Thee has been a lot of talk that the voters wishes need to be heard and we need to follow through with the announced list of MAPS 3 Projects. My question is, can you reconcile those two statements when the scientific polling and the Chambers own polling never showed the Convention Center receiving the 50% mark? Should the Convention Center be scrapped completely and use the $250M for Streetcars (the most popular polling project)? Thoughts?

Isn't there already one?

Thee has been a lot of talk that the voters wishes need to be heard and we need to follow through with the announced list of MAPS 3 Projects. My question is, can you reconcile those two statements when the scientific polling and the Chambers own polling never showed the Convention Center receiving the 50% mark? Should the Convention Center be scrapped completely and use the $250M for Streetcars (the most popular polling project)? Thoughts?

My thoughts are no. We would also never have had the new arena or the Bricktown Canal if that line of thought was followed and each item had to be approved separately.

Voters were willing to compromise on the convention center. That's what MAPS is, a compromise for progress.

I don't like fairground improvements or senior aquatic centers but I'm willing to support it if they'll support things I want.

we badly need a new convention center .. so yes it should be built

Thee has been a lot of talk that the voters wishes need to be heard and we need to follow through with the announced list of MAPS 3 Projects. My question is, can you reconcile those two statements when the scientific polling and the Chambers own polling never showed the Convention Center receiving the 50% mark? Should the Convention Center be scrapped completely and use the $250M for Streetcars (the most popular polling project)? Thoughts?
We will get a much higher ROI on a new convention center than we ever will on streetcars.

We will get a much higher ROI on a new convention center than we ever will on streetcars.

i don't think that is totally the truth .. street cars will give something like 10 -1 private to public investment .. if we are only half of that .. we will see (with the federal funds) 1billion in private investment along the line .... then you start talking about the sales and pay roll tax from the new business ect and it will be a huge windfall ..

i don't think that is totally the truth .. street cars will give something like 10 -1 private to public investment .. if we are only half of that .. we will see (with the federal funds) 1billion in private investment along the line .... then you start talking about the sales and pay roll tax from the new business ect and it will be a huge windfall ..
I still put my money on the convention center having a better ROI ... I think some people are wishfully overestimating the projected ridership and success of the streetcars ...

Case studies show every time that streetcar has more impact. The problem with convention centers is that everyone is building them bigger and better, and it's a rat race to an extent. We have to do it if we want to DEFEND our convention business, let alone get ahead, I hope we can accomplish both.

Another problem with RETURN on investment (let me stress the 'R' in ROI) is that we're spending $280M on the convention center and only $120M on modern streetcar, so less than half. I would imagine the streetcar will be a greater economic catalyst simply for the fact that transit doesn't really exist to begin with in OKC, so it's a new product. We have not had TOD in 50-60 years. Actually, if we're talking about the development, we probably haven't had that in 70-80 years. Needless to say, a blank slate.

But even if the streetcar doesn't pump more into the economy, I don't think there can be any doubt we'll get more bang for those bucks. I'm a proponent of both, and I would just say these sorts of things work best when convention center and transit proponents don't attack each other. And trust me, the argument for transit is a lot stronger than the argument for a convention center. Let's just all get along here, and keep moving OKC forward...

Who's attacking anyone? I'm expressing an opinion.

I respect your viewpoint, I just disagree with your conclusion.

We will get a much higher ROI on a new convention center than we ever will on streetcars.

Most convention centers are major money losers, but that's not necessarily why we build them (to make money).

And the Chamber of COMMERCE is a non-profit. Gotta love it!

I hate to sound superficial, but our convention center is ugly. I wouldn't want to go to a convention there. That's my best reason for building a new one, especially after I saw the Qwest Center in Omaha and experienced convention center envy. I've never really paid attention to conventions or their finances. It seems to me that conventions would bring in visitors and that's good for our hotels and restaurants. If we had retail downtown it would be good for that too, I think. But, that's an uneducated opinion. I've never missed my MAPS pennies, so I'm fine with building a new one, even though it's just above the fairgrounds improvments at the bottom of my MAPS wishlist.

Intangible reasons are always good reasons, betts. I think aesthetic improvement is a very valid concern with the convention center..

... I would imagine the streetcar will be a greater economic catalyst simply for the fact that transit doesn't really exist to begin with in OKC, so it's a new product. We have not had TOD in 50-60 years. Actually, if we're talking about the development, we probably haven't had that in 70-80 years. Needless to say, a blank slate...

Memorial Road is full of TOD.

I hate to sound superficial, but our convention center is ugly. I wouldn't want to go to a convention there. That's my best reason for building a new one, especially after I saw the Qwest Center in Omaha and experienced convention center envy. I've never really paid attention to conventions or their finances. It seems to me that conventions would bring in visitors and that's good for our hotels and restaurants. If we had retail downtown it would be good for that too, I think. But, that's an uneducated opinion. I've never missed my MAPS pennies, so I'm fine with building a new one, even though it's just above the fairgrounds improvments at the bottom of my MAPS wishlist.

I agree... the Quest Center is an impressive place, I've been there several times.

