I'm fine with a new convention center, but I think we need to be realistic and understand that we may not see an upswing in business with a new building. I think it needs to be seen as a replacement. That being said, I think it needs to be in a location where we don't need a stunning work of art worthy of facing the Devon Tower and satisfying Larry Nichols aesthetics. We need a serviceable building in a reasonable location that doesn't cost a fortune. Just my opinion.

I also think its possible convention business will stay slow for reasons broader than the economy.

I'm fine with a new convention center, but I think we need to be realistic and understand that we may not see an upswing in business with a new building. I think it needs to be seen as a replacement. That being said, I think it needs to be in a location where we don't need a stunning work of art worthy of facing the Devon Tower and satisfying Larry Nichols aesthetics. We need a serviceable building in a reasonable location that doesn't cost a fortune. Just my opinion.

I also think its possible convention business will stay slow for reasons broader than the economy.

This^.

Everyone that voted YES for MAPS 3 years ago next month KNEW that a Convention Center was the centerpiece of this whole project.
To remove this measure is essentially a slap in the face to the voters.
That's why people like Ed Shadid need to respect what has already passed and get involved heavily "If" or "When" a future MAPS vote comes up.

I know a Convention Center is not a "sexy" public works project, but I understand the need for a new one.
This is just one of those things we will be happy we did it when we look back on it.. Like everything else associated with MAPS we did

I think if you took an objective poll of MAPS3 voters you would find the vast majority who voted for MAPS3 held their collective noses to do so because of the CC and Fairgrounds projects for no other reason than to get the projects that are most desired - streetcar, trails, sidewalks, park, and river.

I am not opposed to a new CC - I agree the Cox is not very good - but I do think the site selected is a poor choice and I think we are planning to build a much larger facility than is needed. I think Mayor Cornett had the site right and would fit in best with current and future development. There was a very well done concept by BG918 that would have been appropriate for a city like OKC and the convention business we can realistically anticipate. I would much rather invest in a very nicely appointed CC of reasonable size rather than something that will eventually be loathed by the vast majority of MAPS voters.

To address a couple of points.

Convention business is not dying. It has experienced a slow down like EVERY thing else associated with the economy, and it will make a comeback.
We have NO idea what the economy is going to be like in 7 years. Why not be well prepared in case it does rebound?
OKC has been praised by forging ahead through the recession while other cities are being stagnant. This area is no exception.

Everyone that voted YES for MAPS 3 years ago next month KNEW that a Convention Center was the centerpiece of this whole project.
To remove this measure is essentially a slap in the face to the voters.
That's why people like Ed Shadid need to respect what has already passed and get involved heavily "If" or "When" a future MAPS vote comes up.

I know a Convention Center is not a "sexy" public works project, but I understand the need for a new one.
This is just one of those things we will be happy we did it when we look back on it.. Like everything else associated with MAPS we did

You're wrong because we didn't get to pick the MAPS that we wanted. We got to vote for the MAPS that we were offered by the Chamber junta, which was a "compromise" that got them a new convention center in exchange for us getting a little bit of money for other things.

I also agree that a convention center is not a "sexy" public works project, so therefor, we shouldn't be so hellbent on trying to make it one. You realize, right, that they have eaten up the most prime site for downtown development because it is the best site for a convention center?

It's one thing to not respect the "will of the voters," however I see two sets of data that are relevant here: the first being the voter data that showed even people who voted YES for transit did NOT want the convention center, and the second set of data being a secret CC study that will never be released for public consumption. Nobody is saying NOT to spend $250-280 million on something for the business community. However, I think we could allocate those resources a lot more smartly.

The people pushing this CC project have demonstrated beyond doubt that they can not be trusted with the public check book, are not interested in reevaluating old ideas and looking into current trends, and are NOT to be trusted on a public board. Essentially the entire MAPS3 Convention Center Subcommittee needs to be canned because by keeping them, we can be certain that this centerpiece project will be a failure. We don't need a new convention center anymore than we need a new Piggly Wiggly, laundromat, internet cafe, Dodson's Cafeteria, or other business models that went the way of the Dodo.

What makes taking that primo site even more unappealing is the timing of all this...

We already know there are several entities looking to build private developments downtown, so there is current and real demand. So, we're going to choose this time to commandere possibly the best real estate in all of OKC and forgo potentially massive private investment?? And PAY hundreds of millions to do this?


I've made this point several times: The consultants were charged with finding the best location for a convention center, not what was best for OKC overall. If a study was commissioned for the best office, residential, retail or hotel site they would all chose that one as well.

Truth. It turns out a discombobulated downtown, that never lives up to its potential for vibrant mixed-use development, would be better for the convention center (all they want is to make downtown the place to meet and sleep, and then take a taxi out to the airport). So that's exactly what they're going to create, and it's just a perk that they can lay waste to downtown in the process.

There wasn't a single urban planner involved in this process (just as there wasn't in the MAPS3 central park design process). The only way in which they analyzed the CC's impact was addressing the concerns of Bricktown property owners, but because there were not already Chamber junta "stakeholders" who could speak for downtown planning on the whole (and how one block relates to or impedes on other blocks, etc), that was not a concern that required attention AT ALL.

