If you read the actual proposal from Skirvin to City, Skirvin is proposing 22 stories.

If you read the actual proposal from Skirvin to City, Skirvin is proposing 22 stories.

So.....250-300ft tall?Which would be as tall as this?- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valliance_Bank_Tower

You have now idea or relative concept of how I think, I'm afraid. One mere post isn't near conclusive enough for you to gather any concrete evidence on the my real nature of my opinion. Maybe I am still quite naive still but obviously the city and planners see it is as a risk to current hotel room occupancy. I, not knowing much about that sorta thing as a lot of people don't, tend to stand by them because I would expect them to know what they're doing.

What city are you talking about? What planners? Who has said that OKC can't absorb more downtown hotel rooms??


You're just fckin' clever, aren't ya?

Yes.

They would have to acquire the building across from the Maywood lofts for this site; I think that would be somewhat disappointing after the renovation work that has gone into that building.

I always thought that a CC hotel would serve the guests of the CC.? If this proposal is accepted then the Skirvin Hotel will serve only convention goers correct? I am not so sure this is a good idea.

No, anyone can book a room at most convention hotels, not just convention goers. Conventions don't happen all the time. Sure, sometimes conventions will book the entire hotel, but usually, they play the same booking game as Billy Joe on the street.

This site is like sitting in the back in the corner and in the dark at a restaurant. Eliminating competition, city building them another tower, making them the headquarters
hotel..you can tell this proposal came from the Skirvin people. This site provides no future growth, development, and hinders future high speed rail alignments. Also not to sure the BNSF would allow to have a pedestrian walkway over the track. Many problems with this site.

The city is being paid back for the loan they gave them to renovate the Skirvin. So it's not like the "city is building them another tower."

Also, in regards to competition, it isn't like people are busting down the door for the opportunity to build a convention hotel in OKC.

To me,any vertical building upward in The core of OKC is good no matter where its located!But thats just me!

250-300ft tall?Which would be as tall as this?

Valliance Bank Tower is 22 floors and 321 feet tall. Typically, hotels are not as tall as office buildings per floor, as they don't require suspended ceilings, raised floors, etc.

I would think a 22 level hotel would be about the same height as the 19-story current Devon HQ, which is 262 feet. And unfortunately, that wouldn't add a lot to our skyline.

Look, guys. We all need to take a big step back from this and ask a few more questions. I think too many of you are falling for the bright, shiny rendering. "Ooooh 22 stories, it says, this one is a winner!" If that's what really matters, I assure you that a real convention center hotel would/should be even taller than that. Here are a few more questions that I think need to be answered.

1. What is going to happen to EKG now? Now that we're getting rid of the Santa Fe Garage and EKG is getting some new frontage, is EKG going to remain the same street?

2. Why not just extend Park Avenue to intersect with EKG? I don't understand why that wasn't automatically part of the deal if the Santa Fe Garage is to be torn down.

3. Would this enable the city to attempt another deal for a smaller (not 800-room) convention hotel on the right side of the tracks?

4. What will happen to East Main? The Sherman Iron Works Bldg? The north side of the street, much of which was just renovated?

5. What will be the situation with EKG to the north of the Skirvin, where the new tower will be? It would seem like if this goes forward, now more than ever does the city really need to address the fact that the EKG bend is not pedestrian friendly. If the city is not interested in addressing this fact, it makes more sense to just continue to leave the area north of the Skirvin alone.

6. What will be the affect of the pedestrian bridge over the tracks? Will BNSF go along with this, and will it be a problem for a high-speed rail connection to Tulsa coming up hopefully soon?

7. They still said they want a subsidy, though..plus all of this addition infrastructure is probably going to cost the city. How much taxpayer cost are we really talking about here?

And that's just from the ones I have right now..

Do you really think that the Skirvin is proposing to add a whole bunch of rooms they mostly won't use just so they can offer them to locals most of the time at discounted rates?? Of course not. This is about the Skirvin positioning themselves to be booked silly, because it's not enough being 90% booked. The only way to improve on that is to seize the M3 convention center opportunity being presented. Now we can see why the Skirvin group has been playing the local politics game lately, even siding against preservationists, etc.

And there's a problem with that? Face it, Marcus Hotels is a corporation like any other corporation, and they're in the business to make profits. It's not like we're
going to get a hotel operator that will come in and won't profit from the M3 CC. The good thing about working with Marcus Hotels though, instead of some other group, is that we're familiar with their work and they do a great job at what they do. And, they took a risk on our community by investing in the Skirvin....the least we can do is allow them to profit some.


I'm not sure how the FNC being renovated into hotel is a natural conclusion derived from this proposal, either. Perhaps in that this still wouldn't put much of a dent in our hotel needs, but for me that's a tough fact to spin into a positive.