Really, who from out of town would want to come to a convention at the Cox Center? We badly need a decent convention center, even if just average.

According to one article the Chamber said convention requests by planners etc was up by 80% (just a month after stating we were slowly going out of the convention business).

According to one article the Chamber said convention requests by planners etc was up by 80% (just a month after stating we were slowly going out of the convention business).
Both things can easily be true of course although I surmise you believe one must disallow the other.

Really, who from out of town would want to come to a convention at the Cox Center? We badly need a decent convention center, even if just average.

Perhaps I am mistaken, but my limited recall is that there are a number of groups who do annually frequent return. Not saying OKC couldn't use a larger and better cc, but the existing cc doesn't appear to be sitting around empty and neglected.

Both things can easily be true of course although I surmise you believe one must disallow the other.
It was in response to the question of why anyone would want to have a convention in the Cox. But I understand what you are saying, even if on the surface they seem to be contradictory



Perhaps I am mistaken, but my limited recall is that there are a number of groups who do annually frequent return. Not saying OKC couldn't use a larger and better cc, but the existing cc doesn't appear to be sitting around empty and neglected.
Although it does have an operational loss of something like $3M/year and sits empty a good number of days per year (about a third of the time...don't have the exact number handy but I posted it recently to a question Kerry asked about it.)

Course the thinking is that the less than capacity booking is due to the limitations of the Cox (ceiling heights, floor space etc).

Not arguing it either way, just putting what they have said out there.

Memorial Road is full of TOD.

Ok....

Ok....

I think he's exercising irony...

If you've ever been to a show at the Cox "convention" center, then you know how bad it is. Now, I'll give them credit for making it a million times better than the Myriad's couple of rooms were. But it's pathetic....and small. The "Grand" Ballroom is a joke and there is absolutely zero expo room there. If you want to be able to host a tradeshow, you need tons of open floorspace, which we do not have. But remember, the convention center part of the Myriad is an afterthought. It's an addition from Maps that pushed out as far as the building could go. So with what they had to work with, it really did make a marked improvement. In comparison to other cities though, it's crap. There are countless smaller cities with larger and better facilities....heck we can't even get a good wifi from a center with Cox's name on it...lol.

And all the non-tangible benefits a GOOD convention center can bring are priceless. A bad one can have the opposite effect. It's just like the NBA being here. The more people talk about your town in a GOOD light, the more your name is out there and brought up in places that it never would have before. Good exposure can bring great things. All that outside money for food and hotels for all those visitors....ca-ching!

3 reasons why yes:

1) The policy behind it should be considered moot. The voters have spoken loud and clear, even on referendum votes for city council. MAPS was sold as a collection of public works, and we the public expect our city's leadership to come through with what we voted for. I don't care about the polling, the actual voting has always shown a great support for MAPS. I fear that if our leadership does not follow through that the MAPS brand could be dead or severely tarnished.

2) (really 1.5) as Ward 2 Candidate, Dr. Ed Shadid said, MAPS is a bond with the voters. It is sacred.

3) We actually need it.

Personally, I believe some of the negativity towards the convention center and a reason for the 50% poll number previously cited may lie in the fact that most local citizens wouldn't actually use or frequent the facility for any reason. On the other hand, streetcars can and could be used by anyone...citizens and visitors alike. With that said, I can assure you that "bombermwc" is 100% accurate in the assessment of the Cox/Myriad Convention Center being below average, especially for a city of our size. And with a larger and more modern facility in its place, the number and quality of trade shows would increase significantly. What many do not realize is that quality trade shows bring in thousands of out-of-town business visitors a year. It's a boon to the local hotel and restaurant industry as almost every one of these people who are from out of town will dine out several times and lodge in a hotel while in OKC.

So while streetcars would be nice, I can't see how they could ever generate more revenue for the local economy than thousands of out-of-town business people staying for a few days with corporate expense accounts at their disposal.

Do you want a thriving downtown? If not,then I would say no new convention center is needed. So if you want to go back to the 70s era then lets can the idea of a new CC.

If you want a modern 21st century city then I would say of course we need a new convention center. The cox would be fine for a city the size of Wichita KS. but if OKC wants to become a legit tier II city then you have to pay to play.

Yup....and we need to make sure that there is a LARGE CONTIGUOUS space in there as well. We need something capable of handling a real tradeshow. Not just the little crap we squeeze in a bunch of buildings right now. We need something at least the size of expo square here in OKC...and we just don't have it....CC or Fairgrounds, but preferably CC.

I've mentioned this before. One of my friends, who is in the audio business and is a regular trade show attender, says the area south of the Ford Center is his favorite option for precisely the reasons you're listing, bombermwc. He says that were we to want to host a bigger show, being able to spill over into the Ford Center or even, if necessary, into the Cox would be a big selling point. It's something I'd never considered when thinking about a convention center. But, I go to conventions so rarely that I don't really have any reasons to think one site is better than another for any reason.

