to the planned Convention Center, for potential expansion if it's needed. Although I know the word "parking" is anathema, that land could be cleared and used for parking initially.

FYI, a study was commissioned shortly after the Cox Center was completed. The study explored the possibility of taking out the arena and putting in a second level over a ground level in the volume of space which the arena occupies. Don't know what became of that, I'm guessing the cost and talks of future MAPS projects.
.

That was the original plan for after the Ford Center was completed. But then they discovered how valuable it was to have that second arena next door.

One of the advantages of building south of Reno is that space is not so tight, and at least initially, perhaps land will not be as expensive as it would be in the CBD. If I were the city, I'd purchase land adjacent to the planned Convention Center, for potential expansion if it's needed. Although I know the word "parking" is anathema, that land could be cleared and used for parking initially.

Hi Betts,

Since the proposed amount for the Convention Center is "Phase 1", hopefully that is what the City is planning on doing. The City has already spent close to $6M buying property and has $26M authorized from the 2007 G.O. bond issue (that means we are already $26M in MAPS 3 debt and it hasn't even been voted on) LOL

In addition to the $60M in improvements with MAPS, "$6.6 million, were made to the Cox Business Services Convention Center in preparation for the 2007 Big 12 Women's Basketball Tournament."

List of those improvements are at the City's website:

City of Oklahoma City (http://www.okc.gov/MAPS/cox_center/improvements_2007.html)

The City has also committed to make some improvements that sound similar to those being done to the Ford. No mention of who will pay for them or where the money will come from (could be coming from MAPS 3 since they would easily fit the generic description of "Capital Improvement" in the Ordinance). Article says more details will come but haven't seen anything yet.

NewsOK (http://www.newsok.com/upgrades-for-cox-center/article/3383203)

Some of the more expensive sounding upgrades include:
• Renovation of the Cox Center’s ice-making system
• Upgrade to locker rooms
• Addition of a team store and team storage on the east side of the Cox Center
• Loge boxes and lower concourse VIP club
• Upper concourse season ticket holders club
• Addition of a game day party deck at a location to be determined
• Improvements to meeting rooms

Larry, you have to remember that a lot of the cost increase was due to an increase in construction costs. There was a national building boom happening during the late 1990s. The sharpest increases were in concrete and steel.

You have to remember the specifics. You also have to remember that the original MAPS tax extension that lasted six months covered those cost overruns. You also have to remember that a number of design changes were made to keep the projects within budget. For instance, the canal's depth was reduced to 4 feet from the original 16 feet. The canopy over the ballpark was simplified, as the original was much more elaborate.

Amenities were taken away from the Ford Center to meet budget constraints. Like I said, you have to remember the specifics.

Larry, you have to remember that a lot of the cost increase was due to an increase in construction costs. There was a national building boom happening during the late 1990s. The sharpest increases were in concrete and steel.

And history has an annoying way of repeating itself. They didn't plan for this the 1st time around. Are they planning for it again? With MAPS being 47% over what voters were told and a City website (The City of Oklahoma City - 2007 City Bond Election (http://www.okc.gov/bonds2007/QuestionsAndAnswers.aspx)) I just read indicates that 8.3% is budgeted in for just such things, why is MAPS 3 only budgeting 2.2% ($17M)??

Right now construction costs are cheaper but that won't always be the case (just like sales tax revenue is down from projections, but the City expects it to come back up again and are planning on $100M/year average). They think the sales tax collections will return to normal, but construction costs won't??

Construction costs are certainly a factor, don't contest that at all. Did you read the Journal Record link? Apparently the amount was low-balled and other cost factors (that were known) were not included (not uncommon, if they include the real costs, it makes it a much harder sell, and less likely to pass). Have to remember the specifics that MAPS almost didn't pass (54%) due largely to the most recent fiasco, the County Jail (which now is going to cost about 8 times what it originally cost to fix/replace it).


You have to remember the specifics. You also have to remember that the original MAPS tax extension that lasted six months covered those cost overruns. You also have to remember that a number of design changes were made to keep the projects within budget. For instance, the canal's depth was reduced to 4 feet from the original 16 feet. The canopy over the ballpark was simplified, as the original was much more elaborate.

Amenities were taken away from the Ford Center to meet budget constraints. Like I said, you have to remember the specifics.

Wow. How did a 6 month extension "covered those cost overruns"? When all said and done, MAPS was 47% over. A 6 month extension raised enough money to cover the overruns from the previous 5 years (and the overruns from the Arena)? Please explain the math on that.

The design changes didn't "keep the projects within budget" did they? Again, when MAPS was said and done, it was 47% over what voters were told. What those design cuts did accomplish, was keeping it from going over even further. Just imagine how expensive the Canal would have been if it had been 16 feet deep! It was the project that had the highest percentage increase (voters told $9M, actual cost of $23M or 2.55 times more). Or the Ballpark, even with the cuts you mentioned, it was till significantly over. Voters told $23.7M, actual cost of $34M (+ $10.3M) or 1.43 times more

Then there is the matter of them coming back to the voters for an extension of some sort (just as you correctly point out was done with MAPS) to "finish MAPS right". Unfortunately, we found out a few short years later that wasn't exactly the case either (another $120M for Ford improvements for many of the amenities cut originally). But then again, according to an article written at the time, it was the City's plan for the eventual tenant (the Thunder) to pay for any "finishing out" costs or amenities that the team might want. But instead of having the tenant pay for those, they convinced enough of the taxpayers to pick up the tab for the Millionaire and Billionaire owners.

While I am IN FAVOR of most, if not all of the MAPS 3 projects, the above definitely should give everyone cause for concern.

The way I look at it is: If it costs more, it's because it costs more. It happens. "You get what you pay for" is an aphorism because it's true. If it costs more to finish the MAPS projects than the $17 million put back for just such a thing, then, at that time, the voters will have to decide whether to extend it or not. It's very difficult to estimate both what construction costs will be over the next 7 years (how many of us anticipated our current economic climate?) and how much tax will actually be collected. So, the city does the best it can, and if it's wrong we'll all have to decide how to deal with it.

Perhaps the city did hope that any new tenants would pay for the needed improvements of the Ford Center. They probably didn't anticipate that the new tenants would have to spend $350 million to buy a team and an additional $75 million to move them. Stuff happens. Regardless, the city did precisely what they should have done in that situation: They went to the citizens of the city and asked them if they wanted to fund the additional improvements. Voters made the choice. The same thing should be true if the MAPS projects cost more than anticipated and again, voters will have a choice.