It puts the CC and CC hotel a lot closer to FNC making it prime resal estate for a conversion.


And I am concerned for the historic preservation aspects of this deal. This is getting fast and loose in proximity to some historic properties and I would want to make sure that Bricktown's Main Street isn't about to be decimated. North Bricktown is my favorite convention center site, but not at the cost of Main Street...

Part of main street was scheduled to be replaced by a Holiday Inn Express anyways before the economy went sour.

Valliance Bank Tower is 22 floors and 321 feet tall. Typically, hotels are not as tall as office buildings per floor, as they don't require suspended ceilings, raised floors, etc.

I would think a 22 level hotel would be about the same height as the 19-story current Devon HQ, which is 262 feet. And unfortunately, that wouldn't add a lot to our skyline.
^^Thank's Pete,I was pretty close on my guestimate though!

Typically at least 80 but often 90% of their bookings are convention-related, from some CVB people I've talked with.

It all depends on what kind of conventions you're able to get, and who ponies up the money for those rooms.

Also, in regards to competition, it isn't like people are busting down the door for the opportunity to build a convention hotel in OKC.

This is totally false. I don't mean to go negative, but you did attempt to make a definitive statement, so I'll just say you clearly have no idea what kind of deals are currently being talked about. For the convention center committee to be affected by an announcement of any prospective deal would be ridiculous.

Its great that it is being paid back, but the city money still made it happen. My gut says there are some fish on the hook for a new convention center hotel. Hopefull we will do whats right for the city and not whats right for any possible agendas.

No no no no no.. time for a fact intervention.


It puts the CC and CC hotel a lot closer to FNC making it prime resal estate for a conversion.

Another site, the current Cox Site, would be even better. If the goal is to renovate the FNC site, from there you would have to get across a lot less barriers to connect the FNC to a new convention center. That's another idea out there...


Part of main street was scheduled to be replaced by a Holiday Inn Express anyways before the economy went sour.

False. One building was, the old dairy that is evidently falling apart anyway. Having lost structural stability it will likely have to be demolished anyway, although more studying does need to be done as to what it would take to save it. There are 3 other buildings just on that side of Main alone between the tracks and the Walnut bridge, and that's not even including the Sherman Iron Works across the street which will apparently await a future new use as a parking garage under this plan. Sheesh...

Yes, I get it that Marcus has been a good partner for OKC. OKC has been a good partner for Marcus as well, and that relationship will continue at the Skirvin. I am just calling out their motives for those who think, "Oh my god, I love you Marcus, you guys are trying to do us a solid!" which seems to be the general reaction of this thread.

MAPS is a program designed to build new state of the art facilities and entice new development. All of the discussions about tearing down or using existing facilities are
good, but not in the context of what the MAPS program is all about. I'm fairly certain The Skirvin will do very well on its own and still be the landmark hotel that it is now.
Which might be better for them in the long term.

Ummmm...your statement contradicts itself. This proposal is all about MAPS enticing new development, namely, a 400+ room tower attached to the Skirvin.

And your comment about not using existing facilities? Ummmm.....didn't MAPS 1 reuse the existing facilities at the State Fair Grounds, and the existing facilities at the Cox Center and the existing facilities at the Civic Center? Wasn't MAPS for Kids all about renovating existing facilities? I don't see the point.

I agree there are still lots of questions/concerns about this proposal but, of course, there would be for any location.

I'll merely say I really like the idea of trying to increase density, utilize the hotels and restaurants we already have, and linking the CBD directly to Bricktown.

After all, it's been 12 years since the Bricktown canal was opened and there is still tons of vacancy and next to nothing above the businesses along ground level. Something big needs to come along and make it worthwhile for apartments, lofts and offices in those scores of buildings. This could very well do it, as in the very near future Deep Deuce is going to be maxed out and this will be a natural extension of what will soon become our first fully realized urban neighborhood.

I'm simply tired of trying to ride too many horses with one behind. Let's concentrate on the areas closest to critical mass first before we forge yet another frontier on the edge of downtown.

Do you really think that the Skirvin is proposing to add a whole bunch of rooms they mostly won't use just so they can offer them to locals most of the time at discounted rates?? Of course not.

Who said anything about discounted rates?? I've been in the hotel industry for 3 years and I can tell you for sure that convention rates are going to be a lot lower than the rates offered to honeymooners and local couples looking for a romantic weekend. I wouldn't worry about that at all.

As far as your other concerns, we don't know enough yet about impact on historic Main Street properties to judge. And the amount of rooms added is certainly not final either.


They would have to acquire the building across from the Maywood lofts for this site.