All of these arguments against the convention center remind me of the arguments made against the first MAPS projects, particularly the sports arena. "We already have an arena that is good enough." "It cost too much." "It is the most expensive project." "It is in the wrong place." "OKC will never get a pro team because..." I think that we need a new modern convention center because of the image that a crappy, outdated, convention center will provide to visitors. I have no expectation that it will greatly increase the number of conventions we get but I would like for it to be on par with the rest of the improvements to the community because it will be the first impression that many visitors will have.

All of these arguments against the convention center remind me of the arguments made against the first MAPS projects, particularly the sports arena. "We already have an arena that is good enough." "It cost too much." "It is the most expensive project." "It is in the wrong place." "OKC will never get a pro team because..." I think that we need a new modern convention center because of the image that a crappy, outdated, convention center will provide to visitors. I have no expectation that it will greatly increase the number of conventions we get but I would like for it to be on par with the rest of the improvements to the community because it will be the first impression that many visitors will have.

I'm sorry, but anyone who is arguing FOR the convention center has to take responsibility for the planning implications of this project. You can't argue FOR it without addressing the reality that this will lay waste to a site that once already got hot for development. Talk about visitors and first impressions all you want... why not just spend $250 million on a massive Statue of Liberty out by the airport, and let mixed-use development still go forward on this site?

The Ford Center probably was a bad idea, and it was a stroke of luck that we got the Hornets and then the Thunder. That said, that was only an $89 million bad idea (1/3rd the cost of the CC), and we really needed a downtown arena which was considered a major success even before the NBA. There were NO downtown advocates who argued against that project, and I just tend to think when you're doing a downtown project, best ask the people who know about downtown what they think of it.

I just read Lackmeyer's latest article on this and my eyeballs popped out.


“There is relatively little in terms of development going on right now,” Kaatz said. “So supply is being dampened. … There will be winners and losers; there always are.”

Plans move ahead for convention center, hotel despite collapse in national market | NewsOK.com (http://newsok.com/plans-move-ahead-for-convention-center-hotel-despite-collapse-in-national-market/article/3727526#ixzz2C25ZUPhH)

That is patently false, but not surprising for a firm that balances its checkbooks by selling a lie to every city it is hired by (essentially telling them what the Chamber juntas in every city wants to hear). CSL is attempting to mitigate the embarrassment of every single study they've ever done falling way short of projections by saying, well, it will get better in the future because no other city is expanding like they were 5 years ago. That is a downright lie because I work a short 5-block walk away from a massive construction site for the new $465 million Cleveland Medical Mart/Convention Center that will open in a year. Nashville is building a new $1 billion convention center I think, and who knows how many more countless cities there actually are if Oklahoma City is stupid enough to be trying this. And the dust hasn't even settled yet on the DOZENS of massive billion-dollar convention palaces built in the last 5 years. Now to mention all of those cities are now desperate just to get something, anything out of their gleaming new CCs after flushing upwards of a billion dollars down the drain. What a disgusting, crooked, bold-faced lie.

The sad reality is that OKC has gotten in bed with CSL, which may be a convention center conspiracy for all I know. Because if they're not a conspiracy or a CC racket, the only other option that leaves is that they are truly the worst consulting group in the history of consulting groups. Usually, when you hire a consultant, all you should care about is their track record. I dunnooo, I say go with the group that's 0 'fer 200, at least it will be interesting!

But what I do know is that this is essentially the same as finding a beautiful woman who will go to bed with you and tell you exactly what you want to hear, including that there are no other men. Then this lovely CSL group goes to dozens of other cities and tells them the exact same thing, that there are no other men, erm I mean cities. And then when you bust the broad for cheating on you with 50 other men, after a year you come back to her because she told you that this time it's different and there are currently no other men because she was exposed and her stock plummeted. But you still know for a fact of a few other men right now just off the top of your head, and our CITY COUNCIL STILL DOES NOT CARE. They can't wait to get in bed with these CSL consultants again and again and again. And shame on them for being so stupid and moronic.

Everyone that voted YES for MAPS 3 years ago next month KNEW that a Convention Center was the centerpiece of this whole project.
To remove this measure is essentially a slap in the face to the voters.
That's why people like Ed Shadid need to respect what has already passed and get involved heavily "If" or "When" a future MAPS vote comes up.

You might recall the Gazette poll which was run around the time of the election, the convention center was far and away the least popular project. The language of the ballot certainly doesn't bind OKC Alliance (who I imagine is running the show here) to do some, all or any of the projects.

If Alliance is considering dropping the trails project or the senior aquatics centers, the Convention Center, which by the numbers, is a questionable bet ought to be looked at as well.

I don't have to tell you that I was a big supporter of MAPS 3, even did a little bit of campaigning for it. If Nichols, etc., want the city to trust in their benevolent leadership, now is an opportunity for them to prove that they're in this for all of us. OKC does need a convention center, but considering the risk/reward of bringing us up to Tier 2, we should consider our options.

