Feel the same way as the design falls in line with the surrounding structures. The hotel has already spurred a potential $150 million for a new hotel development that could attract conventions that will help all downtown hotels.

We need to come up with the $85.4 million in subsides to cash in on this investment.

Based on the percentage that Louisville, Denver, Dallas & Nashville are contributing in subsidies (47% - 51% range), OKC is getting a very good deal at 36% of the project cost.

In my mind, that's what the economic side of MAPS should be. I'm all for the quality of life improvements like the ballpark and hiking trails. But when we're doing something for purely economic reasons, we should aim to get the biggest bang for our buck. The Chesapeake Arena was a steal for the amount we paid to build it. We should be looking to get the best return on investment that we can.

^^^^^^^^^^
This is another reason why OKC puts such a high priority on convention and fairgrounds business. As an individual it is tempting to say "but what about me..?" - despite the fact that many/most of the MAPS projects HAVE added quality of life benefits for the average citizen - but as Cathy points out in the opinion piece above, projects like these generate direct income for the City, which has a sales tax based economy. So the things that WE want - infrastructure, streets, public safety - are much easier to pull off when people from outside the city are helping us pay for it. They are coming here and dumping their money into our economy, adding jobs, paying sales tax...and then LEAVING.

Not to mention, when industry leaders and investors travel here for business, conferences, etc., it puts them front and center in a city experiencing a pretty remarkable renaissance. Otherwise, they would not be here. Those people are the ones who make decisions on relocations, expansions, investment. And we need for them to come here and EXPERIENCE OUR CITY.

The impact is honestly pretty difficult to quantify. I know it's easy to criticize some blue-sky Chamber or consultant projections, but honestly I think the economic return on whatever we are spending for this hotel - and the connected convention center, is going to pretty dramatically eclipse our investment. Call me a booster I suppose, but it is something I DO believe.

^^^^^

Well said as usual, 100% agree.

Interesting read about TRT Holdings, which is the private holding company that owns Omni: http://www.dallasnews.com/business/business/2016/04/19/omni-owner-thankful-1996-bid-to-diversify-led-to-hotel-purchase

And to add to everything Urbanized has said, this particular type of full-service hotel will offer things like restaurants, bars and meeting rooms that the locals can enjoy too, particularly in this case because of it's relation to the park.

I would be much more conflicted about all this public money if this hotel was being built on the REHCO land (which is going to get something great anyway) and not in Core to Shore, where as it is, this project should really help the park and be a catalyst for private development. Feel the same way about the cc in general.

I'm pretty pleased how this has all turned out, bumps and twists aside.

Anyone care to reconcile the recommendation from the consultant for 750 rooms to the 600 we're being offered? It would seem that if there is an industry standard equation to derive number of rooms from anticipated attendance (based on size of the convention facility, I presume), the offering would be much closer to the recommendation.

Again, the recommendation wasn't a full feasibility study, it was a market study to analyze the feasibility of a convention center hotel downtown.


Texas consultant Jeremy Stone, hired by The Alliance for the Economic Development of Oklahoma City, told the council his research shows the city can support a 735-room, $200 million conference hotel as part of development of a $250 million convention center south of the Myriad Gardens.

http://newsok.com/article/3915573

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/cchotelstudy.pdf

We'll get no less than a 600 room convention center hotel.

IMO, they should have hired a consultant to do a full feasibility study (with five year projections) to look at financing & projections for the 735 rooms suggested by Jeremy Stone.

Wouldn't be surprised if Omni doesn't attempt to add a resident piece to the convention center hotel as they did with Louisville.

If the city could come up with $90 - $100 million in subsidies, anything is possible--let's see if we can secure the $85.4 million first. Biggest drawback at this point is the badly needed parking garage to support the convention center & hotel.

I would love to see the botel combined with apartments. What a great location and view!

Condos on top would be awesome and could take advantage of the parking, services and pool.

The Lost Ogle posted a clip of Ed Shadid's stinging comments about how all this has been handled:

http://www.thelostogle.com/2016/09/28/the-oklahoman-wants-us-to-chip-in-85-4-million-for-a-convention-center-hotel/

With no real high-rise condo stock to compare, I understand why the component is a long shot for this project.

It just sucks that we all *know* that some condos will work out when it's finally done, we just need someone to step out and take the "risk".

