No doubt it is getting expensive and since 2/3 of the events are for local functions I seriously doubt the revenue generated from the other 1/3 covers the cost of construction - however - there is nothing wrong with having nice things for the locals, I just wish they would sell it as a quality of life facility and not a revenue generator because most convention centers require operation subsidies and never make back the construction cost (even when they use the pie in the sky indirect spending from out-of-town visitors).

It is getting expensive to build some of these facilities. But long term planning is hard. It is impossible to predict our convention needs in 2025. We can give a best guess but that is it. We have seen the difficulties with that kind of planning with Core 2 Shore and the park. Assumptions that were made in 2005 no longer appear to be true today.

At a certain point the Myriad becomes more valuable to the city by not being there. Yes we spent money on it, but you can't just count all that as a loss. We've had that facility for 40 years. We have got our money's worth. It'll be another 10 at least before anyone looks at tearing it down. The Myriad is not an architecturally significant structure. It is mostly blank wall. We aren't tearing down the Civic Center here.

There is a difference between being a wise steward of public money and being cheap. Eventually you have to quit driving the 1973 station wagon and get a new car. We may have spent $80 million or so over the past 40 years, but it's no longer worth that. At some point the value of the land it sits on becomes higher than the value of the Myriad itself. We may not have hit that point now but we will soon.

There is a difference between being a wise steward of public money and being cheap.

That is key to building on the momentum the city has gained. OKC is a different place than it was 15+ years ago. It is something that needs to be accepted and taken to heart in OKC and Oklahoma.

It is getting expensive to build some of these facilities. But long term planning is hard. It is impossible to predict our convention needs in 2025. We can give a best guess but that is it. We have seen the difficulties with that kind of planning with Core 2 Shore and the park. Assumptions that were made in 2005 no longer appear to be true today.

At a certain point the Myriad becomes more valuable to the city by not being there. Yes we spent money on it, but you can't just count all that as a loss. We've had that facility for 40 years. We have got our money's worth. It'll be another 10 at least before anyone looks at tearing it down. The Myriad is not an architecturally significant structure. It is mostly blank wall. We aren't tearing down the Civic Center here.

There is a difference between being a wise steward of public money and being cheap. Eventually you have to quit driving the 1973 station wagon and get a new car. We may have spent $80 million or so over the past 40 years, but it's no longer worth that. At some point the value of the land it sits on becomes higher than the value of the Myriad itself. We may not have hit that point now but we will soon.

We never implemented the I. M. Pei Plan of the 60s. The Convention Center and the Myriad Gardens were completed, the Galleria Mall was never built. We piecemealed bits and pieces of the plan; left out the 'retail part' and put the dagger in the heart with the underground concourse which completely gutted the street life activity from the plan. Pei was beside himself when he saw what OKC had done with his master piece. Recovery from this mistake has been slow and painful.

The String-of-Pearls river parks plan was another ball we fumbled. There's another development (Core-to-Shore) plan headed toward that same path to become victim. Many of these plans were great ideas for Oklahoma City; however, we continue to half-step our way into the future.

Everytime I'm in Dallas, Houston, Austin and/or Tulsa and shop in their Galleria Malls, I can't help but reflect on what could have occurred in Oklahoma City. This continuance of half-stepping our way into the future as we partially complete many plans doesn't provide a true foundation for our city's future. The Galleria Mall retail piece was envisioned with an indoor skating rink and other amenities would have been great to jump start things; retail development never seem to have recovered past the pilot light stage.

how is the core to shore headed down that path??

It would be in our best interests to keep the Cox Convention Center especially since we invested $50 million in renovations from MAPS I; that's more than twice the cost of original construction. The Cox Center (Old Myriad) initially cost voters $23 million when it was built in 1973: Cox Convention Center - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cox_Convention_Center)

$23 million = $126 million in 2013 dollars

So a $50 million renovation is less than half, not more than twice.

Something people need to remember:

$100M arenas can go a lot of places throughout our city

$1 Billion+ of high-rise residential/mixed-use/major-corporation office only has a very select area it can go.

We have opportunity costs taking the site either direction (or any direction for that matter, including leaving it as is). There is not a good economic argument for choosing to foot the opportunity costs of building the former (arena) rather than the latter (high-rise).

Hold on - you missed a big part. The NEW convention center will cost $450 million when both phases are finished plus whatever we kick in for the hotel. The Cox Arena was not part of MAPS I. So we will have spent over $600 million on a new arena AND a new convention center and for some reason people think we will keep booking events in the 40 year old facility. It isn't going to happen. I wouldn't be surprised if the Cox cost more to maintain than it brings in revenue and that is even going to be more true after the new convention center opens.

Yeah, I also missed inflation. I'm sure construction costs have risen since 1973, lol. Nonetheless, once the new convention center is built, regardless of the $50 million price tag associated with renovating the Cox Center, it needs to go bye bye.

