1 Myriad Gardens (http://goo.gl/maps/L0TI)
Built:1966
947 parking spaces
http://www.okctalk.com/images/wikiphotos/coxcenter.jpg
Information & Latest News
9/10/14: Consultant recommends redevelopment plans (http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/pop8.jpg)
Links
County Assessor Record (http://www.oklahomacounty.org/assessor/Searches/AN-R.asp?ACCOUNTNO=R010010012)
Website (http://www.coxconventioncenter.com/)
Gallery

I was just thinking about this, especially as there has now been a great environment created for more office towers. Where the heck would the CBD grow? It's cutoff to the south by both the Cox Center and the Myriad Gardens. Where would a major tower (or two or three) go right now?

It's also a huge black hole in the middle of downtown, lifeless most the time and even when there are events, both the Robinson and EK Gaylord frontages look like something out of old school East Europe: concrete monolith. It's hard to even walk by the darn thing.

The only slight advantage is having the two arenas so close together but really how often do we get the Big XII basketball tourneys? Once every 4 or 5 years?


Removing the Cox might also allow the canal to be extended to the west... Imagine office towers and hotels linked to Bricktown via true water taxis.

It takes up a massive area right in the middle of downtown and is not the highest and best use of that property.


I'm not saying it should come down tomorrow, but once the new convention center is up and running -- say in about five years -- this should be given very strong consideration.


http://www.tnttri.com/OKCTalk/downtown 2010.jpg

I was just thinking about this, especially as there has now been a great environment created for more office towers. Where the heck would the CBD grow? It's cutoff to the south by both the Cox Center and the Myriad Gardens. Where would a major tower (or two or three) go right now?

It's also a huge black hole in the middle of downtown, lifeless most the time and even when there are events, both the Robinson and EK Gaylord frontages look like something out of old school East Europe: concrete monolith. It's hard to even walk by the darn thing.

The only slight advantage is having the two arenas so close together but really how often do we get the Big XII basketball tourneys? Once every 4 or 5 years?


Removing the Cox might also allow the canal to be extended to the west... Imagine office towers and hotels linked to Bricktown via true water taxis.

It takes up a massive area right in the middle of downtown and is not the highest and best use of that property.


I'm not saying it should come down tomorrow, but once the new convention center is up and running -- say in about five years -- this should be given very strong consideration.


http://www.tnttri.com/OKCTalk/downtown 2010.jpg

Agreed! I can vision this area exanding the CBD, with more modern office tower development, I am pretty sure that city planners have thought about this.

I don't think it should be demolished. There are tons of events needing the space at the Myriad that does not require huge space of a new convention center. Keep it. There are still plenty of land to erect new towers (hopefully taller than Devon).

Why would they demolish a recently renovated, perfectly fine, working, nice venue? One of the reasons OKC is so attractive to the Big 12 (10) basketball tourny is because of the proximity of two basketball courts to each other.

It would be absolutely ludicrous to demolish the Cox Center. There are plenty of places for the CBD to grow towards without demolishing this. It's not like buildings have to be sitting directly adjacent to each other for them to be part of the CBD. Grow to the North or west. There are plenty of locations for new buildings without tearing down a structure that is actually not dilapidated. South of the Arena is already planned for housing, so it's not like the CBD can grow much that direction anyway. Plus, there are more than enough locations within the existing CBD to build new towers and add density.

Absurd idea.

YES YES YES!! Get rid of it and make room for something amazing.

Here is a list of other large arenas built since 1967 (Myriad/Cox was finished in 1972) that have already been demolished in the U.S.:

Charlotte, Richfield, Landover, Philadelphia, Dallas, Denver, Miami, Indianapolis, Atlanta, San Antonio, Miami, Twin Cities.


All had more capacity than the Myriad/Cox and the large majority had received extensive renovations along the way.

It's probably been 7-8 years since I was in the facility so I don't know its condition.
Was Cox refurbished rather heavily within the last 12 years? Were any of the others listed as recently demo'd refurbished that recently?