The Lost Ogle posted a clip of Ed Shadid's stinging comments about how all this has been handled:

http://www.thelostogle.com/2016/09/28/the-oklahoman-wants-us-to-chip-in-85-4-million-for-a-convention-center-hotel/

Yawn, I won't even watch. The guy has zero political capital remaining in this city, and doesn't give a damn about working with anyone but himself. He can't see the forest for the trees.

The Lost Ogle posted a clip of Ed Shadid's stinging comments about how all this has been handled:

http://www.thelostogle.com/2016/09/28/the-oklahoman-wants-us-to-chip-in-85-4-million-for-a-convention-center-hotel/

Jeeze.. this just highlights how no one at TLO had any idea how economic development works...


So, the taxes the hotel generates will go directly back to the hotel, as opposed to funding police, fireman, schools, libraries, etc. That’s a pretty cool deal, especially if you own the hotel!

Um, yes. It's good when economic development projects pay for themselves. You know what will go to funding police, firemen, schools, libraries, etc? The revenues generated by CONVENTIONS YOU FING MORONS... (deep breath).

A convention of just 2k+ attendees can have an economic impact on a community of over a 1/4 of a million dollars or more. This convention center and an attached hotel brings the potential for many such conventions, and ones that are much larger. Downtown OKC is WAY below the needed number of rooms for events. We moved SoonerCon out of OKC for this very reason, and we were only a 1200 attendee event at the time. We just couldn't get the rooms. It's funny, because the downtown Sheraton has been trying to lure us back. They told me "we added a new ball room and updated the lounge and lobby". My reply? Did you add 5 new floors of rooms to your hotel, because otherwise....

I didn't read the article, but the only way you can listen to what Shadid is saying and not be sympathetic to his frustrations is if you believe that the citizens are dumb enough to pass on an opportunity for growth because it costs too much up front.

To be honest, I'm not entirely sure I myself don't see it that way, but that's why PR is a major business in the US and something that we need to do a better job of. Perhaps the constituency has some flaws in their thinking that can hold back the overall trajectory of the city, but that fear needs to be dealt with professionally instead of taking the easy/arrogant way out by not involving the public at all.

I read the ogle a few times a few years ago..... enough said.

I'm a regular TLO reader... Their articles are all supposed to be satirical - and most of them are funny to some degree. Unfortunately, sometimes they miss the mark when it comes to topics like this. It's more like a blog and not really a news site, tbh. Maybe someone needs to make an intelligent comment on their article explaining why the CC is a net positive for OKC? Not saying everything surrounding it has been handled in the best way, but still.

In the interest of fairness, anyone who watches Ed's statement should also let the video roll beyond that and hear the Mayor's questions of Cathy and her responses.

I'm a regular TLO reader... Their articles are all supposed to be satirical - and most of them are funny to some degree. Unfortunately, sometimes they miss the mark when it comes to topics like this. It's more like a blog and not really a news site, tbh. Maybe someone needs to make an intelligent comment on their article explaining why the CC is a net positive for OKC? Not saying everything surrounding it has been handled in the best way, but still.

I would, but any time I've tried to make a reasonable comment on one of their articles disagreeing with them, it amazingly disappears. Like spitting in the wind, and not worth the effort.

I'm a regular TLO reader... Their articles are all supposed to be satirical

I don't think this is lost on anyone.

There is good satire and there is bad satire. There is good comedy and bad comedy. There is clever smarm and non-clever smarm.

In the interest of fairness, anyone who watches Ed's statement should also let the video roll beyond that and hear the Mayor's questions of Cathy and her responses.

Fairness toward what exactly? If the justification for informing the public the least amount possible on a $85M+ project is "because we did this before with another project that has some similarities", then, in fairness, the reasoning is a large pile of crap.

I'm saying this as a person who is 100% in favor of the subsidy for the hotel (would even be fine with a higher subsidy - within reason) and who believes we're making a wise investment. Given that we all know that Shadid is on the record as being anti-hotel, I understand why everyone is dismissing his thoughts w/o even listening to them...but in that particular clip, there's nothing he says that is anything other than fair. If the city can't figure out how to sell the project to the citizens, then we are clearly lacking understanding of the matter within the city.

However, given your specific adeptness (as an observer) at explaining why we *need* to subsidize the hotel, I'm confident that lack of understanding is not the issue. Expediency, however, is. Is expediency in this case understandable? Yes. Acceptable? Less and less so for a city that intends to improve its position in the world.

I'm saying that Ed's comments were linked with the intention that they be listened to, and as long as someone listens to those comments it is only fair to also listen to the comments that came after, for perspective. Nothing more, nothing less. I'm not a fan of forming opinion in a vacuum.