If I were to be able to recommend that the city secure a site large enough for a world-class convention center, then build something which will fit our needs right now which can be added on to later if the need arises, I think that's a win-win. It was a good plan when we did that with the CHK arena.

It was a good plan when we did that with the CHK arena.

That's a great point. The arena is a like a blue print on how to do this stuff. And, really, at the time, the arena didn't come at a possibly huge opportunity cost. There is demand that didn't exist when the arena site was selected.

Just put the thing in lower bricktown and people won't even care what it looks like. ; )

I think a lot of our bickering would go away if we either redid the Cox and replaced the arena with more convention space, OR moved this over to the Coca Cola Events Center parking lot and either scaled it down a notch or planned this differently, to serve a specific niche that OKC is showing promise in. I actually think the Cleveland Medical Mart will be a huge success because it's geared toward hosting healthcare conventions, which have only dropped slightly compared to double-digit drops for every other sector, and because Cleveland is doing a lot of awesome things in healthcare with the Cleveland Clinic, the Health Tech Corridor, and several top-notch medical schools.

http://media.cleveland.com/metro/photo/8965131-large.jpg

In that way Cleveland has made their convention center function as a part of their bigger picture. Similarly, Detroit's convention center has always had a tie to the auto industry there (and its exhibitions, like the Detroit Auto Show). OKC should look at THAT and not just the vague fuzzy idea of building a convention center for the sake of it. What is OKC poised to be successful in, economically (besides government)? I'd say energy, aerospace, or healthcare. Energy and aerospace may have similar exhibition/meeting needs. How would an "Energy Mart" work similarly to "Medical Marts" being build in Cleveland, Nashville, etc.?

Bottom line appears to be that the folks presently in control of going forward or taking a step back are only listening to folks who already think exactly the same way the decision makers think.

While that strength of conviction can at times be a good thing, believing only one's own hype, and being constantly encouraged to do so by a bunch of self interested yes men, can create a blindness to the reality which surrounds the decision makers.

It's sad that such folks don't live more like Wayne. It's one thing to hang out in a bubble a bit here, a bit there, just for fun. It's another thing to crawl in and let folks paint it an opaque rose color so you can't see what is really going on around you.

Not my city, but it seems that if folks see how bad a CC at that location is, and how unnecessary a fancy cc appears to be in general, it ought to be time to already be seeking to change out the decision makers on the horseshoe so things can be evaluated anew.

I agree completely. Most people who vote in council elections just check the incumbent box without much thought into the matter. But we need a complete generational change in this city.

Folks like Gary Marrs who are visibly perturbed by change can not be counted on to lead a city of 600,000 people into the future when it's already 2012. More and more, I don't think you can rely on folks like Pat Ryan or Larry McAtee who are merely ambivalent toward change.

As for Jim Couch, the verdict has been in on his leadership for a LONG time. The casual bystanders and political establishment love him. Anyone who is watching more closely, however, has been screaming for him to retire for the last 2-3 years.

I still think that some of you don't understand niche marketing and how a "market" isn't just made up of one segment. Following is another recent perspective from a similar sized city. OKC doesn't need to compete for the mega groups to be very successful. But, it needs a modern place to hold both local, regional and some niche national meetings. And, the more we have successful public companies, large spaces for stockholders meetings, etc. might be important. The Cox is WAY outdated. If we do this, we can be successful doing something appropriate and not overreach.

As for the location, that's another story.

Small groups fill important hole at convention center; help bolster Sacramento region's economy - Sacramento Business Journal (http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/blog/mark-anderson/2012/10/small-groups-fill-a-big-hole-convention-.html)

Small groups fill a big hole at convention center
Sacramento Business Journal by Mark Anderson, Staff Writer
Date: Tuesday, October 30, 2012, 7:05am PDT
Enlarge Image

Dennis McCoy | Sacramento Business Journal
Downtown Sacramento should be busy this week as a lot of small groups are in town at the Sacramento Convention Center. This week is an example of what drove the Sacramento Convention & Visitors Bureau past its budget last fiscal year — lots of small pieces of business. It also means a boost to the region's economy that it wouldn't get otherwise.

Mark Anderson
Staff Writer- Sacramento Business Journal

Downtown Sacramento should be busy this week as a lot of small groups are in town at the Sacramento Convention Center.
This week is an example of what drove the Sacramento Convention & Visitors Bureau past its budget last fiscal year — lots of small pieces of business.
Six conventions are meeting in town this week, which between them represent 1,640 delegates and more than 2,442 hotel room nights booked.
All those small pieces of business generated nearly as much as the 2,626 hotel room nights generated by the National Congress of American Indians, which had 3,000 Native Americans in attendance last week.

Bookings are important to the region because the annual economic impact from those conventioneers is estimated by the bureau at $223 million, a figure which represents travel spending, hotels, dining and entertainment.

The largest group in town this week is the California-Hawaii Elks Association, with 176 lodges in California, Hawaii, Guam and the Philippines.
For many years, the Convention Bureau competed for the largest conventions that could fit in the Sacramento Convention Center, which can hold up to several thousand people.
But in its last fiscal year, the bureau looked for small conventions as well as large, some with hundreds of attendees and some with fewer than 20. That strategy brought in more overall bookings and also brought many groups new to Sacramento.

