Thank you Kerry. Next time I'll drop a movie reference tag since apparently you're the only one that understood!

Just noticed Bellaboo got it too...

Sent from my BNTV600 using Tapatalk

You meant the 1920 World Series Champions, Cleveland Indians....lol.

Thank you Kerry. Next time I'll drop a movie reference tag since apparently you're the only one that understood!

Just noticed Bellaboo got it too...

Sent from my BNTV600 using Tapatalk



I remember 'shoeless Joe'

Plenty of people got it.

You meant the 1920 World Series Champions, Cleveland Indians....lol.

I thought they were White Sox players...

Oklahoma lawmakers tour future Indian museum site as vote looms | News OK (http://newsok.com/oklahoma-lawmakers-tour-future-indian-museum-site-as-vote-looms/article/3944673)

Oh god the comments on that article.

Plus I found this odd:


Casey said the problem is that the Legislature has provided money to complete the project before, and while that money was spent, the building wasn’t completed. Casey said a majority of his constituents who have talked about the project with him have been against it.

For some reason I thought that the project hadn't used any state funding yet, am I wrong about that?

Oh god the comments on that article.

Seriously, I especially like this little gem: "Someone got filthy rich off this botched project. The Oklahoma legislature should start a special investigation to find out what happened to this money. My guess is a few members of the afore mentioned, esteemed, council pocketed some of that money. Its a no brainer, they will take $40 million tax payers dollars and give it to themselves....err....to the cultural center."

Yeah, the city council took the money. Good lord.

Oh god the comments on that article.

Plus I found this odd:



For some reason I thought that the project hadn't used any state funding yet, am I wrong about that?

For some reason I thought they got some funding, just not enough for completion. They have raised a lot of money privately.

Yes, David, you are mistaken. State funds have been involved from the get go.


on edit: As they should have been, given the entire project is a project of the state, not the city, nor the feds, nor any native american nation.

Okay, I thought I might have been.


Seriously, I especially like this little gem: "Someone got filthy rich off this botched project. The Oklahoma legislature should start a special investigation to find out what happened to this money. My guess is a few members of the afore mentioned, esteemed, council pocketed some of that money. Its a no brainer, they will take $40 million tax payers dollars and give it to themselves....err....to the cultural center."

Yeah, the city council took the money. Good lord.

I found that comment especially facepalm-worthy on its own merits, but it's especially funny given that the suggested investigation has actually already happened and nothing inappropriate was found.

One more hurdle has been passed.

Oklahoma House committee approves American Indian museum bill | News OK (http://newsok.com/oklahoma-house-committee-approves-american-indian-museum-bill/article/3948912)


A bill to use $40 million in excess revenues from the state’s Unclaimed Property Fund to help complete Oklahoma City’s partially built American Indian Cultural Center and Museum sailed through a state House subcommittee Monday.

Senate Bill 1651 passed the House Appropriations and Budget Subcommittee on Natural Resources and Regulatory Services by a surprisingly easy 8-2 vote.

With the design of this museum, this has quite literally become a money pit.

Okay, I thought I might have been.

I found that comment especially facepalm-worthy on its own merits, but it's especially funny given that the suggested investigation has actually already happened and nothing inappropriate was found.

Nothing illegal was found, but the report was very critical of the waste as result of most expensive options being selected. The phrase "spare no expense' was taken to whole new level.

With the design of this museum, this has quite literally become a money pit.

I can't figure out the design. They choose the location to have freeway visibility, and then built it so all you can see from the freeway is a mound of dirt. Doh! The original Stage Center haters would be proud.

Nothing illegal was found, but the report was very critical of the waste as result of most expensive options being selected. The phrase "spare no expense' was taken to whole new level.

Trying to make it quality and doing it right is your definition of "waste"? So, I guess you are okay with all the developers who are doing it on the cheap. And we wonder why our state government keeps falling short and why the tea parts zealots have been able to get such support here.

I can't figure out the design.

That's because it has to do with culture, history and tradition, not this generation's view of urban dogma. This isn't an apartment complex with shops on the ground floor. Some things in life don't have to do with bike lanes, sidewalks and four story buildings built to the street from the urbanist bible.

Unlike the SC this is designed to honor and showcase a people and culture, not the building itself and the ego of the architect.

We need to have this as ( Full Design ) and a place we all can be proud of. That being said, it is time to get this completed. This needs to be open for business and selling tickets.

