As promised in the Convention Center thread, here is the new poll.


Please, think long and hard about your decision before you vote. Use YOUR own judgement, your own mind for what you think is best for the city as a Convention City and as an URBAN downtown. You have $280M to use for your development and assume that land acquisition costs come into play on most of these sites (I only know of the appx $30M for the E Central Park site(s)).

Let's see what everyone thinks, perhaps this could be a somewhat useful tool to help the process? Should be interesting.


VOTER'S PAMPHLET - Oklahoma City MAPS III Convention Center, best location
Chose ONLY ONE of the following locations to serve as the best location for the new convention center. Each registered member gets only one vote and the vote is open to all members of the OKCTalk forum regardless if they reside in the City of OKC. Please Make your selection in the poll above. After you vote, feel free to post your comment(s) to help your cause since campaign budgets were limited. Thank you.

A: Ford Site. Borders Ford Center to the East, MBG to the North, the Boulevard and new Central Park to the South. New Centre with underground Exhibit hall(s), above ground banquet and meeting rooms, highrise hotel(s). Assuming there would be some retail on the exterior of the center, with the Harvey spine intact connecting MBG to the new Central Park - perhaps with a Gate. Assume there will be significant acquisition costs associated with this site due to its development potential (as had been announced/hinted to by the current land owner(s)) and the prime location.

B: North Bricktown. Borders Main street, Railroad viaduct, Deep Deuce. New Multistorey Centre with an elaborate Gate that crosses EK Gaylord Blvd to the Santa Fe garage area. The Santa Fe garage itself will be rebuilt, Park Avenue restored, and the Gate will have a landing area that would connect to the Skirvin Hotel and a new 25+ storey Expansion tower to the north of the existing property (likely to be branded in a convention livery but managed by Marcus Hotels). The hotel expansion and garage reconstruction would be privately funded (assume) with the city picking up the centre and the bridge/landing.

C: East Bricktown. Im not totally sure of the boundaries of this, but Im sure those of you in support of it know where it is and can comment on your choice. I believe I heard the city already owns the land, so there likely would be only minimal acquisition costs. I also haven't heard how the highrise hotel would fit into this, but perhaps it could serve as an anchor to Lincoln Blvd. ...

D: Rebuild on Cox grounds. Use the existing Cox area (in some fashion) and start over. Feel free to be creative, since there were no official ideas that I know of. We could use the entire site or parcel it up, even restoring part of the grid and make it multistorey. Factor in demolition as well as the likelihood of OKC not having a CC during the demolition and construction.

E1: E Central Park - Robinson fronting. Loading docks at Shields. This is a wide and fat convention centre that would be the icon of the C2S redevelopment, alongside the new Central Park with the new Convention Hotel(s) fronting the new boulevard across from Ford Center. This option 'was' favored by the mayor and would likely include costs to acquire and remove the electrical substation for downtown that exists on the site; likely reducing the budget alotted for the cc.

E2: E Central Park - Broadway fronting. This is a hybrid E Central Park design presented by members on this forum. It has loading docks at Shields and a long and narrower, possibly multi-storey convention centre. Assume the substation costs would also be a factor but since this is Broadway fronting assume the sq blocks between it and the park could be redeveloped into multistorey housing and/or retail, thereby potentially offsetting the substation acquisition and relocation costs (or more?).

F: Convention Centre, outside of downtown: Fairgrounds, Meridian/Airport, inner NW Expressway, or the Southside/Crossroads are possible sites. I threw this in to see if we should even have a new convention centre build downtown. In this idea, the cc would be built in the suburban sector of OKC and we could keep or remove the Cox - a separate vote could be held later on that.