If we were to see the CCC completely torn down and redone, I would love to see it broken into four quarters with pedestrian only access down Broadway and California. Keep in mind each of these blocks are the size of the Sheraton hotel and Century Center parking garage site. Then, with the super block broken into four quarters, I think we will see a transit expansion on the NE/C, a residential tower on the NW/C, Mystery Office Tower on the SW/C and a lower mixed-use building or hotel on the SE/C. I would imagine they would put the metal poles that come out of the ground on Reno/EK Gaylord and Reno/Robinson to prepare for Thunder Alley at the entrances of either end of California and Broadway. This would make it to where it is pedestrians only during the day, but delivery trucks and emergency vehicles could come in if needed. Just an junior urban planner's two cents...

Apparently I need to read better. Move along. Nothing to see here.

At a certain point the Myriad becomes more valuable to the city by not being there. Yes we spent money on it, but you can't just count all that as a loss. We've had that facility for 40 years. We have got our money's worth. It'll be another 10 at least before anyone looks at tearing it down. The Myriad is not an architecturally significant structure. It is mostly blank wall. We aren't tearing down the Civic Center here. .

40 years? Man, how time is flying. Seems like it was only yesterday that I so vividly remember 'opening night' of the Myriad Convention Center and Della Reese blasting out with such a distaff voice as we opened the doors to the center.

Maybe in ten years we could use that space to connect to the Chesapeake Energy Arena and complement the new Convention Center & Hotel proposed west of the Peake.

The money spent on the Myriad in MAPS I wasn't to make a state of the art of facility capable of carrying the city into the future. It was spent to bring the facility up to minimum standards for the time. …
Unfortunately, at one of the Chamber's MAPS 3 Luncheons, the guest speaker indicated that what we are building with (not sure if it was just Phase 1 or 1 & 2) will just barely meet their current needs (much less what those needs will be once it gets built)…

According to the snippets of the Chamber study that have been made available, the MAPS III convention center would be a failure without the convention hotel and phase II. That is why OKC is on the hook to build all 3.

They need to just build it and do it right. If the entire thing ends up costing around 600 million, I would be fine with it, just as long as they do a good job with it and build it last, the building itself and our future needs.

... That is why OKC is on the hook to build all 3.

Or pull a Shadid streetcar style push and question if the CC ought to not happen, if even it was on the list of projects. Not advocating that, but hey, it one item can be rethought, then every item can be rethought.

When the money has been collected to start building the new convention center we need to make sure that the land is available to make way for the anchor 600-plus room hotel. We really need a hotel which will accommodate anywhere from 800 to 1200 rooms. Go ahead and start construction on the convention center. If we want to become a strong Tier II convention city to compete with cities like Indianapolis, Salt Lake City, Milwaukee, Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Albany, Albuquerque... ...we have got to have the hotels and an anchor hotel to accommodate large gathering where one large convention would want to house all of their conventioneers in one setting. We have been seeing a number of smaller hotels going up in Oklahoma City lately--those with less than 300-rooms. We have the potential to far exceed our conservative expectations. This excerpt came from an article in Connect Meetings Intelligence:

"Oklahoma City is one destination that is taking full advantage of its second-tier designation. The city’s CVB recently reported that it exceeded its original targeted bookings for fiscal 2010 by 7 percent with a total of 378,377 room nights. Separately, a StarCite study noted that Oklahoma City recently saw an 81 percent year-over-year increase in the number of planner requests for proposal for conventions and meetings.

“Second-tier cities may not be as glamorous as first-tier cities, but that often works in our favor during these times when many organizations have to be careful about the perception of where they’re holding meetings and events,” says Elizabeth Buckley Richardson, director of convention sales and services for the Oklahoma City Convention and Visitors Bureau."--Second Tier Cities

Link: Second-Tier Cities | Connect Meetings (http://connectyourmeetings.com/2010/11/02/second-tier-cities-2/)

Top 25 Convention Cities:

Convention Centers - Top 25 Sites and "Second-Tier" Convention Cities (http://www.meetingsource.com/convention_centers.htm)

... "Oklahoma City is one destination that is taking full advantage of its second-tier designation. The city’s CVB recently reported that it exceeded its original targeted bookings for fiscal 2010 by 7 percent with a total of 378,377 room nights. Separately, a StarCite study noted that Oklahoma City recently saw an 81 percent year-over-year increase in the number of planner requests for proposal for conventions and meetings.

“Second-tier cities may not be as glamorous as first-tier cities, but that often works in our favor during these times when many organizations have to be careful about the perception of where they’re holding meetings and events,” says Elizabeth Buckley Richardson, director of convention sales and services for the Oklahoma City Convention and Visitors Bureau."--Second Tier Cities

Link: Second-Tier Cities | Connect Meetings (http://connectyourmeetings.com/2010/11/02/second-tier-cities-2/)

Top 25 Convention Cities:

Convention Centers - Top 25 Sites and "Second-Tier" Convention Cities (http://www.meetingsource.com/convention_centers.htm)

Interesting…thought we were trying to BECOME a Tier 2 city with the new convention center, this article makes it should like we already are…that aside, the quote about increased booking etc seems to be in direct contradiction to what the Chamber said here (even when pre-vote they had articles indicating bookings etc were up):
New Cox Convention Center is priority for Oklahoma City, study finds | News OK (http://newsok.com/new-cox-convention-center-is-priority-for-oklahoma-city-study-finds/article/3352281)


"It is time for us to make an investment in this industry or recognize that we are slowly going out of business as far as conventions are concerned.” - David Thompson, chamber chairman (March 11, 2009)

Interesting…thought we were trying to BECOME a Tier 2 city with the new convention center, this article makes it should like we already are…that aside, the quote about increased booking etc seems to be in direct contradiction to what the Chamber said here (even when pre-vote they had articles indicating bookings etc were up):
New Cox Convention Center is priority for Oklahoma City, study finds | News OK (http://newsok.com/new-cox-convention-center-is-priority-for-oklahoma-city-study-finds/article/3352281)

If you can look at the Cox Convention Center and honestly come away thinking that it is adequate for a city of our size or will be adequate for the next 20 + years, you either don't get out much or need to get your vision checked.