Mark Anderson covers technology, banking, finance, restaurants and tourism for the Sacramento Business Journal.

Related links: Sacramento, Business Travel, Leisure

Rover, this is the Sacramento Convention Center:
http://assets.bizjournals.com/sacramento/print-edition/Convention3-0819DM.jpg?v=1

If "incomparable" is the ironic adjective that we're using to describe the Myriad, Sacramento's CC is even incomparable-r..

I'll refer to Kerry's argument, that all it takes is to be better than Tulsa and we're in good shape to keep the annual Oklahoma Homebuilder's Association Convention.

That Sac Bee story indicates that OKC is wasting money building a larger convention center. I'm not saying don't build a new one but I am saying it doesn't have to be bigger than the current Cox. I wish they would have expounded on the 'big hole' in their headline. What does that mean?


Small groups fill a big hole at convention center

As for the location, that's another story

Again, not my city, but if it were, I'd maintain it is not another story, it is in fact the story. Whether OKC ends up with a fancy fancy cc, or a somewhat plain jane cc is completely secondary to where the cc will go. The existing location between MBG and the new park is just such a horrid choice in light of what that space could become, and in light of what is likely to be be erected around that space to the west.

Again, not my city. But it is a city I enjoy visiting, and the thought of seeing a cc end up between MBG and the new park just makes me very sad. So much potential case aside.

So what happens when Tulsa builds a new convention center.

Is there any chance at all a new site could be chosen?

So what happens when Tulsa builds a new convention center.

They will still host the Tulsa Mayor's Round Table? Or are you thinking Devon is going to hold their stock holder meeting in Tulsa out of spite?

So what happens when Tulsa builds a new convention center.

They recently expanded and renovated the existing convention center. If necessary in the future they have a plan to build a new parking garage to the west and expand where the current garage is located. There is also a 200 room Aloft opening next month next to the convention center.

So what happens when Tulsa builds a new convention center.

I'm not worried about a dying city out-competing us for conventions lol..

Joking aside, I really don't think Tulsa is in a position to be as aggressive as we are with economic development. That said, we need to be choosier. I just hope we don't have to waste $250 million just to figure out that convention centers don't yield as strong of a return as many other things that we ARE doing and could invest more in.

Is there any chance at all a new site could be chosen?

We've been trying hard. I am willing to bet there will be one more last-ditch effort that will be more formidable and legitimate than any other effort against the CC, and Ed Shadid will probably have a lot to do with it. That said, if he doesn't take the issue on, I just don't see anyone else being a strong leader on the issue.

Rover, this is the Sacramento Convention Center:
http://assets.bizjournals.com/sacramento/print-edition/Convention3-0819DM.jpg?v=1

If "incomparable" is the ironic adjective that we're using to describe the Myriad, Sacramento's CC is even incomparable-r..

I'll refer to Kerry's argument, that all it takes is to be better than Tulsa and we're in good shape to keep the annual Oklahoma Homebuilder's Association Convention.

Im not sure what you are saying. It is over twice the size of exhibition hall of the Cox and 40 years newer. No one thinks OKC is doing to replace Vegas or Orlando. We just need a smartly designed, appropriately sized cc. Something fitting and appropriate for an emerging city of our size and for who we hope to be for the next couple of decades. The point of posting the article about Sacramentos was that they get over a million visitors a year using there's. They do it with smart marketing of targeted niche conventions.

The focus should be on location and smart design.

What are you talking about Rover? There's is just as old. There's a historic auditorium on the site that was finished around 2000, but the CC is much older and more brutalist. It has 134,000 sf of exhibition space. Ours is 100,000 sf of exhibition space.

And are you sure that nobody wants to knock off Orlando and Vegas? Otherwise, I don't understand why we're pumping more than DOUBLE what any other MAPS3 project gets into this CC folly. Also, I'm pretty sure we already draw about that many visitors a year. This article couldn't be more random from you, Rover.

But I agree that the emphasis should be on location (i.e., picking another location) and smart design. See my last 5 posts about how we could think outside the box and possibly turn this CC project into a success.

We've been trying hard. I am willing to bet there will be one more last-ditch effort that will be more formidable and legitimate than any other effort against the CC, and Ed Shadid will probably have a lot to do with it. That said, if he doesn't take the issue on, I just don't see anyone else being a strong leader on the issue.Well, I wish you guys the best of luck. It would be a shame to see this land raped by a convention center.

2876

This south of Chesapeake Arena with loading dock facing the BNSF viaduct. This is the concept by BG918 I mentioned. Is there hope city leadership will reconsider the site? I think a well appointed version of this concept would serve the city well and fit within the fiscal restraints. I also think city leadership needs to level with the citizens of OKC and very clearly state their intent to ask taxpayers to fund an attached hotel. I am not opposed to a new CC. Building a new modern CC in a location near the CBD and Bricktown, yet out of the way, provides two prime pieces of land for redevelopment and would be good for OKC in my opinion. (I still hope there are plans for some sort of annual "Energy Mart" sponsored by our locally based energy companies. That would be a good justification for the expense for a new CC and would be a potential niche OKC could support very well as several posters have mentioned.)

