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

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

Perhaps Steve can explain why NewsOK posts like three pics at the most, regardless of the news story. There were lonly like three pics of the Pride Parade. Why? Is bandwidth limited? News organizations are struggling to survive yet the Oklahoman acts as if there's a photo ration for every story.

Wonder why people are using "new media" to get information?

What are they teaching now in journalism schools? Should the gatekeepers limit the public's access to visuals?

Seriously, there should be image galleries with multiple images per story. My iPhone takes better quality pics than many newspapers publish. The goal is to draw people to your site and keep them on there. Give them more photos and they'll spend more time on the site.

As an aside, they should make it easy for site visitors to upload their own images as well.

^
In their defense, they were having extreme difficulty in obtaining more detailed pics from the architecture firm that did these renderings.

From Steve: https://twitter.com/stevelackmeyer/status/316655559363403776

So those are actually stealth screenshots...

Perhaps Steve can explain why NewsOK posts like three pics at the most, regardless of the news story. There were lonly like three pics of the Pride Parade. Why? Is bandwidth limited? News organizations are struggling to survive yet the Oklahoman acts as if there's a photo ration for every story.

Wonder why people are using "new media" to get information?

What are they teaching now in journalism schools? Should the gatekeepers limit the public's access to visuals?

Seriously, there should be image galleries with multiple images per story. My iPhone takes better quality pics than many newspapers publish. The goal is to draw people to your site and keep them on there. Give them more photos and they'll spend more time on the site.

As an aside, they should make it easy for site visitors to upload their own images as well.

I worked 9 a.m. to 10 p.m. today, had to scramble to get the images I got (worked hard to get them without DRAFT being stamped all over), and quite frankly, this kind of crap gets really old. I often include large photo and rendering galleries whenever I can. And I see the renderings and photos I work hard to get copied and pasted all the time on this site, I see my work referred to constantly, yet this is the same refrain over and over...


This gets old. REALLY OLD

Convention center design awaits decision on conference hotel site | News OK (http://newsok.com/convention-center-design-awaits-decision-on-conference-hotel-site/article/3771658)

Good article Steve. Clearly the City is all over the map on this and the City Council needs to start making some real decisions because they are planning to put a convention center on a site they don't even own yet and requires the construction of a hotel that 1) They don't have funding for, and 2) Needs a site purchased so they can figure out how much it is going to cost. BTW - I love the "hotel will block the view from downtown" comment. Translation - it will block the view from (probably more likely 'of') Devon Tower. No word if Devon compensated Oklahoma Tower for blocking its view. Finally, I have been saying it for a couple of year now and it has been confirmed - the Cox will go just as soon as the new convention center opens.

No word if Devon compensated Oklahoma Tower for blocking its view. Finally, I have been saying it for a couple of year now and it has been confirmed - the Cox will go just as soon as the new convention center opens.

That is funny you mentioned that.... I used to work in the Oklahoma Tower and my boss tried to negotiate a cheaper lease because of the Devon Tower blocking the view from his office.

I also don't see them taking into consideration the shallow water table. Architects don't think of the natural environment most times when building. This low water table will add to the cost enough to be a deal braker!

Perhaps Steve can explain why NewsOK posts like three pics at the most, regardless of the news story. There were lonly like three pics of the Pride Parade. Why? Is bandwidth limited? News organizations are struggling to survive yet the Oklahoman acts as if there's a photo ration for every story.

Wonder why people are using "new media" to get information?

What are they teaching now in journalism schools? Should the gatekeepers limit the public's access to visuals?

Seriously, there should be image galleries with multiple images per story. My iPhone takes better quality pics than many newspapers publish. The goal is to draw people to your site and keep them on there. Give them more photos and they'll spend more time on the site.

As an aside, they should make it easy for site visitors to upload their own images as well.

What does this have to do with the convention center and hotel ?

I'm not so sure Steve needs to explain anything here.

I still don't understand why that site is SO important that they are willing to go to the expense of putting exhibit halls and loading docks underground. Where does the idea that we can build a Taj Mahal for $250 million come from? Because if the exterior is not stunning, we're going to have a bland or ugly convention center that the locals could care less about sitting between two of our biggest showpieces: the Myriad Gardens and Central Park. I continue to be gobsmacked by this concept, and not in a good way.

Put it in East Bricktown and have the loading docks face the Staybridge Suites;)

I think the best option would be for the hotel to be located on the Cox site. Having a 25-30 story upscale hotel in the heart of downtown will spur private development in that area. Moreover, it would give Populous more options for designing the convention center as they would have more room. Putting the hotel anywere else by boulevard or Myriad Gardens won't spur private development as there is no room for anything significant. South of the boulevard will be mostly taken up by the new park, and most of the north side is taken up by Myriad Gardens and potentionally a new tower in the Stage Center area.