PhiAlpha: I didn't say anything about it being inadequate now or 20 years from now. The point was the Chamber folks were misleading about their claims in their zeal to get it passed. Also, you seem to have missed the point that the new one we are building doesn't meet current needs much less when it gets built. So we are right back where we started from and spent at least $250 to $400 million (maybe more) to do it.



No doubt it is getting expensive and since 2/3 of the events are for local functions I seriously doubt the revenue generated from the other 1/3 covers the cost of construction - however - there is nothing wrong with having nice things for the locals, I just wish they would sell it as a quality of life facility and not a revenue generator because most convention centers require operation subsidies and never make back the construction cost (even when they use the pie in the sky indirect spending from out-of-town visitors).
Thats exactly what they did when they were pushing to get it pushed up in the timeline...the Chamber opinion piece that ran in the Oklahoman talked about it being the City's living room (or something like that)...that is where it was also brought up that 2/3 of the C.C. business is local and only 1/3 is not...which makes the revenue projections of increasing 3-fold (300%) highly unlikely. You already have and are most likely going to keep the vast majority of the local events so to get that 3 fold increase, quick-n-dirty math would indicate out of area business if going to have to increase 9-fold (900%). I don't think the Chamber even believes that is going to happen...LOL

Then they also mentioned that if the Convention Center gets moved up in the timeline that as all that extra revenue poured in, it would mean more money for those MAPS 3 projects that followed. Only problem is, even being pushed up in the timeline, the C.C. isn't scheduled to open until AFTER the MAPS 3 tax has ended...



$23 million = $126 million in 2013 dollars

So a $50 million renovation is less than half, not more than twice.
Interesting spin...maybe you should work for the Chamber?:wink:

They need to just build it and do it right. If the entire thing ends up costing around 600 million, I would be fine with it, just as long as they do a good job with it and build it last, the building itself and our future needs.

Totally agree. Regardless of what we do, we need to do a good job with it and build it to last. Structures like Civic Center Music Hall are still standing--the interior and the facade aren't anything to marvel about; it's our history where many of us went to see the circus, All College Basketball Tournament, wrestling entertainment, concerts, symphony, church gatherings and more. This grand ole lady still stands. When visiting cities like Fort Worth, Dallas, Chicago, Atlanta and Houston to name a few, you will see the old blended in with the new. In Fort Worth, the old Cowtown Coliseum(functional) still stands despite the building of Will Rogers Coliseum Complex and the Tarrant County Convention Center.

Look at the structures we have built over the years, Fairgrounds Arena, Myriad, Chesapeake Energy Arena; can these structures still be used and become functional parts of our community?

Oklahoma City destroyed much of its historical foundation in favor of a more modernized look. Tourists expect to see our history. Sure, you won't see the old TP indian reservations with that Tsa-La-Gi flavor.

Whatever we decide to do, let's do it right. We can pay the cost now or we can pay the costs with interest later.

Totally agree. Regardless of what we do, we need to do a good job with it and build it to last. Structures like Civic Center Music Hall are still standing--the interior and the facade aren't anything to marvel about; it's our history where many of us went to see the circus, All College Basketball Tournament, wrestling entertainment, concerts, symphony, church gatherings and more. This grand ole lady still stands. When visiting cities like Fort Worth, Dallas, Chicago, Atlanta and Houston to name a few, you will see the old blended in with the new. In Fort Worth, the old Cowtown Coliseum(functional) still stands despite the building of Will Rogers Coliseum Complex and the Tarrant County Convention Center.

Look at the structures we have built over the years, Fairgrounds Arena, Myriad, Chesapeake Energy Arena; can these structures still be used and become functional parts of our community?

Oklahoma City destroyed much of its historical foundation in favor of a more modernized look. Tourists expect to see our history. Sure, you won't see the old TP indian reservations with that Tsa-La-Gi flavor.

Whatever we decide to do, let's do it right. We can pay the cost now or we can pay the costs with interest later.Great post! :congrats:

So considering the new convention center/hotel goes forward as planned, should we keep the Cox Center around or get rid of it?

Build something like this?

http://metroatlantic.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/mwc-worldcircle.jpg?w=545
http://www.djc.com/stories/images/20080728/Auburn_downtown_rendering_big.jpg
http://www.sustainablecityblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Low2No-Arup-Helsinki-rendering.jpg

Yep, time for it to go, especially since the new Santa Fe Station / intermodal hub will soon start work and become an important gateway.