2876

This south of Chesapeake Arena with loading dock facing the BNSF viaduct. This is the concept by BG918 I mentioned. Is there hope city leadership will reconsider the site? I think a well appointed version of this concept would serve the city well and fit within the fiscal restraints. I also think city leadership needs to level with the citizens of OKC and very clearly state their intent to ask taxpayers to fund an attached hotel. I am not opposed to a new CC. Building a new modern CC in a location near the CBD and Bricktown, yet out of the way, provides two prime pieces of land for redevelopment and would be good for OKC in my opinion. (I still hope there are plans for some sort of annual "Energy Mart" sponsored by our locally based energy companies. That would be a good justification for the expense for a new CC and would be a potential niche OKC could support very well as several posters have mentioned.)

Since I'm not being given a "like" option for your post, I'll simply state that I like this idea. I've always liked it. I think it's a waste of money to put some sort of screen on the substation, which removes an entire block of land from the potential for development around our new park. I suspect if you factor in the cost of building below ground loading docks on the current CC site, the added cost plus land will easily be comparable to the $30 million to move the substation. While I'd like something other than a CC to border on the park, it beats a screened substation hands down, IMO. And I'll speak up for an old design: The one that had apartments built on the side of the CC facing the park. There's a way to pay for some of the construction costs of the CC and make it more visually pleasing to the eye, will added residential to Core to Shore right away. The ground floor could be used for commercial development. If we're thinking about putting residential on a parking garage, I see no reason why we couldn't put residential on a convention center.

Well, I wish you guys the best of luck. It would be a shame to see this land raped by a convention center.

It would be a shame to see anything or anyone raped by a convention center...

Well I guess that I have to make the unpopular statement that I for one am excited about seeing the convention center go forward. It does not really matter to me what is happening in Boston or Chicago because this is Oklahoma city. We don't need anything like they have we just need a new convention center that is right for Oklahoma City. I for one used to handle several conventions a year and we were forced to go to Chicago because of the size of the convention. We were basically held for ransom there because we had no choice. The cost of the FMI Convention for my company was around 240,000.00 for a 4 day convention. Before we were forced to move it to Chicago the cost was half of that. Cost is a big factor for many convention groups and OKC is relatively in expensive to visit compared to cities like Chicago or Boston. We will never have the giant convention s that go to Chicago and quite frankly we don't want them. On another note I heard the same thing in 1994 when the first MAPS proposed a new arena. There were al kinds of outcry’s about how we don’t need a new arena because the Cox Center is just fine. We built it anyway and we all know how that turned out. I voted for MAPS 3 and I say lets get started on it.

Well I guess that I have to make the unpopular statement that I for one am excited about seeing the convention center go forward. It does not really matter to me what is happening in Boston or Chicago because this is Oklahoma city. We don't need anything like they have we just need a new convention center that is right for Oklahoma City. I for one used to handle several conventions a year and we were forced to go to Chicago because of the size of the convention. We were basically held for ransom there because we had no choice. The cost of the FMI Convention for my company was around 240,000.00 for a 4 day convention. Before we were forced to move it to Chicago the cost was half of that. Cost is a big factor for many convention groups and OKC is relatively in expensive to visit compared to cities like Chicago or Boston. We will never have the giant convention s that go to Chicago and quite frankly we don't want them. On another note I heard the same thing in 1994 when the first MAPS proposed a new arena. There were al kinds of outcry’s about how we don’t need a new arena because the Cox Center is just fine. We built it anyway and we all know how that turned out. I voted for MAPS 3 and I say lets get started on it.

I think most on here agree in part that we need new convention center space, whether that is renovating and expanding what we have or building new. The main level of "outcry" seems to be the location that was selected.

Gary,

I think many people agree OKC could use a new CC. I don't have any issues with anything you said. I think the primary aspect of the MAPS3 CC people are questioning is the location selected by the CC Subcommittee and the lack of full disclosure on the total cost of the CC Complex. The location is killing one of the prime development sites in downtown and will effectively split our two downtown parks needlessly (the underground CC is a non-starter due to cost - anyone with any degree of common sense recognizes this). If the plans were similar to the one I posted above, I would be nearly as supportive of it as I am of the streetcar, trails, park, and river development. If we were to build a new CC along the BNSF viaduct - an area not likely to see any mixed use development - we would have two incredible sites in downtown for redevelopment into commercial, residential, retail, or some combination. The Ford dealer and Cox sites could become huge sources of tax revenue for the city and would likely not require any incentives from the city to entice a developer to those locations. In summary, I think a new, modern CC will be positive for OKC but hope we will carefully think about the benefits vs opportunities lost of the location before we build something that we will regret later.