Trying to make it quality and doing it right is your definition of "waste"?

It's not my definition of waste - it was the state auditor's definition. He looked at the amount of money available and compared it to what was being spent and said there isn't enough money to do this.

That's because it has to do with culture, history and tradition, not this generation's view of urban dogma. This isn't an apartment complex with shops on the ground floor. Some things in life don't have to do with bike lanes, sidewalks and four story buildings built to the street from the urbanist bible.

Unlike the SC this is designed to honor and showcase a people and culture, not the building itself and the ego of the architect.

Umm, no one said anything about that.

It's not my definition of waste - it was the state auditor's definition. He looked at the amount of money available and compared it to what was being spent and said there isn't enough money to do this.

So, there wasn't enough funding allocated yet to do it right. Doesn't equal "waste".

That's because it has to do with culture, history and tradition, not this generation's view of urban dogma. This isn't an apartment complex with shops on the ground floor. Some things in life don't have to do with bike lanes, sidewalks and four story buildings built to the street from the urbanist bible.

Unlike the SC this is designed to honor and showcase a people and culture, not the building itself and the ego of the architect.

+1. This museum will be great for OKC and the state and will be a prime tourist attraction. It's far enough from the core that the urban hawks shouldn't be concerned with the design.

I can't figure out the design. They choose the location to have freeway visibility, and then built it so all you can see from the freeway is a mound of dirt. Doh! The original Stage Center haters would be proud.

Not all true here JTF. If you are on I-35 to the west, then yes, you see a giant ant hill, but from I-40 just north of the river, it's very visible.

It's not my definition of waste - it was the state auditor's definition. He looked at the amount of money available and compared it to what was being spent and said there isn't enough money to do this.

And you're trusting the state auditor's word because....?

It's been very clear that this project favored quality over economy. If that's what you consider "waste" then feel free to agree with the state auditor. For me, there are a number of words you could choose to use to criticize the project if you wanted, but "waste" isn't one of them.

Not all true here JTF. If you are on I-35 to the west, then yes, you see a giant ant hill, but from I-40 just north of the river, it's very visible.

I'll take your word for it as I have only seen the site from I-35. If it is visible from I-40 (and looking at GoogleEarth it appears it is), then that would fit their narrative that it be visible from the interstate.

As for the whole cost vs. quality debate, people would be hard pressed to find any suggestion by me that government facilities be built on the cheap and in fact - it is just the opposite. Public facilities should be built to much higher standards because they collective represent the people. The State Auditor's report looked at the history of the project and noticed that the most expensive options were selected almost every time, even though there was not enough money allocated to cover those design decisions. It wasn't like they wanted to build item X and the decision was to use stucco or brick, it was whether to build item X or item Y - both out of brick. The cost on this project spiraled out of control and no one stopped it. Again, that didn't make it illegal, it just made it poorly managed - which is why the same people aren't in charge today and the state has to come up with $40 million more.

Since they already had a matching pledge from private donors to cover the additional unfunded $40 million, what happens if that money doesn't come though? Does the state need to come up $40 million more?

http://newsok.com/audit-of-oklahoma-citys-american-indian-cultural-center-shows-board-selected-most-expensive-options/article/3719793


“The board chose the most expensive of six proposals presented by its architect,” State Auditor Gary Jones said in a prepared statement. “They decided to build a $169 million facility when only $5 million in funding had been secured. Throughout the years, although additional funding was not forthcoming, the board maintained its commitment to the most expensive plan.”

...

In August 2004 the agency board — composed of six voting appointed members and five nonvoting ex officio members — approved a $136.1 million “Vision Plan” for the project over an $85.3 million “Preferred Plan.”

At the time the board had less than 25 percent of the funding secured needed to implement the Vision Plan.

“The use of public funds for the project should have warranted a more responsible view of expenditures, one in which the Board supplies its contractors with a set budget and asks what options are available within that budget,” according to the audit.

I'll take your word for it as I have only seen the site from I-35. If it is visible from I-40 (and looking at GoogleEarth it appears it is), then that would fit their narrative that it be visible from the interstate.