We elect the 9 members of the council to make decisions for the city and they approve over a billions dollars a year in funds.

Every time the city spends money. It doesn't need a public vote.

That is what the council is for. So to say we should ask the citizens to vote on it is disenginuis

We elect the 9 members of the council to make decisions for the city and they approve over a billions dollars a year in funds.

Every time the city spends money. It doesn't need a public vote.

That is what the council is for. So to say we should ask the citizens to vote on it is disenginuis

At no point did Shadid actually say "we need to bring all spending to a vote". But if the city approves $1.2B in expenditures, I think spending between 7% and 10% of that budget on a single project probably deserves some amount of public input. Or, is it your honest opinion that an $85M+ project merits nearly zero public dialogue?

Just to clarify, my understanding is that to even approach the needed $85MM they will try to raise both the hotel/motel and rental car taxes.

Both of those things would require a vote of the people.

At no point did Shadid actually say "we need to bring all spending to a vote". But if the city approves $1.2B in expenditures, I think spending between 7% and 10% of that budget on a single project probably deserves some amount of public input. Or, is it your honest opinion that an $85M+ project merits nearly zero public dialogue?

All items before council have (or allow) public input. And this is no different

And the reality is the 1.2 billion is per year. This 85 mil will be over a term of 15-30 years. So more like 1% or less

With no real high-rise condo stock to compare, I understand why the component is a long shot for this project.

It just sucks that we all *know* that some condos will work out when it's finally done, we just need someone to step out and take the "risk".

They have a chance to do something special here. Spend a little more and do it right. Build about 750 rooms and some upscale condos atop and give us a 30 story jewel. In the long run what's the difference between 85-125 mil? It will pay for itself.

The City values the importance of public input; however, what's the point of elected officials if you're going to allow public input to micro-manage specific projects once you've selected a developer to move forward.

Remember when Mayor Ron Norick crafted the original MAPS, had he solicited public input they would have never gotten the initiative on the ballot.

Sometimes, you have to take a small group of representatives and hash these things out or you will never get anything accomplished.

We've elected these representatives to do the job they were elected to do. Allow this process to play out.

They have a chance to do something special here. Spend a little more and do it right. Build about 750 rooms and some upscale condos atop and give us a 30 story jewel. In the long run what's the difference between 85-125 mil? It will pay for itself.
If we were a city in Texas, I would feel confident what you have proposed would for sure happen. Oklahoma, unfortunately, not happening.

After reading Steve's latest article re the convention center hotel, the designs are not final. The public will have a chance to provide input in regards to the design.

http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-seeks-to-reduce-its-cost-for-omni-convention-center-hotel/article/5520515

"O'Connor also expects a series of open house meetings with the community will be hosted by Omni as it begins to advance design from what so far has been a series of conceptual drawings aimed at determining a reliable cost estimate."

^^^^^^^
Lots of questions being asked in this thread are addressed in that article. It's worth reading.

In other words, every poster that complained about the design or height of this project, needs to make these first meetings and voice your opinion (if logistically possible). If you can but don't, then you should refrain from complaining about these issues because you did nothing to make your point heard. Just my opinion.

An opportunity to meet with Omni representatives:

This is an opportunity for citizens to have input into the process. So, if you want more high with mixed-use (like Louisville), more color (like Dallas) and more rooms (like Nashville); this is your opportunity to provide input.


The assistance requested by Omni represents 36 percent of the cost, compared to the 39 percent provided by the city for the redevelopment of the Skirvin Hilton Hotel. Public participation in similar convention-tier cities includes 47 percent for the Omni Nashville, 43 percent for the Omni Fort Worth and 40 percent for the Omni Louisville.

OKC's investment (thru subsidies) will dictate what kind of hotel we will get. Will the new conference hotel benefit other hotels in the core?


Designs are another major consideration in the upcoming negotiations...

...Andrew Casperson, vice president of Omni, cautioned against looking at any other Omni hotels for a hint at the ultimate design for the Oklahoma City Omni.

“We refuse to treat a building as a one-size-fits-all solution,” Casperson said. “When we get to creating a hotel, this hotel will be the focal point of the city in the design, decor, culinary experience. We will make it reflective of the city we will be part of.

How much will adding height & more rooms and a residential piece to the new hotel cost in subsidies; will Omni match the City dollar for dollar or will that 36% proportion remain the same?


