I do it every day.

Just out of curiousity, what does walking on the east and west side of the cox have to do with the rendering above?

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.

It is a great location, but it isn't the best use of the land. This is an area that has the potential to be something really nice and the proposals want to slap a big shell box with a hotel on it. This isn't about it being a good or best spot for the CC, it is about this being a good and possibly the best spot for anything (private development) at the moment.

I think we can all agree years down the road we will be saying the lots south of the 'Boulevard' will be the next best spots once development moves south to fill the I-40 void, but until then we need to use the now 'best spots' for the 'best use'.



Just out of curiousity, what does walking on the east and west side of the cox have to do with the rendering above?

Because the sides of the Cox center are disgusting, and one of them faces the nicest park in OKC. You really want two ugly walls facing this same park? Not to mention it would then put a large boring wall facing the new 'Boulevard' as well.

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.

Not that it matters but 5 rails of mainline railroad run right through the center of the Georgia World Congress Center, and when I say through, I mean right down the middle.

It is a great location, but it isn't the best use of the land. This is an area that has the potential to be something really nice and the proposals want to slap a big shell box with a hotel on it. This isn't about it being a good or best spot for the CC, it is about this being a good and possibly the best spot for anything (private development) at the moment.

I think we can all agree years down the road we will be saying the lots south of the 'Boulevard' will be the next best spots once development moves south to fill the I-40 void, but until then we need to use the now 'best spots' for the 'best use'.




Because the sides of the Cox center are disgusting, and one of them faces the nicest park in OKC. You really want two ugly walls facing this same park? Not to mention it would then put a large boring wall facing the new 'Boulevard' as well.

Wasn't there always suposed to be a pak there if no the convention center? I personally like the surroundings of a parkaround the convention center. I think they should build the CC there and then tear down the Cox center and use that for private development. I can not tell from the rendering above that it is going to just be a big box. there are lots of details missing.

I can not tell from the rendering above that it is going to just be a big box. there are lots of details missing.

That is one of the big concerns, with a limited budget, expensive land, and an even more expensive construction technique there isn't going to be a lot of money available for detail. However, that is only a small part of the problem. The other part is that convention centers create voids in the urban fabric and that is where the long-term danger lays.

Do you have any idea why?
Besides the legal issues, IIRC it was a matter of maintaining the "family friendly" nature of the Bricktown area. Never mind the fact that we have a slew of adult only clubs & bars.

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.
Keep in mind that parking was to be shared between the C.C. and the MAPS 3 Park. The parking was to be under the Park and was cost prohibitive so it was scrapped (besides the Mayor said they had plenty of parking for the Park and it wasn't needed.

As far as Councilman Shadid's tweet and others, the other costs were mentioned during the campaign but it wasn't something they were pushing. The campaigns focus was get the phase 1 funded and we will worry about the rest of it later. The idea being that as it is about ready to open, the "oh, we need to start on Phase 2 immediately and we really need to get the hotel funded and built NOW. We have spent too much money to turn back now". Same arguments used for the Arena renovations and the American Indian Cultural Center....

ON EDIT: isn't the City looking at building more parking garages anyway since they sold off some recently...can't this be one of those???

I can accept that we need a new convention center. I am not an expert, or even relatively well informed, on the subject. If you tell me the Myriad is not up to par and we need to replace it, I will believe you. I believe we can build a convention center for OKC for $250 million that will serve our needs. Like the Chesapeake Arena, we might have to fork over more money later to spruce it up a bit. I think we've always known we needed to build a hotel to go with it.

The problem is, we can't build the convention center we want on the land we have chosen for the money we have available. It's like going to a car dealership and looking at BMWs and Mercedes (Mercedeses?) when you can afford a Ford Focus. The costs of the land appear to be much higher than anything people realized at the time. You're not going to be getting a $220 million center with $30 million in land acquisition costs. You're now talking about spending half the money or so on land, before you ever move a shovel of dirt. When you've got a budget, that's bad.