And as everything gets built up around the Myriad Gardens, this concrete monstrosity looms like the backside of a warehouse.

Move hockey to the Peake and be done with this thing.

http://www.okctalk.com/attachments/development-buildings/5491d1364398959-cox-covention-center-coxcenterredo.jpg

I like Plutonic Panda's ideas above. The second one especially seems pretty realistic for OKC. A true mixed use town center/village with retail and 4-5 floors of apartments with a central courtyard would be perfect.

you could take Plutonic's second picture and extend the canal right to the MG's.

So here's the real question:

What can we do to get out ahead of any future project on this site to start advocating what it is exactly that we want to see developed for the most important 4 blocks in the city?

I've argued several times that these 4 blocks alone could take this from a Tier III city to a Tier II city if redeveloped well. But I think this is going to have to be a special project wherein the City establishes a common space in the center of the 4 lots, with a line of sight from Santa Fe to the Crystal Bridge in the MBG (and a mid-block cross-walk on both EK Gaylord and Harvey), but then puts out somewhere between 5 and 15 RFPs for the rest of the 4 lots.

This should be the ultimate mixed-use hub in the city: Dining, public space, maybe a small cinema, residential, office, maybe even a grocery store/drug store on one of the corners closest to the Santa Fe Station.

In the Mystery Tower thread I had posted this as model of development that we should absolutely use as a model to work from. It shares some of the same principles as PluPan's earlier post that was relatively well received, but without the cars (which really have no business in this lot).



Sony Center:

http://doncrossland.com/90days/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/11-04-29.jpg
http://www.die-neue-sammlung.de/press/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/sony-center-berlin.jpg
https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5295/5539247589_e16a34fee4_z.jpg
http://architecturestyle.net/sites/default/files/01_86.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/Sony_Center_Berlin1.jpg

One thing to keep in mind is that the Cox Center currently has about 1,000 parking spaces and they are located at an area of very critical need.

So, any new development would have to include much more parking -- especially since the City owns the property.

I love all these conceptual plans (like the recent one by Populous) but they can only serve as the broadest guidelines because in the end, it's the private developers (and their perception of the market) that will drive what actually built.

Probably the only firm area of influence by the City is to restore the street grid and even keep the alleys open, and of course those in themselves would be massive improvements.

One thing to keep in mind is that the Cox Center currently has about 1,000 parking spaces and they are located at an area of very critical need.

So, any new development would have to include much more parking -- especially since the City owns the property.

The need for parking at this specific spot unequivocally pales in comparison to the need for OKC to have a heart in the city. Downtown not a heart, it's the whole torso and all composite parts, but there's nowhere in downtown that acts as the most important organ, where activity originates and disperses. We'd all agree that that heart, healthy as the rest of the organs and body are, is not particularly healthy, this is really our chance at revitalizing the heart.

Neighborhoods are great, and they make living in the city fantastic…but they are unable to create a singular image that people think of when they think of OKC. Why pass up an opportunity to create that for…parking??? to placate a sports franchise???

I'm not saying parking should be out the window, but if it limits the ability to build an iconic piece of architecture, or how exactly we lay out the buildings, then we've missed the point. Especially when we can build the parking in other parts of the city before we even demo the Cox. And during the demo of the Cox, what are they going to do about those 1000 spaces anyway?

I'd like to eliminate parking from the conversation as soon as possible because it's a horrible excuse to not create a world-renowned space at the literal center of our city.


I love all these conceptual plans (like the recent one by Populous) but they can only serve as the broadest guidelines because in the end, it's the private developers (and their perception of the market) that will drive what actually built.

Probably the only firm area of influence by the City is to restore the street grid and even keep the alleys open, and of course those in themselves would be massive improvements.

How can the city's position be weak? They have far more power than just being able to restore the street grid, they should focus on creating literally just a space in the middle that is public property, with something programmatically significant (and hopefully world-class), that can interact with the lots that they put RFPs out for. They can put whatever restrictions on those RFPs that they need, and if they need to wait 3 to 5 years before they sell a lot (or set of lots) to a developer so that we get the right development, then they can. Could the RFP not say "building must be at least 30 stories" or "building must be residential" or "building must contain entertainment options". The city can be as specific as they want, and if they don't and they sell to someone who puts something less than world-class on this property, we've lost our only opportunity as citizens to impact this city for the *best*.

I'd likely sell out for good development now instead of great development later on literally any other block in the entire city, but getting these 4 correct, is likely the very most important thing we will do over the next 30 to 50 years for the future of this city.

The need for parking at this specific spot unequivocally pales in comparison to the need for OKC to have a heart in the city. Downtown not a heart, it's the whole torso and all composite parts, but there's nowhere in downtown that acts as the most important organ, where activity originates and disperses. We'd all agree that that heart, healthy as the rest of the organs and body are, is not particularly healthy, this is really our chance at revitalizing the heart.

Neighborhoods are great, and they make living in the city fantastic…but they are unable to create a singular image that people think of when they think of OKC. Why pass up an opportunity to create that for…parking??? to placate a sports franchise???

I'm not saying parking should be out the window, but if it limits the ability to build an iconic piece of architecture, or how exactly we lay out the buildings, then we've missed the point. Especially when we can build the parking in other parts of the city before we even demo the Cox. And during the demo of the Cox, what are they going to do about those 1000 spaces anyway?

