I think the best potential hub could in fact be Santa Fe. In ten year, when the convention center will probably be finished and operating, the land the Cox is on is plenty of space for a great urban transportation hub.

Here is an interesting proposal for a transit hub in Baltimore. Notice the similarities to the Santa Fe Station layout.

http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll14/Platemaker_photos/hub.jpg

I think you are correct Platemaker. Santa Fe might be a cool building but it is way to small to function as a street car/commuter rail/bus hub. The Cox site however could do that easily. Keep in mind that the tracks and passenger platforms are only part of a hub operation. The site would also have to include office space for system operations, retail space (food service, florist, gift shop, sundry items, newsstand), traveler information and support, transit police office space, possible airport check in services, ground transportation (taxis, rental car, scooter/segway rental).

This is no time to think small. OKC has a chance to do what many other cities can't do; build a brand new city from the core out. It needs to be something like Victoria Station in London.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/58/Victoria_Station_Concourse.jpg

http://www.freefoto.com/images/31/12/31_12_4---Victoria-Station--London_web.jpg

http://www.jefflubchanskycpa.com/VICTORIA-DE17-5D26.jpg

Here is an interesting proposal for a transit hub in Baltimore. Notice the similarities to the Santa Fe Station layout.

http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll14/Platemaker_photos/hub.jpg

Platemaker - you are thinking to small. Dream big! That hub might do for a remote hub but not for downtown. The downtown hub has to be larger than life. Think "Old Penn Station" not "New Penn Station".

The city spent how many millions on the Performing Arts Center that get used a couple of time per week. Spend at least that much on a building that will be used daily.

Oh, I dream bigger! With the talk of the tunnels at Santa Fe being open on both sides of the elevated track I thought it interesting that this station straddles an elevated portion of track in a similar way. There would definitely need to be a grander vision adjacent.

The problem I see with Santa Fe is that it leave too much of the platform open to the elements. Nobody wants to wait on the platform for a train in 20 degree weather and a 30 mph wind. The only way to fix that would be to cover the area in glass. But then you have freight trains running through an enclosed building and those trains carrying some dangerous stuff.

[QUOTE=Kerry;284694]I think you are correct Platemaker. Santa Fe might be a cool building but it is way to small to function as a street car/commuter rail/bus hub. The Cox site however could do that easily. Keep in mind that the tracks and passenger platforms are only part of a hub operation. The site would also have to include office space for system operations, retail space (food service, florist, gift shop, sundry items, newsstand), traveler information and support, transit police office space, possible airport check in services, ground transportation (taxis, rental car, scooter/segway rental).


This idea is nothing short of brilliant!

To elaborate a bit, the Sante Fe Station can be artfully incorporated into the transportation hub that would take the place of the Cox Center; be it through a glass dome spanning the whole area (why not?) or via covered walk ways. A true mixed-use center as mentioned above and including a high-rise hotel would make this truly the center of the city and magnet for all of the downtown districts. I could even imagine sinking E.K.Gaylord (no pun intended) and making an above ground pedestrian zone all the way from the Sante Fe station to the Myriad Gardens and in the other direction via a tunnel under the tracks to Bricktown. Talk about opening up the city! Transportation, walkability, central focus tying into other major attractions and ongoing developments.

Getting excited about this again!

Nm

Thanks David. I failed to mention the hotel idea you brought up. Victoria Station does have a 300 room hotel attached.

The problem I see with Santa Fe is that it leave too much of the platform open to the elements. Nobody wants to wait on the platform for a train in 20 degree weather and a 30 mph wind. The only way to fix that would be to cover the area in glass. But then you have freight trains running through an enclosed building and those trains carrying some dangerous stuff.

This is exactly like what i've been picturing. There are four sets of tracks at Santa Fe. Two to cover.... two for thru traffic.

This is exactly like what i've been picturing. There are four sets of tracks at Santa Fe. Two to cover.... two for thru traffic.

Now that might be feasable. I was concerned about freight traffic having to travel through an enclosed building.

How many tracks are at Santa Fe station. The only photo I can find shows 6.

http://www.railpixs.com/amt3/platforms_OkCity_Dec76a.jpg

Ok... you gotta ignore the crude crude crude drawing... All I have in front of me is Paint.