No they wouldn't. The area north of the parking lots containing that building and the future Aloft is separate from this proposed convention center site.

Jbrown, my point about "discounted rates" was a response to another poster..and it was intended to be incredulous, because I was pointing out flawed logic.


I agree there are still lots of questions/concerns about this proposal but, of course, there would be for any location.

I'll merely say I really like the idea of trying to increase density, utilize the hotels and restaurants we already have, and linking the CBD directly to Bricktown.

After all, it's been 12 years since the Bricktown canal was opened and there is still tons of vacancy and next to nothing above the businesses along ground level. Something big needs to come along and make it worthwhile for apartments, lofts and offices in those scores of buildings. This could very well do it, as in the very near future Deep Deuce is going to be maxed out and this will be a natural extension of what will soon become our first fully realized urban neighborhood.

I'm simply tired of trying to ride too many horses with one behind. Let's concentrate on the areas closest to critical mass first before we forge yet another frontier on the edge of downtown.

True, but Bricktown is Bricktown's fault... in my mind's eye, this north-of-the-Skirvin area is a new frontier. Without this proposal it will probably be the last area in the entire downtown region to be revitalized. The city's unwillingness to figure out a solution for EKG is a huge impediment to fixing up this part of downtown.

This is totally false. I don't mean to go negative, but you did attempt to make a definitive statement, so I'll just say you clearly have no idea what kind of deals are currently being talked about. For the convention center committee to be affected by an announcement of any prospective deal would be ridiculous.

No, it's actually the God honest truth. Just ask anyone on the MAPS 3 oversight committee. I speak to several of them regularly. In fact, just got off the phone with one of them this afternoon, who said you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Marcus Hotels is the first and only hotel operator to come to them with any proposal like this. They haven't had anyone calling them, busting down the door for an opportunity to be involved in this. At least not yet. But it's still early. I'm not saying we should close off discussion with other companies, but we should at least give this proposal strong consideration considering we know the track record of the company, as evidenced by their impact on the CBD.

And mark my word....if they go with the Ford site, you're not going to see as urban of a hotel.....you're going to see more suburban sprawl. And without this proposal, my guess is they'll probably choose the Ford site over the north Bricktown site.

Yes, I get it that Marcus has been a good partner for OKC. OKC has been a good partner for Marcus as well, and that relationship will continue at the Skirvin. I am just calling out their motives for those who think, "Oh my god, I love you Marcus, you guys are trying to do us a solid!" which seems to be the general reaction of this thread.

By far and away, the best business relationships are those where both sides of an agreement profit. Add in the benefit to area businesses and the general community, and you have one of the great success stories ever hatched in OKC.

This is not a small thing and followed many, many failed attempts.

Doesn't mean Marcus is the only one that could be successful at this sort of venture downtown but I would say they have the highest probability for lots of reasons already mentioned. Therefore, when they present a real proposal they deserve our respect.

If someone has a better idea with real backing, let's see it. Until then, you can't blame people for being excited about this.

Its great that it is being paid back, but the city money still made it happen. My gut says there are some fish on the hook for a new convention center hotel. Hopefull we will do whats right for the city and not whats right for any possible agendas.

I don't care what deal you go with, or what company you work with, there isn't a company out there that's going to do this project without any guaranteed incentives. It's just too big of a risk.

The city's unwillingness to figure out a solution for EKG is a huge impediment to fixing up this part of downtown.

What's your problem with EKG?

Another site, the current Cox Site, would be even better.

No, no, no. The city isn't going to give up the arena in the Cox Center. I think you just need to accept that the Cox Center site is not an option, regardless of what some study may show.


Yes, I get it that Marcus has been a good partner for OKC. OKC has been a good partner for Marcus as well, and that relationship will continue at the Skirvin. I am just calling out their motives for those who think, "Oh my god, I love you Marcus, you guys are trying to do us a solid!" which seems to be the general reaction of this thread.

Again, Marcus Hotels is a for-profit hotel operator. I think we just need to accept that for what it is. They aren't the only fish in the sea, but they have proven to be successful in our community, and I think that deserves our respect in and by itself. That being said, it someone like John Q. Hammons also comes up with a proposal, I think we should consider it as well, for the same reasons.

No they wouldn't. The area north of the parking lots containing that building and the future Aloft is separate from this proposed convention center site.

Ok, but that would make it awkward staying south of the railway right of way, as it curves.

I was just going off this picture and others like it from the Skirvin's proposal to the city, available on Steve's article:

834

No, it's actually the God honest truth. Just ask anyone on the MAPS 3 oversight committee. I speak to several of them regularly. In fact, just got off the phone with one of them this afternoon, who said you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Marcus Hotels is the first and only hotel operator to come to them with any proposal like this. They haven't had anyone calling them, busting down the door for an opportunity to be involved in this. At least not yet. But it's still early. I'm not saying we should close off discussion with other companies, but we should at least give this proposal strong consideration considering we know the track record of the company, as evidenced by their impact on the CBD.