Well I guess that I have to make the unpopular statement that I for one am excited about seeing the convention center go forward. It does not really matter to me what is happening in Boston or Chicago because this is Oklahoma city. We don't need anything like they have we just need a new convention center that is right for Oklahoma City. I for one used to handle several conventions a year and we were forced to go to Chicago because of the size of the convention. We were basically held for ransom there because we had no choice. The cost of the FMI Convention for my company was around 240,000.00 for a 4 day convention. Before we were forced to move it to Chicago the cost was half of that. Cost is a big factor for many convention groups and OKC is relatively in expensive to visit compared to cities like Chicago or Boston. We will never have the giant convention s that go to Chicago and quite frankly we don't want them. On another note I heard the same thing in 1994 when the first MAPS proposed a new arena. There were al kinds of outcry’s about how we don’t need a new arena because the Cox Center is just fine. We built it anyway and we all know how that turned out. I voted for MAPS 3 and I say lets get started on it.

So you're going to be happy with ANY convention center no matter what the implications are? To me, that's insanity. This is important, we need to get it right, if you ask me.

I'll say it again. If you or anyone is going to advocate for THIS convention center, you must take responsibility for the site, the shady process, the cost, and the fact that we're effectively on the hook for a massively expensive Phase 2 and CC hotel that will double our liability. We're not just on the hook for $250 million here, far from it.

If you want to talk about this convention center, let's talk about this convention center. Don't just say, "We need a convention center, end of discussion." Because that should be the beginning of the discussion.

I don't necessarilly over state that it is shady or agree. You have an extreme viewpoint compared to mine. . I guess I am alittle more enthusiastic than you are thats all.

I agree with Spartan about the need to reconsider the design vis-a-vis a realistic objective (though the rant about conspiracies, etc, could be omitted). A smartly designed medium sized facility with flex space, modern amenities (including communications, IT infrastructure, etc.), etc. would be appropriate. Putting it in a place where an affordable phase 2 is only an option and not a requisite would be wise (don't tie up great development sites if we don't need it. Trade some of the small meeting space requirement to the hotel development as part of the subsidy and limit the subsidies to a small amount of cash and more tax incentives. Move OKC's exposure to one which is more variable and less fixed. Then tear down the Cox and re-develop the site. Commit to use the income from the sale of the Cox site to increase the mass trans infrastructure or one of the other popular Maps 3 projects to spread the benefits and overcome some of the objections from those who object to the priorities.

Well I'm not enthusiastic at all, so that would certainly be an extreme difference lol.

If they had proposed clearing the Civic Center-City Hall site in order to build the Ford Center, I'd have opposed that too, even if we KNEW then we'd get the Thunder. Site matters. A lot.

Good thing they are not mowing down the Civic Centre for the CC. I would not like that either.

But it will inexplicably separate two parks. On a site that legitimate developers previously said they wanted to do a massive mixed-use development on, the likes of which OKC has never seen.

A convention center does NOT deserve any city's best development site. Nor should it split up a park, either.

I agree with Spartan about the need to reconsider the design vis-a-vis a realistic objective (though the rant about conspiracies, etc, could be omitted). A smartly designed medium sized facility with flex space, modern amenities (including communications, IT infrastructure, etc.), etc. would be appropriate. Putting it in a place where an affordable phase 2 is only an option and not a requisite would be wise (don't tie up great development sites if we don't need it. Trade some of the small meeting space requirement to the hotel development as part of the subsidy and limit the subsidies to a small amount of cash and more tax incentives. Move OKC's exposure to one which is more variable and less fixed. Then tear down the Cox and re-develop the site. Commit to use the income from the sale of the Cox site to increase the mass trans infrastructure or one of the other popular Maps 3 projects to spread the benefits and overcome some of the objections from those who object to the priorities.

I think Rover has ably restated my position, and the majority of OKC citizens' position very well. I think the main thing missing is any element of public input on the process. The CC Subcommittee seems to be operating in a vacuum. I don't think there is any evil conspiracy afoot, but the process should be more open - if nothing else, provide some concrete reasoning why OKC needs a CC of the scale the Chamber desires and why it needs to be built on the location selected. The consultant's recommendation was obviously slanted to achieve a preconceived conclusion. I think the people who are footing the bill deserve a genuine explanation.

I agree with Spartan about the need to reconsider the design vis-a-vis a realistic objective (though the rant about conspiracies, etc, could be omitted). A smartly designed medium sized facility with flex space, modern amenities (including communications, IT infrastructure, etc.), etc. would be appropriate. Putting it in a place where an affordable phase 2 is only an option and not a requisite would be wise (don't tie up great development sites if we don't need it. Trade some of the small meeting space requirement to the hotel development as part of the subsidy and limit the subsidies to a small amount of cash and more tax incentives. Move OKC's exposure to one which is more variable and less fixed. Then tear down the Cox and re-develop the site. Commit to use the income from the sale of the Cox site to increase the mass trans infrastructure or one of the other popular Maps 3 projects to spread the benefits and overcome some of the objections from those who object to the priorities.

This is actually a fantastic idea.

