"non-tangible" profit? Where does that show up on the balance sheet?

Please look up the definition of non-tangible.

To ignore the economic and other benefit of having a competitive CC is just as ignorant as overstating it.

"non-tangible" profit? Where does that show up on the balance sheet?

LOL - that is an accounting trick from Bernie Madoff. It is where people still lose money but they are happy about it because future profits will be higher than the current losses. Just trust him, the profits are coming.

LOL - that is an accounting trick from Bernie Madoff. It is where people still lose money but they are happy about it because future profits will be higher than the current losses. Just trust him, the profits are coming.

You still need to look up the definition. Bernie's was a pyramid.

Please look up the definition of non-tangible.

To ignore the economic and other benefit of having a competitive CC is just as ignorant as overstating it.

This. It's a necessary commodity, and there is no down-side to having a competitive convention center, as long as you don't butcher your city or eliminate development opportunities to do it. But the benefits are far too-often way overstated. If I ever make any "attack comments" toward a convention center, it's just to bring that in line. I take it for granted that we need it, but come on, YOU CAN'T BUILD A CITY AROUND IT, WAKE UP [insert subcommittee names] PEOPLE!! there, I got that out.

I take it for granted that we need it, but come on, YOU CAN'T BUILD A CITY AROUND IT, WAKE UP [insert subcommittee names] PEOPLE!! there, I got that out.

Unless you are Vancouver. It was put in a premier location with outstanding views. If you haven't been to it, you should go.

I agree that you shouldn't build the city around it, but you also need to keep it in a vital area downtown and not make it a visitors' ghetto. I am okay with the Ford site with the caveat that the current Cox is reconfigured and re-developed to open private development to face the MG. Otherwise we have isolated the MG and reduced prime development opportunities. If we are trading the south side for the east then I think it okay.

I think though that the south side is more strategic, and also probably the west, which feels more open than the east frontage (that may or may not be a benefit for the east side though). I like the question Blair was asking earlier, which is why aren't we connecting these two parks? It's funny how that's not even part of the equation here because we view these parks so separately and inconclusively at the moment. However, I do think 20 years from now, we're going to be scratching our heads as to why the two parks aren't connecting, or why there's a convention center in the middle of the park...

As for Vancouver, yeah...
http://www.archithings.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/LMN-Architects-designed-Vancouver-Convention-Centre-West-features-Canadas-largest-living-roof-588x392.jpg

A riverside location for OKC could be cool, also. It's just too isolated, as you mention. But here's is an example of 300,000 sf of exhibition space for over $700 million. Obviously OKC is not going to get anything near this high-quality. But it is a beautiful site.

I am okay with the Ford site with the caveat that the current Cox is reconfigured and re-developed to open private development to face the MG. Otherwise we have isolated the MG and reduced prime development opportunities.

The building can't do that. The layout is such that the wall on the east and west side are also the wall of the "walking" area indoors. so unless you are prepared to create a building within a building, then it's not practical. You'd have to rip out walls and put in HVAC and all that goes with that into a structure that was never intended to do such things. I don't think you'd be happy with how it would look in the end anyway. Not to mention that you'd have to rip the holes in the walls for ONLY the doors. The structural steel would prevent you from having and store-front windows. You also can't put it outside the building because the sidewalk isn't wide enough for both foot traffic and storefront space. However, I don't feel that it has served as an issue for the Gardens in the past. In fact, I've rather enjoyed the lesser foot traffic in the Gardens. It's much easier to relax there when there aren't a million people around.

The building can't do that. The layout is such that the wall on the east and west side are also the wall of the "walking" area indoors. so unless you are prepared to create a building within a building, then it's not practical. You'd have to rip out walls and put in HVAC and all that goes with that into a structure that was never intended to do such things. I don't think you'd be happy with how it would look in the end anyway. Not to mention that you'd have to rip the holes in the walls for ONLY the doors. The structural steel would prevent you from having and store-front windows. You also can't put it outside the building because the sidewalk isn't wide enough for both foot traffic and storefront space. However, I don't feel that it has served as an issue for the Gardens in the past. In fact, I've rather enjoyed the lesser foot traffic in the Gardens. It's much easier to relax there when there aren't a million people around.

I was really thinking the whole west exhibition area be torn down and a new project be made there, essentially facing the west and the garden. The demolition of the exhibition hall shouldn't be terribly expensive.

My personal opinion is that the new building should either be an architectural masterpiece that embraces the two parks (think Gehry swooping folds) or it should completely disappear within a "wrapped" urbanity. There in NO room in between. Anything less than being a profound statement/connector embracing the two parks or a building that completely disappears is what should be learned from the abortions of the past.

OKC has a chance to get it right, so let's do it right.

Which means it won't be either and we'll be left with something no one likes.

Which means it won't be either and we'll be left with something no one likes.

ding ding ding - we have a winner. This is why I said I hope they put up a plaque with all the people responsible so future generations know who to blame.

Do you honestly believe Hall was going to put up an "architectural masterpiece"?

Do you honestly believe Hall was going to put up an "architectural masterpiece"?

Does it matter now? At least his was private sector development.

Does it matter now? At least his was private sector development.

Yes, it does matter. The discussion is highest and best use.

Do you honestly believe Hall was going to put up an "architectural masterpiece"?

On the other side, do you honestly know that he wasn't ?

Yes, it does matter. The discussion is highest and best use.

Hold on. What are we talking about here - the old Cox or the new CC?

On the other side, do you honestly know that he wasn't ?

Pretty good reason to believe there wasn't ANY solid plan on the table, let alone something along the lines of an architectural masterpiece.

Hold on. What are we talking about here - the old Cox or the new CC?

The comments were about making the building between the parks an architectural icon.

On the other side, do you honestly know that he wasn't ?

Yes I do. He wasn't. I'm not sure how one defines architectural masterpiece, but it's very hard for ANYONE to do that anymore...it's just way too expensive and hard to make money.

The comments were about making the building between the parks an architectural icon.

Then we need to move the discussion over to the Convention Center thread. This thread is about the Cox site.

Then we need to move the discussion over to the Convention Center thread. This thread is about the Cox site.

This was and is about the Cox site and re-use. It is relative to what happens to the Ford site and whether the retrofitting or demolition and redevelopment is complementary or not.

This was and is about the Cox site and re-use. It is relative to what happens to the Ford site and whether the retrofitting or demolition and redevelopment is complementary or not.

Demolition seems highly unlikely anytime soon

Demolition seems highly unlikely anytime soon

Then maybe we can start talking about demolition of Devon Tower and replacement with a 100 floor 1600 foot tall tower?