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!)

Hang in there Steve. If your bias on subjects didn't creep into your stories I would have no problem.

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!)

To tell the truth, all you internet people look alike to me.

So, can we "still persist that Howard is a legitimate developer" ?

I can accept that Fred Hall was off his rocker, even though that should have been cleared up a LONG time ago. I had generally assumed they were kinda turned off on the idea of development by the city's "better idea" anyway - there are still a handful of significantly better uses for the site...like gee, a contiguous park. Or the City Arts Center being in the "Arts District."

The problem is that you not only forego those better uses but also MUST assume the negative consequences that always come with convention centers. They don't exactly fill surrounding environs with activity and street life. And this site will be particularly tricky because generally at least one side must be kind of ugly, reserved for loading docks and HVAC and the in-sexy features these facilities MUST have similar to the Robinson and EKG Cox frontage.

So where are the loading docks going to go? Along the boulevard? Fronting the park? Beside the Chesapeake Arena? In front of the Myriad Gardens? Which side gets stuck with this features?

Accepting (though not wanting to) that the center will be built here, the west side would be the least intrusive. Not that this is good either, then the challenge is to create a design-creative loading dock. There is a practical side to this issue, how much money is justified in covering or hiding (underground) this functional aspect of this project? Though having the C.C. at this location is disruptive to the park line to the river, it could also place constant traffic flow from the "outside" (visiting) in the middle of large development. At some point one has to be pragmatic or the process never begins - no less ends. Problems are just opportunities for creative solutions.

The west side is where they plan expansion, which we're also on the hook for.


it could also place constant traffic flow

The building will be vacant, aside from security personnel on the premises to keep people away from it, 99% of the time.

The west side is where they plan expansion, which we're also on the hook for.



The building will be vacant, aside from security personnel on the premises to keep people away from it, 99% of the time.

Are you saying that the actual usage rate for our current convention center is 1%? You expect it to be used 4 days a year? This sounds as exaggerated as the consultants' reports.

What is the tipping point you estimate for the number of users/yr which would make a CC sensible? Let's assume we opt not to do the expansion and we have a moderate contribution to a first class hotel downtown with convention services. You have given it thought, I'm sure. If a better location in your eyes was found, what size and type of cc would you support, if any? Do meeting halls, etc. have any place in the public realm, or do you advocate only having private facilities? What specifically would be your recommendation to the steering committee for Maps and the Council?

This is a sincere question. I hear a lot more about what the critics of the current plan are against than what they are for and would do other than scrap it, and if they can't scrap it, move it away. I respect your perspective and would like more of your viewpoint.

Are you saying that the actual usage rate for our current convention center is 1%? You expect it to be used 4 days a year? This sounds as exaggerated as the consultants' reports.

No, I expect the convention center to be utilized for around 100 hours a year. I will absolutely agree that the CC will be a GOOD thing for traffic flow for an hour two days a week, but any other time, there's no way it won't be a BAD thing for traffic flow. That's what I'm looking at.


What is the tipping point you estimate for the number of users/yr which would make a CC sensible? Let's assume we opt not to do the expansion and we have a moderate contribution to a first class hotel downtown with convention services. You have given it thought, I'm sure. If a better location in your eyes was found, what size and type of cc would you support, if any? Do meeting halls, etc. have any place in the public realm, or do you advocate only having private facilities? What specifically would be your recommendation to the steering committee for Maps and the Council?

This is a sincere question. I hear a lot more about what the critics of the current plan are against than what they are for and would do other than scrap it, and if they can't scrap it, move it away. I respect your perspective and would like more of your viewpoint.

Rover, I appreciate your sincere question and the opportunity to talk more about what I'm FOR than what I'm AGAINST. The reality is that I'm not qualified to talk convention centers anymore than CSL is (which is not very). In high school and college while I was still at OU I did a lot of volunteering with the CVB to land conventions, and shadowed several people at the Chamber, and have had a great number of family friends and other good contacts who work for various economic development agencies.

It was one of the old CVB VPs (who's now in FW) who absolutely convinced me that we have to have a convention hotel. It needs 600-800 rooms, that I believe. I also think the public realm should very much provide a business facility, including meeting rooms, event/exhibition space, etc. However I do not think we should be doing a Y2K-style convention center. We should take the medical mart concept, with lots of high-tech exhibition space, IT infrastructure, meeting rooms, etc.-and make this concept our own as an "energy mart." That will be the only facility that 1, allows us to compete with Houston and Dallas; and 2, actually grows our share of business, rather than staying steady.