G: No new centre. Let's get OKC out of the convention business or just keep what we got and use the funds for something else. I threw this in, because without MAPS there likely would NOT have been dollars for a new convention centre. So I feel this needs to be voiced, especially since there are many who want to make the convention centre first in construction en leu of more popular projects such as the streetcar (which if started first could be better integrated with Project 180, the park which would help anchor a blighted section of the city, and the rafting whitewater centre which would add much needed attraction to the river). If we chose no new centre, we could divert the funds to other project(s) or have a special city vote and let the people decide if we should divert, do something new with the money, use it to upgrade public safety, or end Maps III early.

OK, I think that is enough choices. The commentary in the Voter's Pamphlet (above) is what I know, so feel free to use any information you know to aid in your vote and feel free to correct anything in your comments. Assume any design would be urban and seek LEED designation of some sort.

Please all, let's treat this as scientific as we can be (since we all need logins to vote) and select the best option you think. Be sure to vote in the actual poll. ;)

Cheers!

E2 - East Central Park.

I thought I had the original idea but found out it had already been proposed. There are some outstanding renderings of a possible CC on this site in the "New Convention Center" thread. If I was "King of OKC", this would be my choice by far.

I'm going to be bold and go with option:

G

When, if whichever site is going to be chosen, will this be built again? I'd rather focus on the park and the streetcar first. Those, to me, will bring more private development to downtown than will a convention center. A new hotel can still be built. I'd like to see an Omni here in OKC. Personally, I believe the Cox Center is plenty fine right now.

I voted F for somewhere on the south side of the highway, but all of that will be gone, so I guess somewhere near the river. Save the downtown areas for future skyscrapers. That is the best that I can think of. I'm not sure if it would be good having it on or near the grand central park. I was thinking, how about tearing down all the old mills and build there? Take out all the junk and put in the new. Because that area is a major eyesore.

And the F choice don't really have to be far away places HOT ROD mentioned. It can simply be anywhere just outside of the Downtown/Bricktown core.

The Lumberyard site,but that's no longer an option.

Do you have an estimated site acquisition/site preparation cost for each so we can make an educated decision? Sometimes it is a value judgement, not just where we think a pretty building would fit.

I think for such a confusing option, it really shows how people liked the idea strongly of E2. Good job with the poll, Hot Rod.

I still liked the Lumberyard site best, though...

Memorial Road and County Line. :)

I was good with the subcommittee's choice so I went with A. They sure had a heck of a lot of more information than I do. G shouldn't be an option at all ... unless one is happy with the concept that it is OK to chose to deselect components of the MAPS process (e.g., downtown transit).

So Doug, Do you think having a massive structure next to the park will benefit it. Is the Myriad Gardens for the citizens of Oklahoma City or for tourists?

I feel that the leaders of this town are not seeing the big picture. They are obsessed with tourists and not the people of Oklahoma City. The Myriad Gardens and future Central Park should be for the people of Oklahoma City not tourists!

They should put the massive convention center in Bricktown not the urbancore! This area is prime for residential or offices for people that live and work in OKC!

Puttting the convention center at the Ford site is not what the people that voted for maps want. It is the opposite of improving the lives of OKC citizens.

So Doug, Do you think having a massive structure next to the park will benefit it. Is the Myriad Gardens for the citizens of Oklahoma City or for tourists?

I feel that the leaders of this town are not seeing the big picture. They are obsessed with tourists and not the people of Oklahoma City. The Myriad Gardens and future Central Park should be for the people of Oklahoma City not tourists!

They should put the massive convention center in Bricktown not the urbancore! This area is prime for residential or offices for people that live and work in OKC!

Puttting the convention center at the Ford site is not what the people that voted for maps want. It is the opposite of improving the lives of OKC citizens.

Is the Myriad Gardens for the Citizens or Tourists--YES

CC at the Ford site not what the people voted for---did you poll everyone the voted in MAPS3. We voted for the CC, no locations were identified so how can you make such a statement.