Obviously none of us know where the streetcar tracks are going... this is all just an idea.

http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll14/Platemaker_photos/SantaFe.jpg

Plate - that is awesome! I love the line of sight idea for Santa Fe Station and the Ford Center along Broadway

Where does the money for this new giant hub come from, and when. With Project 180 going on and streets torn up, it appears that the streetcar might be one of the first maps3 items completed. So how do we fund this giant hub? Also, Im guessing the Cox center wont go away for at least 10 years, so where do get the room for this hub in the meantime?

onthestrp - this idea is 10 to 12 years out. Nothing can happen until a new convention center is built and the state decides to fund a commuter rail system. My guess would be that funds would come from the state and federal governments and a metro-wide MAPS style vote. Money would also come from the sale/lease of the areas marked "Other Development"

That's a great plan, Plate. Were you envisioning EK Gaylord going underground or just not going through anymore?

That's a great plan, Plate. Were you envisioning EK Gaylord going underground or just not going through anymore?

It will go underground. It will provide covered drop off, entry/exit for taxis, access to a rental car/scooter/segway center, as well as through access for north and south bound traffic.

I dunno... seems like you would want a airport style drop off/pick up area... I could see traffic being able to drive through. Maybe the trains could go underground for a block there? Or visa versa.

I think that portions of the Cox could be used for a transit center but overall it's vital that we keep the Cox. I know people don't realize this, but it is a 1.1 million sf convention center, still one of the largest in the nation. The new convention center will only be 500,000 sf, half the overall size of the Cox, even if the Cox only has 100,000 sf of contiguous exhibition space. We still need to hold onto the Cox, which is still a very nice facility, just not enough convention space. That way the new center just builds off of what the Cox can already offer.

Building the new smaller, but more convention-oriented center and demolishing the Cox is like taking one step forward and two steps backwards.

Plate - I envisoin a drop off area that is located underground where the Myraid parking garage is now. You don't want to drop people off right at the train platform. You want them to go through the station.

As you come south on EK Gaylord you would go underground just before Sheridan. As you approach California St (but underground) you would then make a right turn into a ground transportation services area. It would loop around and come back out on EK Gayloard. Once back on EK Gaylord you could keep going south under Reno and then return to the surface. The next light would then be the new boulevard.

Spartan - The Cox is not 1.1 million sq feet. It has 250,000. Crossroads Mall is just over 1 million sq feet and it dwarfs Cox.

The Cox, including the arena, actually is a 1.1 million sf facility..

http://www.hotelsconventioncenter.com/cc.php?CentreID=56

Spartan - we discussed this to death pre-MAPS III vote. Cox has exactly 185,206 sq feet of rentable space. That includes all meeting rooms, arena, and exhibit space. Various web site seem to have different numbers so here is every room available at Cox, the demensions, and the sq footage. To get to 1,000,000 sq feet they would have to include non-leasable space and the parking garage under it. I don't even think the lot it sits on is 1,000,000 sq feet. That would be a square 1,000' X 1,000'.

Exhibit Hall Dimensions Sq. Ft.
A 62' X 64' 4,032
B 53' X 64' 3,456
C 52' X 64' 3,328
D 53' X 64' 3,456
E 62' X 64' 4,032
1 125' X 199' 25,074
2 159' X 199' 31,400
3 125' X 199' 25,074
Exhibit Hall SubTotal 99,852 sq feet

Room Dimensions Sq. Ft.
Meeting Room 1 46' X 27' 1,265
Meeting Room 2 46' X 27' 1,269
Meeting Room 3 46' X 26' 1,219
Meeting Rooms 4 46' X 40' 1,855
Meeting Rooms 5 46' X 29' 1,365
Meeting Rooms 6 26' x 25' 680
Meeting Rooms 7 24' X 30' 738
Meeting Rooms 8 25' X 53' 1,349
Meeting Rooms 9 49' X 32' 1,575
Meeting Rooms 10 49' X 33' 1,631
Meeting Rooms 11 49' X 33' 1,631
Meeting Rooms 12 49' x 32' 1,575
Meeting Rooms A 48' X 65' 3,278
Meeting Room B 51' X 65' 3,508
Meeting Room C 103' X 109' 11,216
Meeting Room D 51' X 65' 3,508
Meeting Room E 48' X 65' 3,278
Meeting Rooms 14 40' X 32' 1,283
Meeting Rooms 15 40' X 32' 1,283
Meeting Rooms 16 51' X 32' 1,639
Meeting Rooms 17 51' X 33' 1,697
Meeting Rooms 18 51' X 33' 1,680
Meeting Rooms 19 51' X 33' 1,680
Meeting Rooms 20 51' X 32' 1,593
Meeting Rooms 21 29' x 22' 672
Boardroom 41' x 23' 887
Arena 32,000

Room SubTotal: 85,354 sq feet

Grand Total: 185,206 sq feet

It's not uncommon for the actual total square footage of convention facilities to be 4 or 5 times the rentable square feet that the facility offers.

