Convention Center

[David]

I've just been taking this in silently for the last couple of days, but while reading these last few posts something occurred to me. Will the boulevard north of the C2S East site be low enough (or could be built low enough) that it could be capped for more pedestrian friendly access to the north?

[Spartan]

I am ready to propose the the Core to Shore South site because:

1. Is is very close to the previous site
2. Hotel would only have to be moved across the street; will be on park and next to the arena
3. Preserves Cox site for future CBD expansion as identified in recent study
4. Two of the three blocks are already owned by a public entity: the substation and the ODOT block to the north
5. The OG&E property will be given to the City as part of the Clayco deal and could be used for the project or a parking garage (parking will have to be accounted for some way
6. The $30 million for cc expansion that was recently added back to the budget could be used for the substation relocation
7. It will completely redevelop a blighted area; the City has been concentrating on redevelopment on the other side of the park.
8. It would pull people and development south towards the next phase of Central Park, the river and points south

9. And because you hate the park?

That's literally the park's "active edge" LOL. Shoulda known. How can we lump as many superblock boondoggles as closely together as possible? I also liked your depiction of the parking garage fronting the boulevard. Perfectly sums up our "civic values" and puts them on display.

We'll have a great shot at hosting conventions on black hole theories.

[Urbanized]

I've just been taking this in silently for the last couple of days, but while reading these last few posts something occurred to me. Will the boulevard north of the C2S East site be low enough (or could be built low enough) that it could be capped for more pedestrian friendly access to the north?

David that's an interesting thought, but I doubt it. Recall that it must return to street level by the time it reaches the Robinson intersection and Chesapeake Arena entrance. The depth of the new underpass through the viaduct is being set by modern semi trailer heights, and that clearance would have to be maintained for the full length of any cap, so you would not be able to begin sloping up to Robinson (a significant height) until you cleared the cap. It becomes a geometry problem.

[Pete]

More detailed look at the property to be acquired (outlined in red).

Only buildings of historic value are highlighted in pink. This is the one that falls with the expansion area and could be built around and/or incorporated if need be:

[Pete]

9. And because you hate the park?

That's literally the park's "active edge" LOL. Shoulda known. How can we lump as many superblock boondoggles as closely together as possible? I also liked your depiction of the parking garage fronting the boulevard. Perfectly sums up our "civic values" and puts them on display.

We'll have a great shot at hosting conventions on black hole theories.

The parking garage on the boulevard could easily contain retail on that side.

But as previously noted, the boulevard will be below grade at that point anyway.

And please, tone down the rhetoric.

[hfry]

I've just been taking this in silently for the last couple of days, but while reading these last few posts something occurred to me. Will the boulevard north of the C2S East site be low enough (or could be built low enough) that it could be capped for more pedestrian friendly access to the north?

I dunno about low enough for a cap but the opportunity to do a bridge over or tunnel under to help move people quicker "might" be able to help it not be so daunting to cross or wait at the new boulevard. I think it was in Andrew Stewart's design for the boulevard he had something of the sorts for that intersection. Its clear the main problem with the C2S south site is the few extra mins it adds to the hotels and entertainment but like Urbanized said, there has to be some creative thinking to make this work for whatever site that is chosen.

[Pete]

That OG&E site on the south side of the boulevard had been identified as a potential parking location even when the convention center was slated for the original site (#7 below):

[kevinpate]

Perhaps my memory is faulty. Wasn't one of the issues a while back on moving the substation that it would cost far more to relocate than the 30 million set aside would address, like 2 or 2.5 times as much? If that is correct, is the land including the substation still affordable?

[Pete]

^

I think the cost was always an estimate, just like everything else with this project.

[Urbanized]

That's a good point. There are a lot of assumptions being made here that the C2S location is affordable, and that the years-old estimate to move the substation holds true (which, BTW, still effectively results in $45+ million in site acquisition if all monies are utilized). I think the entire endeavor requires a hard reset and a very detailed look at all possible options - including the potential bookability and economic impact of each - based upon the latest information we have rather than what we thought years ago.

Right now, the only firmly-entrenched, inarguable variable is distance.

[Tier2City]

The path to a "failed" facility consists of a walk of over 10 minutes. We will automatically fall out of consideration for many if not most events.

Anybody able to come up with a reasonably objective national ranking of ~200-250,000 SF facilities and their walking distance to key restaurant and hotel amenities? I'm particularly interested in exactly which other Tier 2 facilities in the country lie in the 9 minute to 11 minute walking range that we would apparently lose business to by going with the C2S East location.