O'Connor has tracked and tried to learn from hotel deals elsewhere, and concludes one mistake not being repeated by Oklahoma City is the decision by Baltimore to build and own the hotel. That “public option” was presented with the Marcus bid — but was rejected early on by city council members.

OKCTalk has been on top of the convention center & hotel concerns.

OKC has expressed that we do not wish to own a hotel; they are aware of Baltimore's miscalculation.

Let's have a good turnout for these meetings.

Shadid comment on today's Lackmeyer article:

This article by Steve Lackmeyer is a significant step towards explaining the reasons why so many, including at least one third (3/9) of the current OKC City Council, are in opposition to the convention center hotel project as currently envisioned. I appreciate it greatly.

A few comments:

The most worrisome contention of Professor Heywood Sanders, a nationally recognized expert on convention center economics, is his contention that “OKC is highly unusual, if not unique, in its lack of transparency and the withholding of information from the public”. Professor Sanders cites the refusal to this day to release the Convention, Sports and Leisure study referenced by Mr. Lackmeyer to the public, the contention during the MAPS3 campaign that building a new convention center would triple our convention business without explaining that no city had ever been able to triple its business and that a massively publicly subsidized hotel would be required in order to achieve that increase, and the repeated contention of members of the council since the MAPS3 election that they hoped no subsidy would be required despite the mountain of evidence to the contrary. The public was lied to at worst, lied to by omission at best.

The greatest utility of the MAPS program is that programs are built debt free. The departure with this hotel project is the tens of millions of dollars in interest the city will likely have to pay. The city will borrow a large portion of its $85 million contribution and then pay back the loan with revenue streams such as those cited by Mr. Lackmeyer.

There are costs of the project far in excess of the $85 million cited by proponents. In addition to the tens of millions of dollars in potential interest payments, the city bought the land for the hotel for $7 million and is forced to build a $37 million publicly financed parking garage at this time (most of which is buying land from OG&E next to the hotel site). Developers who have built hotels downtown without a subsidy will see business diverted from their projects towards the Omni hotel which competes on an uneven playing field. Finally, by spending so many economic development dollars on one project, we are left to wonder what could have been developed if the same resources were utilized elsewhere.

Robert Rowling, the founder of TRT holdings (the holding company of Omni Hotels), was worth $4.8 Billion and declared the 66th richest person in the U.S. as of 2012. Mr. Rowling is paying his $150 million contribution to the OKC convention center hotel in cash. With that kind of equity he could borrow the remaining $85 million with extremely favorable terms; almost certainly better than what OKC’s current developers have been able to access in financing their projects. If the convention center business that proponents contend will come to fruition materializes. Mr. Rowling would still realize a healthy return on investment.

Because this project is on the scale of a large MAPS project but never included on an election ballot, several members of the council are in favor of allowing the people of OKC to vote on the matter. Options would include increasing the city’s hotel/motel tax and/or the city’s rental car tax to form the bulk of the public subsidy. Both options would require a vote of the people and would be paid by residents largely outside of OKC who were most likely to use the facility. If the people of OKC were to vote to move forward with such a project I feel confident the City Council would then be unanimous in its support going forward. I suspect, however, that proponents will never allow the project to come to a vote of the people because they know the public is firmly in opposition, which speaks volumes about the nature of our representative democracy.

Dr. Ed Shadid lost me during his run for Mayor when he opposed Mick Cornett; he wanted to do away with MAPS. Citizens (voters) will ultimately make that decision when they turn down a MAPS initiative.

We need to see what the city is proposing in financial subsidies (Tif, bonds, hotel/motel tax) before we jump on Ed's bandwagon.

Shadid comment on today's Lackmeyer article:

This article by Steve Lackmeyer is a significant step towards explaining the reasons why so many, including at least one third (3/9) of the current OKC City Council, are in opposition to the convention center hotel project as currently envisioned. I appreciate it greatly.

A few comments:

The most worrisome contention of Professor Heywood Sanders, a nationally recognized expert on convention center economics, is his contention that “OKC is highly unusual, if not unique, in its lack of transparency and the withholding of information from the public”. Professor Sanders cites the refusal to this day to release the Convention, Sports and Leisure study referenced by Mr. Lackmeyer to the public, the contention during the MAPS3 campaign that building a new convention center would triple our convention business without explaining that no city had ever been able to triple its business and that a massively publicly subsidized hotel would be required in order to achieve that increase, and the repeated contention of members of the council since the MAPS3 election that they hoped no subsidy would be required despite the mountain of evidence to the contrary. The public was lied to at worst, lied to by omission at best.