As for the whole cost vs. quality debate, people would be hard pressed to find any suggestion by me that government facilities be built on the cheap and in fact - it is just the opposite. Public facilities should be built to much higher standards because they collective represent the people. The State Auditor's report looked at the history of the project and noticed that the most expensive options were selected almost every time, even though there was not enough money allocated to cover those design decisions. It wasn't like they wanted to build item X and the decision was to use stucco or brick, it was whether to build item X or item Y - both out of brick. The cost on this project spiraled out of control and no one stopped it. Again, that didn't make it illegal, it just made it poorly managed - which is why the same people aren't in charge today and the state has to come up with $40 million more.

Since they already had a matching pledge from private donors to cover the additional unfunded $40 million, what happens if that money doesn't come though? Does the state need to come up $40 million more?

Audit of Oklahoma City's American Indian Cultural Center shows board selected most expensive options | News OK (http://newsok.com/audit-of-oklahoma-citys-american-indian-cultural-center-shows-board-selected-most-expensive-options/article/3719793)

I believe the plan is to stipulate the state money will only released if the private funds are there.

And its true, the people aren't there because they didn't pick the cheaper options. They were going for quality and clearly this state wanted the cheapest, not the best. Fund minimally and then hope maximally. That's our motto. It's only a good investment if its the cheapest we can get. LOL

I believe the plan is to stipulate the state money will only released if the private funds are there.

And its true, the people aren't there because they didn't pick the cheaper options. They were going for quality and clearly this state wanted the cheapest, not the best. Fund minimally and then hope maximally. That's our motto. It's only a good investment if its the cheapest we can get. LOL

Is that your opinion on all state funding or just for this project?

Better than crappy makes us happy -- unattributed due to poor memory

Is that your opinion on all state funding or just for this project?

It was stated by certain house members as a requirement for consideration for this project. (verification of private funds)

It is an observation/opinion that this cheaper philosophy is followed quite consistently. We have the same mentality coming from our most conservative representatives regarding education, arts, and culture, in addition to capital projects.

I've built and own commercial buildings, and I can promise you that this structure was overbuilt. I've seen it, walked all through it, and all around the grounds - there was no consideration as to cost. It was OPM obviously, but the people in charge during the construction phase were poor stewards of the OPM entrusted to them.

Rover (and others) tries to neutralize criticisms like this by saying that the only alternative is to make it cheap (Rover's post 1403: "Trying to make it quality and doing it right is your definition of "waste"? So, I guess you are okay with all the developers who are doing it on the cheap."), before changing it into a political rant. I suspect that it will be finished, but by people who are better able to control costs.

My preference? Stop trying to complete this as a government project. It failed once that way, and it's become a bastard child that no-one wants (including the tribes). Let's write an RFP and award the project - as-is, where-is - to the best proposal. The state money that was put into it is counted as a financial incentive to the ultimate buyer, no different than what we do with economic incentives to other businesses who promise to set up shop here.

Better than crappy makes us happy -- unattributed due to poor memory

I think I probably brought it to this board, but it was oft-used by a friend of mine who was a longtime Main Street Program Manager and who was also the first president of Downtown Oklahoma City Incorporated. No idea who he swiped it from (if swiped), but I have done my job in attributing it to him.

+1. This museum will be great for OKC and the state and will be a prime tourist attraction. It's far enough from the core that the urban hawks shouldn't be concerned with the design.

*facepalm

I've built and own commercial buildings, and I can promise you that this structure was overbuilt. I've seen it, walked all through it, and all around the grounds - there was no consideration as to cost.

Not doubting you, but could you provide specific examples.

Not doubting you, but could you provide specific examples.

I won't provide a list of what I built or own, so I'm happy to characterize my observation as anecdotal. Also, "overbuilt" isn't a metric that can be quantified.

But I will say the obvious: Many others who know and have seen this structure agree that it is overbuilt, others agree that it is very nice, and I've never heard argue that the design, materials or construction weren't anything other than among the best. (Sorry for all of the negative characterizations in that last sentence - I'm late for dinner!)

Again, I'm not doubting you, but you say you've seen enough of the structure to characterize it as "overbuilt." Yet, you can't (or haven't) provide any examples to support your characterization. I understand that "overbuilt" isn't easily quantified, but you're the one that used term so surely you have some way of assessing it. I actually would like to understand WHY the AICC is considered overbuilt as everyone just seems to say that without providing evidence.

W
I've built and own commercial buildings, and I can promise you that this structure was overbuilt. I've seen it, walked all through it, and all around the grounds - there was no consideration as to cost. It was OPM obviously, but the people in charge during the construction phase were poor stewards of the OPM entrusted to them.