City leaders already messed up by locating the Covention Center where it did, let's see if they can at least do this right.

I still like the idea of putting the CC on the lumberyard and the hotel in the parking lot on the east side of E.K. Gaylord and West of U Haul building.


But it is pretty obvious they want it here, badly.

Here are the three options presented by Populous; image credit to the Oklahoman.

It looks like in all of them, the main exhibit hall(s) will be underground and extend under what is now Harvey, all the way to Hudson. At ground level between Harvey and Hudson there would be some sort of park / open space that attempts to bridge the Myriad Gardens and Central Park. Pink shown below would be possible future expansion.

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/cc1212.jpg



#1 Convention Hotel on the Cox site:

http://cdn2.newsok.biz/cache/r620-21a74a39db8224d31ef3331488927664.jpg




#2 Hotel on the north end of the proposed CC site:

http://cdn2.newsok.biz/cache/r620-b2955bd50657fab7e73ee3968082f016.jpg






#3 Hotel on the south end of the proposed CC site:

http://cdn2.newsok.biz/cache/r620-ae1a44997f84d627d957d703314704a0.jpg

http://cdn2.newsok.biz/cache/r620-799c6fc678ec9d3e884a454f1064f61d.jpg

Of course city leaders pick the worst option, Murphy's Law. I really like Option #1.

So, would they completely tear down the CCC to build the hotel on that site or just part of it and leave some of it as functioning space? I would love to see the hotel on the NE corner of the site with the smaller convention space to the west and the larger "contiguous" space on the southern part of the site. I don't like the hotel taking up full frontage facing the gardens or the new boulevard.

If the CC doesn't need the whole Ford site then that unused space should be used for private development - not more park land.

I like #1 as well and very glad to see it being considered.

It would create life on the eastern edge of the Myriad Gardens and bridge the CBD to points south.

However, if we are going to the expense of building on that site I think it's time to raze the entire Cox Center, return most of the street grid, and put out an RFP for private development. Proceeds could help with the hotel subsidy and a large parking structure could be incorporated as well.

Good article Steve. Clearly the City is all over the map on this and the City Council needs to start making some real decisions because they are planning to put a convention center on a site they don't even own yet and requires the construction of a hotel that 1) They don't have funding for, and 2) Needs a site purchased so they can figure out how much it is going to cost. BTW - I love the "hotel will block the view from downtown" comment. Translation - it will block the view from (probably more likely 'of') Devon Tower. No word if Devon compensated Oklahoma Tower for blocking its view. Finally, I have been saying it for a couple of year now and it has been confirmed - the Cox will go just as soon as the new convention center opens.

not close to "confirmed"

Of course city leaders pick the worst option, Murphy's Law. I really like Option #1.

I like option 1 best also - minus the addition of parkland.

not close to "confirmed"

Say what you want but we all know the ultimate outcome.

Convention center design awaits decision on conference hotel site | News OK (http://newsok.com/convention-center-design-awaits-decision-on-conference-hotel-site/article/3771658/?page=2)


“The (Cox) arena is the one asset in that facility that may have a longer life span,” said Michael Carrier, president of the Oklahoma City Convention and Visitors Bureau. “But once the new convention center is open, the majority of that old facility is obsolete.”


Heck, one plan (option 1) has them tearing down the meeting space at Cox before the new convention center is even open. Even the argument for keep the arena itself is on shaky ground because they are using old assumptions from the Big XII that no longer apply.

What does this have to do with the convention center and hotel ?

I'm not so sure Steve needs to explain anything here.

Actually, I've often wondered the same thing. Steve is pretty great about including photos, but others are not and it's annoying. When the Dallas Morning News redid their site, additional photos of everything were a large part of their revamp process and readers love it. Of course, the NewsOK site really needs some tweaking, but this is all for another thread.

I like option 1 if it just HAS to be on that site. But razing the entire Cox CC would be a hairy transition period.

Where would the Barons go? How about all the people who park underneath? I hope alternatives could be found, but I can see these questions [unfortunately] causing them to put this setup on the bottom of the choices.

And Yet More Discussion on the Convention Center | OKC Central (http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/2013/03/27/and-yet-more-discussion-on-the-convention-center/)

More Renderings of Possible Lay-outs for the New Convention Center | OKC Central (http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/2013/03/27/more-renderings-of-possible-lay-outs-for-the-new-convention-center/)

My hope is that any effort to demolish a portion of the Cox Convention Center to make way for the new hotel will take into account the future possibility of complete demolition of the Cox Center for redevelopment. I agree with the comments regarding the waning need for two arenas and this "superblock" is prime real estate.