I'd like to eliminate parking from the conversation as soon as possible because it's a horrible excuse to not create a world-renowned space at the literal center of our city.



How can the city's position be weak? They have far more power than just being able to restore the street grid, they should focus on creating literally just a space in the middle that is public property, with something programmatically significant (and hopefully world-class), that can interact with the lots that they put RFPs out for. They can put whatever restrictions on those RFPs that they need, and if they need to wait 3 to 5 years before they sell a lot (or set of lots) to a developer so that we get the right development, then they can. Could the RFP not say "building must be at least 30 stories" or "building must be residential" or "building must contain entertainment options". The city can be as specific as they want, and if they don't and they sell to someone who puts something less than world-class on this property, we've lost our only opportunity as citizens to impact this city for the *best*.

I'd likely sell out for good development now instead of great development later on literally any other block in the entire city, but getting these 4 correct, is likely the very most important thing we will do over the next 30 to 50 years for the future of this city.

I agree with this completely. The Sundance Square plaza event space in Fort Worth or the 16th St. Mall in Denver are good examples of having a heart or central gathering place in the core of a city. The canal could be something like that (or at least part of it) if it was better utilized or extended into whatever becomes of the Cox block.

Parking in this area should be helped drastically by the streetcar circulator which would be open by the time the CCC would be able to be torn down.

The site is also large enough where a large mixed use parking structure could be built without shutting down the parking garage. (I think)

From the Journal Record:

Prime potential: Leaders consider fate of Cox Convention Center space

By: Brian Brus September 18, 2014

OKLAHOMA CITY – The Cox Convention Center is marked to become one of the most valuable pieces of development property in downtown, city leaders said.

It will have to be torn down, of course – at the least, parking space under the center needs remediation. And that won’t happen until a new convention center has been built as part of the $777 million MAPS 3 sales tax package. So officials like Cathy O’Connor, president and CEO of the Alliance for Economic Development of Oklahoma City, and developer Mark Beffort are still looking five to 10 years down the road.

But planning momentum is a funny thing. Development drives faster development, said Roy Williams, president and CEO of the Greater Oklahoma City Chamber.

“Time will help shape what happens there, but when you look at raw facts, that is prime real estate,” Williams said. “It’s been our convention center for 40-plus years, which has driven a lot of development around it.

“So you’re going to hear multiple ideas as to the possibilities of what goes there next,” he said. “But I think it’s smart that city leaders have admitted they don’t know what to expect yet. Look at Project 180 and the Myriad Gardens and Stage Center – they’re creating opportunities that no one had even thought about 10 years ago.”

The MAPS 3 master plan projects that the first phase of the new convention center will be completed by 2019, at which time it should be ready to host events now being held at the Cox center. The latter will still be able to support overflow from the new center, O’Connor said.

So far, most of the discussion at City Hall has focused on where the new center will be built, its amenities and cost. O’Connor said enough progress has been made on those tasks that city leaders are starting to look at the Cox center being left behind.

Tom Anderson, the city’s municipal special projects manager, said it’s not too early to start considering the issue. The last major conversion of city property involved the former Central Oklahoma Transportation and Parking Authority transport hub, which became the Chesapeake Energy Arena. Discussion began in the 1990s, and the arena opened in 2002.

Some planning has been proposed by Populous, an architectural firm with offices in Kansas City, Missouri, that has been behind the new convention center. In order to make the new center successful, development of the surrounding territory has to be considered as well, officials said. A recent Populous study shows the Cox center would be rebuilt emphasizing offices with retail at street level. A quarter of the plot would be dedicated to hotel space and another quarter to undefined cultural attractions. Parking would be included, as well.

“It’s basically four square blocks of real estate that can be converted to nearly anything you want,” Williams said. “What we tend to hear from people is that it’s such a big piece of real estate that it has pros and cons. On one hand, it’s normally been difficult to assemble enough land like this. But four-block developments aren’t what typically occur today; the footprint is too big.

“I believe we’ll want to make it more pedestrian-friendly and possibly a multipurpose development, something more than just office,” he said. “You could easily envision a live-work-play lifestyle center with components of housing and retail.”

Williams said retail would be appreciated, but not to the scale of a large mall. Nor does he imagine an entertainment area to compete against Bricktown.

Beffort’s assessment of the Cox center’s potential matched the Populous conclusions. The space would likely attract a high-concept design backed with a significant amount of money.

“It would be an absolutely tremendous office site,” he said. “It would be a tremendous mixed-use space. A high-rise, I hope, with a retail component.”

O’Connor said the Alliance’s primary interest in the space for now is to remain flexible and see what best use it would serve. Her organization has already started receiving suggestions and feedback from downtown stakeholders.

“The consensus has been that they want to see more density downtown, and they saw that as a great development opportunity for the future,” she said.

Williams said: “We should keep our options open and wait until the point where decisions have to be made.

“That doesn’t mean we can’t plan and think and pursue and discuss,” he said. “But we don’t know what this market is going to be 10 years from now.”