I think we absolutely SHOULD spend the full $250 million on it IF and ONLY IF we brand it as the "OKC Energy Mart and Convention Center." If we don't do that, then I think it's worth about $100 million max just to have a new facility that's not embarrassing, throw in another $20 million loan for a CC hotel. Regardless of whatever we do, it should be done in East Bricktown where there are currently 6, 7, 8 (I dunno, I'm loosing track) hotels existing or under development.

This is the problem though with having a city manager hired and still stuck in the 1990s, with very little experience in innovation (or bringing projects in on time, as promised, on budget, blah blah), but all the experience in the world looking at things from an engineer's perspective and caving to whatever the Chamber says. We're not exactly pursuing an open and public discourse about innovative ideas when we pull out the MAPS checkbook, save for the streetcar element.

edit: Just as a final point, realizing I didn't answer about a visitor count threshold - I'm not contesting that. I do believe that OKC has enough business visitors to absolutely justify being in the convention business. I'm really not as negative on this subject as people think, I just want to be emphatic about the impact on the rest of downtown, which must be addressed.

100 hours a year ... really ...... um no .. and bricktown makes no sense for a new CC

Okay, I'm going to play Sim City here for a second: What about displacing the CC 1 or 2 blocks West of the currently selected location? Like So:

2886

This seems to me like it would spur on more diverse and useful development of the surrounding area. I imagine another Hotel on one of the 3 blocks not allocated to the Convention Center between Hudson and Robinson, and it could be a nice one considering it would be surrounded by 2 parks, the Peake, and the Convention center. It leaves room for potential residential development between the two parks (you could even call the development "Between the Parks"!). Restaurant and Retail would be attracted down here because it would be ensconced in destination areas, possibly with a residential component.

Furthermore, the expansion of the Convention center can go more than one direction: West, North, East depending on what is needed, what other development is taking places etc.

Is this feasible?

100 hours a year ... really ...... um no .. and bricktown makes no sense for a new CC

How so? Even the consultants thought it was second-best, so it had to make some sense even to dead-panned consultants

Is there somewhere (not in the middle of a park) that makes sense to you?

How so? Even the consultants thought it was second-best, so it had to make some sense even to dead-panned consultants

Is there somewhere (not in the middle of a park) that makes sense to you?

the site south of the chesapeake arena makes the most sense to me with the hotel on the blvd on the north end and with the loading docks on the east side facing shields ..

Fair enough. I think if you don't use the entire east park frontage, and preserve the historic building shells along the park edge and reuse as some innovative cafes, kiosks, gift shops, etc - then you don't have much of a problem with a superblock fronting the park.

Amazing how a worse alternative makes the old plan not seem so bad.

OK, the distortion of fact to suit a particular argument is a little out of control here. Spartan, I love you man, but 100 hours a year? I'm sure there are utilization numbers available somewhere, but I would guess the Cox Center's CURRENT usage is in the HUNDREDS of hours. PER MONTH. That is, if you count multiple simultaneous events as separate "event hours," much as the State Fairgrounds claims 1,000+s event days per year. There are CONSTANTLY events at Cox Center, spread throughout event rooms and exhibition halls.

While I think it's possible that the NEW economic impact of a new convention center might have been overstated (as happens to just about any public event/project), it doesn't mean that a new facility is not sorely needed. Very few people here or elsewhere seem to understand how many local/statewide/regional events are held there every week. There also are routinely events that are more national in scope related to the energy industry, government employees, sports governing bodies and the like. Those are frankly pretty immune to the ups and downs of the national convention industry, but ARE impacted by substandard facilities and oversold facilities.

Folks, we're not competing with Chicago, or D.C., or Boston, or Vegas, or San Antonio, and it's highly unlikely we ever will be. Therefore we shouldn't be comparing ourselves to them in any way. In fact, when the national destinations are suffering because of reduced budgets, airfare, etc., I think we should BENEFIT by providing a good regional location easily accessible by highway. We excel in this regard.