Since MAPS 3 was set up so they could do just that (add/delete from the list of "intent"), why not dump the one that was the least popular (according to the scientific polling) and put it towards the most popular? In this case taking the $280M from the C.C. and adding it to the $120M for Streetcars and other Mass Trans. At this point, use the scientific polling, and just build the ones people said they were voting for. Mass Trans beat all other suggestions by a wide margin. But if you want to split it up among the remaining projects (on a pro-rated basis), I would be fine with that too. Or here is a radical idea for MAPS 4, lets have a list of proposed projects and vote on them individually, those that pass, get funding for the appropriate set period of time for each. $100M = 1 yr of penny tax.

So Doug, Do you think having a massive structure next to the park will benefit it. Is the Myriad Gardens for the citizens of Oklahoma City or for tourists?

I feel that the leaders of this town are not seeing the big picture. They are obsessed with tourists and not the people of Oklahoma City. The Myriad Gardens and future Central Park should be for the people of Oklahoma City not tourists!

They should put the massive convention center in Bricktown not the urbancore! This area is prime for residential or offices for people that live and work in OKC!

Puttting the convention center at the Ford site is not what the people that voted for maps want. It is the opposite of improving the lives of OKC citizens.
Well, if the polls were correct, the people of Okc didn't want a new convention center at all. I'm not aware of a poll of voters (of only people who voted) as to any preference they may have and doubt that one exists. I sort of like the idea of something new and flashy having such a high visibility profile ... sure beats out the past uses of the same properties. So, yeah, I'm fine with the selection and if a convention hotel gets built the location strikes me as desirable for that, also. I'm not going to get hot and bothered about whatever might be the site ... although I'm glad that it is apparently not going to be south of the arena.

Looks like most agree with the committee anyway.

Looks like most agree with the committee anyway.

20% is most? Plus people on this forum are far more interested in development in OKC than the average citizen.

Except the land for the lumberyard site is $450 million.

Why am I the only one voting F? :-/

Since MAPS 3 was set up so they could do just that (add/delete from the list of "intent"), why not dump the one that was the least popular (according to the scientific polling) and put it towards the most popular? In this case taking the $280M from the C.C. and adding it to the $120M for Streetcars and other Mass Trans. At this point, use the scientific polling, and just build the ones people said they were voting for. Mass Trans beat all other suggestions by a wide margin. But if you want to split it up among the remaining projects (on a pro-rated basis), I would be fine with that too. Or here is a radical idea for MAPS 4, lets have a list of proposed projects and vote on them individually, those that pass, get funding for the appropriate set period of time for each. $100M = 1 yr of penny tax.

Nothing will be deleted, all projects will be built as promised. As for voting on each item, apparently you weren't following the news prior to the election.

Why am I the only one voting F? :-/

Because building the CC anywhere but in/near downtown makes absolutely no sense.

Because building the CC anywhere but in/near downtown makes absolutely no sense.

Not true. I just suggested the best location that should be majority accepted.

20% is most? Plus people on this forum are far more interested in development in OKC than the average citizen.

Yes, 20% is the most.

And I think that it is self serving to say the people on this forum are more interested. Most people don't hang out on forums. There is a danger of thinking that what is expressed here is more important or more popular than it is.

One thing to keep in mind, is that I split the E. Central Park site location to take into account different configurations (Broadway fronting with a long/skinny centre or Robinson fronting with a fat/wide center). Both E. Central Park sites are adjacent to Ford Center and the new boulevard and front the E side of the park - it was just a matter of preference building it a block away from the original proposal or not.

In reality, both E. Central Park site could be viewed as one, which would give it the most votes. There might be have been even more votes for E. CP if I didn't split the choices. .....

Again, I could have done similar with the Ford site (Exhibit hall above ground vs. below) and it would have likely split the total Ford site votes as well.

It is very interesting, however, that Ford has the most single votes. ....

