Omni Hotel

[HOT ROD]

BDP, you're very true as usual.

But I did want to note those points so hopefully we can learn from them going forward. I just don't want to keep seeing this kind of bait and switch, 2nd rate development when we have a chance for better/more. I just wish developers wouldn't promise/promote one grand thing then it gradually but surely gets reduced to near suburban in-fill types.

But your points are very valid and is likely why some of our development comes out the way it does. I honestly wish we'd implement expansion areas one district at a time instead of all over the place - BChris first mentioned this iirc. That way, we'd have some 'constraints' that would allow maximum use of a site allowing the district to get critical mass/density that we ALL want; rather than just horizontal in-fill since there's so much overall that the demand isn't there at any one site. Too bad we tore down so many old buildings that could have been saved and negated this.

Anyway - good points nonetheless!

[chuck5815]

BDP, you're very true as usual.

But I did want to note those points so hopefully we can learn from them going forward. I just don't want to keep seeing this kind of bait and switch, 2nd rate development when we have a chance for better/more. I just wish developers wouldn't promise/promote one grand thing then it gradually but surely gets reduced to near suburban in-fill types.

But your points are very valid and is likely why some of our development comes out the way it does. I honestly wish we'd implement expansion areas one district at a time instead of all over the place - BChris first mentioned this iirc. That way, we'd have some 'constraints' that would allow maximum use of a site allowing the district to get critical mass/density that we ALL want; rather than just horizontal in-fill since there's so much overall that the demand isn't there at any one site. Too bad we tore down so many old buildings that could have been saved and negated this.

Anyway - good points nonetheless!

i just don’t see a lawful way to implement this idea. You’d have folks who spent millions on land/architects/permitting/bribes/etc., but they aren’t allowed to build until The Density Police give them the green light?

[BDP]

BDP, you're very true as usual.

But I did want to note those points so hopefully we can learn from them going forward. I just don't want to keep seeing this kind of bait and switch, 2nd rate development when we have a chance for better/more. I just wish developers wouldn't promise/promote one grand thing then it gradually but surely gets reduced to near suburban in-fill types.

But your points are very valid and is likely why some of our development comes out the way it does. I honestly wish we'd implement expansion areas one district at a time instead of all over the place - BChris first mentioned this iirc. That way, we'd have some 'constraints' that would allow maximum use of a site allowing the district to get critical mass/density that we ALL want; rather than just horizontal in-fill since there's so much overall that the demand isn't there at any one site. Too bad we tore down so many old buildings that could have been saved and negated this.

Anyway - good points nonetheless!

Yes, the bait and switch tactics are annoying and should always be accounted for, especially when public assistance is involved. Whether it's height, capacity, or materials used, we still don't seem to have any good mechanism to force the quality promised when negotiating or, at least, we don't seem to use them.

[BDP]

i just don’t see a lawful way to implement this idea. You’d have folks who spent millions on land/architects/permitting/bribes/etc., but they aren’t allowed to build until The Density Police give them the green light?

You're probably right, but the same time we don't seem to mind giving advantage to one developer/business over another when it comes to public assistance and yet, somehow, that's lawful.

Too bad the Density Police doesn't have their own slush fund for bribing.

[Laramie]

9 floors as of today.

Some of the siding is going up.

Amazingly they are building a floor per week, this should top out around the 1st of September; also nice infill for us height Kings--of course include me in that category.

[jn1780]

I noticed this morning. the first floor of rooms have cladding installed on the north side

[Pete]

[Bellaboo]

I noticed last week they raised the South side crane.

[HOT ROD]

hope - pray, they also raise the other two. fingers crossed.

because then it will be more than just 17 floors.

[Laramie]

hope - pray, they also raise the other two. fingers crossed.

because then it will be more than just 17 floors.

You are correct (Post #36 Downtown Hotel Summary) in that Omni will fall short...

Seriously doubt if Omni will raise the floor count or room count; IMO they may look back when they realize the missed opportunity an 800 room hotel would have benefited the partnership they have with the city.

They did leave the door open with interests in the future of the CC-old Myriad site If a hotel comes into play; hopefully the city won't have to subsidize if Omni execise those rights.