The problem is that our facilities are currently just slightly better than an embarrassment. Instead of competing on an even playing field with tier II or even peer tier III cities, right now we are competing WITHIN THE METRO AND STATE with superior conference facilities like Reed Center (http://www.reedcenter.com/index.html) in Midwest City and the Embassy Suites in Norman. Do we REALLY want Oklahoma City to compete for conference and meeting business with Midwest City?

Last thought: much of the negativity regarding the "blank wall" being turned on the Myriad Gardens could be countered by fronting that sidewalk with small retail space that could house things like coffee shops, services, small restaurants, shops that cater to conference attendees AND downtowners, etc. These spaces would relate to Reno much the same way the retail spaces in Aloft face 2nd Street, and could also open to an interior hallway in the convention center during events. While I know many here are hoping against hope that the CC is relocated (or even killed, which would be incredibly irresponsible), I'd hope that those whose biggest problem with it is the "dead" park frontage would as a fallback start clamoring for the incorporation of good mixed use on the Reno frontage.

this

Nicely said, Urbanized.

To the 100 hours a year: There is something happening at Cox almost every day, usually in the meeting rooms. The Bar Exam alone takes 40 hours a year of the full exhibit space.

that

the other.


I'm sorry, but I had to do it.

Urbanized, do you believe that the CC should be moved to a different location, or do you think it's where it ought to be?

Urbanized, do you believe that the CC should be moved to a different location, or do you think it's where it ought to be?
I think the currently-identified location is infinitely better than the south of I-40 location, due to the fact that I want to see the convention center actually...you know...succeed. It needs to be in a place where meeting planners can count on attendees having a 10 minute or shorter walk from the front door of the facility to hotel inventory and dining/entertainment options. Once you go over 10 minutes of walk time, planners start thinking of you as a drive-to location, and we cede the main advantage our current facility has...location. One of the reasons the new Boston convention center struggled so much was because they located it away from the walkable neighborhoods that make Beantown such an attractive meeting destination. This has happened in other cities too.

The (currently) ridiculously short walk to Bricktown and hotels is the one reason our current underwhelming conference facility outperforms expectations. Many organizers will overlook the facility to some extent due to the fact that it is so far under the magical 10 minute walk ceiling. I regularly talk to meeting attendees who are shocked by how compact and walkable we are as a convention destination. I know we often don't think of our city as walkable, but believe me, THEY do.

The South-of-Chesapeake location hovered in the 13-15 minute walking range to Bricktown thanks to opening on the park side, having an identified conference hotel pad between it and the arena, and having to cross the I-40 ROW. The doors would have been about 3/4 of a mile to the heart of Bricktown on foot. Also, you had some stifling elements in having to cross more and larger arterials on foot to get to and from. Additonally, it took the Skirvin and some other hotel stock somewhat off the table as walking destinations. Going over the 10 minute number doesn't indicate attendees CAN'T walk between sites; it just means they likely WON'T.

That said, to answer your question of whether or not it is "where it ought to be," I would have felt even better about the location if it had been on the lumberyard.

Since it is not, however, I'm not crying over spilled milk. If it remains in this location, I'm good with it, although agree with many on here that it has the potential to awkwardly separate elements of downtown or kill street life. I say the potential rather than will, because I think all of that could be avoided with some thoughtful planning and execution. I think the space between the hotel and conference center (or instead, the hotel and Chesapeake) could actually be designed in such a way that it creates and HIGHLIGHTS a connection between the two parks. Regarding the street wall/life, see my suggestions above.

Retail is great, we still only have $250 million and a fair chunk of that will be spent on land and soil removal.

OK, the distortion of fact to suit a particular argument is a little out of control here. Spartan, I love you man, but 100 hours a year? I'm sure there are utilization numbers available somewhere, but I would guess the Cox Center's CURRENT usage is in the HUNDREDS of hours. PER MONTH. That is, if you count multiple simultaneous events as separate "event hours," much as the State Fairgrounds claims 1,000+s event days per year. There are CONSTANTLY events at Cox Center, spread throughout event rooms and exhibition halls.