Rover (and others) tries to neutralize criticisms like this by saying that the only alternative is to make it cheap (Rover's post 1403: "Trying to make it quality and doing it right is your definition of "waste"? So, I guess you are okay with all the developers who are doing it on the cheap."), before changing it into a political rant. I suspect that it will be finished, but by people who are better able to control costs.

My preference? Stop trying to complete this as a government project. It failed once that way, and it's become a bastard child that no-one wants (including the tribes). Let's write an RFP and award the project - as-is, where-is - to the best proposal. The state money that was put into it is counted as a financial incentive to the ultimate buyer, no different than what we do with economic incentives to other businesses who promise to set up shop here.

Are you saying the actual structure is over designed by the A&E or the style is too ornate, or the materials are too nice, or what? You are making a great general statement questioning the construction, so what specifically amounted to wasted overbuilding?

And since you claim expertise on this type project, what world class structures have you been done or own that might compare?

We all know it could be built cheaper and that is what most Okies would like....cheaper not better. World class on a Dollar General budget.

Again, I'm not doubting you, but you say you've seen enough of the structure to characterize it as "overbuilt." Yet, you can't (or haven't) provide any examples to support your characterization. I understand that "overbuilt" isn't easily quantified, but you're the one that used term so surely you have some way of assessing it. I actually would like to understand WHY the AICC is considered overbuilt as everyone just seems to say that without providing evidence.

You know, I'd normally be up to the challenge, but because this IS the prevailing wisdom, I'm enjoying a really great glass of bourbon, and I don't work for you, then I'll ask you to provide the easy thing, which is provide one or two credible sources to support your contention that it isn't overbuilt.

See you in the morning.

You know, I'd normally be up to the challenge, but because this IS the prevailing wisdom, I'm enjoying a really great glass of bourbon, and I don't work for you, then I'll ask you to provide the easy thing, which is provide one or two credible sources to support your contention that it isn't overbuilt.

See you in the morning.

You made the assertion, it's on you to back it up.

You know, I'd normally be up to the challenge, but because this IS the prevailing wisdom, I'm enjoying a really great glass of bourbon, and I don't work for you, then I'll ask you to provide the easy thing, which is provide one or two credible sources to support your contention that it isn't overbuilt.

See you in the morning.

Huh? I've not made a contention that it's either over or underbuilt. As strange as this may seem to some who just come on this board to argue, I'm authentically interested in your opinion and interested in learning. That's why I asked follow-up questions. You certainly aren't on a time requirement and please do enjoy your drink. I hope later on you'll share more. Seriously. :)

Instead of arguing about it - here is the State Audit Report.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/content.newsok.com/documents/culturalaudit.pdf

Personally I find this interesting:


Though the Agency was created in 1994, began receiving operational funding in 1996, and obtained its first infusion of bond financing in 1998, it appears a project budget was not created until April 2001. According to one project contractor, the April 2001 budget of $169 million was not developed to reflect actual project costs, but solely to secure federal funding.

This quote is directed at Rover


There appears to have been no in-depth economic analysis of the alternative plans, or evidence that the quality of the AICCM would have diminished with use of less costly options.

What qualifies as “world class,” whether it is determined by square footage, materials used, or total expenditures, is subject to interpretation. The Board appears to have equated cost with quality, with ensuing decisions based on this premise. While this cost may have been statutorily permissible, it may or may not be regarded as reasonable by state taxpayers and officials.

Where did the waste come from? Here is one area. Note this part comes after a section that says the Board itself was also lacking experience.


The staff was similarly lacking in experience. From 1994 until 2005, NACEA employed approximately three staff members, none of whom had agency administration, project management, or museum experience, to our knowledge. Only around 2007 did the Agency begin to add employees in response to increased operational needs and in anticipation of the museum opening.

The Board compensated for this lack of internal experience by hiring multiple consultants, including architecture firms, project managers, geotechnical consultants, attorneys, design developers, and institutional planning services. Multiple Board members justified the use of consultants of excellent caliber by referring to their expertise in particular areas of museum development, again citing what should be required of a “world class” facility. During the audit period, the Board contracted with these consultants for over $18.7 million.

From the same audit. Anyone can provide excerpts without context.