When we get our new convention center, what do you guys think will happen to the Myriad? Will it be re-purposed or will it be torn down and the area redeveloped? What will be there?

There was a study done by OU a few years ago that recommended it be razed and the street grid restored:

http://www.okctalk.com/attachments/development-buildings/5491d1364398959-cox-covention-center-coxcenterredo.jpg


And just last month, the City received the recommendations from a consulting company for the area around the new convention center and they also recommended replacing it with high-rise buildings:

OKCTalk - Consultants recommend demolishing Cox Center, adding office towers (http://www.okctalk.com/content.php?r=45-Consultants-recommend-demolishing-Cox-Center-adding-office-towers)

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/pop2.jpg

I kinda like the idea of high rise buildings. What should they be, though? Residential? Office space? Mixed use?

I kinda like the idea of high rise buildings. What should they be, though? Residential? Office space? Mixed use?

It would likely be like the proposal on the west side of the Myriad Gardens with a combination.

The new CC doesn't have anything to do with the Cox center. The arena itself is still used fairly frequently and I just don't see them dozing portions of the building while keeping the arena. And the arena users aren't going to be able to go to the Peake because a) its too big and b) they can't afford it. Their only other option would be the fair grounds....and that's moving down in a bad way.

The ability to have the arenas next door to each other is also too valuable to give up. The Peak is going to be killed off at some point so we'll need somewhere to upgrade to. The city already owns a huge plot of land that could be developed for a new arena and then accommodate other things (like more adequate event parking for the two facilities).

A similar issue is going to come up comparing event space at the Cox center as compared to the new CC. The new CC is going to be the fancy new higher priced space. A lot of groups will see the older Cox center as a major bargain. It's still a nice facility on the north side and is a lot more in the middle of things than the new CC is. C2S is too far off development wise to call the new CC space walkable to much of anything.

Restoring the grid doesn't really get us anything. We're not lacking space for development...there's going to be a ton of room in C2S. If you want to focus highrise development in the core rather than C2S, you're going to have to make it more attractive in some way too. But keep in mind, things like the OU thing are just ideas...much like all of C2S. There is no masterplan when it comes to what developers decide to build. It's a total blank slate with the HOPE that people put in what we want. There is absolutely zero guarantees with that space....much like what we would see if the Cox center was dozed. The City stands to lose a LOT out of that and not get that much back.

Personally I think the demolition of the Cox center is a lot farther off than a lot of people realize for the reasons bombermwc described. As much as I would like a slam dunk, mixed use development to break ground on the Cox block as soon as the new CC opens, I just don't see that happening. The arena is still much in use and I would imagine some conventions will still choose the Cox center based on price. I don't think it should be demolished until something is proposed to take its place. I also think the city should be extremely selective as to what eventually goes there. That is literally one of if not the most prime piece of real-estate in all of downtown OKC.

Once the new CC is open for business, almost all that activity will be shifted away from the Cox Center.

OKC does not need two arenas; the Staples Center hosts TWO NBA teams, a NHL team and has way more concerts and events than the Cox and Peake combined.

The Cox will be scraped when there are developers like Clayco who are ready to spend the big bucks on the property. But that probably won't happen for another 10 years or so.

It has been speculated that by the time the convention center is completed (or maybe 5 years after that), it will be time to replace Chesapeake. Could the Cox be demo'ed and build the new arena in that location? Then Chesapeake could be replaced with new developments.

It has been speculated that by the time the convention center is completed (or maybe 5 years after that), it will be time to replace Chesapeake. Could the Cox be demo'ed and build the new arena in that location? Then Chesapeake could be replaced with new developments.

Really? I would think with the recent upgrades to the Peake that the city will be able to get several more years out of it. Many other cities have had their NBA arenas for much longer than OKC has had the Ford Center/Peake and they have no need for a new arena.

I read that on the Friday NewsOk blog a few weeks ago. Steve speculated (he commented that it would be controversial just to say it) that the Peake would need to be replaced in the not too distant future after the CC is finished. How old is the Peake now and when is the CC slated to open?

I read that on the Friday NewsOk blog a few weeks ago. Steve speculated (he commented that it would be controversial just to say it) that the Peake would need to be replaced in the not too distant future after the CC is finished. How old is the Peake now and when is the CC slated to open?

The Peake opened in 2002 (known as the Ford Center then) and I think the new CC is set to break ground in 2016 with a 2019 opening. That would put the possible demo of the CCC at 2020 or so.

The convention center is supposed to start in the 2nd quarter of 2016 and be complete by early 2019.

So add 5-7 years for delays in the cc opening, demo, and new construction, and the Peake will be 25-ish years old at that time. Is that considered old for an arena?

I mentioned this before a long time ago, but I've always thought that creating a mini LA Live complex would be awesome. Keep the arena and reconfigure/reconstruct it as a large concert venue ala the Nokia Theater. Get rid of the the convention meeting spaces (as it would be redundant with the new convention center) and build a hotel/residential tower(s) in its place along the periphery of the arena. Add in some street level restaurant/storefront space.

I mentioned this before a long time ago, but I've always thought that creating a mini LA Live complex would be awesome. Keep the arena and reconfigure/reconstruct it as a large concert venue ala the Nokia Theater. Get rid of the the convention meeting spaces (as it would be redundant with the new convention center) and build a hotel/residential tower(s) in its place along the periphery of the arena. Add in some street level restaurant/storefront space.