While I think it's possible that the NEW economic impact of a new convention center might have been overstated (as happens to just about any public event/project), it doesn't mean that a new facility is not sorely needed. Very few people here or elsewhere seem to understand how many local/statewide/regional events are held there every week. There also are routinely events that are more national in scope related to the energy industry, government employees, sports governing bodies and the like. Those are frankly pretty immune to the ups and downs of the national convention industry, but ARE impacted by substandard facilities and oversold facilities.

Folks, we're not competing with Chicago, or D.C., or Boston, or Vegas, or San Antonio, and it's highly unlikely we ever will be. Therefore we shouldn't be comparing ourselves to them in any way. In fact, when the national destinations are suffering because of reduced budgets, airfare, etc., I think we should BENEFIT by providing a good regional location easily accessible by highway. We excel in this regard.

The problem is that our facilities are currently just slightly better than an embarrassment. Instead of competing on an even playing field with tier II or even peer tier III cities, right now we are competing WITHIN THE METRO AND STATE with superior conference facilities like Reed Center (http://www.reedcenter.com/index.html) in Midwest City and the Embassy Suites in Norman. Do we REALLY want Oklahoma City to compete for conference and meeting business with Midwest City?

Last thought: much of the negativity regarding the "blank wall" being turned on the Myriad Gardens could be countered by fronting that sidewalk with small retail space that could house things like coffee shops, services, small restaurants, shops that cater to conference attendees AND downtowners, etc. These spaces would relate to Reno much the same way the retail spaces in Aloft face 2nd Street, and could also open to an interior hallway in the convention center during events. While I know many here are hoping against hope that the CC is relocated (or even killed, which would be incredibly irresponsible), I'd hope that those whose biggest problem with it is the "dead" park frontage would as a fallback start clamoring for the incorporation of good mixed use on the Reno frontage.

First of all, thanks for the love. It's not just mutual, but you're actually one of the few dudes around that walk the talk.

I did not literally mean X number of hours that it's used, but my point is that for the majority of its time (more than we would think) these facilities are not being used, and never are they being used after 5. A corporate headquarters is a lot more vibrant than a convention center after 5, and it looks like we're literally going to surround the Myriad Gardens with a corporate headquarters, a new convention center, an old convention center, and another corporate headquarters. What is wrong with us?

As for the "blank wall" problem, I really am going to just be pretty closed-minded toward the possibility of incorporating mixed-use into the CC facade. I've heard this idea frequently for the last 5 years and I'm pretty sure this idea is kind of a joke. The brutalist COTPA parking garages have this too. Larry Nichols isn't even a big fan of ground-floor retail on these structures because there just aren't the prospective tenants lining up for space on the ground floor of superblock structures.

We need to get real about the impact a convention center has, and particularly, how we're going to feel about this convention center facility in as short as 20-30 years from now. This kind of reminds of Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski answering a question about the environmental impact of oil and gas pipelines by saying that it's great because the caribou like to snuggle up to the pipelines to stay warm in the winter.

If the keep the current site the hotel will most likely be on the east edge and the entrance pushed west.

Second when the new CC opens there will be a street car and they will be able to to bricktown without walking

OK, the distortion of fact to suit a particular argument is a little out of control here. Spartan, I love you man, but 100 hours a year? I'm sure there are utilization numbers available somewhere, but I would guess the Cox Center's CURRENT usage is in the HUNDREDS of hours. PER MONTH. That is, if you count multiple simultaneous events as separate "event hours," much as the State Fairgrounds claims 1,000+s event days per year. There are CONSTANTLY events at Cox Center, spread throughout event rooms and exhibition halls.

While I think it's possible that the NEW economic impact of a new convention center might have been overstated (as happens to just about any public event/project), it doesn't mean that a new facility is not sorely needed. Very few people here or elsewhere seem to understand how many local/statewide/regional events are held there every week. There also are routinely events that are more national in scope related to the energy industry, government employees, sports governing bodies and the like. Those are frankly pretty immune to the ups and downs of the national convention industry, but ARE impacted by substandard facilities and oversold facilities.

Folks, we're not competing with Chicago, or D.C., or Boston, or Vegas, or San Antonio, and it's highly unlikely we ever will be. Therefore we shouldn't be comparing ourselves to them in any way. In fact, when the national destinations are suffering because of reduced budgets, airfare, etc., I think we should BENEFIT by providing a good regional location easily accessible by highway. We excel in this regard.