Yup....and we need to make sure that there is a LARGE CONTIGUOUS space in there as well. We need something capable of handling a real tradeshow. Not just the little crap we squeeze in a bunch of buildings right now. We need something at least the size of expo square here in OKC...and we just don't have it....CC or Fairgrounds, but preferably CC.

Aren't we supposed to be getting that with the MAPS 3 Fairgrounds improvements? Sounded like the building was going to be roughly the same sf as the convention center? The point was brought up, why do we need 2 large convention like spaces...the answer was they are different target markets or something like that.

I believe the expo center was only part of the fairgrounds vote that got snubbed a few years ago. I don't think it got included in Maps....there were other smaller projects.

Aren't we supposed to be getting that with the MAPS 3 Fairgrounds improvements? Sounded like the building was going to be roughly the same sf as the convention center? The point was brought up, why do we need 2 large convention like spaces...the answer was they are different target markets or something like that.

The target market for events at the fairgrounds seems to be things that are more oriented to the local general public such as auto shows, Affair of the Heart, etc. It's not really for convention gatherers.

bomber: went back and looked at the info and it is a large Expo Cener that is replacing the many old/small separate buildings.

ljbab: you are correct and while I can see not wanting convention center goers to be at the Fairgrounds (besides being so far away from Bricktown etc), why not put the "local" stuff in the convention center? I know there would be objections from the folks on Meridian (as they pushed for the convention center to be relocated in the original MAPS). Large building is a large building (where things can be held under one roof), why duplicate efforts? Seems not to be the best use of limited resources??

bomber: went back and looked at the info and it is a large Expo Cener that is replacing the many old/small separate buildings.

ljbab: you are correct and while I can see not wanting convention center goers to be at the Fairgrounds (besides being so far away from Bricktown etc), why not put the "local" stuff in the convention center? I know there would be objections from the folks on Meridian (as they pushed for the convention center to be relocated in the original MAPS). Large building is a large building (where things can be held under one roof), why duplicate efforts? Seems not to be the best use of limited resources??

There certainly are some local events that have been held downtown such as RV shows and Home and Garden Shows. However, I think they probably figure that since most of the attendees are local they will want to drive and the parking and access is much easier at the fairgrounds which would result in higher attendance. There would be some things, such as those in connection with horse shows, that would have to be at the fairgrounds. Having larger exhibit areas also is a great plus during the state fair.

Ran across this re: MAPS 3 and the $60M Fairgrounds improvements (think it was from Channel 4)...


Leaky roofs are just one of the reason Oklahoma State Fair officials said they would like to see some of the aging buildings consolidated for a new more than 400,000 square foot exposition hall as part of the city's MAPS 3 proposal.

If we can build a 400,000 sf hall for $60M, what about the convention center is going to cost $250M (4 times as much)? Yes they already have the land for the Fairgrounds so that is part of it, but the sf for the Convention Center is only a little bigger @ total 570 sf but less than 300 sf of exhibit space for Phase 1

Ran across this re: MAPS 3 and the $60M Fairgrounds improvements (think it was from Channel 4)...


If we can build a 400,000 sf hall for $60M, what about the convention center is going to cost $250M (4 times as much)? Yes they already have the land for the Fairgrounds so that is part of it, but the sf for the Convention Center is only a little bigger @ total 570 sf but less than 300 sf of exhibit space for Phase 1
Because the plans for the fairgrounds expo hall is VERY bare bones...

Do we know that for a fact? Not saying you aren't correct but have the building plans been drawn up/finalized? So we are going to spend another $60M for the Fairgrounds and just have it be "VERY bare bones"? What happened to "world class" and similar phrases used during the MAPS 3 campaign? I am expecting EVERY MAPS 3 project to blow my socks off. I am taking the Mayor at his word that we will be holding the City to a very high standard with this round of MAPS. No more of this "as long as it isn't crappy, we're happy" stuff.

Do we know that for a fact? Not saying you aren't correct but have the building plans been drawn up/finalized? So we are going to spend another $60M for the Fairgrounds and just have it be "VERY bare bones"? What happened to "world class" and similar phrases used during the MAPS 3 campaign? I am expecting EVERY MAPS 3 project to blow my socks off. I am taking the Mayor at his word that we will be holding the City to a very high standard with this round of MAPS. No more of this "as long as it isn't crappy, we're happy" stuff.

Preliminary plans were on display during the State Fair. By bare bones, it means typical Fair type buildings, concrete floors, basic concession areas, restrooms, etc;, nice and new but without the "frills". Convention space on the other hand contains "frills and lace".

Expo Centers are almost always bare bones....they aren't arenas. They are metal structures with large expanses....pretty isn't their goal, functionality is. A great comparison is to look at Expo Square in Tulsa....exact same thing. Concrete flooring, exposed metal structure, not much more than a metal skin wall/roof. The goal is the large contiguous space....you can throw dirt down one day, put in temporary bleachers, and have a rodeo....then clear it out and have a tradeshow. You'd see things like the auto show in one building instead of 3. $60M actually seems a bit high to me, so maybe they're going to do a bit more than bare bones. But don't expect to see things like sheetrock in this building. Quite the opposite of a plush convention center....but no less neccessary.