The greatest utility of the MAPS program is that programs are built debt free. The departure with this hotel project is the tens of millions of dollars in interest the city will likely have to pay. The city will borrow a large portion of its $85 million contribution and then pay back the loan with revenue streams such as those cited by Mr. Lackmeyer.

There are costs of the project far in excess of the $85 million cited by proponents. In addition to the tens of millions of dollars in potential interest payments, the city bought the land for the hotel for $7 million and is forced to build a $37 million publicly financed parking garage at this time (most of which is buying land from OG&E next to the hotel site). Developers who have built hotels downtown without a subsidy will see business diverted from their projects towards the Omni hotel which competes on an uneven playing field. Finally, by spending so many economic development dollars on one project, we are left to wonder what could have been developed if the same resources were utilized elsewhere.

Robert Rowling, the founder of TRT holdings (the holding company of Omni Hotels), was worth $4.8 Billion and declared the 66th richest person in the U.S. as of 2012. Mr. Rowling is paying his $150 million contribution to the OKC convention center hotel in cash. With that kind of equity he could borrow the remaining $85 million with extremely favorable terms; almost certainly better than what OKC’s current developers have been able to access in financing their projects. If the convention center business that proponents contend will come to fruition materializes. Mr. Rowling would still realize a healthy return on investment.

Because this project is on the scale of a large MAPS project but never included on an election ballot, several members of the council are in favor of allowing the people of OKC to vote on the matter. Options would include increasing the city’s hotel/motel tax and/or the city’s rental car tax to form the bulk of the public subsidy. Both options would require a vote of the people and would be paid by residents largely outside of OKC who were most likely to use the facility. If the people of OKC were to vote to move forward with such a project I feel confident the City Council would then be unanimous in its support going forward. I suspect, however, that proponents will never allow the project to come to a vote of the people because they know the public is firmly in opposition, which speaks volumes about the nature of our representative democracy.

I find this person's points of contention to be most credible.

What he doesn't acknowledge is that if Omni built a downtown hotel entirely on their own nickel they would build it around 200-300 rooms max, and would NEVER discount rooms to book CC business. Using a free-market argument means that you are willing to live with whatever the hotelier deems good business for them, and that you are willing to give up control of the end result.

There is a trade-off here; we are asking Omni to build extra rooms that they would not otherwise build, and we are REQUIRING Omni to make those rooms available in blocks, for below-market rates. In return for them agreeing to build rooms that don't fit their full for-profit model, it is entirely fair for Omni to expect assistance/incentive.

Failure to build an adjacent hotel with the ability to dictate blocked rooms at below-market rate would cause the CC to dramatically underperform, which could in turn lead to expensive subsidy for THAT building (on top of not capturing expected economic impact). Should this have been discussed in depth during the original MAPS campaign? Perhaps, but this train has left the station and we CANNOT afford to waste the huge dollars we (voters included) have already chosen to spend on the convention center.

Without question transparency is important, but it bears repeating once again that we elect our Mayor and council to make important decisions just like this one, and the funding mechanisms being discussed for this project are not in any way unprecedented.

Why do people care how wealthy the Omni CEO is?

Honestly, Lackmeyer's article assuaged a lot of concerns I had. As long as Omni owns 100% and paying down the city's investment isn't last on the waterfall, and the subsidy is constrained within 40%, I'm ok with the deal.

The issue isn't how much we spend on special facilities. The issue is how little we spend on transit. I'm most concerned that the city will claim they're tapped out and too broke after this deal to invest in transit. In Columbus they literally pulled a potential streetcar revenue source and re-dedicated it to paying down bonds for a THIRD convention hotel.

There really are direct trade-offs, and the way I see it this will tip the balance of MAPS 3 to mostly going toward events, providing less than half for residents. So much for branding the initiative as parks, bikes, River, transit, and other good stuff.

I feel much better about this with Omni involved.

Convention hotels is what they do and there is tons of experience and track record to point to.

Plus, it's a great brand and something we don't have in the entire state.

I would have been much less enthused if we had gone the Marcus / Marriott route.

It's definitely hugely beneficial that Omni has their own capacity for marketing/responding to RFP's.

Honestly wouldn't be a bad idea to take the marketing budget away from the CVB and let Omni do it on a contract basis. Privatize that s***!