Tally as of May 14:

A) Ford: 21.67%
B) N Bricktown: 16.67%
C) E Bricktown: 16.67%
D) Cox: 8.33%
E) E Central Park: 28.33% (special note)
.. E1) Robinson front: 13.33%
.. E2) Broadway front: 15.00%
F) Outside of downtown: 1.67%
G) Eliminate CC altogether, repurpose funds or close Maps III early: 6.67%

Yes, 20% is the most.

And I think that it is self serving to say the people on this forum are more interested. Most people don't hang out on forums. There is a danger of thinking that what is expressed here is more important or more popular than it is.

20% is no where majority which was my point. Did I say more important, no. I was alluding to the vote here is more likely to be statically different than the general population, the question itself also somewhat skewed to choose a location.

Nothing will be deleted, all projects will be built as promised. As for voting on each item, apparently you weren't following the news prior to the election.

That remains to be seen if all the projects will be built and as promised (there are already strong indications that the $40M Trails portion will NOT be built as promised). There is nothing legally binding holding current or future Councils to adhere to the Letter of Intent. There was no mention or reference to the "Intent" either on the Ballot or in the Ordinance itself. The Letter of Intent refers back to the Ordinance, but not the other way around and as reported in the paper, it is completely non-binding.

Believe me, I followed this issue very closely and we were promised by the Mayor's office (by now state senator David Holt) over in Steve's blog that they would follow the rulings by the state supreme court that affirmed (on at least 3 different rulings) that logrolling (having multiple, unrelated projects on one ballot, rather than listed separately as we do with bond issue elections) was unconstitutional. The city even acknowledged that the previous all-or-nothing format of MAPS (where projects were at least listed and in some detail, but not voted on separately), was probably illegal (but no one challenged it in court). The Mayor stated in the video clip that was available: Oklahoma City MAPS out big plans (Oklahoman, 9/18/09)

"I think the citizens are going to look at this with a very discerning eye. Each of these projects is going to have to stand on its own.”
Notice he didn't say this "group of projects". Implying that the ballot would not be an illegal, all-or-nothing format. Later on the reason he gave for the continued unconstitutional all-or-nothing ballot format by himself and the Council, was it was what voters were used to. Conveniently forgetting that voters are also used to having like kind projects listed and voted on individually in bond issue (Roads, Bridges, parks etc etc etc).

I was one of the few that could see the reason for the C.C. as it would bring in primarily out of area/state NEW money into the economy. That being said, the scientific polling never showed it gaining at least 50% approval and reports indicated of internal Chamber memos indicated the same thing. The Mayor denied the 50% failure and said the polling he saw indicated it was supported (but that polling was never released). The chamber supported the C.C. and the other MAPS projects are arguably what "barely" carried the election. The unpopular C.C. almost brought down the rest in flames. I don't think to many people would really be upset if the most expensive and unpopular item was dropped and the funds were applied to whatever project they thought they were voting for.. Well, other than the folks at the Chamber. And we all know they are not the least bit shy at throwing their money and significant resources at candidates that support their view of things (see this last round of Council elections).

20% is no where majority which was my point. Did I say more important, no. I was alluding to the vote here is more likely to be statically different than the general population, the question itself also somewhat skewed to choose a location.

Snowman, I did not say majority. I said "the most'. Part of my point is that the opinions are varied and fractured. We can't even have a clear cut favorite among the "experts" on this site. To then imply that any one choice the committee, the city staff or the mayor has favored is the result of a conspiracy, stupidity, or corruption is silly.

I really believe the opposition to the Ford Site is actually a small minority with a huge bark. This poll is awesome. Great idea !!!!

I dunno what is wrong with people wanting to use the Ford Center for the convention events.

Keep the Ford Center reserved for OKC Thunder and concerts. I know that concerts can be done in between games.

Snowman, I did not say majority. I said "the most'. Part of my point is that the opinions are varied and fractured. We can't even have a clear cut favorite among the "experts" on this site. To then imply that any one choice the committee, the city staff or the mayor has favored is the result of a conspiracy, stupidity, or corruption is silly.