It should be removed IF AND ONLY IF the city and/or developers have a plan AND FULL FUNDING in place with a written guarantee to build what they have planned before they do anything. NO wiggle room. Taking the building down and leaving the ground empty is stupidity on the first degree. Plan and money in hand or the building stays. To do otherwise is exceptionally unwise.

The city could easily strike deals similar to what was done with Devon. They did demolish a city-owned parking lot and purchased and renovated one of the city-owned garages.

I'm not saying they should tear the place down now but those renovations were done a dozen years ago and the place only has about another 10 years (at most) before it will need more money pumped into it.

It was built in 1972 and even as a new structure, started looking very shabby only 15-20 years later. Now that the building is 38 years old and more than a decade removed from the last upgrades, you can bet it's going to need a lot of work again before too long.

By that time the new convention center will be up and running and hopefully the city can get some developers and/or corporations interested in building more Class A office space.

This notion of "where would downtown grow?" is ridiculous. This makes the assumption that downtown can only be within the confines of the buildings that are already there. This argument is counter to the countless whining sessions that I have read on this site about the demolition of old buildings downtown. While making those arguments, people have been advocating keeping the old historic buildings to retain the history of our city. While I will not disagree with this argument, one would have to ask where new buildings would be placed. If we MUST keep old buildings then the new ones MUST be built on the perimeter and thus expand the area of downtown. If it is okay in this scenario, why would it be impossible to do just because the Cox center is there? I am not urging the demolition or saving the Cox center but rather questioning the logic that downtown cannot build anywhere but the six or seven blocks that it takes up right now.
Our downtown looks pretty good from a distance but looks itty bitty when you get close. An average person could walk from one end of downtown to the other in five minutes because it is only about the size of three or four football fields.

Regardless of the outcome of the Cox center, I would not put a big building there as opposed to an area on the perimeter simply because it (downtown) will still only be six or seven blocks across. The end result is that you have one block of buildings that look taller than the entire downtown is wide. It does not really matter to me one way or the other but I disagree that future downtown buildings can ONLY be built where the Cox center is. If that is the singular argument for tearing it down, I think it is not a good enough argument.

Good Lord no! Not only should it not be demolished, I think it would be a good idea to connect it to the Oklahoma City arena with a skywalk. You would have a huge continguos amount of space offering two large arenas. With this faciilty, plus a new convention center, OKC would be in an enviable position to offer a variety of meeting facilities to meet diverse space requirements. We just need more hotels to accommodate the need for rooms but I think this could (would) come. Just my opinion.

Maybe 20-30 years from now when a new arena is built to replace the current arena or when it doesn't make sense to pump more money into the Cox Center.

It shouldn't be demolished but it should be renamed. I think the Myriad
would be a good name for it.

It shouldn't be demolished but it should be renamed. I think the Myriad
would be a good name for it. The Myriad.

There are still plenty of land to erect new towers (hopefully taller than Devon).

Sorry that a $750 million, 850 foot building is not tall enough for you. Do this Thunder: stop talking about being disappointed in the size of the tower until it is built. I would guess you would see that it is just fine when you see the final product.

demolish everything but the arena. Therefore that creates land, but keeps the most important part for the city to use.


edit: Only if there is a contract promising the land will be used. Don't wanna see it sit vacant.

Off subject:

I hope the next few large-scale towers (obviously many years away) are smaller than Devon, but close in size (say 600-800 ft) to provide some "fill" into the skyline, rather than have one giant amongst a village of midgets.

On subject:

I agree with others that the Myriad, sorry Cox Center, NOT be demo'd short, mid term. Growth of the CBD should not include the present day CBD. The CBD boundaries will grow, naturally, with growth. Removing a convention center, as if there were not land available in the other directions, is IMHO stupid. I think some modification to the Cox Convention Center should be made though; I'd like to eventually see street-level retail on the west end facing the Myriad Gardens. I think the Cox Center is a great facility, which can be modified to fill many needs.