...I actually like the idea of using the lumberyard SE of the 'Peake and placing the hotel in the now U-Haul space..
First of all, the lumberyard was my favorite of all locations too, but the talk of putting something - anything from parking to a convention hotel - other than the building now standing on the U-Haul location chills me to the bone. I'd like to do whatever I can to squash that talk, even though it is only marginally related to the thread topic. Why in the WORLD would we want to tear down U-Haul for the sake of parking or any other structure, when there are acres and acres of undeveloped land and surface parking all around that location? I would like to remind everyone again of just what is entombed and totally preserved under the tin siding on the U-Haul building. If would require very little other than removal of the tin and stripping of a few layers of paint to suddenly have the most impressive structure in the Bricktown area, and the one best-suited for top-quality loft housing...

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/maps/vintage/itenbiscuit2s.jpg

First of all, the lumberyard was my favorite of all locations too, but the talk of putting something - anything from parking to a convention hotel - other than the building now standing on the U-Haul location chills me to the bone. I'd like to do whatever I can to squash that talk, even though it is only marginally related to the thread topic. Why in the WORLD would we want to tear down U-Haul for the sake of parking or any other structure, when there are acres and acres of undeveloped land and surface parking all around that location? I would like to remind everyone again of just what is entombed and totally preserved under the tin siding on the U-Haul building. If would require very little other than removal of the tin and stripping of a few layers of paint to suddenly have the most impressive structure in the Bricktown area, and the one best-suited for top-quality loft housing...

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/maps/vintage/itenbiscuit2s.jpg

The building has a lot of history. It later became National Biscut Company or NABISCO. After that it was the home to the Folding Carrier Corporation which is where the Shopping Cart was invented. I was in there a lot before uhaul came in and it has a lot of potential. Not to mention the new boulevard will run next to it (i think).

First of all, the lumberyard was my favorite of all locations too, but the talk of putting something - anything from parking to a convention hotel - other than the building now standing on the U-Haul location chills me to the bone. I'd like to do whatever I can to squash that talk, even though it is only marginally related to the thread topic. Why in the WORLD would we want to tear down U-Haul for the sake of parking or any other structure, when there are acres and acres of undeveloped land and surface parking all around that location? I would like to remind everyone again of just what is entombed and totally preserved under the tin siding on the U-Haul building. If would require very little other than removal of the tin and stripping of a few layers of paint to suddenly have the most impressive structure in the Bricktown area, and the one best-suited for top-quality loft housing...

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/maps/vintage/itenbiscuit2s.jpg

I will assist in any way possible in the squashing of any such talk. That's just pure lunacy to want to tear down this building. And for parking? Hell no.

I'll also leave a link here http://homes.yahoo.com/news/pittsburghs-cork-company-lofts-replaced-ailing-industry-171500309.html that shows what can be done with an awesome reuse of an old building. There are several such opportunities throughout Bricktown.

I hope eventually the Uhaul franchise operator can be convinced to relocate and then see that ugly cladding removed. I have been told the facade is intact beneath the brown and green aluminum(?).

I hope eventually the Uhaul franchise operator can be convinced to relocate and then see that ugly cladding removed. I have been told the facade is intact beneath the brown and green aluminum(?).

I had lunch with some commercial realtors yesterday at S&B Burger jount. They told me that they have approached the owners on more than one occasion but they aren't budging. They all agreed that the owners are waitin on the new blvd and other changes that will increase the value of the property.

Whoever told you that was 100% correct. In fact the original casement windows are still in place, including the glass panes in them. The interior consists almost entirely of some 2 x 4, sheet rock and plywood construction. It is a rented Bobcat and a couple days' work from being completely original inside.

I had no idea the U-Haul building has covered that... Wow.


Anyways it looks as if you could preserve that building easily for residential conversion. I am sure the tin siding has actually helped significantly in protecting the original structure. The hotel and existing U-Haul structure could co-exist in the same block, the hotel could be put on the street facing Reno instead of the Boulevard. Then you could do an additional pedestrian bridge over the Boulevard to act as linkage to the CC (as large groups of people crossing the Boulevard may not be best suitable).

I had lunch with some commercial realtors yesterday at S&B Burger jount. They told me that they have approached the owners on more than one occasion but they aren't budging. They all agreed that the owners are waitin on the new blvd and other changes that will increase the value of the property.

To complicate matters is that it's owned by the UHaul trust of family members. Multiple owners at different percentages. It makes condemnation darn near impossible as well.