Or is it? The subcommittee chose the Ford site unanimously. What does that say, if anything?

I dunno what is wrong with people wanting to use the Ford Center for the convention events.

Keep the Ford Center reserved for OKC Thunder and concerts. I know that concerts can be done in between games.

So you feel the OKC Arena should set vacant for app. 320 days a year.

So you feel the OKC Arena should set vacant for app. 320 days a year.

No. We can use concerts and other BIG events. I don't think convention events are suitable at the Ford Center.

Well, evidently quite a few people don't think the Ford site is a bad idea... but perhaps a better question would have been what is the BEST use for the Ford site.

Well, evidently quite a few people don't think the Ford site is a bad idea... but perhaps a better question would have been what is the BEST use for the Ford site.

The best use is one that will actually be financed, built and used and will be proper for the site. If there is a great project waiting in the wings for the site and which increases the value for the site then the property will be too valuable for building the CC. The worst thing would for nothing to be built there for a decade or for a half arsed commercial project to be built.

What about all the parking money they are making, sure they want it vacant till 2020 they are making a killing and they went up to $6 dollars from $5, greedy greedy.

very interesting that the Ford Site has taken a significant lead. I wonder if people are voting for it because it was already chosen by the sub-committee OR do they really agree that it is the best site.

I ask this, because I threw in a curve ball voting choice that Im surprised is not the leader or having more vote. That curve ball, is locating the convention center at E. Central Park, across from the Ford Center on the blvd; with it fronting Broadway (loading docks at Shields). This would open up the Broadway block immediately adjacent to the park and cc to development, which the city could use to PAY for the substation relocation and expansion. .... Im quite surprised this option isn't even in the top 3, because it arguably would be the cheapest and biggest bang for the city, the cc, OG&E, and developers - yet the more expensive Ford site is leading.

I don't mean to sway votes and if it really is true, then so be it. But I wonder, if people really thought about this before voting - or is there a level of apathy in some of the Ford numbers. ...? Particularly given the 'revised' E. Central Park option that could LITERALLY pay for itself.

We probably should have had this poll prior to the subcommittee announcement, I apologize - but at that time I didn't have as much knowledge and I have been and still am in China for the last 3 months. ....

Anyways, if the vote is real - then great. Ford site it is. One thing's for sure, it is great to see so many interested in MAPS and the continued renaissance of downtown OKC (and thereby, the city and metro [and state] itself).

The best use is one that will actually be financed, built and used and will be proper for the site. If there is a great project waiting in the wings for the site and which increases the value for the site then the property will be too valuable for building the CC. The worst thing would for nothing to be built there for a decade or for a half arsed commercial project to be built.

So you think Hall was totally bluffing about the huge mixed-use development he wanted to do? I have no idea myself, so I'm curious what you think..

I thought the whole purpose of MAPS was to encourage private development in downtown OKC. It seems counter-productive to stop private development to make way for MAPS developments.

So you think Hall was totally bluffing about the huge mixed-use development he wanted to do? I have no idea myself, so I'm curious what you think..

I am just saying that if they have a viable business model showing something of that scale to be profitable then the land value would be high and would discourage or eliminate the site from CC consideration. ED would be hard since other viable alternatives exist and a commercial and proper development would be possible. I don't have ANY inside info on Hall's intentions on the site, but wanting to do a huge mixed use and being able to do it might be two totally different things. If spending $30-40 million in mid-town for mixed use is hard to finance, then any serious project on that site would also. There is no recent history of successful retail downtown or of significant condo sales of the nature that would make the per foot investment in a quality project there a slam dunk. I don't mean to be negative, but I think that a significant REAL urban design project would still be a longshot.

Again, I go back to putting the CC there and tearing down HALF the Cox center...the western half. Put up something there with the CC hotel, retail and condo/for rent property in a vertical tower overlooking the park. Much safer private investment IMHO.