"Our audit finds that the Native American Cultural and Educational Authority (NACEA) has faced many internal and external obstacles since its inception, from inconsistent funding to inadequate budgeting. Though the governing board (Board) experienced its share of difficulties due to improper planning, some of these were caused and exacerbated by a mixed message from the Legislature.
Our audit found no lack of dedication to the project from the Board. On the contrary, they show an enthusiastic passion for the mission. The vision of the American Indian Cultural Center and Museum (AICCM) as a world-class facility, one that will provide a comprehensive history of our native citizens, is a source of great pride and accomplishment for Board members."

What's your point; that they were committed to a vision they couldn't afford? I think we all agree on that.

In my opinion, which doesn't really matter, I think this project is too much money for something that the majority of people aren't even going to know about or ever visit. I know Native American culture is important to the heritage and history of Oklahoma, but I just really don't see people visiting this place that much. Who is going to visit OKC and go there? Who that lives in OKC is going to go there more than once, if once at all? I like this project a lot if its $10 million but not at this price. I don't mean to sound insensitive and I definitely like the idea, just think its way too much money for something that wont get that many visitors.

In my opinion, which doesn't really matter, I think this project is too much money for something that the majority of people aren't even going to know about or ever visit. I know Native American culture is important to the heritage and history of Oklahoma, but I just really don't see people visiting this place that much. Who is going to visit OKC and go there? Who that lives in OKC is going to go there more than once, if once at all? I like this project a lot if its $10 million but not at this price. I don't mean to sound insensitive and I definitely like the idea, just think its way too much money for something that wont get that many visitors.

The audit report also identified that attendance projections and spin-off revenue were totally made up. I wonder what a real analysis would show.

Where did the waste come from? Here is one area. Note this part comes after a section that says the Board itself was also lacking experience.

"Our audit found no lack of dedication to the project from the Board. On the contrary, they show an enthusiastic passion for the mission."

What's your point; that they were committed to a vision they couldn't afford? I think we all agree on that.
I'll bet that they were dedicated/committed/passionate (whatever) but not up to the challenge. It's not enough to simply hire a contractor, you've got to know a little about what's going on and I doubt Angie's List has a section for multi-million dollar projects.

In my opinion, which doesn't really matter, I think this project is too much money for something that the majority of people aren't even going to know about or ever visit. I know Native American culture is important to the heritage and history of Oklahoma, but I just really don't see people visiting this place that much. Who is going to visit OKC and go there? Who that lives in OKC is going to go there more than once, if once at all? I like this project a lot if its $10 million but not at this price. I don't mean to sound insensitive and I definitely like the idea, just think its way too much money for something that wont get that many visitors.
Somewhere in this thread is Pete talking about how the Cowboy Hall of Fame wasn't always the jewel it is and (even ignoring stereotypes) the AICC would be a wonderful complementary addition to Oklahoma City that WOULD be visited and well known.

Yes, the Cowboy Hall had similar issues, was stalled for quite some time and then ultimately turned into an amazing facility and resource.


Although this project started off as a bit of a mess, it's also true they now seem to have solid leadership and a good amount of money in donations, so I'm all for finishing this.

Also, the Native American culture is one of the biggest things that makes Oklahoma unique. Due to the scattered nature of the tribes, this one project can bring everyone together be a showcase to the world.

Personally, I've never visited any of the various tribe locations but I would go to this and I bet they get tons of visitation once complete.

Although this project started off as a bit of a mess, it's also true they now seem to have solid leadership and a good amount of money in donations, so I'm all for finishing this.

The State Audit had several scenarios for completion. It is ironic that even under the new leadership they still opted for the most expensive "vision" version. The museum could be finished with just the $40 million in private donations. As for being unique, here on the East Coast we are steeped in Native American lore that goes back much further in history than the tribes in Oklahoma.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/04/us/florida-indian-village/

As for being unique, here on the East Coast we are steeped in Native American lore that goes back much further in history than the tribes in Oklahoma.

The length of history is not what makes Native Americans in Oklahoma unique.

In my opinion, which doesn't really matter, I think this project is too much money for something that the majority of people aren't even going to know about or ever visit. I know Native American culture is important to the heritage and history of Oklahoma, but I just really don't see people visiting this place that much. Who is going to visit OKC and go there? Who that lives in OKC is going to go there more than once, if once at all? I like this project a lot if its $10 million but not at this price. I don't mean to sound insensitive and I definitely like the idea, just think its way too much money for something that wont get that many visitors.