The problem is that our facilities are currently just slightly better than an embarrassment. Instead of competing on an even playing field with tier II or even peer tier III cities, right now we are competing WITHIN THE METRO AND STATE with superior conference facilities like Reed Center (http://www.reedcenter.com/index.html) in Midwest City and the Embassy Suites in Norman. Do we REALLY want Oklahoma City to compete for conference and meeting business with Midwest City?

Last thought: much of the negativity regarding the "blank wall" being turned on the Myriad Gardens could be countered by fronting that sidewalk with small retail space that could house things like coffee shops, services, small restaurants, shops that cater to conference attendees AND downtowners, etc. These spaces would relate to Reno much the same way the retail spaces in Aloft face 2nd Street, and could also open to an interior hallway in the convention center during events. While I know many here are hoping against hope that the CC is relocated (or even killed, which would be incredibly irresponsible), I'd hope that those whose biggest problem with it is the "dead" park frontage would as a fallback start clamoring for the incorporation of good mixed use on the Reno frontage.

I totally agree. This is right on target.

If the keep the current site the hotel will most likely be on the east edge and the entrance pushed west.

Second when the new CC opens there will be a street car and they will be able to to bricktown without walking

So.. enter from Hudson or Walker? And again, where do the loading docks go?

So.. enter from Hudson or Walker? And again, where do the loading docks go?

Being used only 4 days a year, we may not need any loading docks. We can just park at the curb and carry stuff in.

Just kidding...just kidding. :p

or use the future south park section for staging and just air lift everything in.

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.

Thanks CaptDave, I don't have that Photobucket account anymore and so the pics I posted awhile back in the thread are gone. Luckily Steve still has some of them on his blog. I agree that the Ford site is a poor choice and that south of the Blvd. is better. Our proposal, which was done back in 2007-08 when things were different, had OKC's convention center on par or larger size-wise with regional cities like Austin, Nashville, Kansas City, etc. and more than twice as big as the Cox. If we were designing it now we probably would've reduced the overall size, especially in the exhibit hall and number of banquet/meeting rooms.

The rendering shows the "front door" on the Blvd. with the main circulation spine along the axis of Broadway, across from the Chesapeake Arena and nearly halfway between Robinson and Shields. The highrise convention hotel would then be to the west right at the SE corner of Robinson and the Blvd. with the park across the street. The building is setback from Robinson so private development such as apartments or condos could be developed facing the park and all the loading docks face Shields near where it becomes elevated. The footprint extends all the way to SW 6, with the exhibit hall bridging SW 5 and a parking garage underneath.
http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/files/2008/05/brentexterior.jpg

Ballrooms, meeting rooms, etc. are all closer to the front (north) side with a large prefunction area next to a glass curtain wall with skyline views over Chesapeake Arena. A very conceptual view..notice no Devon Tower lol..
http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/files/2008/05/brentint1.jpg

The Blvd. frontage could be mixed-use with retail/restaurants as well as the main entrances into the CC, with large open areas of glass so pedestrians can see in (like Denver's CC).
http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/files/2008/05/brentext2.jpg

Steve linked this on Facebook...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/21/realestate/commercial/nashville-gambles-on-appeal-of-new-623-million-convention-center.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0

Omg. Nashville had to put up $128 MILLION for an Omni. They're already on the hook for the $650 million CC.

We really should cash out. Completely exit the convention business. This is insane.

We should examine how the conference facilities in MWC and Norman were built using private development or institutional development and TIF funding, and offer financing for the WHOLE thing that doesn't go over $250 million. We should make sure we clearly have the best facility in the state, and get out of this insane arms race with Nashville, FW, Louisville, Austin, Cleveland, and countless other mid size cities with better facilities than we can afford to match.

That Nashville CC is breathtaking.

Omg. Nashville had to put up $128 MILLION for an Omni. They're already on the hook for the $650 million CC.

We really should cash out. Completely exit the convention business. This is insane.

We should examine how the conference facilities in MWC and Norman were built using private development or institutional development and TIF funding, and offer financing for the WHOLE thing that doesn't go over $250 million. We should make sure we clearly have the best facility in the state, and get out of this insane arms race with Nashville, FW, Louisville, Austin, Cleveland, and countless other mid size cities with better facilities than we can afford to match.