I notice you left out the bathrooms..

Where does the money for this new giant hub come from, and when. With Project 180 going on and streets torn up, it appears that the streetcar might be one of the first maps3 items completed. So how do we fund this giant hub? Also, Im guessing the Cox center wont go away for at least 10 years, so where do get the room for this hub in the meantime?

I'm fairly certain MIII contains about $10 million to develop a transit hub. Not sure if that's adequate for what's proposed here.

I notice you left out the bathrooms..

I don't care who you are. That is funny right there.

I'm fairly certain MIII contains about $10 million to develop a transit hub. Not sure if that's adequate for what's proposed here.

Thats why I ask, because 10 mil is not near enough for whats being talked about in this thread. Is it just a small facility that can be expanded in the future? If so, where? Acquiring land wont be cheap.

I'm fairly certain MIII contains about $10 million to develop a transit hub. Not sure if that's adequate for what's proposed here.

Have heard this $10M figure in the threads before but don't know where it is coming from. The MAPS 3 stuff I read never gave a cost breakdown, just the lump sum. I transit hub was mentioned but was provisional (if/might/could include). How far we get depends a lot on federal funding etc., which is not a sure thing (not with the streetcars themselves, but the hub, and the other components of mass trans).

The Cox, including the arena, actually is a 1.1 million sf facility..

Oklahoma Cox Convention Center in Oklahoma. Hotels in Oklahoma. Hotels Convention Center (http://www.hotelsconventioncenter.com/cc.php?CentreID=56)

Spartan is correct, it IS a million sf facility but that number is skewed by the arena part. According to the Chamber's C.C. study

Total Building Space
Cox: 1,000,000 sf
MAPS 3: 570,000 sf
MAPS 4: 850,000 sf

Prime Exhibit Space
Cox: 81,500 sf
MAPS 3: 200,000 sf
MAPS 4: 300,000 sf

Meeting Space
Cox: 28,600 sf
MAPS 3: 50,000 sf
MAPS 4: 75,000 sf

Ballroom/Multi-use Space
Cox: 25,000 sf
MAPS 3: 35,000 sf
MAPS 4: 50,000 sf

Total Sellable Space
Cox: 153,600 sf
MAPS 3: 285,000 sf
MAPS 4: 425,000 sf

Headquarter Hotel Rooms
Cox: 311 rooms
MAPS 3: 650 rooms

Hotel Meeting/Ballroom Space
Cox: 0
MAPS 3: 50,000 sf

Although some articles said that the new convention center would replace the Cox (implying that it would be torn down), the Mayor has stated more than once that no decision on the fate of the Cox had been made (or will be made any time in the near future...probably 10 years away). This also goes back to the NTM folks claim that it would be our 3rd Convention Center which many in these threads scoffed at (the Ford is C.C. #2 according to the MAPS ballot and the Mayor during the Ford tax vote). As Spartan pointed out getting rid of the Cox wouldn't seem prudent.

Could still be used as an auxillary/overflow or for the size of conventions we already get.

Eliminating the Cox would eliminate the side-by-side arena setup that has been a selling point for landing Big 12 events.

We are poised to make another $4M in improvements to the Cox if we land the hockey team. This is in addition to the $60M under the 1st MAPS.

While parts of the Cox are nice, that wasn't what they were saying as to why we needed a new convention center. From the same Chamber report:


Some challenges facing the Oklahoma City market as they relate to functioning as a convention destination include:
• Building the brand awareness of Oklahoma City as a convention destination.
• Challenges due to the size and quality of the existing Cox Business Services Convention Center.
• Limited air accessibility.
• Limited supply of convention-quality hotel properties.
...
The poor quality of the convention center exhibit space. Virtually all competitive and comparable markets offer space of a significantly higher overall quality.


Of the Challenges list, only the Size/Quality of a New Convention Center is directly addressed in MAPS 3

Well the $4 million in Cox improvements would be ALL made to the arena which was largely untouched by the $60 million Cox renovations. Don't worry..compared to other cities we're getting amazing bang for our buck. An AHL hockey team would be a decent amenity, too.

Sorry to hijack the thread. I think we just need to step back from the assumption that the Cox Center site is up for grabs. If we absolutely need some of the site for a multi-modal transit hub, then we can take chunks out of it but not the entire facility.

I think a MUCH MUCH better idea personally is completely taking E.K. Gaylord off the city grid and fill in that portion between the Cox and Santa Fe station if we need more room. Have the hub front Sheridan. That will give you more interaction with the convention center, ample room to do a full transit hub, solve our E.K. Gaylord problem, turn Sheridan into a more pedestrian-friendly access point between Bricktown and Downtown, and have a hub that is truly in the middle of it all.