Just keep the Arena part, just picture it, it still be the home of the Barons, and i know that we will probably have Arena Football 1 back in our city soon (hopefully we won't name them the Yard Dawgs and I think the brawlers probably won't be around long or had move to the suburbs), and maybe another sports team, add seats to the arena, that will be cool and then put a office building right next to it.

Sorry that a $750 million, 850 foot building is not tall enough for you. Do this Thunder: stop talking about being disappointed in the size of the tower until it is built. I would guess you would see that it is just fine when you see the final product.

Amen, very childish, as if a Company builds buildings solely to 'look cool' and please kids. Oh, I understand there is a pizzaz side to it, but you build what you WANT, CAN and NEED...not to placate someone's "fantasy" about what it "should be". I think the building is Fantastic, I was in town over the weekend and amazed at the night view as you come around the ramp from I-35 (N) to I-40 (W), that is a beautiful shot.

Simply turn it into the biggest downtown Walmart SuperCenter in the world...a trend-setter for the nation...Walmart would love the challenge--and would make it work. Bricktown visitors could browse there after a nice meal or sporting event...maybe tunnels from the higher-end hotels...

It's probably been 7-8 years since I was in the facility so I don't know its condition.
Was Cox refurbished rather heavily within the last 12 years? Were any of the others listed as recently demo'd refurbished that recently?

I believe at least the arena portion has received some significant refurbishment/improvement just in the last year.

Just build a hotel on top of it. It'd be a fine place for a convention hotel.

First, how will demolition of the Myriad or construction of a new convention center farther away affect the Skirvin or Renaissance hotels? The city worked so hard to land these projects. It would be a shame to see these hotels hurt by the closure of the facility that feeds them.

Second, I would like to see the Myriad remain for a while longer. As property values continue upward, it will become a much easier decision. The Myriad site will have a number of better uses, and, it will be nearer the end of its useful life.

I believe it's too soon to make this call. It really depends upon whether we have the need (or the ability to create the need) for 3 arenas/convention centers downtown. If we're able to routinely fill all three spaces, there are a LOT of other areas where we could build hotels near the downtown area.

Demolishing the Cox Center is a ridiculous idea. Which probably means that those in power are already thinking about it.

It is absolutely not a ridiculous or absurd idea and to dismiss the thought completely is short-sighted.

Devon Tower would never have been built -- at least on anything like the current scale -- except for the fact the city was willing to negotiate on property it owned and have it developed into it's highest and best use. There is currently nothing close to that opportunity now -- except a 38 year-old convention center.

For a major office tower and/or big new employers to locate downtown, there would have to be large coordinated effort regarding obtaining properties, perhaps closing some streets/alleys, erecting big parking structures, etc. As with Devon, it would be far cheaper and hugely more expedient for a developer to demolish and build on a city-controlled site rather than run around trying to piece something together. You think it's a coincidence that the only large-scale private development downtown in the last several decades came on a large tract owned and controlled by the city?

This would an opportunity to leverage the fantastic investment the city and taxpayers are making downtown -- by bringing in more large employers. To sit back and wait and hope hasn't gotten us very far lately.


The simple fact is that Cox will be near the end of it's useful life by the time a new convention center is built and at least in need of significant repairs and upgrades. Rather than throwing money down something that will be less and less used and already largely a black hole in the middle of the CBD, it makes total sense to consider other uses.

There is a reason while loads of other cities (cited in a previous post) have demolished bigger, 'nicer' facilities. Most were built in the same era and taking up valuable space in dynamic city centers.

The Myriad still has a purpose but if something better can be put into
it's place then let's do it.

Wait! I don't live in OKC!

It is absolutely not a ridiculous or absurd idea and to dismiss the thought completely is short-sighted.

Devon Tower would never have been built -- at least on anything like the current scale -- except for the fact the city was willing to negotiate on property it owned and have it developed into it's highest and best use. There is currently nothing close to that opportunity now -- except a 38 year-old convention center.