By the time we get the Omni constructed; you could easily approach close to $90 million in subsidies (+10%). http://digital.newsok.com/Olive/ODN/Oklahoman/get/DOK-2016-09-25/image.ashx?kind=block&href=DOK%2F2016%2F09%2F25&id=Pc0390400&ext=.jpg&ts=20160925040926
Let's hope there's something left in that contingency fund to tie all the loose ends together.

Better yet, could a residential piece by added (like Louisville's Omni) to the new Omni which could strengthen the financial footing; or is it too late to add to this development?

or is it too late to add to this development?

Again, 'preliminary'. Nothing has been approved, nothing has even been officially submitted. I'd say it isn't too late for ANY change.

Technically it is preliminary until a deal is inked. However, if OKC wants an Omni on this site, this concept and design is what Omni has already spent most of its professional fees to produce. So there's that. In the development world, professional capacity is scare and valuable. You can only scroll through so many hundreds of emails and hound the same person for an approval so many times a day.

I'm not sure if this was posted on here already or not and I know it doesn't matter anymore since it looks like OKC is going with Omni but this is what the Marriott that Marcus/Mortenson would have built would look like.

13132

you can see the rest of the proposal and more pictures here, http://www.theallianceokc.org/sites/default/files/files/Mortenson%20Marcus%20Proposal%20(public).pdf

I'm not sure if this was posted on here already or not and I know it doesn't matter anymore since it looks like OKC is going with Omni but this is what the Marriott that Marcus/Mortenson would have built would look like.

13132

you can see the rest of the proposal and more pictures here, http://www.theallianceokc.org/sites/default/files/files/Mortenson%20Marcus%20Proposal%20(public).pdf

I like the design of the Omni better, but wish it was facing the park, like the Marriott. It would also give room for the parking garage to the east.

Again, 'preliminary'. Nothing has been approved, nothing has even been officially submitted. I'd say it isn't too late for ANY change.

Agree and can't see why it wouldn't be difficult to change or modify.

Omni has its architects on payroll; the current design wouldn't be that difficult to modify. Some high rise residential above the convention center hotel would be sold before you could get it built.

In this case, additional height (above the hotel) over just infill could make for an impressive view of OKC as well as the Core to Shore developments.

Agree and can't see why it wouldn't be difficult to change or modify.

Omni has its architects on payroll; the current design wouldn't be that difficult to modify. Some high rise residential above the convention center hotel would be sold before you could get it built.

In this case, additional height (above the hotel) over just infill could make for an impressive view of OKC as well as the Core to Shore developments.

Why is everyone so infatuated with the height of this hotel? OKC (as well as most cities) would be better served with 20 new 10-story buildings that have great street level interaction and eradicate parking lots rather than 4-5 40-story towers.

I see nothing wrong with the height.

I see nothing wrong with the height.

Agreed, could the design be a little more unique, sure, but I think its about perfect for its context and location. It also allows for another midrise hotel to be built should the demand warrant it.

Agreed, could the design be a little more unique, sure, but I think its about perfect for its context and location. It also allows for another midrise hotel to be built should the demand warrant it.

Should be at the very least as tall as the new BOK building. Somewhere between BOK and Chase would be perfect then another one around 20 stories next to it down the road.

Why is everyone so infatuated with the height of this hotel? OKC (as well as most cities) would be better served with 20 new 10-story buildings that have great street level interaction and eradicate parking lots rather than 4-5 40-story towers.

I'll never get it. If OKC never had another building over 300 feet it wouldn't bother me at all. Generally, tall buildings are for passers-by, but 4-6 story buildings with walkable ground floors that activate the street are the stuff of great cities. Besides, OKC has plenty of underutiized properties in its core to allow for 4-6 story buildings to be built for a long time... (which just makes tearing down historic structures more absurd). It's not like OKC needs to go vertical. In fact, some recent studies suggest that people psychologically do not enjoy being around high rise buildings.
/end of rant/ ;)

Why is everyone so infatuated with the height of this hotel? OKC (as well as most cities) would be better served with 20 new 10-story buildings that have great street level interaction and eradicate parking lots rather than 4-5 40-story towers.

This. Particularly in OKC.

Sure we have space & vacant areas in our core. Infill is good; however, if we're going to demolish historic buildings, why not put something of value & volume in its place.

Does anyone feel that Devon Energy Tower wasn't worth building in OKC or would you prefer something smaller?

Why is everyone so infatuated with the height of this hotel? OKC (as well as most cities) would be better served with 20 new 10-story buildings that have great street level interaction and eradicate parking lots rather than 4-5 40-story towers.