Isn't there a lot that we like for free but not if we have to pay? It is Native America.

I would advise all to drop the question of whether a Native American facility is needed. It's patently absurd to question that.

The length of history is not what makes Native Americans in Oklahoma unique.

Is it the resettlement angle? If so, is that what this museum is intending to display? Isn't that a little like the Germans creating a museum to showcase the concentration of Jews into ghettos - and shouldn't that be a story best told by the Jews?

I am not going to debate against all common sense the uniqueness of Oklahoma's relationship with Native Americans.

There are 38 separate tribes that currently call Oklahoma home and until the 20th century, the state was Indian Territory.

Is it the resettlement angle? If so, is that what this museum is intending to display? Isn't that a little like the Germans creating a museum to showcase the concentration of Jews into ghettos - and shouldn't that be a story best told by the Jews?

JTF, I think you don't know what is being built. It is a Cultural Center..... Not a History center.

History does play a part of it, but the main focus is the cultural aspect of the people. The culture moved to Oklahoma not the history, but the history does live on in the people's culture.

The State Audit had several scenarios for completion. It is ironic that even under the new leadership they still opted for the most expensive "vision" version. The museum could be finished with just the $40 million in private donations. As for being unique, here on the East Coast we are steeped in Native American lore that goes back much further in history than the tribes in Oklahoma.

Downtown Miami dig reveals ancient village - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/04/us/florida-indian-village/)

True only in 'tribe specific'. I'm a 50+ year artifact hunter. This past weekend I spent several hours in a creek in southwestern Oklahoma and recovered a Folsom culture scraper.....11,000 - 10,000 BP artifact, and this makes the third Paleo artifact I've found in that creek this year.
Oklahoma has some of the greatest old artifacts known to exist. Spiro Mounds (which is not real old, maybe 900 years) is one of the 4 most important archeolgical sites known to the United States. The other 3 being in Illinois (Cahokia), Ohio and Mississippi.
As far as artifacts and 'old cultures' go, Oklahoma rocks. The 5 civilized tribles relocated in the early 1800's, but the indeginous tribes, which are actually cultures but became tribes known as the Caddo, Wichita, Kiowa and Osage, were here before relocation. The Paleoindians go back to 12,000 bp, where the tribal affiations are just a blip of years. The Domebo Mammoth kill site at Tonkawa Creek near Anadarko revealed six or seven 11,500 bp Clovis points....and the list goes on and on.

The 2500 year old site in Miami is peanuts compared to some of the sites I search in western Oklahoma.

In my opinion, which doesn't really matter, I think this project is too much money for something that the majority of people aren't even going to know about or ever visit. I know Native American culture is important to the heritage and history of Oklahoma, but I just really don't see people visiting this place that much. Who is going to visit OKC and go there? Who that lives in OKC is going to go there more than once, if once at all? I like this project a lot if its $10 million but not at this price. I don't mean to sound insensitive and I definitely like the idea, just think its way too much money for something that wont get that many visitors.

Just reinforces what I say on here often; OKC residents are generally in the dark about how much tourism we have here. It's not surprising; it is human nature to devalue your own surroundings (grass is always greener) and elevate others. After all, why would anyone want to visit a place that we see every day? The funny thing is that MOST locales have this problem; I have even experienced it in very notable tourist hotspots. The director of the OKC CVB likes to tell a story about being at a conference in Boston and asking some locals where they should go out and what they should do while they were there, and he was told they needed to get out of Boston because "there's not much to do here." The negative attitude in OKC is also exacerbated a bit by the modest nature most Okies have.

The answer to your question is that - due to location and subject - it will probably eventually draw even more than the National Cowboy and Western Heritage Museum, which it complements beautifully, as has been pointed out. There are people in Oklahoma City EVERY DAY of the year who are fascinated by our unique history and hungry for attractions like this. I just spoke today with a couple from England, walking on the canal. They would go there today if it existed, guaranteed, just as they have/will visited the memorial and the cowboy museum. The AICC is purported to be Smithsonian-quality. If so, it will have a national presence.

Did you know that the OKC National Memorial and the cowboy museum have staff that travels to consumer and group travel shows all over the U.S.? So does the OKC CVB. The memorial tracks the ZIP codes of its visitors. The top two states after Oklahoma are Texas and...California. I have personally hosted motor coach tours from places like Pennsylvania who planned their itineraries with western themes and OKC is one of the top cities they visit.