Pic above, starting on 11th floor?

[jn1780]

Seriously doubt if Omni will raise the floor count or room count; IMO they may look back when they realize the missed opportunity an 800 room hotel would have benefited the partnership they have with the city.

They did leave the door open with interests in the future of the CC-old Myriad site If a hotel comes into play; hopefully the city won't have to subsidize if Omni execise those rights.

You mean hopefully they don't ask for a subsidy? Which we all know they would.

[HOT ROD]

i hope others see the success of this cc and OKC, and our potential if we had more rooms and more hotels are built. Speaking to you JW Marriott, Hyatt, and Westin!!! We need more full service flags.

[HOT ROD]

And I'm all for subsidy if they include underground or under-building parking. ..

Subsidy and we still had to build THEM a garage on another lot???? Just more of my gripes with this Omni deal

[Bellaboo]

And I'm all for subsidy if they include underground or under-building parking. ..

Subsidy and we still had to build THEM a garage on another lot???? Just more of my gripes with this Omni deal

Correct me if I'm wrong but i think they ended up building a couple of parking levels under the Omni.

You can see this on page 79.

[ChrisHayes]

Hotel companies do a market analysis and estimate the number of rooms they should build in a hotel, if they build one at all. Like it or not, they're in the business of turning a profit. They aren't in the business of turning people on with tall buildings. Don't get me wrong, I'd love for our Omni to be 20-30 stories. That would be an impressive mark on the skyline. But even at 17 stories, it will expand the skyline and be seen from 40 and 235.

[jn1780]

Correct me if I'm wrong but i think they ended up building a couple of parking levels under the Omni.

You can see this on page 79.

It's just one basement floor for mechanical and service operations.

[jn1780]

And I'm all for subsidy if they include underground or under-building parking. ..

Subsidy and we still had to build THEM a garage on another lot???? Just more of my gripes with this Omni deal

It's expensive building underground especially a multilevel parking garage.

[Pete]

There will be 178 spaces in the basement; I'm sure it will be used primarily for valet parking:

[Laramie]

It's expensive building underground especially a multilevel parking garage.

So true.

The original plans with the Myriad Convention Center in the 70s was to have a multi-level underground parking. When they excavated dirt at the 4 block site they discovered the hidden Chinese underground tunnel and hit the water tables--only allowed them to build 1 level of parking underground. The downtown was initially built over a dry riverbed.

Historians recall hidden "Chinese underground" under OKC streets: https://okcfox.com/archive/historian...er-okc-streets

[BDP]

Hotel companies do a market analysis and estimate the number of rooms they should build in a hotel, if they build one at all. Like it or not, they're in the business of turning a profit.

Of course they are, but the analysis was done and they asked for public assistance to build something that didn't even meet the conclusions of that analysis. I think the crux of HOT ROD's position is that concessions were granted by the city without any condition to fulfill the capacity claimed in the analysis, let alone exceed it.

The thing is that, theoretically, they should be able to turn that profit for which they are in business simply by meeting capacity and managing demand and cash flow through rate structures. It actually makes more sense to give concessions to go above and beyond the market analysis as a way to mitigate the increased risk. But what happened is they took the analysis and felt it significantly overstated the strength of the market and that it would need public assistance to be profitable even at a capacity below the recommendation.

So, effectively, their profit analysis concluded that they should build this hotel only if it is a public works project with public assistance and that assistance was justified by the reasoning that they deserve to make a profit in the market and we need to use (or forgo) public resources to help assure them that they will. Basically, we mitigated their risk unconditionally.

I get it. This is just filed under "that's just how it's done, now", but we shouldn't forget what's actually happening. Yes, they are in the business of making a profit, but part of that business model is squeezing local markets to finance that profit.

[Bullbear]

the Chinese underground stories are always so interesting to me. thanks for the reminder

[Ross MacLochness]

So true about the water table. There is a natural spring in one of the sumps in the underground that has to be pumped out 24/7

[Rover]

Of course they are, but the analysis was done and they asked for public assistance to build something that didn't even meet the conclusions of that analysis. I think the crux of HOT ROD's position is that concessions were granted by the city without any condition to fulfill the capacity claimed in the analysis, let alone exceed it.