Rover, so to fuse my response with Kerry's question, that leads me to ask this: Will OKC ever see mixed-use development exceeding a hundred million dollars? I thought that's what MAPS was all about. And I have heard from various sources that there are a lot of potential big deals out there, but everything is tied up in waiting to see where the chips may land.

But the fact is very disappointing so far. We keep seeing huge potential investment pop up, and then it's taken away. So far MAPS3 has resulted in, basically not a whole lot of development that we can easily trace to MAPS3. OCU canceled. Now Hall's development won't happen. We see MAPS3 in the case of this Ford site actually getting in the way of development itself, which is the complete opposite relationship that MAPS3 was supposed to have in terms of catalyzing investment.

By the way, I like your idea for the Cox Center, because I still think a lot of the meeting rooms should be kept. Unfortunately if you look at the floor plan of the Cox Center, the west side would seem to the half that you want to keep, with the east side being what you could easily eliminate, which is mostly kitchens, unneeded spaces, utilities equipment, etc.

Did OCU's decision to back out of the law school relocation really have anything to do with MAPS3 getting in the way?

No, but it was highly touted as MAPS3 making a difference. First, they were very public about the deal depending on voter passage of MAPS3 (this was effectively used by many, even in my own rhetoric, to convince people that it would bring all this wonderful investment). Then it was lauded for days after the passage as the first major spin-off investment. Then the deal fell through.

Move to another site (the Ford site), and repeat process...

Investments in private development will most likely follow, not lead M3. Just wish one of the rumored big deals would go ahead and happen. If Hall has a big plan ready they should announce and show their hand before the city progresses too far with the cc.

Except the land for the lumberyard site is $450 million.

Is that a typo? $450M?? Heard they were asking $120M for the Mill site and that would have been half of the C.C. budget.

No they brought their asking price was down to like $45 mil.

Is the Lumberyard site ($450M) and the Mill site ($120 down to $45M) the same sites? I thought they were different???

Ooooh you'e right, I thought you meant the co-op site. No it's not, that would have to be eminent domained.

Please tell me again why we need a convention center? Is the Myriad utilized to its fullest capacity (Myriad sounds better than COX)?

Please tell me again why we need a convention center? Is the Myriad utilized to its fullest capacity (Myriad sounds better than COX)?

Yeah, let's go back to the 60s and 70s when OKC was thriving and competing so well. Everything was great then.

Please tell me again why we need a convention center? Is the Myriad utilized to its fullest capacity (Myriad sounds better than COX)?

Yes and No.

Yes we need a new convention center. There are structural limitations (ceiling heights etc) to the existing. I also believe the Mayor when he stated to renovate it and bring it up to current "Tier 2" status, would be cost prohibitive. Given what was reported about the cost of building a new County Jail and trying to fix the problems of the current one, I wouldn't be at all surprised if it is actually cheaper to start from scratch.

No, the current C.C. isn't utilized to its fullest. IIRC, it is only occupied 42% of the time (some of which can certainly be attributed to the "challenges" cited in the Chamber's C.C. Study.

I can't believe they're going to let that prime piece of land (which is willing to be developed privately!!) sit for 8-9 years BETWEEN a newly renovated Myriad Gardens and newly constructed Central Park...seems like a massive Convention Center would disrupt the flow of everything going on in that area. I'm sorry but if the City of OKC DOESN'T try to expand downtown further South of the Arena this is a stupid move in their part and a blown opportunity!! (of course unless they have an NFL stadium or something planned for South of the Arena!) ;-)

couldn't agree more, Watson!