For a major office tower and/or big new employers to locate downtown, there would have to be large coordinated effort regarding obtaining properties, perhaps closing some streets/alleys, erecting big parking structures, etc. As with Devon, it would be far cheaper and hugely more expedient for a developer to demolish and build on a city-controlled site rather than run around trying to piece something together. You think it's a coincidence that the only large-scale private development downtown in the last several decades came on a large tract owned and controlled by the city?

This would an opportunity to leverage the fantastic investment the city and taxpayers are making downtown -- by bringing in more large employers. To sit back and wait and hope hasn't gotten us very far lately.


The simple fact is that Cox will be near the end of it's useful life by the time a new convention center is built and at least in need of significant repairs and upgrades. Rather than throwing money down something that will be less and less used and already largely a black hole in the middle of the CBD, it makes total sense to consider other uses.

There is a reason while loads of other cities (cited in a previous post) have demolished bigger, 'nicer' facilities. Most were built in the same era and taking up valuable space in dynamic city centers.

Exactly, if we want to compete with other cities, we to have to start thinking like them, and follow some of the same paths that the did. Economics 101 tells you that demolishing something old and unuseful, to develop something that will be used and more beneficial to the city is more plausible. How much more money will be poured into the Cox Center for renovations? Everything doesn't last forever, it will have to come down eventually, but after the new convention center is built, it would make sense to demolish the Cox Center.

It is absolutely not a ridiculous or absurd idea and to dismiss the thought completely is short-sighted.

Devon Tower would never have been built -- at least on anything like the current scale -- except for the fact the city was willing to negotiate on property it owned and have it developed into it's highest and best use. There is currently nothing close to that opportunity now -- except a 38 year-old convention center.

For a major office tower and/or big new employers to locate downtown, there would have to be large coordinated effort regarding obtaining properties, perhaps closing some streets/alleys, erecting big parking structures, etc. As with Devon, it would be far cheaper and hugely more expedient for a developer to demolish and build on a city-controlled site rather than run around trying to piece something together. You think it's a coincidence that the only large-scale private development downtown in the last several decades came on a large tract owned and controlled by the city?

This would an opportunity to leverage the fantastic investment the city and taxpayers are making downtown -- by bringing in more large employers. To sit back and wait and hope hasn't gotten us very far lately.


The simple fact is that Cox will be near the end of it's useful life by the time a new convention center is built and at least in need of significant repairs and upgrades. Rather than throwing money down something that will be less and less used and already largely a black hole in the middle of the CBD, it makes total sense to consider other uses.

There is a reason while loads of other cities (cited in a previous post) have demolished bigger, 'nicer' facilities. Most were built in the same era and taking up valuable space in dynamic city centers.

Yes X1000. This will at least be considered in the next 10 years.

It boils down to this: In 10 years, this city will have the opportunity to either (1) keep an auxillary arena and auxillary convention center that will be over 40 years old, or (2) have prime space available for development--either to be developed by the city as a transportation hub, or privately at a location that will be second to none.

On a side note, what was on the Leadership Square site before it was built, and how did that happen?

Work on Leadership Square started almost 30(!!) years ago. Hard to believe.

Pretty sure the city was heavily involved as several buildings were demolished and a street was closed in favor of the atrium.


I looked in Steve's book for more about how the project got off the ground but that wasn't specifically referenced.

Steve, can you elaborate?

I'm going to make an incredibly simplistic statement for this question (especially since it's come up a million times on this forum).

No - not until there's a new arena that replaces the "Ford Center". It's not like it's empty these days, we have enough stuff coming in to support both arenas, and it's a huge benefit for the Big 12, NCAA, etc. kind of tourney events. Now in another 20 years when the Ford Center is ready to be replaced...doze Cox and build the new arena there. We can make one arena work for a few years while we build a new one and by then Cox will be 50.