[Canoe]

Why wouldnt we do the event center parking then do a bridge over reno and turn south and take all the parking lots to I-40. We would have to enclose part of the canal, which would be awesome, and provide a resting spot on the canal for those hot days. Heck you could add some restaurants and stores in there to help support the cost of the convention center. Pete/Chad, please tell me why this is a horrible idea.

[Canoe]

It would also put the boathouse district in play.

[Pete]

Anybody able to come up with a reasonably objective national ranking of ~200-250,000 SF facilities and their walking distance to key restaurant and hotel amenities? I'm particularly interested in exactly which other Tier 2 facilities in the country lie in the 9 minute to 11 minute walking range that we would apparently lose business to by going with the C2S East location.

Remember, the convention center would not be open for business until 2019 and that was on the old schedule; I'm sure it will now be pushed back and maybe by a year or more.

Now that the old cc site is once again slated for private development, you have to consider that that land is likely to contain hotels and restaurants and other amenities.

And Central Park itself will have a cafe on the Boulevard and probably another one at Union Station.

[Hutch]

Here's a photo of the George R. Brown Convention Center in Houston under construction in 1986...



Here's a photo of the same area in 2012 on the 25th anniversary of the facility...



Here's a Google Earth image of the area today...



Here's a current image of Discovery Greens, which is bordered by the GRB...



When the GRB was built in 1986, the southeast edge of downtown Houston was Austin Street, which was several blocks away. Part of the purpose in the site selection for the GRB was to encourage growth and mixed-use redevelopment of that area of downtown, including Discovery Greens park and high-density residential development.

It seems there are similarities between the GRB site and Houston's existing development in 1986 and consideration of the C2S site for OKC's convention center.

[Pete]

^

Very interesting!

Thanks for that perspective.

We have to keep in mind what C2S will look like 5, 10 and 20 years from now.

[Teo9969]

Teo, these aren't exaggeratations. They are industry standards and best practices, and the walk time numbers I am using are obtainable by you or anybody use, derived from the walk time distance measuring tool in Google Maps, which assumes a standard 3MPH pace (a brisk walk speed, I might add). You're welcome to put in the work yourself; just please make sure that you factor hotel footprint, loading dock locations, likely entrances, etc. it's not rocket surgery.

Be fair and impartial, as I have been. And yes, I have been these things; I have little against the C2S site other than the distance/walkability issue, which will cause a large number of conventions to refuse to even consider OKC.

I'm not saying you're exaggerating the industry's standards. I'm saying that you seem to exaggerate walk times. The other day walks you said would 15-17 or 10-12 minutes turned out to be 11/12 or 7/8 in Google Maps, and That's with Google Maps taking less efficient routes (because apparently you can't walk on Shields).

I'm also trying to figure out why at no point in this thread you've ever acknowledged the point that future development, some of which would likely be done before the convention center opens up, will likely be in place, and much more planned. We may miss out on a few conventions the first 3 to 5 years, but from years 5 to 10, I think it's very reasonable to assume that the business will grow as the areas grow. Yes, unfortunately Bricktown is no longer the *center* of the equation, but they would by no means be left out. I don't think Convention Planners expect ALL amenities to be within 10 minute walking distance to the exclusion of everything outside. I think they expect an acceptable number of amenities within walking distance (and I truly believe that that acceptable number will be developed within the next 10-15 years) and that what lies just to the outside can be a big selling point.

[soondoc]

My first choice would have been BT because of many hotels and restaurants available in the area. However with height restrictions they impose, it would eliminate the CC Hotel and that is a deal breaker. I loved the idea of the Lumbar Yard and the city going in with some investors to develop this area. It would be amazing with the CC and CC Hotel and perhaps a couple of mid or high rise residential buildings. It would also force the eyesore that is the Cotton Mill to go away.

I am very much liking Pete's new proposed area that is basically just a block or so away from the original site. I think this needs to be the area chosen as the city leaders can redeem themselves from how they dropped the ball for over 2 years and put us in this situation in the first place. Perhaps the land can be acquired in a prompt manner so that things can get back on schedule and they can deliver what they promised- with the taxpayers money. They need to be held accountable for misusing our money and trust, as they don't need to be getting a free pass on this. Money has been spent already on the other site and 2 years later they give us this news. I am sorry but they need to be held accountable and the ball needs to be in their court to make good on their word or they should end up in court themselves.