... I think a MUCH MUCH better idea personally is completely taking E.K. Gaylord off the city grid and fill in that portion between the Cox and Santa Fe station if we need more room.

Doesn't EKG blvd. carry a passle plus of traffic every week day? Where does it get routed under the above?

Good question Kevin.

See the funny thing about EKG is that there is a perfectly good street capable of carrying lots of vehicle traffic as well as safely including pedestrians (unlike EKG) just one block to the west (Broadway). By getting rid of EKG we remove one of the last vestiges of urban renewal that never really made a lot of sense in the first place. It's basically a downtown-bypass, except it cuts straight through downtown. Go figure.

The chamber has been wanting to fix the NW 4th/Broadway/EKG/Dean McGee intersection for a while but city engineers won't let them touch it. We need to have a public discussion on the merits of keeping EKG open, which I don't think are that great. I can offer up a laundry list of reasons to close it, but the only reason to keep it open is for handling large amounts of traffic. Well, there are a ton of other streets in downtown that can handle large amounts of traffic, in fact, there are capable streets that are desperate for large amounts of traffic. Go figure.

Look at 6-lane one-way Hudson Avenue (granted that's going to be fixed with 180). Not to mention I think it would be a lot cheaper to just rip out EKG than to find solutions.

You can't take EKG out. It is the only street through downtown that crosses the river. It is also the only street that goes through downtown OKC all the way. If you take it out everyone would have to to make a left and then a right to get through downtown. That would be a disaster for traffic - even with the new street alignments. OKC needs more streets opened - not closed. Besides Broadway is blocked by the Cox Center and the Ford Center.

The best alternative is to build the new convention center just south of the Ford Center and include an arena with it. The COX site will have a better and higher use as a transit hub than as a secondary convention site.

Yes they spent $60 million fixing it up but by the time Cox meets the implosion team it will have been nearly 20 years. The Cox was renovated in 1999, it is now 2009 (almost 2010) and a transt hub won't be needed for 10 more years. So it was hardly wasted money.

Uh oh!!! I'm a Google My Maps junkie!!! You're all gonna be sick of me!

How about one way figure eight style lines a la Portland. Maximum streetcar frontage... this would serve current hotels very well... access to multiple lines. Of course this is more than 6 miles worth... but whatever.

http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll14/Platemaker_photos/onewaylines.jpg

What about a Midtown crossing?

You can't take EKG out. It is the only street through downtown that crosses the river. It is also the only street that goes through downtown OKC all the way. If you take it out everyone would have to to make a left and then a right to get through downtown. That would be a disaster for traffic - even with the new street alignments. OKC needs more streets opened - not closed. Besides Broadway is blocked by the Cox Center and the Ford Center.

The best alternative is to build the new convention center just south of the Ford Center and include an arena with it. The COX site will have a better and higher use as a transit hub than as a secondary convention site.

Yes they spent $60 million fixing it up but by the time Cox meets the implosion team it will have been nearly 20 years. The Cox was renovated in 1999, it is now 2009 (almost 2010) and a transt hub won't be needed for 10 more years. So it was hardly wasted money.

That's not true. Robinson and Walker both go through downtown alllll the way and both cross the river. I disagree that the Cox has a better and higher use as a transit hub than a secondary convention center..considering it's not going to be an inferior convention center for a while. It's still a good facility, recently renovated, just too damn small. I strongly disagree with putting ANY superblock sites adjacent to the ones we already have, same thing as putting the convention center and park together.. I would be for renovating the Cox again in the future and completely reconfiguring it. Fixing the bare sides, integrating a new transit hub on the east side, creating a pedestrian corridor through the Cox where Broadway ends, and making various other improvements to it.

I forgot about Robinson but Walker is on the the other side of downtown. Neither one cross the river on a road that in any way compares to the capacity of Shilds Blvd. The reality is EK Gaylord will never be closed. I can see where it could narrowed from 6 to 4 lanes but it will never go away. Alas, we will know the fate of the Cox Center soon enough. If the plans for the new convention center include an arena in the 8,000 to 12,000 seat range you can count the Cox good bye. We need two arenas downtown, but not 3.

There is no way that MAPS 3 CC will include an arena. That would be almost all of the 500,000 sf right there. The Cox will likely never be demo'd, and why? It has bones that can still be used for important things. The goal of the $280 million convention center isn't to be the official CC -- just to supplement what the Cox already has. If we were building a new CC and tearing down the Cox then we'd be talking about a $500 million CC that's at least 1.5 million sf if not bigger.