The Myriad/Cox site needs to be cleared with half the property being used for multi-modal train station (connected to Santa Fe station) and the other half sold to be used for office/hotel/residential/retail complex. Revenue generated from selling one half to a developer can then be used to help pay for the train station. Plus, in 10 years the Thunder are going to ask for a basketball specific arena so we will have two arenas anyhow and won't need the arena at Cox. If you think the Ford Center was the last arena OKC is going to build you're crazy.

I believe at least the arena portion has received some significant refurbishment/improvement just in the last year.
I'm pretty sure that there were $2 million in improvements made to the Cox Center Arena in advance of the OKC Barons coming to town.

Additionally, the meeting space is still very much useful, even when the new convention center is added. During peak times of the year, it's very difficult to find large meeting space in Oklahoma City. Having BOTH the new convention center AND the Cox Convention Center meeting space will be very helpful to event organizers trying to find large meeting space in the midst of busy convention season. Not all the meeting space in the Cox Center is used by major conventions; many local companies and organizations need the large meeting space for seminars and company events.

After all the furor about Sandridge tearing down buildings, several of which were not being used, why are we so quick to advocate the demolition of a large facility that is very much still in use and has many years of usefulness to come.

After all the furor about Sandridge tearing down buildings, several of which were not being used, why are we so quick to advocate the demolition of a large facility that is very much still in use and has many years of usefulness to come.

If the goal of the demolition was to replace the Cox site with a plaza you would have a good point. Clearing land to make way for future unspecified uses is also a bad idea. OKC has already learned that doesn't work.

If there is a bona fide economic need to demolish the Myriad, then it will happen.

I do not know the answer to tearing down the building or not, but I do know the ugly orange seats in the Cox Center are much more comfortable than the Ford Center's seats.

Bigray in Ok

If there is a bona fide economic need to demolish the Myriad, then it will happen.

Either that or the right someones decide it would be real nifty to have a honking big plaza in that space

(smirks, ducks, runs)

I do not know the answer to tearing down the building or not, but
I do know the ugly orange seats in the Cox Center are much more
comfortable than the Ford Center's seats.

Bigray in Ok
That settles the debate. Tear down the Ford Center!
:dizzy:

I have to admit there is no leg room in the Ford Center. I am 5'10" with 33 length jeans. My back and legs hurt by the time the event is over. A few times my legs have fallen asleep. That is not fun trying to climb out of the mosh pit. I have avoided some events due to the uncomfortable seating. Also the seating at the Civic Center is a joke. What is with this guard at the end of the isle to prevent attendees from tripping and falling over the edge? I can hear someone yelling Geronimoooooooooooo.

I have to admit there is no leg room in the Ford Center. I am 5'10" with 33 length jeans. My back and legs hurt by the time the event is over. A few times my legs have fallen asleep. That is not fun trying to climb out of the mosh pit. I have avoided some events due to the uncomfortable seating. Also the seating at the Civic Center is a joke. What is with this guard at the end of the isle to prevent attendees from tripping and falling over the edge? I can hear someone yelling Geronimoooooooooooo.

Geez! I haven't been in the Civic Center in a while, but no one can convince me the city is being a good steward of our money if they have enough to put an entire damn island in the building!

Geez! I haven't been in the Civic Center in a while, but no one
can convince me the city is being a good steward of our money
if they have enough to put an entire damn island in the building!
The Ford Center is almost as comfortable as the Fairgrounds
Arena. Note ALMOST. The Fairgrounds Arena IS NOT
comfortable by any stretch of the imagination. In fact it
stinks like BO.

The Floor of the Ford Center is comfortable. Wait! The seating
can be manipulated!

Never mind.

It's far too early to decide the best use for this site. Several have touched upon viable options, but until the new CC is up and running in 7+ years, only then can this question be pondered. With both venues, the City does have the ability to attract various tournaments like the Big 12 by having a smaller complimentary venue to the OKC arena. That was their marketing cry a few years back, something like 53 steps bewteen championships. I could see the bowl staying with the surrounding parts and pieces one day coming down for other street facing development. It's also prime real estate, so if the City ever wanted to demo, it may one day be an option. I have heard the Mayor address this question and his answer is we're probably 10 years out from even asking it. The market will determine it's use......... Barons, Big 12, other, demo for mixed use, canal extension, highrise, or whatever. Until then, have fun speculating since the ideas for the site are endless. It is also true that one day we'll need a new arena. Even with the new modofications, that arena will still on day fall behind others that will also be renovated or new ones built. That might be 15 years out, but the day will come. It's all in the timing, the market, and the demand.