It wasn't a rant about conspiracies, which by the way I said jokingly. The fact is, Rover, there are some real concerns about why your fantastic idea is not happening and will not happen. There are some even bigger questions about the role of consultants, including CSL which has been proven inept and corrupt by the Boston Globe and other investigations, and also Populous who was briefed by Couch, the subcommittee, and the "stakeholders" at the onset of their "study" over which CC sites they liked.

We're getting the CC that the "stakeholders" want. Not the CC that is a good idea, worthy of public funds.

I don't know that it was a preconceived notion, rather the result of a dogmatic point of view which might be common among a certain group. Using certain facts and a rigid logic will produce the same results repetitively. What needs to be challenged is the process and not necessarily the motives. In business, capital commitments are based on expected outcomes of well reasoned plans to achieve targeted results. The chamber must have a supportable logic and plan to penetrate specific market places and the design of the facility should reflect that. Resources to be committed to that plan, whether the marketing resources or the facility resources, should be in alignment. What is not transparent to the public is what the actual effort will be to fill up and make profitable whatever facility we build. There may be legitimate reasons why that plan isn't totally public. Companies do not make public the details of their business and marketing strategies and hand them to their competitors. One would hope that any consultant/designer used would be privy to those plans and design accordingly.

But it will inexplicably separate two parks. On a site that legitimate developers previously said they wanted to do a massive mixed-use development on, the likes of which OKC has never seen.

A convention center does NOT deserve any city's best development site. Nor should it split up a park, either.

Would it be possible for you to name those legitmate developers?

The parks will be separated, regardless. It doesn't matter if it is a big public project or private project, a large structure will separate the two. Itis a moot point unless you want to eliminate development on that site and just make a continuous park cut into threes by a boulevard and an interstate highway.

Would it be possible for you to name those legitmate developers?

Sure. Fred Hall and Bob Howard.

I don't know that it was a preconceived notion, rather the result of a dogmatic point of view which might be common among a certain group. Using certain facts and a rigid logic will produce the same results repetitively. What needs to be challenged is the process and not necessarily the motives. In business, capital commitments are based on expected outcomes of well reasoned plans to achieve targeted results. The chamber must have a supportable logic and plan to penetrate specific market places and the design of the facility should reflect that. Resources to be committed to that plan, whether the marketing resources or the facility resources, should be in alignment. What is not transparent to the public is what the actual effort will be to fill up and make profitable whatever facility we build. There may be legitimate reasons why that plan isn't totally public. Companies do not make public the details of their business and marketing strategies and hand them to their competitors. One would hope that any consultant/designer used would be privy to those plans and design accordingly.

Well they say they need architectural renderings, which requires speeding up the CC development, in order to produce marketing materials.

I think transparency is much more lacking regarding site selection, the issue over 250 v. 280, and the subcommittee's push to move the CC up at the expense of other projects that were ALL much more popular (not implying that means don't do the CC, just that out of respect you DO save it for last, clearly).

The chamber must have a supportable logic and plan to penetrate specific market places and the design of the facility should reflect that. Resources to be committed to that plan, whether the marketing resources or the facility resources, should be in alignment. What is not transparent to the public is what the actual effort will be to fill up and make profitable whatever facility we build. There may be legitimate reasons why that plan isn't totally public. Companies do not make public the details of their business and marketing strategies and hand them to their competitors. One would hope that any consultant/designer used would be privy to those plans and design accordingly.

I think that is the crux of the "opposition" to the CC process Rover. That standpoint is perfectly acceptable when a private business is committing its capital. It is entirely different when public resources are being used to fund such ventures. What possible legitimate reason is there for the public not having access to "the plan"? I cannot think of any honestly and the perceived veil of secrecy only serves to erode support for a new CC.

I think that is the crux of the "opposition" to the CC process Rover. That standpoint is perfectly acceptable when a private business is committing its capital. It is entirely different when public resources are being used to fund such ventures. What possible legitimate reason is there for the public not having access to "the plan"? I cannot think of any honestly and the perceived veil of secrecy only serves to erode support for a new CC.

Any time you can only access the "executive summary" it should raise red flags...

Sure. Fred Hall and Bob Howard.

I made the assumption that Fred Hall and Bob Howard would be your answer Sparky when I asked the question. Truth is that one is an investor and the other is a car dealer. Could you explain how they became "legitimate" investors capable of developing the selected CC site? If it wouldn't tax your imagination to much, could you also explain why two parks should not be separated. Let me be clear here though, I ask these questions not caring if the CC goes there or not. In fact I now hope the city tells Hall and Oats, er, Howard to shove it because they became overly greedy in pricing the project. Let them develop it, but I am not going to get my hopes up that they will.

If you guys want to see a CSL Study just google "csl feasibility study". Many of them are on-line. I can't figure out the Lexington, KY file. It appears the study said don't expand, but the city is doing it anyhow saying their study said to expand.

I have never been excited about the convention center. However, I think the chances of me winning the lottery (and I don't buy tickets) are higher than the chances of the city deciding not to build it. We probably do need a new convention center, regardless of how convention business is going to grow or shrink, because of the age of the Myriad. Not being an expert on this subject myself, if someone tells me that we need to replace the Myriad with a better structure because XYZ, I'll believe them. Sounds good to me.