As for streets, I don't see the difference between the capacity of Robinson/Walker bridges and the Shields bridge..and I don't know if you realize, but we already have way too many bridges across the river. Nobody drives on the Shields bridge, or the Byers bridge, or the Robinson bridge, or the 15th bridge, or the Exchange bridge. Nobody can use Western, Penn, or May. Occasionally people use the Walker bridge but that's it. Walker is also pretty much the only bridge that's used for emergencies because EMSA's HQ is right off Walker, between the river and Capitol Hill.

Read this
A Downtown ontheRange: River gateways (http://downtownontherange.blogspot.com/2009/06/river-gateways.html)

IF anything we need to close down more of these river crossings we don't need..and why not start with Shields and getting EKG out of downtown?

Spartan.... where in the world are you getting the 500,000 square foot information for the new convention center?? I haven't read that anywhere.

And what is this 'nobody uses X bridge' business??

Closing bridges??? Ridiculous.

Do you seriously think that we use all of those bridges? We have like 10 bridges in a 3-mile span. That just downplays any psychological impact of the riverfront, maintaining those is a lot of wasted resources, and now we're saying we have to keep EKG the way it is to preserve the bridges we don't need/don't ever use?? Come on just think about these for a second. I swear so many of our downtown's afflictions are truly a result of just not even being grounded in reality.

You asked about the convention center:

The proposed amenities
The proposed convention center would be 550,000 square feet, which is less than half the size of the Cox Convention Center.

"Well over half the Cox Convention Center has nothing to do with conventions,” Williams said. It’s the arena and support space for the arena.”

The Cox Convention Center has 84,000 square feet of exhibition space, well short of the 200,000 square feet the study indicated the city needs. The new convention center would meet that need and would include enough adjacent open space to allow for a 100,000 square foot expansion decades later when it might be needed. It would not have an arena.



Read more: NewsOK (http://newsok.com/article/3419426#ixzz0ae5NJINP)

Spartan... I just don't think the brdge situation causes as much trouble as you think. You used Cincinnati as an example.

Within 3 miles east and 3 miles west of central London there are 11 bridges (more if you include pedestrian and railroad bridges. Dallas and Oklahoma City have the same number.

Within 3 miles east and 3 miles west of central San Antonio there are 32 bridges not including pedestrian bridges or railroad bridges.

San Antonio River = Bricktown Canal

Theirs is a river-fed canal... i didn't count the canal ... only the river.

I would be for renovating the Cox again in the future and completely reconfiguring it. Fixing the bare sides, integrating a new transit hub on the east side, creating a pedestrian corridor through the Cox where Broadway ends, and making various other improvements to it.

I acutally like this idea. I think you could pretty much gut everything around the arena bowl and start over with pedestrian friendly outward facing development. There's room for a hotel, a residential tower, and the transit hub to be attached along with maintaining the meeting space on the north side. Then we'd still have our secondary arena.


San Antonio River = Bricktown Canal

No it's an actual river. The canal extends off it in a loop.

http://the-alamo-san-antonio.com/thealamo_files/sadowntown2.jpg

I can see your argument for closing some of the bridges, but not as many as you suggest and definitely not Shields. That was the highway into central OKC before the interstate and it's still a major southside artery. It would be like cutting off Classen at 16th.

Shields isn't a "major southside artery." My family lives on the southside and I never use Shields to get anywhere. Western is the main artery of South OKC. Even though Walker ends at 104th, that is the most convenient and traffic-free artery on the south side.

Shields is just going out of your way to take a tour of the ghetto parts of the south side and see 8 miles of nothing but trailer parks and hit every light along the way, which sucks, because you're practically the only car waiting for 5 minutes for each of these lights in a really bad part of town where you think gunfire is going to start coming at you from nowhere. It's basically the Meth Expressway.

The only way Shields is convenient is if you actually live in the trailer parks and need to get downtown, which considering you live in a trailer park, is unlikely. If you're south of 240 like us, you're going to just take I-35 anyway. From around 119th and Penn you can take either 44 or 35 and both are faster than Shields. If you live north of 240 you're just going to take whatever main street your neighborhood is off of.

Shields isn't a "major southside artery." My family lives on the southside and I never use Shields to get anywhere. Western is the main artery of South OKC. Even though Walker ends at 104th, that is the most convenient and traffic-free artery on the south side.

Shields is just going out of your way to take a tour of the ghetto parts of the south side and see 8 miles of nothing but trailer parks and hit every light along the way, which sucks, because you're practically the only car waiting for 5 minutes for each of these lights in a really bad part of town where you think gunfire is going to start coming at you from nowhere. It's basically the Meth Expressway.