That Nashville CC is breathtaking.

Scary article. If Nashville spent 650 million what are we going to get for 250?

Scary article. If Nashville spent 650 million what are we going to get for 250?

We get the "let's think small" version.

Has there been any renderings of the proposed convention center yet?

Nashville's looks amazing but I also highly doubt OKC will ever see as many large conventions as Nashville does, at least in the near future. Nashville is about 10-15 years ahead of OKC in development and growth. This convention center needs to be designed with the future in mind though.

Not sure whether or not this has been linked here, but here is a convention industry article (http://connectyourmeetings.com/2010/11/02/second-tier-cities-2/) from late 2010 that is particularly relevant to this discussion, including a mention of OKC.

Is the "let's think small" version worth decimating our downtown over? The Nashville project is truly stunning. Ours on the other hand needs some serious, serious reevaluation. Esp as every other MAPS3 project is apparently up for review and chopping block eligible...

The scary Nashville takeaway isn't their CC cost, which we already knew. The revelation is their CC hotel subsidy..staggering.

I'm not sure if this idea has been brought up for the convention center and hotel. I was thinking about a hotel high rise that i stayed at in Chicago. The building had to be at least 40 stories but it wasnt all specific to one ownsership. I stayed in the Holliday inn on the 33rd floor. Below was a super eight for 6 floors and below that was a hampton inn or something like that. Above me was a more expensive hotel and condos perched at the top. Lets think out the box and get more than just city ownership or one hotel group involved.

Why not a 40 story complex that for the first five stories where a convention center and retail/mall. and shared hotels above that. Obviously they will set a higher standard that the norm as the Super 8 below my hotel was very chic and extremely nice. I would have stayed there if i knew better. Does that not sound like it would achieve everything we want? I dont know the rules and laws but ,hell, I'd like to see Riverwind or Windstar purchase the top floors and add a casino hotel at the top.

The laws would have to be changed before a casino can be built there. Not impossible but not easy either. Some tribes have wanted to get a casino built in the area but Cornett and Council were extremely frigid to the idea.

The laws would have to be changed before a casino can be built there. Not impossible but not easy either. Some tribes have wanted to get a casino built in the area but Cornett and Council were extremely frigid to the idea.Do you have any idea why?

New OKC Convention Center Could Cost Taxpayers More Money - News9.com - Oklahoma City, OK - News, Weather, Video and Sports | (http://www.news9.com/story/20200482/new-okc-convention-center-could-cost-taxpayers-more-money)

New OKC Convention Center Could Cost Taxpayers More Money - News9.com - Oklahoma City, OK - News, Weather, Video and Sports | (http://www.news9.com/story/20200482/new-okc-convention-center-could-cost-taxpayers-more-money)

Reading the comments on that article makes me realize how disconnected a lot of people are.

The comments about the design gave me a chuckle.

Reading the comments on that article makes me realize how disconnected a lot of people are.


The comments about the design gave me a chuckle.I noticed that too. When they did an article on the street car people where saying things like "so I'm gonna have to pay for something that I live 10 miles from and will never use" "it's a called a car, go buy one" "this is just another failure of OKC" and they were getting positive marks on their comments too!!!??????

The comments about the design gave me a chuckle.

Who registers to post on a site as Dr Mengele?!?

Funding, costs for Oklahoma City convention center hotel, parking still unknown (http://newsok.com/funding-costs-for-oklahoma-city-convention-center-hotel-parking-still-unknown/article/3732572)

The Oklahoma City Council was advised Tuesday a new garage and a publicly subsidized conference hotel are unknown costs the city faces beyond the $250 million set to be spent on a new convention center.

This was just posted by Ed Shadid on Facebook:


To achieve the economic impact touted during the MAPS3 campaign by a new convention center there will have to be substantial additional investment of taxpayer dollars. This was outlined clearly in a study by Convention Sports and Leisure in 2009 prior to the MAPS3 campaign which indicated that a 600 room hotel would be required and that no city in recent memory had been able to accomplish such a task without massive public subsidies. Despite my repeated requests, this study has yet to be released to the public. This study advocates for $250 million to be spent in phase one (discussed in MAPS3) along with the taxpayers largely or completely the funding a hotel and then investing an additional $150 million for a convention center expansion. In addition, the current $250 million budget does not include taxpayer money for parking which could run in the $50 million range. The taxpayers in Nashville just invested $128 million plus a 62.5% property tax decrease for 20 years to make their convention center hotel deal with Omni work. Ask yourself this question: if you buy a car for $25,000 and are told that it is going to do certain things and then afterwards learn that you have to buy special tires for $10,000 and two engine components for another $15,000 and $5,000 in order to realize those promises, would you feel misled? If the salesman said "we didn't talk about it or that you would have to buy it but we showed you a picture that had the tires in it" would that be acceptable to you? Would you feel you had a valid contract with the salesman?