Totally disagree. The real opportunity of 40+ story towers in OKC is very clearly almost non existent. In order for the downtown to truly grow, it has to be able to draw people and events to it. It's pretty evident that funding 4+ story buildings in the city isn't TOO difficult. But, apparently, funding anything over say, 12 stories, is pretty difficult. No one seems to want to pull the trigger on true high rises except Devon. And I get that, its not an easy thing to drop that sort of money.

I guess what I'm saying is, whatever scale you want to use, OKC is a pretty mid/average tier American city. And that's fine for some. But i, personally, want better. I want a future NBA All-Star game here. I want an MLS or NHL team here. I want tourists. Building a bunch of 10 story buildings isnt going to impress anyone except for the people that activly read this forum. At current, I would take 4-5 40+ story towers 1000 times out of 1000 in downtown over 20 10ish story midrises in OKC.

I feel with the size of OKC, smaller midrises aren't going to be all the difficult to build/fund at current and in the future in OKC. But, how often will a true high rise opportunity present itself in downtown OKC? 10 story buildings don't bring big new job opportunities or All-Star games to OKC. High Rises do. There is also the cosmetic appeal and marketability of the city with more high rises. To me, you just cannot pass up high rises in this city for lesser quality mid rises. The opportunity to build mid rises will always be easier and more abundant than the opportunity to build a high rise.

With that said, I love this new hotel. Do I wish it had housing on top to add some height? Sure! But, as is, it's going to be a badass hotel. I go to Comic Cons and Anime Conventions all over the country every year, and this hotel looks FANTASTIC next to almost all that I've stayed at. I really have no complaints with this hotel. I'm excited!

Totally disagree. The real opportunity of 40+ story towers in OKC is very clearly almost non existent. In order for the downtown to truly grow, it has to be able to draw people and events to it. It's pretty evident that funding 4+ story buildings in the city isn't TOO difficult. But, apparently, funding anything over say, 12 stories, is pretty difficult. No one seems to want to pull the trigger on true high rises except Devon. And I get that, its not an easy thing to drop that sort of money.

I guess what I'm saying is, whatever scale you want to use, OKC is a pretty mid/average tier American city. And that's fine for some. But i, personally, want better. I want a future NBA All-Star game here. I want an MLS or NHL team here. I want tourists. Building a bunch of 10 story buildings isnt going to impress anyone except for the people that activly read this forum. At current, I would take 4-5 40+ story towers 1000 times out of 1000 in downtown over 20 10ish story midrises in OKC.

I feel with the size of OKC, smaller midrises aren't going to be all the difficult to build/fund at current and in the future in OKC. But, how often will a true high rise opportunity present itself in downtown OKC? 10 story buildings don't bring big new job opportunities or All-Star games to OKC. High Rises do. There is also the cosmetic appeal and marketability of the city with more high rises. To me, you just cannot pass up high rises in this city for lesser quality mid rises. The opportunity to build mid rises will always be easier and more abundant than the opportunity to build a high rise.

With that said, I love this new hotel. Do I wish it had housing on top to add some height? Sure! But, as is, it's going to be a badass hotel. I go to Comic Cons and Anime Conventions all over the country every year, and this hotel looks FANTASTIC next to almost all that I've stayed at. I really have no complaints with this hotel. I'm excited!

Fair enough. You want Charlotte which looks good on a postcard but is pretty awful from an urban standpoint, while I prefer Portland, which isn't much to look at from afar but has an awesome downtown. To each their own. :Smiley051

I think OKC is closer to Portland than it is to Charlotte in that OKC has a compact, dense core (although it is being stretched a bit now). Yes, it added a super-tall and the current wave of towers are 20 something floor highrises but all OKC needs to be more portland like is retail streetfronts and some residential towers which honestly is not difficult to do.

I agree that we should adopt more density ala portland but lets also go big a few more times and make some more highlights into the skyline (ala Charlotte). Charlotte pretty much had to do that in order to get recognition from out of Atlanta's shadow, we need to do the same to escape Dallas and Houston's while at the same time, retain our dense core and expand residential ala portland. I think it all can be done and hope the city's master plan has it as such.

Very well stated, Hot Rod!

Cities are faced with competition and recognition as:

Charlotte (2,426,363) competes with Atlanta (5,710,795)--225 miles
Louisville (1,278,413) competes with Cincinnati (2,157,719) & Indianapolis (1,988,817)--100 miles.
Portland (2,389,228) competes with Seattle (3,733,580)--145 miles.