The only way Shields is convenient is if you actually live in the trailer parks and need to get downtown, which considering you live in a trailer park, is unlikely. If you're south of 240 like us, you're going to just take I-35 anyway. From around 119th and Penn you can take either 44 or 35 and both are faster than Shields. If you live north of 240 you're just going to take whatever main street your neighborhood is off of.

I use Shields all the time when I want to get to the south side in a hurry.

The only way Shields is convenient is if you actually live in the trailer parks and need to get downtown, which considering you live in a trailer park, is unlikely.

Wow.

Spartan... now officially not worth my time.

I use Shields all the time when I want to get to the south side in a hurry.

good anecdote is still anecdote.

Spartan... now officially not worth my time.

Sorry to offend thee and anyone else in thy Shields Boulevard afflication fan club. Where would we be without the opulence of grandeur of this truly magnificent street. In the grand scheme, there are only such boulevards that are the envy of the world! When the people in Paris talk about their city they could only wish that the Champs-Élysées was half as world-class as Shields Boulevarde!

http://pics3.city-data.com/businesses/p/5/6/0/5/7965605.JPG
Downtown Shields Blvd

http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/8209/shieldsd.jpg
Rush hour on Shields Blvd

(Maybe if people didn't drive on Shields they would see parts of the south side that actually are nice.)

These comments are not very kind to the people that live there, and furthermore have little to do with the actual topic of this thread. How about thinking constructively on how downtown transportation modifications could actually help integrate the upper South Side (i.e. Capitol Hill).

Specifically, I think the new streetcar should have a Southside terminus stop in Capitol Hill to encourage growth there. Shields however, at least as I remember it, was a bit of a white elephant. I too feel that it does not necessarily need to be a major artery anymore, which means that EK Gaylord could also be rerouted by the Santa Fe station.

After reading the flow of the blog, I too see that doing away with the Cox Convention Center is a waste of resources, however the idea of redoing it to include a transportation center and other, more useful facilities such as a large hotel, retail, etc., while still maintaining the arena and some convention space is a good one. Actually, imo, it is a much more mature plan than simply ripping things down to build anew.

I would like to see more ideas on this blog about how the Cox could be put to another use. Hopefully the City will take these ideas seriously in considering its options.

The goal of the $280 million convention center isn't to be the official CC -- just to supplement what the Cox already has. If we were building a new CC and tearing down the Cox then we'd be talking about a $500 million CC that's at least 1.5 million sf if not bigger.

The $500M figure is close to the cost of the COMPLETE convention center. $400M in 2009 $$$, which in 10 years the expansion cost could easily have risen by another $100M (see Ford improvement cost for comparison). But where are you getting the 1.5M sf number from? The only way I can see coming up with that is if it has an arena which I think everyone is in agreement it won't have. The CURRENT requirements for a tier II facility is the 200K meeting space which Phase 1 (MAPS 3) will have. This is more than double what the Cox currently has (even though the overall facility is half the size because of the arena). Also curious where you got the idea that the new convention center is just to "supplement" what the Cox has? That isn't what I got from all of the MAPS 3 info on it. If anything, the Cox will supplement the new convention center since it will be twice the meeting size.

While Spartan has some interesting ideas on reconfiguring the Cox, from what the Mayor has said it is cost prohibitive to do so (thus the new convention center in MAPS 3).

It is cost prohibitive to add exhibition space to the Cox. To get more exhibition space in downtown we don't have any options besides building a new convention center. But it's not cost prohibitive to try and fix the Cox so that it can be effective in its role as a backup facility. It's just about getting the most for our community out of this asset, and I don't think it's the end of the road for the Cox..


These comments are not very kind to the people that live there, and furthermore have little to do with the actual topic of this thread. How about thinking constructively on how downtown transportation modifications could actually help integrate the upper South Side (i.e. Capitol Hill).

Specifically, I think the new streetcar should have a Southside terminus stop in Capitol Hill to encourage growth there. Shields however, at least as I remember it, was a bit of a white elephant. I too feel that it does not necessarily need to be a major artery anymore, which means that EK Gaylord could also be rerouted by the Santa Fe station.

After reading the flow of the blog, I too see that doing away with the Cox Convention Center is a waste of resources, however the idea of redoing it to include a transportation center and other, more useful facilities such as a large hotel, retail, etc., while still maintaining the arena and some convention space is a good one. Actually, imo, it is a much more mature plan than simply ripping things down to build anew.

I would like to see more ideas on this blog about how the Cox could be put to another use. Hopefully the City will take these ideas seriously in considering its options.