The thing is that, theoretically, they should be able to turn that profit for which they are in business simply by meeting capacity and managing demand and cash flow through rate structures. It actually makes more sense to give concessions to go above and beyond the market analysis as a way to mitigate the increased risk. But what happened is they took the analysis and felt it significantly overstated the strength of the market and that it would need public assistance to be profitable even at a capacity below the recommendation.

So, effectively, their profit analysis concluded that they should build this hotel only if it is a public works project with public assistance and that assistance was justified by the reasoning that they deserve to make a profit in the market and we need to use (or forgo) public resources to help assure them that they will. Basically, we mitigated their risk unconditionally.

I get it. This is just filed under "that's just how it's done, now", but we shouldn't forget what's actually happening. Yes, they are in the business of making a profit, but part of that business model is squeezing local markets to finance that profit.

You are ONLY focused on guest room counts and ignore a huge part of the facility which is designed specifically to augment and complement the cc. They could have just built a hotel at lower risk. We’ve a lot of people already doing that... limited service and budget hotels in the area just providing a bed and room to sleep for the night. We needed a full service high end convention focused building. That’s what we are getting. This “how many pounds per dollar” analysis is maddening. Planning is a lot more than number of rooms and floors. Cheap, tall but lack of quality and functionality does not trump what we are getting for our money.

[HOT ROD]

i hope you're right Rover and it's a huge success that spurs add'l flag hotels. I suspect this to be the case as for some reason OKC is always a wait-and-see type of city when it comes to investment/speculation.

BTW, the convention and amenities spaces at Omni you speak of above are a no-brainer, as all modern "convention hotels" have this. I seriously doubt that OKC was subsidizing that part. Therefore, you also can't ignore that Omni isn't building the recommended 750 rooms for the cc to be successful. I still maintain that with public funding at 40%, we should be getting that many rooms. Even if conventions aren't consuming all the rooms, the city could have some supply to sell on the market to business visitors or tourists who'd love to have the Omni experience.

Again, I'm not against the Omni or their receiving subsidy from OKC. I'm against their short changing OKC in room count and perhaps not taking the plunge on OKC as a growth market. I suspect the 600 rooms will always be oversold - proven with OKC's existing full-service (yet outdated) "convention" supply (395+311=716 rooms) if we even marginally increased the number/size of conventions.

Why did OKC do all of those consulting (which also had a dollar subsidy recommendation of our $85M) which we're paying in TIF if we aren't getting what the consultants recommended?? And if so, the hotel would be taller.

Omni pitched 750 rooms and won the bid against Marriott et al, yet THEY decided to go with less, uncontested, while the TIF remained the same.



That's my point. ..

[BDP]

You are ONLY focused on guest room counts and ignore a huge part of the facility which is designed specifically to augment and complement the cc. They could have just built a hotel at lower risk. We’ve a lot of people already doing that... limited service and budget hotels in the area just providing a bed and room to sleep for the night. We needed a full service high end convention focused building. That’s what we are getting. This “how many pounds per dollar” analysis is maddening. Planning is a lot more than number of rooms and floors. Cheap, tall but lack of quality and functionality does not trump what we are getting for our money.

That's fair.

But, it's still just us mitigating their risk. Basically they said "we can't do what you think you want to have in your market and make money", and the city said "well then here's some assistance, so you can make money." That at least suggests the claim that the market "needs" it may be dubious.

I mean, you claim we needed "a full service high end convention focused building", but they who are actually in the business told us there isn't enough market demand for it at a level where we can make money without public assistance.

Honestly, I'm not sure what you mean by "pounds per dollar". Was that literal? I was speaking to the issue of capacity, because it illustrates the dynamic of the public / private relationship. I think the issues of type of hotel, services offered, on site meeting space, etc. are all relevant, but it doesn't really change the mechanics at work here. Those are just things in addition to the capacity, for which we are using public resources to bridge the gap between the city's wants (or, I guess needs if you want to put it that way) and market realities. It's only prudent at that point to try and quantify what those public resources are getting per dollar.