I think it is very clear that the average person didn't know the $250 million MAPS III funding was only seed money.

My god, this situation becomes worse by the day it seems. What in the hell is going on with all these costs/studies/hidden info/etc.? It's becoming unreal at this point.

So is the cost without a hotel now $450 million ($250 million phase I + $150 million expansion + $50 million garage)?

And I think Shadid meant to say "...62.5% property tax INCREASE for 20 years..."

So is the cost without a hotel now $450 million ($250 million phase I + $150 million expansion + $50 million garage)?

Yes, and that's assuming that $250 million is realistic for Phase I, which is highly suspect in itself.

I would vote for the next MAPS if it included funding for the expansion as long as they choose a different site for the CC. I like the site south of CHK Arena. As long as they plan to keep it on the old Ford site, they won't get my vote for more money.

So is the cost without a hotel now $450 million ($250 million phase I + $150 million expansion + $50 million garage)?

And I think Shadid meant to say "...62.5% property tax INCREASE for 20 years..."

No I think it is property tax cut for the land the convention hotel is on. That means the City will collect very little property tax on the hotel development for 20 years.

I'm just afraid this project is going to kill the MAPs goodwill between the city and the voters. MAPs has been a tremendous success, but this could end it. The council and mayor have been very irresponsible on what is the least popular MAPs 3 project.

End it now and give the money to streetcar.

I'm just afraid this project is going to kill the MAPs goodwill between the city and the voters. MAPs has been a tremendous success, but this could end it. The council and mayor have been very irresponsible on what is the least popular MAPs 3 project. .

Yes, and then they conspired to move it way up on the timeline.


One thing has also changed in a big way since the original MAPS: The free-flow of information and discussion. People are watching much more closely now and can get their own data, rather than rely on the continual cry of "All is well. Nothing to see here."

We are really experiencing the effects of this on the Boulevard; scrutiny and citizen involvement is rapidly escalating across the board.

Is there any public access to the "Convention Center Site Location Study"?

I feel like the opportunity costs of this chosen location were extremely underestimated. This land is the real deal, why is the city so bent on putting their foot in it????!!! So frustrating...

This thread just depressess my azz.

Is there any public access to the "Convention Center Site Location Study"?

Yes, I just added the link to the article at the top of the page.

This thread just depressess my azz.

Mine too.

Ok I know I am in the minority here and certainly no disrespect to any of my friends on this site. But, I actually like the location and the idea of the park on both sides. It fells like a great setting to me. The proximity to bricktown is fine. It is actually better than other convention facilities in the cities that I have works conventions in. The thread makes this seem like it is so aweful and I just don't see it. Again, I respect everyone's opinion and this is simply my take.

Ok I know I am in the minority here and certainly no disrespect to any of my friends on this site. But, I actually like the location and the idea of the park on both sides. It fells like a great setting to me. The proximity to bricktown is fine. It is actually better than other convention facilities in the cities that I have works conventions in. The thread makes this seem like it is so aweful and I just don't see it. Again, I respect everyone's opinion and this is simply my take.

so you enjoy walking by the east and west side of the cox??

so you enjoy walking by the east and west side of the cox??

I do it every day.

Yes, I just added the link to the article at the top of the page.

Thanks I was looking everywhere. Looks like little to zero consideration for potential opportunity for the land was really taken in this study. I will be very dissapointed if the CC ends up on this "core to shore north" location.

I actually like the idea of using the lumberyard SE of the 'Peake and placing the hotel in the now U-Haul space. But hey, they want to 'stay away from the railroad'. Not to mention they are probably really wanting it not to be stuck next to that awful cotton-seed mill for who knows how long.