So, you would basically keep the arena which is in the middle of the block and all the parking underneath (you would have to) and redevelop the area surrounding it. I wouldn't be opposed to that idea, but I don't know if it would work since the arena was built into the building and if you are taking down the rest of the building, where is the support going to come from? Obviously there is support below, the sides are probably supported by other parts of the building. It would be a large task for keeping the arena and then major upgrades to the interior would have to done as well. Not sure if it is worth it when the State Fairgrounds Arena is in about as good shape.

So, you would basically keep the arena which is in the middle of the block and all the parking underneath (you would have to) and redevelop the area surrounding it. I wouldn't be opposed to that idea, but I don't know if it would work since the arena was built into the building and if you are taking down the rest of the building, where is the support going to come from? Obviously there is support below, the sides are probably supported by other parts of the building. It would be a large task for keeping the arena and then major upgrades to the interior would have to done as well. Not sure if it is worth it when the State Fairgrounds Arena is in about as good shape.

I don't know if it is even feasible from an architectural or engineering point of view.....I was just throwing out an idea. I hadn't even considered the parking garage, which I assume would probably be a big kink in the idea.

The pros, as I see it, would be that the area would become the defacto entertainment center of the metro (maybe even the state) as you would have a capable arena for big sporting events (Chesapeake), a renovated arena for major concerts, shows, etc. (renovated Myriad.....it will always be the Myriad to me, dammit), and a new convention center on the next block. Also have the MBG right next door. Throw in a new hotel and residences, restaurants, and bars, and the entire area would have the potential to be a hopping place. You could reserve a strip of land along the eastern part of the block to arrange for structured parking for the transit center across the street or to incorporate aspects of the transit center.

The drawbacks are that you wouldn't re-establish the grid in the area. The argument could also be made that another concert venue may not be needed with the presence of the Bricktown Events Center, possibly the Criterion, the Chesapeake Arena across the street, and, as you mentioned, the State Fairgrounds Arena.

Just food for thought. This is all above my pay grade anyway.

Once the new CC is open for business, almost all that activity will be shifted away from the Cox Center.

OKC does not need two arenas; the Staples Center hosts TWO NBA teams, a NHL team and has way more concerts and events than the Cox and Peake combined.

The Cox will be scraped when there are developers like Clayco who are ready to spend the big bucks on the property. But that probably won't happen for another 10 years or so.

This is just my opinion, but I would disagree with each of those points, but with points to discuss.

I still disagree that all business will be shifted over. The price different will negate that and hotels like the Renaissance that don't actually have meeting space, use the Cox as their meeting space...ie if you reserve meeting space at the Renaissance, you are actually getting Cox space.

The Staples comparison isn't a good one. Yes it hosts two NBA teams....but that's NBA, NHL, whatever top tier. The second tier and lower teams play at other arenas in the metro. Our tier 2 like the Dleague and our 2nd tier hockey can't afford the rent at the Peake. That's one of the reasons the blazers moved back to the Cox. Yes BBall was a factor, but the price of renting the current Peak is WAAAAY higher now than it was when the Blazers WERE the big tenant.

As others have said, the Peak is still serving its purpose and will continue to do so for some time, but we've also maxes out the lego brick additions to the place. There's only so much that can be done there to keep it high in stature. You'll have to convince the public that a MAJOR investment for a new maps program will pay for it though...but most people forget that it's 15 years old these days. Give it another 10-15 and it will be time to toss. By then the Cox will be more than ready to doze. A new arena will be built on the Cox site (again, the city already owns the prime land and being able to free up meeting space, could then develop countless things on the periphery of the block.....but the #1 thing will be to not be stuck with an awkward lot like the Peake is on that is out of room. With I-40 gone, the construction of the Peak would look very different.

I'm not a sports guy, so don't know the ins and outs of stadiums (been to a few, but not many - Soldier Field, Wrigley Field, whatever the newer southside Chicago baseball one is that replaced Comiskey (I think), Key Arena, Brewers, Myriad, Peake... Why would the Peake be considered obsolete in a few (10?) years? And nothing could be done to modernize/update it rather than raze and start over?

This is just my opinion, but I would disagree with each of those points, but with points to discuss.

I still disagree that all business will be shifted over. The price different will negate that and hotels like the Renaissance that don't actually have meeting space, use the Cox as their meeting space...ie if you reserve meeting space at the Renaissance, you are actually getting Cox space.

The Staples comparison isn't a good one. Yes it hosts two NBA teams....but that's NBA, NHL, whatever top tier. The second tier and lower teams play at other arenas in the metro. Our tier 2 like the Dleague and our 2nd tier hockey can't afford the rent at the Peake. That's one of the reasons the blazers moved back to the Cox. Yes BBall was a factor, but the price of renting the current Peak is WAAAAY higher now than it was when the Blazers WERE the big tenant.

The Renaissance does have some meeting space (6 meeting rooms plus the atrium) and absolutely no reason they couldn't use the new CC or other meeting space downtown. They are not a convention hotel and they wouldn't be losing the Cox space, they would be gaining the new, better, bigger space in the new CC which could only help their business. Both Cox and the new CC are owned by the City, so whatever arrangement could easily transfer.