So heres my question. Why didn't they leave the convention center out of Maps3 and sell it off in it's own package??? If it's already going to cost $500 million or so and the entire Maps3 budget was $777 million they should just either spend the $777 million (or whats left of it) on the CC (which I hope they don't do) and build a news Maps package or just delete the convention center and dedicate the rest of the funds to mass transit, Oklahoma river expansion, ect.... and reboot the convention center an entirely new package!

If they put the convention center in its own vote it would probably fail. I am 100% convinced they moved the CC up in the MAPS schedule because they didn't want the CC to be the center of a Finish MAPS III Right vote.

If they put the convention center in its own vote it would probably fail. I am 100% convinced they moved the CC up in the MAPS schedule because they didn't want the CC to be the center of a Finish MAPS III Right vote.I wonder how many people in this city have even been to the Cox area and if they have I doubt they really pay attention to its demise. The Nashville was sold off on it's own package right? Why couldn't the OKC convention center work?

I wonder how many people in this city have even been to the Cox area and if they have I doubt they really pay attention to its demise. The Nashville was sold off on it's own package right? Why couldn't the OKC convention center work?

Because people in OKC are smarter? Joking aside, the people of Nashville didn't vote on their convention center. Only their City Council voted. An attempt to put it to a public vote failed.

http://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/stories/2010/01/18/daily16.html?page=all


Councilman Eric Crafton's proposal to put the issue to a countywide vote failed, 27-10

Nashville expects to break even on their convention center in the year 2043 assuming they don't expand it or build a new one before then.

If they put the convention center in its own vote it would probably fail. I am 100% convinced they moved the CC up in the MAPS schedule because they didn't want the CC to be the center of a Finish MAPS III Right vote.

This is absolutely the truth. It's not just people like Kerry or myself or others on this site saying that. It's very much looking like the way it will be. Even Lackmeyer is putting out articles that tows an "unbiased" line of good/bad comparisons to MAPS history.

Because people in OKC are smarter? Joking aside, the people of Nashville didn't vote on their convention center. Only their City Council voted.Haha yeah. Their public didn't have any say all, that sucks. You don't think a new convention center in OKC is good idea?

Haha yeah. Their public didn't have any say all, that sucks. You don't think a new convention center in OKC is good idea?

I think we should build a new convention center, but not because I think the convention industry is a cash cow. I would like to see a nice MODEST convention center built in East Bricktown so that the current Cox site can be opened up for redevelopment with park front mid/high rise residential, hotel, office tower, sidewalk dining, and retail - plus what we get out of the Ford dealer and Stage Center sites. Extending Broadway and putting California Ave back will create over one linear mile of new street frontage.

If they put the convention center in its own vote it would probably fail. I am 100% convinced they moved the CC up in the MAPS schedule because they didn't want the CC to be the center of a Finish MAPS III Right vote.

I think this will be a good move on their part, but we'll see. As long as the street car makes a real tangible difference, then I can see them issuing MAPS IV on the backs of extended Streetcar service, potential Rail and then finishing out the Convention center.

I think this will be a good move on their part, but we'll see. As long as the street car makes a real tangible difference, then I can see them issuing MAPS IV on the backs of extended Streetcar service, potential Rail and then finishing out the Convention center.

Why don't we get our 5 miles first with the money we already passed...seriously

Why don't we get our 5 miles first with the money we already passed...seriously

I'm not saying I agree with it...I'm saying it will be an effective move on their part to generate enough turnout for a successful vote on MAPS IV.

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!!!??????

If you were on the News9 web site, just think: people commenting there probably think Kelly Ogle's "My Two Cents" is groundbreaking thought.

So heres my question. Why didn't they leave the convention center out of Maps3 and sell it off in it's own package??? If it's already going to cost $500 million or so and the entire Maps3 budget was $777 million they should just either spend the $777 million (or whats left of it) on the CC (which I hope they don't do) and build a news Maps package or just delete the convention center and dedicate the rest of the funds to mass transit, Oklahoma river expansion, ect.... and reboot the convention center an entirely new package!

MAPS 3 was just a fig leaf to get a convention center. The public would never have voted for it on its own. Now, there's risk they are going to screw around with projects people actually wanted to only partially fund the project they really wanted. This is beyond maddening. Heads should roll.