That could be because it's totally inappropriate at this stage of the project for this to consider the best hotel deal. Right now it needs to focus on the best site for OKC. If they want to hear about some hotel groups interested in doing a deal in OKC, they should talk to some of the huge commercial brokerage firms downtown. That's one of the problems in this city is that nobody talks to each other these days, few people are on the same page. This is an example of that, and Jane Jenkins saying she had no idea what was going on with the streetcar was another prime example of this.

I might be missing it, but how many floors or how tall is this project going to be? and is it a for sure thing or just a pipe dream up

No, no, no. The city isn't going to give up the arena in the Cox Center. I think you just need to accept that the Cox Center site is not an option, regardless of what some study may show.



Again, Marcus Hotels is a for-profit hotel operator. I think we just need to accept that for what it is. They aren't the only fish in the sea, but they have proven to be successful in our community, and I think that deserves our respect in and by itself. That being said, it someone like John Q. Hammons also comes up with a proposal, I think we should consider it as well, for the same reasons.

I didn't say I think the Cox Center site is a good site for the M3 convention center. I said IF the end goal is turning the FNC into a hotel as a part of this...

And if JQH is the only other hotelier interested (far from being true, in fact I don't even know or care if he is) then I think the better reaction would be to run for the hills..

I might be missing it, but how many floors or how tall is this project going to be? and is it a for sure thing or just a pipe dream up

It's just a proposal by one company, Marcus Hotels and resorts. It would be approx. 22 floors. It's just a development concept. Nothing official, nothing done.

What's your problem with EKG?

Wow, where to begin... it's too long of a story. It's just not compatible with an urban environment in about 5 very big ways. To make the long story short, there was a proposal at 4th and Broadway for a new Chamber bldg, initially they wanted to "fix" EKG and straighten it and dead-end it in front of the Y, the city refused to even listen to that, so the Chamber's proposal was changed to something more appropriate for fronting an artery like EKG. And then not surprisingly it was lambasted for being anti-urban. Well shocker of all shockers...

And if JQH is the only other hotelier interested (far from being true, in fact I don't even know or care if he is) then I think the better reaction would be to run for the hills..

I think JQH demands a lot of respect in this city. He was the first to start the momentum of developing hotels in downtown again. Remember, he proposed a new downtown hotel back when we only had 1 hotel downtown: the Westin (now Sheraton). He took huge risk, investing first in the Renaissance, then in the Courtyard, and later in the Residence Inn. That got the ball rolling for the projects that have come since by other developers.

Wow, where to begin... it's too long of a story. It's just not compatible with an urban environment in about 5 very big ways. To make the long story short, there was a proposal at 4th and Broadway for a new Chamber bldg, initially they wanted to "fix" EKG and straighten it and dead-end it in front of the Y, the city refused to even listen to that, so the Chamber's proposal was changed to something more appropriate for fronting an artery like EKG. And then not surprisingly it was lambasted for being anti-urban. Well shocker of all shockers...

I say just remove EKG completely then. I don't really see what purpose it serves.

Well we are in solid agreement on that.

Well we are in solid agreement on that.

Yay!

All of the previous MAPS money spent on existing properties were for the same use. The
only site on this issue would be the cox center. If incentives are going to be needed, which they will, I think another new hotel would be better than adding on to an existing one. Having the Skirvin as a CC hotel would kinda cheapen their image in my mind.

Patrick, I didn't mean to say "you have no clue" yada yada (the oldest card on OKC Talk for people with problems communicating I suppose) but I have had coffee chats with people who have mentioned some incredible potential deals. Keep in mind that MAPS 3 has completely changed the rules AND the game here in OKC, and outside developers have been watching and making inquiries.

How ironic would it be if Marcus beats them all by pitching their proposal directly to the committee long before it's time to hear hotel pitches...

Patrick, I didn't mean to say "you have no clue" yada yada (the oldest card on OKC Talk for people with problems communicating I suppose) but I have had coffee chats with people who have mentioned some incredible potential deals. Keep in mind that MAPS 3 has completely changed the rules and the game here in OKC, and outside developers have been watching and making inquiries.

Okay, I confess, there has been a lot of coffee talk proposals from other companies. But nothing serious enough to come straight and center like this one.


How ironic would it be if Marcus beats them all by pitching their proposal directly to the committee long before it's time to hear hotel pitches...

How cool would it be if the other companies push Marcus to offer us a better deal, and they build a 40-50 story hotel north of the Skirvin?