Regarding the Staples Center, in addition to the NBA and NHL franchises, they also rent out to arena football, the WNBA and an NBA d-league team.

I don't accept the assumption the only reason the Blazers play in the Cox Center is due to rent. I strongly suspect the City wants them to play there so that facility gets some use and so they can have more flexibility with the Peake. I'm sure if Cox were gone, the City would cut them a fair deal to move across the street. Otherwise, they could go back to the fairgrounds where they used to play.

Except the Renaissance is already doing what I described and has been for as long as they have been open. And they are connected to the Cox. They get absolutely nothing from the CC as far as meeting space goes because of it's distance. They would no longer be the "convention hotel" at that point.

And that's not accurate on the Blazers. The IHL team is the same way. Scheduling is a factor in those things as well. They're able to have simultaneous events at both facilities (and quite often do). The turnaround time becomes as much of a factor as the date itself. Unless you maintain 24/7 staff at the Peak to be able to turn ice/court/concert/etc around, you can't do it. Chicago is a good example of how the secondary arenas are in the burbs, and their sizes match the Cox....say the Allstate or whatever in Rosemont. Remember also that the Cox replaced the fairgrounds arena (where the Blazers originally played way back in the day). So an argument could be made that if we already had two, why didn't we toss the fairgrounds and build a new one there? All 3 get plenty use and are in no danger of running out of things to do. Lose one for "possible" development that doesn't really GET us anything, is just short-sighted to me. Why restore the grid? Where exactly are you going?....Gaylord? And from where? The Myriad Gardens? It doesn't help traffic flow, we aren't short on street level retail space in that area given what Santa Fe and others have to offer (but isn't fully utilized).

I don't want it to seem like I'm telling you you're wrong on things....it just seems like we'll have to agree to disagree on our views on this one....nothing wrong with that, just different opinions.

I'm with Pete on this one. What does the CC host other than hockey, Red Earth and the occasional graduation in the spring? And what does the Peake host other than basketball, a few concerts and other events like the circus? I'm sure there are plenty of events that I'm unaware of, but I truly doubt that there are so many that the Peake could not handle them all (and the cost of staff to handle them would be far less than the cost of keeping the CC open). As far as the rent for the Barons, I'm pretty sure the Thunder have a sweetheart deal so there is no reason not to give the Barons an affordable deal.

Great discussion. It's interesting to read the ideas of what others think should happen to that space.

I'm not sold on the idea of restoring the grid, but I think once the CC is built, there's got to be a better use for that space than the Cox. I haven't been in the old Myriad portion of the center in probably 10-15 years. But when i was there, it was run down and with the Peake being there, I don't think anyone is wanting to spend money to refurb the old portion of the Cox. If that holds true, then we are left with an aging arena that no one likes or wants to use unless they have to. I can see better uses for that block than an old run down arena and some meeting space.

As for the Rennaiissance, they may bill it as a convention center hotel but it isn't and never has been. It's a hotel with a sky bridge to the Cox. Once the new CC is built and if the Cox were demolished, it would still be a hotel. Which is what it is today. I see no detriment to the Rennaissance by demolishing the Cox and reusing the block for something else. Heck, whatever might be built in the Cox's place may be more of a boon to the hotel than the Cox is. Also, I don't see keeping the Cox just because one hotel has a sky bridge connected to it.

I'm with Pete on this one. What does the CC host other than hockey, Red Earth and the occasional graduation in the spring? And what does the Peake host other than basketball, a few concerts and other events like the circus? I'm sure there are plenty of events that I'm unaware of, but I truly doubt that there are so many that the Peake could not handle them all (and the cost of staff to handle them would be far less than the cost of keeping the CC open). As far as the rent for the Barons, I'm pretty sure the Thunder have a sweetheart deal so there is no reason not to give the Barons an affordable deal.
You left out monster trucks. I like monster trucks;)

It almost seems like you can just see them on the streets now though

The City just paid a consultant a bunch of money to give their recommendations, and they were pretty strong about the idea of reinstating the street grid and doing high-rise office near the park and mixed use throughout the rest of the block.

Breaking up that block takes on even more importance due to the transit hub project that is going to happen at Santa Fe Station. As it is now, you disembark and walk right into a huge concrete wall at the Cox Center.

The City just paid a consultant a bunch of money to give their recommendations, and they were pretty strong about the idea of reinstating the street grid and doing high-rise office near the park and mixed use throughout the rest of the block.

Breaking up that block takes on even more importance due to the transit hub project that is going to happen at Santa Fe Station. As it is now, you disembark and walk right into a huge concrete wall at the Cox Center.

What about a street that is pedestrian only? I think that block would be an excellent place for it if it ever were to happen.

good point, it'd be great to see California between the Transit Center and MGB be pedestrian only. The extended Broadway could be vehicular but constrained to just two lanes + parking to allow for significant pedestrian retail frontage.

What about a street that is pedestrian only? I think that block would be an excellent place for it if it ever were to happen.

I tried to like this post but I guess I have no more likes to give.

So..."like"