My comments on Shields aren't a dig against lower income people, just a dig against Shields. I'm a southsider believe it or not and one of my favorite areas of the city is the old Capitol Hill Main Street, and even though it's a long drive in from our area, one of my favorite local restaurants is the Grill on the Hill. Capitol Hill is obviously a lower income area too, but there's a pretty good community around there full of good people (some of them may not be here legally lol, but who cares honestly) and I'm excited to see entrepreneurs taking a chance on Capitol Hill. Wish there was more going on.

Shields is the antithesis of that. Here you have a street that exists because people who AREN'T from this side of town didn't see the value in the inner south and thought we should tear down a large chunk for an expressway lined with pawn shops and trailer parks. And I am sorry to people who live in trailer parks, but I am an urban planning aficionado, and surely disliking trailer parks can't be held against me. That's a tough argument to even want to go near however because I realize how easy it is to point a socioeconomic blame finger anytime you say "well this street is horrible" even if you're talking strictly from an urban planning perspective. I realize a lot of times the things I say might be kinda crazy, but I say a lot of things off the cuff, and I've had an extreme dislike for Shields for a long time.

I appreciate your comments and reading the stuff we've said on here and on my blog, I agree! The south side is the half of the city that's not being included in urban revitalization, isn't being invited to the table, and isn't seeing the benefits of urban revitalization--but at the same is being very obstructionist to these ends itself. I hate to say it, but the rift has gotten worse. The north has gotten richer and cooler and the south has gotten poorer and angrier. I doubt it has anything to do with the Oklahoma River improvements specifically, but at the same time as we put water in that river for the first time in a long time, it became a real border almost.

I see a lot of urban possibilities on the south side. I think that overtime OKC will become more of a destination for recent college grads and we'll see a continued cultural reawakening on the north side, but it will be slow to trickle down to the south. The north will have to become too expensive, too busy, or too corporate in order for educated people to start looking at the inner south side as an option. When that happens, if it happens in 10-15 years or 50 years, the south side will eventually evolve on its own. But that's kind of like saying, well in 1993 we should have just waited it out and something would have eventually happened with our city. The alternative to that is called taking the bull by the horns and making things happen.

You can say that the south side doesn't have book stores, a decent level of locally owned dining, art galleries, mainstream nightlife, coffee shops, and whatever else because the people on the southside just aren't interested in the worldly things that upscale northsiders love to do. How can you judge someone by the number of $4 dollar drinks they consume in a year? But that's like someone in 1993 saying, well the reason we don't have downtown housing, downtown retail, or downtown nightlife is just because the people in this city don't want that. How can you blame someone for wanting to live in the suburbs where they only have to worry about their church and their neighbors and their family? Well it turned out that thinking was very wrong. The downtown lifestyle WAS something that Oklahomans wanted, and something that Oklahomans were mature enough to handle contrary to the pedantic, "Well how could you judge someone by the number of $4 dollar drinks they consume in a year?" line of thinking. I would venture a guess that the south side would be VERY capable of supporting local culture. Maybe not the same stuff as the north side but I would argue that the south side should at least have some culture that is its own. No, thousands of greasy spoon Mexican joints, Chili's on every corner, and Wal-Mart Supercenters do not count as local culture.

The $500M figure is close to the cost of the COMPLETE convention center. $400M in 2009 $$$, which in 10 years the expansion cost could easily have risen by another $100M (see Ford improvement cost for comparison). But where are you getting the 1.5M sf number from? The only way I can see coming up with that is if it has an arena which I think everyone is in agreement it won't have. The CURRENT requirements for a tier II facility is the 200K meeting space which Phase 1 (MAPS 3) will have. This is more than double what the Cox currently has (even though the overall facility is half the size because of the arena). Also curious where you got the idea that the new convention center is just to "supplement" what the Cox has? That isn't what I got from all of the MAPS 3 info on it. If anything, the Cox will supplement the new convention center since it will be twice the meeting size.

Larry you're right, it was just in the context of the discussion. I was comparing a scenario where we keep the Cox and the two centers build off of each other, whereas a situation where we get rid of the Cox and have a much bigger facility need to fulfill.

If we demolish the Cox then we're talking about building a $500 million 1.5-2 million sf center, and to hell with the report, that's just from what it's costing other cities right now. ONLY if we keep the Cox are we still talking about a convention center that MAPS 3 is going to be able to pay for. Kerry, JBrown, and others are talking about demo'ing the Cox outright.

We still need its 100,000 sf exhibition space, it's 15 or so meeting rooms, as well as its arena. And we still need to keep them nice, which they are. That's the reality.