And to go back to my point about the motives... my big motive fear, why I think the obvious (that Marcus is a money-making corporation) is relevant here (and I think I failed to develop this point earlier), is that I suspect the real goal here is to keep outside big-name hoteliers out of OKC. I think among existing hotels there might be hesitation to fully embrace the idea of a Hyatt, or Four Seasons, or W, or Marriott, or some other big-name hotel becoming the new biggest fish in the pond.

I know for an absolutely fact that the point that OKC can't absorb more hotel rooms is false. That's utter fabrication. OKC is really suffering right now from a huge DEARTH of downtown rooms. That's insane for someone to say otherwise. I can't even form the words to express how dumbfounded I am to read that, and then for someone else to allude to some fictional planners or city officials with the same concerns as well. Where is this coming from?? City officials I've heard talk about the downtown room count situation are all in agreement that the room count is holding us back in a big way right now.


Okay, I confess, there has been a lot of coffee talk proposals from other companies. But nothing serious enough to come straight and center like this one.

How cool would it be if the other companies push Marcus to offer us a better deal, and they build a 40-50 story hotel north of the Skirvin?

1. Probably because it's not the time right now to come straight and center. It's not the time to address that kind of thing yet.

2. The size and height, other than room count, is irrelevant to me, although I will certainly be offering my urban design critiques. Of course I would like to see significant new development spurred from MAPS..

All of the previous MAPS money spent on existing properties were for the same use. The
only site on this issue would be the cox center. If incentives are going to be needed, which they will, I think another new hotel would be better than adding on to an existing one. Having the Skirvin as a CC hotel would kinda cheapen their image in my mind.

So, Marcus builds the tower north of the Skirvin and brands it something else, and makes it independent?

And to go back to my point about the motives... my big motive fear, why I think the obvious (that Marcus is a money-making corporation) is relevant here (and I think I failed to develop this point earlier), is that I suspect the real goal here is to keep outside big-name hoteliers out of OKC. I think among existing hotels there might be hesitation to fully embrace the idea of a Hyatt, or Four Seasons, or W, or Marriott, or some other big-name hotel becoming the new biggest fish in the pond.

Well, this is just a first draft. So, why not have Marcus build the tower north of the Skirvin, but require that it be built larger and that it be branded as a W, Hyatt, or whatever?
I think you could still include Marcus, without making the Skirvin become the actual convention hotel.

Another option to consider: make the FNC complex the convention center hotel, and build the CC in place of EK Gaylord and the Santa Fe parking garage. Attach the two with a skywalk.

EKG/parking garages is an interesting idea.


Well, this is just a first draft. So, why not have Marcus build the tower north of the Skirvin, but require that it be built larger and that it be branded as a W, Hyatt, or whatever?
I think you could still include Marcus, without making the Skirvin become the actual convention hotel.

Except those aren't Marcus brands.

my big motive fear, why I think the obvious (that Marcus is a money-making corporation) is relevant here (and I think I failed to develop this point earlier), is that I suspect the real goal here is to keep outside big-name hoteliers out of OKC. I think among existing hotels there might be hesitation to fully embrace the idea of a Hyatt, or Four Seasons, or W, or Marriott, or some other big-name hotel becoming the new biggest fish in the pond.

In Milwaukee (where they own the Skirvin-esque Pfister and the Hilton Convention Hotel) Hyatt came in afterwards and everyone seems to be happily co-existing and creating a critical mass of rooms needed for a thriving downtown and to lure big conventions.

They are also very generous in that community, helping fund the performing arts center -- it's named after them and it's bigger and nicer than our Civic Center.


I think this is a simple case of 1) knowing OKC and already having a great property here; and 2) seeing a golden opportunity.

Except those aren't Marcus brands.

In addition to Hilton, they own/operate: Crowne Plaza, Intercontinental, Sheraton and Westin brands. They could easily add one of these or something entirely new.

I'm also hopefull that we will we extend the canal system someday. I'm not so sure we could connect the convention center if it were at this site.

I always thought that a CC hotel would serve the guests of the CC.? If this proposal is accepted then the Skirvin Hotel will serve only convention goers correct? I am not so sure this is a good idea.

There is no "convention center hotel" anywhere that will turn down business from non convention goers when they have rooms available.

I'm also hopefull that we will we extend the canal system someday. I'm not so sure we could connect the convention center if it were at this site.

While there is nothing wrong with the idea, I see no particular need for the convention center to be served by a canal extension.

WOW. This thread really took off since I left it less than 24 hrs ago!