I'm with Lucca here...good evaluation of it.

please, no more construction/destruction....getting around downtown is already a nightmare

We truly need to learn a tip from back east and quit demolishing structures around here. The buildings on the Sandridge campus could've easily been reused for housing like McDermid and the Triangle group proposed. The Cox Center is a versatile facility, and is still very much being used. As long as its use is in demand, I see no use in tearing it down. Might as well keep improving it while it's still being used. Many shows don't want an arena as large as the OKC Arena, and the Cox Center fits the bill. Plus, it's perfect size for the OKC Barons. And the convention hotels across the street are still very much using the convention space. I'd only consider discussing demolition if it weren't still in use and in demand. Even though we will be getting a newer larger convention center, there are still many smaller groups out there that will be well served by the smaller space the Cox Center offers.

bump

We truly need to learn a tip from back east and quit demolishing structures around here. The buildings on the Sandridge campus could've easily been reused for housing like McDermid and the Triangle group proposed. The Cox Center is a versatile facility, and is still very much being used. As long as its use is in demand, I see no use in tearing it down. Might as well keep improving it while it's still being used. Many shows don't want an arena as large as the OKC Arena, and the Cox Center fits the bill. Plus, it's perfect size for the OKC Barons. And the convention hotels across the street are still very much using the convention space. I'd only consider discussing demolition if it weren't still in use and in demand. Even though we will be getting a newer larger convention center, there are still many smaller groups out there that will be well served by the smaller space the Cox Center offers.

Why is it that people don't think demolition happens back east? I guess they don't travel and see much. I have been in NYC for the past week and see many spots of destructed buildings and new construction taking the place.

Why is it that people don't think demolition happens back east? I guess they don't travel and see much. I have been in NYC for the past week and see many spots of destructed buildings and new construction taking the place.

You've pointed out the key difference. In NYC, when there's demolition there's almost always new construction lined up (whether or not for higher purposes aesthetically or for better use). OKC, however, has been scarred for decades by demolition in which new construction was promised, but never delivered upon.

Obviously demolition should not occur before the new convention center is complete. Were the plan to remove the superblock, I would be in favor of demolition at that point in time. Were the Barons still here and the Chesapeake Arena available as an option for them, I wouldn't mind demolition, but only if there is a plan for new construction and/or recreation of Broadway on that block.

Rover, why do you think OKC and NYC are so congruous?

I guarantee the Thunder wouldn't let the Barons use the Chesapeake Arena. They want to hog the place all to themselves during the season. God forbid they share!!

The arena is owned by the City, not the Thunder. There are already many non-Thunder events held in the arena, even during basketball season. One of the primary rules of business is that your most expensive assets should be used as much possible before they become obsolete.

Is kwhey from Seattle?

No, I am not from Seattle but it sure seems that the city bows down to everything the Thunder wants. Why don't we just rename the place Thunderville and name Kevin Durant mayor.

I am a Barons fan and agree with kwhey, Clay Bennett and the Thunder would not let the Barons use the peake in a million years.

I think the Barons would have a more compelling argument if attendance were better. I've been to a few Barons games and really enjoyed them. I hope more people in the city will eventually do the same.

Nope, the Barons could draw 10,000 a night, still wouldn't get to play at the Peake.

I am a Barons fan and agree with kwhey, Clay Bennett and the Thunder would not let the Barons use the peake in a million years.

I promise that if the Cox Center wasn't available some arrangements would be made. Why would the Thunder be anti-Barons? The Barons have absolutely no influence on income from fans of the Thunder and don't compete for that at all.