So the question becomes, what kind of convention center do we need and where should be put it?

If we build a really big nice one, I could see putting it south of the Myriad Gardens to show it off. A big gleaming glass and steel thing, like our version of the Sydney Opera House, where people drive by and go "oooooh cool", and yeah we'd want it front and center downtown so everybody could see how cool it was. The problem with that is we don't have enough money for that. $250 million will build us a nice medium sized building, perfectly servicable for a city our size, but it won't give us our own version of the Sydney Opera House. If we spend our money right, we'll get something like the Bricktown Ballpark or the Chesapeake Arena, a very nice venue where we got a lot of value for our money.

The problem with the current selected location is that it's the Big Money location. Nothing that gets built there is going to be cheap. If you build the convention center there you're not getting a Bricktown Ballpark or a Chesapeake Arena value, you're committing to spending Big Money. And I don't think we're committed to that. So that means we may need a different site selection.

I don't buy the idea at all that there are a huge number of developers licking their chops waiting to put giant mixed-use developments here. Sounds like crap to me. I think the best hope we have is that Continental Resources or whoever is not buying Stage Center decides to buy that property and build a tower there. I don't think the convention center is holding back a horde of private investors who are weeping over their inability to purchase that land.

What about all those old sheet metal buildings out in east Bricktown, north of Bass Pro? That seems like a fantastic spot to target. Redevelop a crap location in one fell swoop. I know there's some sort of plan for redevelopment there, but I think it would be a lot less expensive than what we're seeing in the C2S area.

I made the assumption that Fred Hall and Bob Howard would be your answer Sparky when I asked the question. Truth is that one is an investor and the other is a car dealer. Could you explain how they became "legitimate" investors capable of developing the selected CC site? If it wouldn't tax your imagination to much, could you also explain why two parks should not be separated. Let me be clear here though, I ask these questions not caring if the CC goes there or not. In fact I now hope the city tells Hall and Oats, er, Howard to shove it because they became overly greedy in pricing the project. Let them develop it, but I am not going to get my hopes up that they will.

Ever been to NW10th?

Ever been to NW10th?

Are you implying that Hall and Howard developed all of NW 10th? My answer is yes I have been to NW 10th and if you still persist that Hall and Howard are legitimate developers I would believe that you would probably call a pile of crap brunch. Perhaps you could provide a cross street. Please also provide a name for the "massive mixed use development" (your words) that gave them the experience to do the same for the chosen CC property.

Are you implying that Hall and Howard developed all of NW 10th? My answer is yes I have been to NW 10th and if you still persist that Hall and Howard are legitimate developers I would believe that you would probably call a pile of crap brunch. Perhaps you could provide a cross street. Please also provide a name for the "massive mixed use development" (your words) that gave them the experience to do the same for the chosen CC property.

You're absolutely insane if you don't think Hall and Howard could pull it off. Howard may have already soared to the top of the list of downtown developers.

I mean "absolutely insane" in the nicest way...of course

That's OK sparky. I am used to your childish name calling and wild exclaimations. You just don't like people that won't buy into your bull**** and usually call all of those people trolls. I actually feel sorry for those that do buy into it. By the way, I have questioned your sanity since 2005. Also, Hall and Howard might or might not be able to pull it off, but I really don't think they would want to try. Now is the time to post one of your fake rants that gets our posts deleted.

^^^ this will be good!

http://9thcivic.com/gallery/albums/post/Popcorn_02_Stephen_Colbert.gif

That's OK sparky. I am used to your childish name calling ....

Priceless.

That's OK sparky. I am used to your childish name calling and wild exclaimations. You just don't like people that won't buy into your bull**** and usually call all of those people trolls. I actually feel sorry for those that do buy into it. By the way, I have questioned your sanity since 2005. Also, Hall and Howard might or might not be able to pull it off, but I really don't think they would want to try. Now is the time to post one of your fake rants that gets our posts deleted.

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mcz617rSy01r38j04o1_500.gif

Spartan, since I'm the reporter who wrote that story with Hall, the one that's been cited repeatedly in this long thread, it's time for me to put this all to rest (something I've been meaning to do for a while). Hall was NOT the majority owner of that land when he made those statements, and is still NOT the majority of that land. And had I known that early on, I wouldn't have even written the story because the truth is those affiliated with the majority owner, Bob Howard, told me the next day he wasn't so certain about the development dreamed up by Hall. And it's Howard, not Hall, who has the extensive experience doing urban development (Hall is not involved with the MidTown development). So it's time to scrap that story, quit using it as proof that the site was destined to be developed.
Could it be ripe for development in the future if it's not slated for a convention center? Absolutely. But the story I did when the dealership closed has taken on mythical status - and I really wish I had never written it. Because of what I know now, and what I didn't know then, it was certainly premature and possibly misleading.

And at this very moment, I've basically supported, to some extent, arguments made by Popsy, who has made it clear in the past he has no use for my reporting, and challenged Spartan, someone I consider a friend (and still do!)