MAPS is a program designed to build new state of the art facilities and entice new development. All of the discussions about tearing down or using existing facilities are good, but not in the context of what the MAPS program is all about. I'm fairly certain The Skirvin will do very well on its own and still be the landmark hotel that it is now.
Which might be better for them in the long term.
Have to interject with a slight technical correction. The Convention Center hotel is NOT a MAPS project. Although obviously related, there is no funding in MAPS 3 for the C.C. hotel. This need and funding were glossed over at best during the campaign. As far as I am aware there is no identified source of funding for the estimated $60M or so the ULI folks suggested the City would have to be willing to put into it. They said in the article that the Skirvin expansion wouldn't require as much (and I may have missed it) but didn't say how much would be required.


...I'm simply tired of trying to ride too many horses with one behind. Let's concentrate on the areas closest to critical mass first before we forge yet another frontier on the edge of downtown.
Classic! I am saying this one (agree with the rest of your points as well).


No, it's actually the God honest truth. Just ask anyone on the MAPS 3 oversight committee. I speak to several of them regularly. In fact, just got off the phone with one of them this afternoon, who said you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Marcus Hotels is the first and only hotel operator to come to them with any proposal like this. They haven't had anyone calling them, busting down the door for an opportunity to be involved in this. At least not yet. But it's still early. ...
Really? This runs counter to what we were led to believe during the campaign. But as you pointed out, it might be too early in the process and they are sitting it out waiting for the C.C. site to be selected. Just as other development may be waiting for the Streetcar routes to be chosen and possibly the actual laying of track (no turning back now type of thing). Hard to make a proposal when you don't know where it is going to be, footprint, adjacent structures etc etc etc. At this point any proposal from outside interests would have to be 4-fold. Then there is the unlikely possibility that the Council could reject the Oversight recommendations for the C.C. site and go with another (such as the Mayor's preferred C2S Park adjacent one).


I don't care what deal you go with, or what company you work with, there isn't a company out there that's going to do this project without any guaranteed incentives. It's just too big of a risk.
Where's the risk? Guaranteed incentive from the near maximum occupancy from the C.C. Unless the Chamber was blowing smoke on all of this from the beginning (see above). Unless we build it and they don't come (this was brought up during the campaign, that many cities have built new C.C. centers and there just isn't enough C.C. business to go around).


While there is nothing wrong with the idea, I see no particular need for the convention center to be served by a canal extension.
If you believe former Mayors Norick and Humphreys, they have insisted from the very first MAPS that it was critical that the Canal do just that. They made the case when they proposed getting $25M included in MAPS 3 to accomplish it.

Getting back to some of my earlier concerns with the parking. Apparently there are going to be 2 parking structures but at a net loss of total available spaces (the article stated that the existing inventory would be taken up by the relocated Continental Resources. Under this proposal we are adding 400+ rooms and those people are going to have to park those rentals someplace. Unless everyone takes the Streetcar from the airport to downtown. Oooops doesn't run there. Maybe they can all board the Devon River boats and make there way to the Canal. Oooops, the Canal extension doesn't exist either and they are going to have to tote their luggage up the 17 ft elevation change when it does get built. (Sorry for being snotty).

I still have questions that I didn't see answered yet. Where in the pics does it show the hotel expansion is going to be? I incorrectly thought it was the "ghost" building directly across the street. Then someone said it was the building on the otherside of the Gateway/arch structure (to the right, behind the ghost building. The caption on the pic that ran in the paper indicated that was the office space to be used to house the Chamber and CVB. Is the hotel extension to the left side of the pic (nearly cropped out), behind the Skirvin? Looks like meeting rooms, support structure separating the two? If it is indeed behind the Skirvin, that addresses some of my placement/design concerns (that the existing Skirvin be the "front door" to the property.

I see this as an opportunity for the City to do some "big picture" thinking and seeing how it all works together (as this plan is doing). Think it is entirely too early to make any sort of commitment on it but it can certainly get the ball rolling when the time is appropriate.

[QUOTE=Larry OKC;420452]

If you believe former Mayors Norick and Humphreys, they have insisted from the very first MAPS that it was critical that the Canal do just that. They made the case when they proposed getting $25M included in MAPS 3 to accomplish it.

Getting back to some of my earlier concerns with the parking. Apparently there are going to be 2 parking structures but at a net loss of total available spaces (the article stated that the existing inventory would be taken up by the relocated Continental Resources. Under this proposal we are adding 400+ rooms and those people are going to have to park those rentals someplace. I still have questions that I didn't see answered yet. Where in the pics does it show the hotel expansion is going to be? I incorrectly thought it was the "ghost" building directly across the street. Then someone said it was the building on the otherside of the Gateway/arch structure (to the right, behind the ghost building. The caption on the pic that ran in the paper indicated that was the office space to be used to house the Chamber and CVB. Is the hotel extension to the left side of the pic (nearly cropped out), behind the Skirvin? Looks like meeting rooms, support structure separating the two? If it is indeed behind the Skirvin, that addresses some of my placement/design concerns (that the existing Skirvin be the "front door" to the property.QUOTE]

Larry, irrespective about what may have been stated in the past, there is nothing critical about the canal serving the convention center as nice as that might be.