I can't believe they're going to let that prime piece of land (which is willing to be developed privately!!) sit for 8-9 years BETWEEN a newly renovated Myriad Gardens and newly constructed Central Park...seems like a massive Convention Center would disrupt the flow of everything going on in that area. I'm sorry but if the City of OKC DOESN'T try to expand downtown further South of the Arena this is a stupid move in their part and a blown opportunity!! (of course unless they have an NFL stadium or something planned for South of the Arena!) ;-)

Seems to me that south is just park, so development needs to occur west and southwest of the site anyway, more towards the old downtown airpark. Or, it makes the old cotton gin & lumber yard site a private development area. I think the Prefakes (sp?) block and area between film row and CC site become an exciting development opportunity. And, the current Cox site jumps into play big time. It will be interesting to see how it all morphs. I don't think there is a doomsday location. The city will just keep morphing and become a great urban area.

I can't believe they're going to let that prime piece of land (which is willing to be developed privately!!) sit for 8-9 years BETWEEN a newly renovated Myriad Gardens and newly constructed Central Park...seems like a massive Convention Center would disrupt the flow of everything going on in that area. I'm sorry but if the City of OKC DOESN'T try to expand downtown further South of the Arena this is a stupid move in their part and a blown opportunity!! (of course unless they have an NFL stadium or something planned for South of the Arena!) ;-)

It could be worse, they could decide to build the convention center first and let the land the new central park sit empty except for old building foundations and weeds.

jn, I thought that is what the cc supporters are trying to push now. .. (or were you being sarcastic. ..)

It could be worse, they could decide to build the convention center first and let the land the new central park sit empty except for old building foundations and weeds.

It's ironic though how this is used as an argument for why we can't have a waiting construction site (for ten years) between two parks..

So in terms of the immediate picture, there isn't a way to spin any of this into a positive, it seems. Something has to lose, and even though the only thing MAPS funding has been spent on so far is park land acquisition (which has also came out of bond monies), I wouldn't be surprised to see anything happen at this point.

jn, I thought that is what the cc supporters are trying to push now. .. (or were you being sarcastic. ..)

Spartan worded it better than me. The argument for building the cc first is that the Ford site land will be vacant. Well, if we built the cc first we would then have acres of unfinished park land for x amount of years. Assuming the boulevard is built on time it makes more sense to finish the central park first. This would provide far greater economic benefits in the medium to long term than the cc would. If the city insists on those two unfavorable options, I choose park first and leave Ford site vacant. I'm with you and favor the site east of the central park which removes the two unfavorable options.

It's ironic though how this is used as an argument for why we can't have a waiting construction site (for ten years) between two parks..

So in terms of the immediate picture, there isn't a way to spin any of this into a positive, it seems. Something has to lose, and even though the only thing MAPS funding has been spent on so far is park land acquisition (which has also came out of bond monies), I wouldn't be surprised to see anything happen at this point.

I agree

Maybe, they could remove the parking lot at the Ford site so focus is centered on the Myriad Gardens. Throw some grass seed around the site. LOL

I agree

Maybe, they could remove the parking lot at the Ford site so focus is centered on the Myriad Gardens. Throw some grass seed around the site. LOL

I agree also. It's not like the Ford site has been anything special for downtown up to this point. Having a vacant area is not much worse than a car lot.

very much agreed, lj.

Excellent rephrasing Spartan, totally agree! And I hope the city plays with even rules and not use the Ford site to make it 'necessary' to build the cc first (and delay or negate other downtown projects). ....

very much agreed, lj.

Excellent rephrasing Spartan, totally agree! And I hope the city plays with even rules and not use the Ford site to make it 'necessary' to build the cc first (and delay or negate other downtown projects). ....

Agreed, but the funny thing about "even rules" is that the convention center interests can spin anything that goes against them as being unfair as well. Watch it unfold before us...

very true, Spartan. I hope/wish there is some way that the Streetcar and Park people can also have an equal forum where they too can voice concerns about rule changes midway into the game of Maps III.

The city is at a huge risk, imo, if they finagle the rules at this point to make the cc site attractive at the expense of other much higher profile and more desired downtown projects. .... it could result in HUGE voter apathy and the END of Maps.

I hope the city is listening to us on this forum ......