Seriously, the public has a big stake in this. We should organize a massive protest at the next convention center subcommittee meeting. These people need to put up or shut up.

I'm not saying I agree with it...I'm saying it will be an effective move on their part to generate enough turnout for a successful vote on MAPS IV.

No way. If they screw this up the way it looks like they are, there won't be a MAPS IV.

If you were on the News9 web site, just think: people commenting there probably think Kelly Ogle's "My Two Cents" is groundbreaking thought.No s&%t.. haha.. most of the people commenting there are just either stereo types or come out talking like they know everything. :/

MAPS 3 was just a fig leaf to get a convention center. The public would never have voted for it on its own. Now, there's risk they are going to screw around with projects people actually wanted to only partially fund the project they really wanted. This is beyond maddening. Heads should roll.

Seriously, the public has a big stake in this. We should organize a massive protest at the next convention center subcommittee meeting. These people need to put up or shut up.Hey I'm in. Just get enough people. It seems like the way we are going it could be along the cost of Nashville CC.

What happens if transit gets cut like trails and even or the hub gets scrapped?

What happens if transit gets cut like trails and even or the hub gets scrapped?

I have a very uneasy feeling that may be coming, but I am also confident the council meetings will be overrun with people demanding the will of the people paying for these projects be given more weight than the desire of a few. I think most people favor building a nice reasonably sized convention center at a logical location, but to do so while defunding the projects that were the reason MAPS3 passed is beyond foolish. I suggest that people who care about this start writing letters to your council representative and the mayor.

recruiting and backing council replacements might be far more productive, albeit certainly not as easy as writing a sternly written letter of concern.
At some point though, everyone who held their nose and voted yes and gave their city council the benefit of doubt they'd do the right thing is going to have to decide ... have they, or haven't they. As you can only change so many council seats a cycle, might be best to ask that Q sooner rather than later.

Conversely, if you're happy as a clam at how things are progressing to date, time to get loud and proud on how well things seem to be happening from that perspective.

recruiting and backing council replacements might be far more productive, albeit certainly not as easy as writing a sternly written letter of concern.

Kevin, this is by far the best solution and with a little effort some big changes could be made. OKC City Council only has 9 members so just picking up a few seats would make a huge difference. OKC isn't like Nashville that has 29 seats.

BTW - on the Ward map, why is the Stockyard area shown in white? Are they not in the city limits?

http://www.okc.gov/council/wardmap/wardmap.pdf

...
BTW - on the Ward map, why is the Stockyard area shown in white? Are they not in the city limits?

http://www.okc.gov/council/wardmap/wardmap.pdf

So far as I am aware, it is simply a commercial district within OKC proper. No clue why they set it as a separate defined area in the same manner they use for communities like Valley Brook, Bethany, etc.

Kevin, this is by far the best solution and with a little effort some big changes could be made. OKC City Council only has 9 members so just picking up a few seats would make a huge difference. OKC isn't like Nashville that has 29 seats.

BTW - on the Ward map, why is the Stockyard area shown in white? Are they not in the city limits?

http://www.okc.gov/council/wardmap/wardmap.pdf

Stockyards City is otherworldly. It's like a whole 'nother country down there.

So... who is going to run for a seat?

A better question, why isn't there an OKCTalk Party?

Council is non-partisan, that's why. :)

Is the OKCTalk party partisan? I am active on multiple parts of OKCTalk and it is a pretty good cross section of OKC. There sure isn't one political ideology that dominates. If a church, tea party, or the club for economic growth (or whatever they called themselves) can back a candidate I don't see why OKCTalk can't run a candidate.

OKCTalk has a lot of people I would like to see on the City Council.

Is the OKCTalk party partisan? I am active on multiple parts of OKCTalk and it is a pretty good cross section of OKC. There sure isn't one political ideology that dominates. If a church, tea party, or the club for economic growth (or whatever they called themselves) can back a candidate I don't see why OKCTalk can't run a candidate.

OKCTalk has a lot of people I would like to see on the City Council.

Starting new thread in Politics - what should City Council pay?

Stockyards City is otherworldly. It's like a whole 'nother country down there.