And there is nothing to indicate that is would have to be net loss of parking spaces. According to the proposal it could very well be a net gain. The proposal says that the restructured current parking area could have as many as 895 spaces in addition to as many as 1260 in a new parking area. That would be 2,155 spaces compared to 1500 in the current parking garage.

The depiction of the proposal clearly shows that the new hotel tower would be behind or north of the current Skirvin Hilton so your concerns are answered there.

Larry, hopefully this helps:

http://img683.imageshack.us/img683/4809/screenshot20110410at208.png (http://img683.imageshack.us/i/screenshot20110410at208.png/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

And there is nothing to indicate that is would have to be net loss of parking spaces. According to the proposal it could very well be a net gain. The proposal says that the restructured current parking area could have as many as 895 spaces in addition to as many as 1260 in a new parking area. That would be 2,155 spaces compared to 1500 in the current parking garage.


Don't forget to count the parking spaces where the convention center would be located and those that are currently south of Main.

Larry, irrespective about what may have been stated in the past, there is nothing critical about the canal serving the convention center as nice as that might be.

And there is nothing to indicate that is would have to be net loss of parking spaces. According to the proposal it could very well be a net gain. The proposal says that the restructured current parking area could have as many as 895 spaces in addition to as many as 1260 in a new parking area. That would be 2,155 spaces compared to 1500 in the current parking garage.

The depiction of the proposal clearly shows that the new hotel tower would be behind or north of the current Skirvin Hilton so your concerns are answered there.

Two things about this, ljbab. I think you're right that the canal doesn't matter anymore, but I think that more or less simply reflects that our desires and goals have clearly shifted and the Bricktown Canal has been totally forgotten and left behind. Look at it today.

Secondly, it is a net parking loss because there is a third factor, the spots that are going to be taken up by Continental Resources. And I will almost be willing to bet that the "as many as 1260 spaces" is completely contingent on how much they're able to destroy the fabric of Main Street. Whether they are forced to preserve the Sherman Iron Works building and have to build on top of it, or whether they can just tear it down and just do a parking garage...

Sorry Spartan, didn't intend to trump your post ...

ljbab, thanks for the pic with directions and labels (it really does help)

If you don't agree with them, thats fine. The past you are referring to wasn't just from 1993, but reiterated by Norick & Humphreys most recently just before MAPS 3 was unveiled and the election set (but for whatever reason, didn't make the final cut).

How do you figure there is a net gain of parking? You helped clarify the other things, now what am I doing wrong with the math?

1,518 Existing spaces in Santa Fa garage minus 1,518 spaces when the bulldoze the place = Zero spaces

Unknown quantity of spaces in the surface parking lot that the new C.C. will sit, also gone (is this what RodH was talking about?).

575 to 895 spaces in the replacement structure. The replacement structure will be completely occupied by the relocating Continental Resources Leaves us with the same Zero spaces (net loss of 1,518)

Add back in the 800 and 1260 from the 2nd new structure and you are still short 258 to 718 spaces from the existing inventory. Factor in the parking needs of the added 425 room expansion and you have even fewer spaces. Right?

The perception is parking is horrific and I have no idea what the current demand/supply of parking is currently. But shouldn't we be looking at growth needs? Just as with the new C.C. itself, they are only funding/building what it will take to meet the CURRENT needs of a Tier 2 city (much less what those needs are going to be 10 years or so when the C.C. gets built). This makes as much since as having an Arena that was already too small and taking out nearly 1,000 seats. I am not sure how this proposal relates to the MAPS 3 Park, but remember it was supposed to have parking that has been eliminated (the parking was to serve both the Park and the C.C.). The city thinks the parking in that area is sufficient for the Park (but again, not sure if the Santa Fe garage figures into that or not). If MAPS 3 brings everything that it is supposed to, won't the parking needs grow even more? What is the logic of shooting yourself in the foot at the beginning of the race?

Help me here!

As an aside, the location of the 2nd parking structure puts it farther away from the Skirvin, seems like a better location would be in what looks like a surface lot on the other side of the C.C. and next to the Skirvin expansion (where your handy compass is placed).

I can't believe people are opposed to this plan because of parking spaces. That is like turning down a winning lottery ticket because you have to scratch the silver off the numbers. If parking is an issue new garages can be built; it isn't like downtown doesn't have the space. This proposal takes what are now atleast 5 surface lots and turns them into multi-story strucutres, gets rid of the second ugliest parking garage in the city, and creates more class A office space.