With that said, I rule out BT. I would love to see the Lumbar Yard be chosen if an investor or two join forces and want to develop that into a spectacular area that rids us of that eye and nose sore we know as the Cotton Mill. If that doesn't happen, I am all for Pete's choice of the C2S and putting up an amazing 30 plus story hotel facing the north which would provide great views of the skyline, BT, and MBG to the north and the new park to the south and west. I would limit any view that looks to the east and that awful looking Cotton Mill. If I had the money I would buy that place and develop it and make it beautiful for the city to be proud of but I don't at this time so I am hoping that someday soon it will be done.

[jerrywall]

One thing to me, as much as walkability, is visibility. When planning a convention, if folks can't SEE places to walk to, for meals and such, that kills it. 10 minutes, 5 minutes, etc, doesn't matter if it's not clearly apparent where restaurants and such are from the convention site. I've fixed it in the past by arranging food trucks and such to be at the venue during meal times, but it's a consideration I've addressed when making decisions.

[Pete]

One thing to me, as much as walkability, is visibility. When planning a convention, if folks can't SEE places to walk to, for meals and such, that kills it. 10 minutes, 5 minutes, etc, doesn't matter if it's not clearly apparent where restaurants and such are from the convention site. I've fixed it in the past by arranging food trucks and such to be at the venue during meal times, but it's a consideration I've addressed when making decisions.

That's a fair point but could be addressed by quality way-finding signs and such.

Also, if you stepped out of the Cox Center today, nearby eateries are not very obvious.

In fact, about a year ago I was in OKC on business and one of the men I was dealing with was staying downtown. He had been there a couple of days and asked me about places to eat and did not even realize that all of Bricktown was on the other side of the underpass to the east.

[Teo9969]

Also, if we could cap the last quarter segment between Robinson and Shields, that would be a GREAT place for a Food Truck park. That would be a 15 foot drop over about 750 feet, which I think is perfectly doable.

I think we've also not really talked about the ability to incorporate park elements into conventions.

The Great Lawn will be right there and that would certainly be an alluring possible use for conventions…it's like a built in outdoor facility.

[jerrywall]

That's a fair point but could be addressed by quality way-finding signs and such.

Also, if you stepped out of the Cox Center today, nearby eateries are not very obvious.

In fact, about a year ago I was in OKC on business and one of the men I was dealing with was staying downtown. He had been there a couple of days and asked me about places to eat and did not even realize that all of Bricktown was on the other side of the underpass to the east.

Downtown was actually one of my issues. I ran events there, and we had to bring in food trucks, because the only thing folks seemed to be able to find were the hotel restaurants, and subway. Bricktown was too far for them to realize. Which seemed nuts to me but was a reality of the venue. We even printed maps and signage to the local places for our attendees. I've been doing events in MWC the past couple of years and have worked with the VCB, and they provide signage and fliers as well, but if folks can't see if from the door, they tend to ignore them. It's frustrating.

[Urbanized]

Height restrictions in Bricktown don't eliminate the possibility of a convention hotel. Right now there is a new 11 story hotel in place, and the City and BUDC have previously indicated a willingness to make exceptions for the right project. It would especially be likely on the fringe of the district. Please stop spreading the false idea that a Bricktown location would harm the chances for a hotel; it's patently false.

Teo, I stand by the numbers I've quoted. I used much care in researching them. By the way, the rationale and figures I'm using are the same ones used by former Mayor Kirk Humphreys when he argued against the C2S location early in the original debate.

Regarding new hotels and amenities to support the site in the future, that's all a guess. First of all, why does it make sense to ignore an absolute wealth of existing hotels and amenities...the single thing that currently makes us semi-competitive even with a bad building? And who says that hotels and entertainment are the best use of C2S land, when it's possible that the best use is housing and/or office or even retail? You're now FORCING C2S to be one thing, even if that is not in the city's best interest.

And finally, placing the CC there is no guarantee that they will appear. Dallas recently had to lure/subsidize restaurants to the complex around its convention facility - despite the recent addition of a massive, taxpayer-funded convention hotel - because the private sector hadn't built dining/entertainment options within the walkable bubble, and convention-goers were complaining that there were few food options, the walk was too far, and getting to other areas by train took too long.

Choosing the wrong location can easily lead to required future subsidy. Which completely negates the perceived affordability of a wrong site.

[Plutonic Panda]

Let's hope our hotel is much taller than 11 stories. Something north of 40 is preferable.

[BoulderSooner]

The parking garage on the boulevard could easily contain retail on that side.

But as previously noted, the boulevard will be below grade at that point anyway.

And please, tone down the rhetoric.

Just a note. While the blvd will be at a lower elevation that what it is currently. It doesn't really need to be "below grade". As in relates to this site. You could absolute build to the level of the new road. As that is how the sidewalks will be.

Clear the peake can't do that. But new construction would not have an issue with it