Oklahoma City (1,358,452) competes with Dallas-Ft. Worth (7,102,796)--190 miles.

Which city has the biggest obstacle to overcome?

Very well stated, Hot Rod!

Cities are faced with competition and recognition as:

Charlotte (2,426,363) competes with Atlanta (5,710,795)--225 miles
Louisville (1,278,413) competes with Cincinnati (2,157,719) & Indianapolis (1,988,817)--100 miles.
Portland (2,389,228) competes with Seattle (3,733,580)--145 miles.

Oklahoma City (1,358,452) competes with Dallas-Ft. Worth (7,102,796)--190 miles.

Which city has the biggest obstacle to overcome?

Louisville?

Seattle, Cincinnati, Dallas, and Atlanta punch below their weight for conventions.

The cities that attract the most conventions are Las Vegas, Orlando, Chicago, Indianapolis, San Diego, DC, Boston, Denver, Miami, Tampa, New Orleans, Salt Lake, Houston, Nashville, Savannah, and Charleston.

Indy is the only one that isn't coastal or mountains. What does it say that Cincinnati and Dallas haven't been able to break through (I think the arms race in Texas has really led to a 5-way tie, with Houston having slight advantage)?

The convention business is tough bc it's not rational. Conferences are typically seeking to provide a fun outlet and relieve the monotony of business. The people making these location decisions are usually incredibly vapid.

^^^^^^^
You deal with a lot of convention planners? Vapid isn't how I'd describe the dozens I've dealt with over the years.

Not sure how Chicago qualifies as coastal or mountains..? You forgot New Orleans, which is first tier. Phoenix also does well. I think your info on Dallas is dated; it is top ten in attendance and highly-rated by planners. Same with Atlanta. In both cases this is likely due to facilities and easy flights, as both cities deviate from the standard model of having a wealth of nearby walkable amenities. Houston and Austin are both top 20 cities. And San Antonio - which you don't mention by name - is a convention monster.

And one of the main reasons San Antonio and New Orleans and the other high-performing cities you mention do so well is the same reason OKC will likely burst into the second tier with its new facility; almost all of them have tons of rooms and amenities with a 10 minute walkability bubble of their convention facility. We will have some challenges until the area around the cc develops, but with so many hotel rooms and dining options just beyond a ten minute walk we should still fare well.

What it really boils down to is that for a city to do relatively well it must have some combination of:


Walkable rooms and amenities near facilities (we fare better than average here)
Lots of relatively inexpensive rooms available (we kill in this regard)
Easy-to-reach destination (we are fair-poor for flights but as good as anyone in the country when it comes to interstate connections)

Overall we set up to be a very competitive city that should perform well - especially for regional events - with new facilities. Will we ever be first tier? Of course not, nor are we trying to be. But our pursuit of this business is definitely worthwhile.

I actually did mention New Orleans directly, and have been to a conference there. San Antonio does great for a smaller metro but it isn't competitive at the top, though they do have a lot of other draws that support their large hospitality industry. Chicago is one of the most waterfront-centric cities in the US, which is really an incredible setting in the summer. I'd argue that the criteria of walkable amenities and plentiful hotel rooms applies to about 50 cities in the US and most of Canada and Europe. Re: travel, nobody is driving to a convention unless there aren't flights.

There are a lot of cities that have invested a lot into their convention capacity. Nashville and Cleveland have made huge investments. St. Louis made a huge investment that led to a public default. OKC is not capable of making the same caliber investment as these cities, which have experienced mixed results.

I'm afraid that the investment we ARE making is in excess of the results we could reasonably expect. I don't actually mind cities that blow money on facilities, but the only reason why I mind so much is that in OKC it is directly at the expense of transit. These other cities already have transit, so they have the leeway with public spending priorities that OKC seems to think it has?

There are a lot of cities that have invested a lot into their convention capacity. Nashville and Cleveland have made huge investments. St. Louis made a huge investment that led to a public default. OKC is not capable of making the same caliber investment as these cities, which have experienced mixed results.


Again, we're not on the same caliber as Nashville, Cleveland, St. Louis or Las Vegas, a city really making giant strides with growth in the convention & trade show industry.

What we do know at this point, OKC is taking a conservative approach toward getting the convention center jump started--with room for future expansion. Begin with a 600 room hotel; if need, a second 200-300 room hotel could be added.

There's potential for OKC to grow as a viable convention center destination.

Let's see how things work; then look at where we can improve in this area.