As for the canal connecting to the conventioned, it is much more important that the streetcar reaches the convention center.

Interested to hear what Steve has to say...

"This is an interesting pitch, but have no doubt, there ARE other major hotel groups engaged in quiet conversations with the city about getting a shot to add a convention hotel to downtown as well."

http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/2011/04/09/busy-week-again/

"- If all goes according to plan, you’ll love what’s set to appear in the business section in next Sunday’s Oklahoman."

Okay, what's the tease about? Throw us a crumb Steve.

I say just remove EKG completely then. I don't really see what purpose it serves.

This is exactly right and a key component of making this concept successful. E.K. Gaylord represents excess traffic capacity that has an overall negative impact on the quality and character of downtown.

And it should be reiterated (as Pete pointed out) that a skybridge is unnecessary as there is already an opportunity for an at-grade crossing on line with the continuation of Park Ave (see here (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=okc&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&ie=UTF8&hl=en&hq=okc&hnear=Will+Rogers+World+Airport+(OKC),+Oklahoma+Ci ty,+Oklahoma+73159&ll=35.468679,-97.513187&spn=0.000671,0.004292&z=19&layer=c&cbll=35.468679,-97.512674&panoid=VH7U4OG7EA7MOGeEXmgChw&cbp=12,83.38,,0,1.02)).

The Skirvin proposal is an idea that leverages the CC investment to solve other problems and make OKC better. There are similar proposals emerging for other sites. All are worthy of further study and consideration.

I wish that the proposal would address the rail concerns head on. The reality is that the N Bricktown parking lots provide a key current and future rail corridor for the Midwest City/Tinker, Adventure Line, Tulsa connection and repeatedly being promoted to the Feds as our HSR alignment.

I have seen buildings built above and around rail lines, and doing so is possible. The real question is what would it cost to make the parking lots work considering another barrier is involved? Will $250 - $280 million do it?

The developers started to promote the idea that the rail connections can be made further south at the Cotton Seed Mill. Because of grade issues and other barriers, connections there are extremely complicated.

Plus it would make the proposed intermodal hub not work.

Kudo's to the people who desperately want more core infill and barriers to be removed. However, be aware that the combined proposal can have greater effects on other issues that haven't been "flushed out" yet and what the real costs actually are.

These are all concerns that need to be addressed. I like this site above all, but I can only support very specific things. I would not be in favor of giving them carte blanche authority to turn the area along the tracks around Main Street into a convention universe.

Sorry Spartan, didn't intend to trump your post ...

ljbab, thanks for the pic with directions and labels (it really does help)

If you don't agree with them, thats fine. The past you are referring to wasn't just from 1993, but reiterated by Norick & Humphreys most recently just before MAPS 3 was unveiled and the election set (but for whatever reason, didn't make the final cut).

How do you figure there is a net gain of parking? You helped clarify the other things, now what am I doing wrong with the math?

1,518 Existing spaces in Santa Fa garage minus 1,518 spaces when the bulldoze the place = Zero spaces

Unknown quantity of spaces in the surface parking lot that the new C.C. will sit, also gone (is this what RodH was talking about?).

575 to 895 spaces in the replacement structure. The replacement structure will be completely occupied by the relocating Continental Resources Leaves us with the same Zero spaces (net loss of 1,518)

Add back in the 800 and 1260 from the 2nd new structure and you are still short 258 to 718 spaces from the existing inventory. Factor in the parking needs of the added 425 room expansion and you have even fewer spaces. Right?

The perception is parking is horrific and I have no idea what the current demand/supply of parking is currently. But shouldn't we be looking at growth needs? Just as with the new C.C. itself, they are only funding/building what it will take to meet the CURRENT needs of a Tier 2 city (much less what those needs are going to be 10 years or so when the C.C. gets built). This makes as much since as having an Arena that was already too small and taking out nearly 1,000 seats. I am not sure how this proposal relates to the MAPS 3 Park, but remember it was supposed to have parking that has been eliminated (the parking was to serve both the Park and the C.C.). The city thinks the parking in that area is sufficient for the Park (but again, not sure if the Santa Fe garage figures into that or not). If MAPS 3 brings everything that it is supposed to, won't the parking needs grow even more? What is the logic of shooting yourself in the foot at the beginning of the race?

Help me here!

As an aside, the location of the 2nd parking structure puts it farther away from the Skirvin, seems like a better location would be in what looks like a surface lot on the other side of the C.C. and next to the Skirvin expansion (where your handy compass is placed).


You subtracted the spaces take up by Continental but did Devon not already use those spaces before? Or do they have another place to park?