Besides that, we have a very large number of visitors come through town who are travelling Route 66, and who make OKC a stop for a day or more, visiting all of the major attractions while here. This includes a large number of people from Europe and Asia, especially during the summer. Pretty much every day my employees deal with people from places like the UK, Ireland, Germany, Sweden, Spain, France, Japan, Taiwan, China, India... ...every day.

So, who is going to visit OKC and go to this museum? Hundreds of thousands of people from all over the globe. Seriously.

Thanks for that great perspective, Urbanized.


I will add that the new convention center is hoped to greatly bolster out-of-town visitors, and we now have tons of hotel rooms in the area, with a bunch more to come.

I agree. I spent a semester in Germany and quickly learned that when (some) Europeans think of Oklahoma, they think of tornados, Native Americans, and cowboys. There are a lot of misconceptions about Oklahoma and Native American culture, especially for those who haven't visited Oklahoma before. I have had several friends from Europe come visit who enjoy learning and WANT to learn more about Oklahoma's culture. I think this will be high on their list of places to visit whenever they come back, and if it isn't, it is something that I would try to push for them to see.

I can see this potentially being a popular field trip destination as well.

JTF, I think you don't know what is being built. It is a Cultural Center..... Not a History center.

History does play a part of it, but the main focus is the cultural aspect of the people. The culture moved to Oklahoma not the history, but the history does live on in the people's culture.

I guess we are just going to have to wait and see what they fill the building with. I mean, it isn't like the tribes are lining up to donate money so I don't know if they will be lining up to donate their culture.

BTW...

http://www.theamericanindiancenter.org/permanent-exhibition-gallery


Permanent Exhibition

Journey through time learning about Oklahoma’s Original Peoples and the unique History which has led to the presence of Tribes Today. Cultural Centers have been flourishing here for thousands of years in the Western and Eastern part of the land, now known as Oklahoma.


...anyhow, it seems we re-live this same topic every 6 months so I will wrap my part of it up with this.

1) It seems like half-baked idea to begin with
2) I doubt the tribes will play a big role
3) They didn't have the money to build what they wanted, but they didn't let that stop them
4) Revenue and attendance projections will fall dismally short (the new Chickasaw Nation's Exhibit in Bricktown will draw 5X the people - ironically setup by the same guy who pushed for the AICC)
5) This place will need a state bailout 5 years after opening (it was to be self-funding)

As for being unique, here on the East Coast we are steeped in Native American lore that goes back much further in history than the tribes in Oklahoma.


I couldn't make a better argument for the purpose and need for this project than this statement showing a complete lack of context and history. LOL

More reasons why Oklahoma's story needs to be told - Largest Bison Kill site in the Southern Plains is just 4 miles west of Elk City. I've been there, it's pretty fascinating.

Flying W Guest Ranch Buffalo Kill Tours, Frontier Town, Camping, & Restaurant (http://www.flyingwguestranch.com/Flying_W_Guest_Ranch_Buffalo_Archaeology_Dig.htm)

Is it the resettlement angle? If so, is that what this museum is intending to display? Isn't that a little like the Germans creating a museum to showcase the concentration of Jews into ghettos - and shouldn't that be a story best told by the Jews?

You're coming off as really ignorant. Native American culture has been used by this state for commercial purposes (just see the license plates) for years. It's long overdue that we honor the cultures of tribes from which this state has taken so much (if you disagree with this statement then just see Angie Debo's work as a starting point).

In my opinion, which doesn't really matter, I think this project is too much money for something that the majority of people aren't even going to know about or ever visit. I know Native American culture is important to the heritage and history of Oklahoma, but I just really don't see people visiting this place that much. Who is going to visit OKC and go there? Who that lives in OKC is going to go there more than once, if once at all? I like this project a lot if its $10 million but not at this price. I don't mean to sound insensitive and I definitely like the idea, just think its way too much money for something that wont get that many visitors.

I think it is completely possible that this could become one of Oklahoma's most visited and revered attractions. I think the design is fantastic and there is a worldwide interest in Native cultures.

Just from a simple economics point-of-view, Oklahoma is already known for it's Native history. People who travel to new places are particularly interested in what makes that place unique. You could make a case that this, more than anything else, is what makes Oklahoma unique and interesting. That's why it's unbelievable how long it's taken for such a museum to come to fruition.