Stockyards City is actually unincorporated, separate from OKC.

Stockyards City is actually unincorporated, separate from OKC.

Yep. Used to field calls about tall weeds, etc., and always had to refer them to the County. The commercial district (Agnew, Exchange, etc.) is IN Oklahoma City, however.

So only the actual feeder lots are in the county?

So only the actual feeder lots are in the county?

Yes, and open fields to the south all the way to SW 15th Street. Might have been part of the old packing plants.

... and there is no city sales tax collected on transactions that take place therein?

... and there is no city sales tax collected on transactions that take place therein?

Correct!

But the only sales happening in the unincorporated area, is the sale of livestock.

But the only sales happening in the unincorporated area, is the sale of livestock.

Only the biggest live cattle sales auction in the US... :)

Architects Release Conceptual Rendering Of OKC Convention Center - News9.com - Oklahoma City, OK - News, Weather, Video and Sports | (http://www.news9.com/story/21800319/architects-release-conceptual-rendering-of-okc-convention-center-hotel)

"The hotel will go directly next to the new convention center or across the street on the what is now the Cox Convention Center."

I wish reporters would work on their sentence structures before posting stories. What does that mean? As far as I can see in my head, the Cox Convention Center is katty korner to the site, not across from, lol...

Looking forward to better photos of the renderings.

Looking forward to better photos of the renderings.
I agree. If the conceptional design indicates placement and size of buildings then there is concern. The size and placement of the hotel will cause problems on the Myriad Gardens, in the Crystal Bridge in particular. I would hope they do some additional research on shadow casting affects on the conservatory and grounds. In particular in the Winter the sun is low on the horizon in the south, this tall tower directly to the south of the conservatory will cast a large shadow over what little sun the CB gets this time of the year. A significant portion of the heating of the CB comes from sunlight, as the Exoite skining of the conservatory is a wonderful thermal insulator. I've seen snow gather on the top and the inside warm to 80 degrees F. There would be a marked decrease in tropical blooms inside the conservatory in the winter - when visitors appreciated it the most. Not to mention what it will do to the playgrounds, dog park, and plantings outside the conservatory that are just off Reno. In the Summer it would be wonderful - except the sun will be much higher and the shadow much closer to the building (what little shadow there will be). I would hope shadow casting studies would be done, perhaps it is not as bad as it seems it will be. But, the city has just spent millions rebuilding the Myriad Gardens, it would be a mistake not to take into consideration the damage this could do to these new popular venues on the south side of the garden. Outside 50 degrees in the shade on a cool Winter day is considerably different than 50 degrees in the sun.

If they placed the tower on the block as far east as possible, by noon, no matter the season, you'd at least have the sun hitting the Crystal Bridge, later thru the day in the winter time you'd have the shadow only on the SE section of the gardens.

Here is the one rendering from that article, although they said there were three concepts:

http://kwtv.images.worldnow.com/images/21800319_BG1.jpg


Architects say every direction of the new convention center will accommodate openness for pedestrians.

The hotel will go directly next to the new convention center or across the street on the what is now the Cox Convention Center.

How come I don't see a huge convention center?

How come I don't see a huge convention center?

The news tonight said they would have levels underground.

My understanding is that Larry Nichols is still driving hard to get the CC done and I believe he wants it on the site that has been chosen by the consultants.

I wonder if he is planning to have Devon help with some of the acquisition or even construction costs. I know this is a passion of his and he has all types of resources available to make it happen.

MAPS 3 convention center hotel draws debate | KFOR.com (http://kfor.com/2013/03/26/maps-3-convention-center-hotel-draws-debate/)

This is a 1 2 punch that's suppose to be all built at the same time. That's how it was proposed in MAPS 3 (not that anything in MAPS 3 has gone according to how it was delivered to the public before vote). If those are the only three options for the hotel location then it's gonna have to be north of the CC or along the boulevard, which is what I would go for. They also need to keep the Harvey Spine intact and not let it dead end into CC/hotel. Find a way to integrate it into the center, like how they have the covered street in Vegas or have it like a very tame version of City Creek Center in Salt Lake City. See image below:

http://www.djc.com/stories/images/20120411/CityCreekCenter_inside_big.jpg