Shields isn't a "major southside artery." My family lives on the southside and I never use Shields to get anywhere. Western is the main artery of South OKC. Even though Walker ends at 104th, that is the most convenient and traffic-free artery on the south side.

Shields is just going out of your way to take a tour of the ghetto parts of the south side and see 8 miles of nothing but trailer parks and hit every light along the way, which sucks, because you're practically the only car waiting for 5 minutes for each of these lights in a really bad part of town where you think gunfire is going to start coming at you from nowhere. It's basically the Meth Expressway.

The only way Shields is convenient is if you actually live in the trailer parks and need to get downtown, which considering you live in a trailer park, is unlikely. If you're south of 240 like us, you're going to just take I-35 anyway. From around 119th and Penn you can take either 44 or 35 and both are faster than Shields. If you live north of 240 you're just going to take whatever main street your neighborhood is off of.

Are you seriously that shallow, thought's/comments like that show a person's true colors.

This is kind of a transportation / convention center comment rolled into one, but have a look at the attached for an idea of how both could work together. Just having some fun on a rainy Christmas day here in Amsterdam, but while doing it, I was thinking... yes, this could work.

The transformations could also be done in stages starting with the expansion of the Santa Fe station with a wing to the North in the same historic style. A phased approach to all of this might be more palatable both financially and capacity-wise for the transportation system. I.E. Once the new bus terminal is complete, the old Greyhound station could be closed and renovated (to a cool Interurban-style restaurant). Once the new streetcar terminal is done the lines could start functioning. Once the glass cupola is finished, the commuter trains to the burbs could start to run, etc, etc. This also holds true for the new convention center which, if built directly south of this, would be a fantastic complement to the whole plan.

The overall effect is to create a real "center" in OKC, not unlike we have here in Amsterdam where I took much of my inspiration from, and which is, incidentally is probably about the same amount of space as the new "OKC Central Station".

Maybe all pipe dreams, but fun to think about. If they use that name (above) I claim royalties!

Are you seriously that shallow, thought's/comments like that show a person's true colors.

He is.

Shields isn't a "major southside artery." My family lives on the southside and I never use Shields to get anywhere. Western is the main artery of South OKC. Even though Walker ends at 104th, that is the most convenient and traffic-free artery on the south side.

Shields is just going out of your way to take a tour of the ghetto parts of the south side and see 8 miles of nothing but trailer parks and hit every light along the way, which sucks, because you're practically the only car waiting for 5 minutes for each of these lights in a really bad part of town where you think gunfire is going to start coming at you from nowhere. It's basically the Meth Expressway.


True. Everyone here uses Western. Walker is usually traffic free like he said. Shields is almost never holding as much traffic as Western or even Penn. Oh, and regarding the gunshots. That was overly-dramatic. Come on.

I live north of 240 and west of Shields. But I still use I-35 to get Downtown. Shields just never comes to mind. Even if it goes directly downtown.

This is kind of a transportation / convention center comment rolled into one, but have a look at the attached for an idea of how both could work together. Just having some fun on a rainy Christmas day here in Amsterdam, but while doing it, I was thinking... yes, this could work.

The transformations could also be done in stages starting with the expansion of the Santa Fe station with a wing to the North in the same historic style. A phased approach to all of this might be more palatable both financially and capacity-wise for the transportation system. I.E. Once the new bus terminal is complete, the old Greyhound station could be closed and renovated (to a cool Interurban-style restaurant). Once the new streetcar terminal is done the lines could start functioning. Once the glass cupola is finished, the commuter trains to the burbs could start to run, etc, etc. This also holds true for the new convention center which, if built directly south of this, would be a fantastic complement to the whole plan.

The overall effect is to create a real "center" in OKC, not unlike we have here in Amsterdam where I took much of my inspiration from, and which is, incidentally is probably about the same amount of space as the new "OKC Central Station".

Maybe all pipe dreams, but fun to think about. If they use that name (above) I claim royalties!

I like, but you eliminate a lot ov exhibition space. Are you suggesting less of that?

I like, but you eliminate a lot ov exhibition space. Are you suggesting less of that?

On the contrary, by going vertical, it could actually add space. The space used for all of the additions to the Cox would be compensated for on higher levels. With ingenuity, such as atria and clear linking escalators/stairs, this space could have a good flow of people, just like a large, single story space.

I guess my point it that if there is a good master plan, each of these elements could be added when appropriate, thereby minimizing the impact on the existing center. If, for example, a hotel is added on one of the corners, the disruption would be minimal to the rest of the center. We see this type of work going on in airports around the world all the time.