Please take a look at the concept created by the OU School of Architecture's OKC Studio a couple of years ago. They proposed restoring the street grid in hopes of spurring four blocks of mixed use development in between the CBD, future intermodal hub, Myriad Gardens and CHK Arena. Broadway would be a vehicular street with two lanes and parallel parking while California Ave. would act as a pedestrian-only thoroughfare linking Bricktown (via the Santa Fe station) to the Myriad Gardens. If OKC ever has a chance at an upscale retailer downtown, this concept would provide its best opportunity.

It would be fairly easy to incorporate the convention center hotel into the SW block of the redeveloped Cox Site. Visitors could arrive via train to the intermodal hub and enjoy shopping and restaurants within the 4 block vicinity.

In my opinion, it would be a mistake for a new convention center hotel to be arranged on the existing Cox site in a way that prevents the future restoration of California Ave.

3550

Say what you want but we all know the ultimate outcome.

Convention center design awaits decision on conference hotel site | News OK (http://newsok.com/convention-center-design-awaits-decision-on-conference-hotel-site/article/3771658/?page=2)



Heck, one plan (option 1) has them tearing down the meeting space at Cox before the new convention center is even open. Even the argument for keep the arena itself is on shaky ground because they are using old assumptions from the Big XII that no longer apply.

that was actually option/scheme 3 not 1 ..

Completely agree, this would also allow for the Convention Center hotel to gain a little more height


My hope is that any effort to demolish a portion of the Cox Convention Center to make way for the new hotel will take into account the future possibility of complete demolition of the Cox Center for redevelopment. I agree with the comments regarding the waning need for two arenas and this "superblock" is prime real estate.

Please take a look at the concept created by the OU School of Architecture's OKC Studio a couple of years ago. They proposed restoring the street grid in hopes of spurring four blocks of mixed use development in between the CBD, future intermodal hub, Myriad Gardens and CHK Arena. Broadway would be a vehicular street with two lanes and parallel parking while California Ave. would act as a pedestrian-only thoroughfare linking Bricktown (via the Santa Fe station) to the Myriad Gardens. If OKC ever has a chance at an upscale retailer downtown, this concept would provide its best opportunity.

It would be fairly easy to incorporate the convention center hotel into the SW block of the redeveloped Cox Site. Visitors could arrive via train to the intermodal hub and enjoy shopping and restaurants within the 4 block vicinity.

In my opinion, it would be a mistake for a new convention center hotel to be arranged on the existing Cox site in a way that prevents the future restoration of California Ave.

3550

Maybe at the new intersection of Broadway and California they could put it some kind of small traffic circle with a decorative feature in the middle and call it Cox Circle and the 4 block area would just become known as the Cox District or something. Naming places helps build a sense of place. Retail options would be off the chart. Putting back in the grid will create a mile of new street frontage.

Also, such a solution may circumvent the fact that MAPS3 funds cannot be used to purchase land for the hotel - the city already owns the land underneath the Cox Center. The opportunity to develop an entire block or multi-block area with a large hotel might be more attractve for a national real estate developer (Hines, Forest City, Trammell Crow, etc.) than simply taking on the hotel alone.

Great posts, huskysooner!

Here is a full-sized version of the OU proposal and this concept is more important than ever with the soon-to-be multi-modal Santa Fe station.

They could easily put the hotel on the SW corner of the Cox property, reopen California and break up that awful super-block.

http://www.okctalk.com/attachments/urban-development-buildings/3550d1364398959-convention-center-hotel-cox-site-re-design.jpg

Also, such a solution may circumvent the fact that MAPS3 funds cannot be used to purchase land for the hotel - the city already owns the land underneath the Cox Center. The opportunity to develop an entire block or multi-block area with a large hotel might be more attractve for a national real estate developer (Hines, Forest City, Trammell Crow, etc.) than simply taking on the hotel alone.

the statemnet that maps 3 funds can't be used to buy CC hotel land is simply untrue ... maps 3 funds can be used for any city capital project ... and i would bet the voters would view a CC hotel as part of the CC project in any regard so i don't think it would even violate the spirit of the maps 3 vote (with the list of projects passed by council resolution)

My hope is that any effort to demolish a portion of the Cox Convention Center to make way for the new hotel will take into account the future possibility of complete demolition of the Cox Center for redevelopment. I agree with the comments regarding the waning need for two arenas and this "superblock" is prime real estate.

Please take a look at the concept created by the OU School of Architecture's OKC Studio a couple of years ago. They proposed restoring the street grid in hopes of spurring four blocks of mixed use development in between the CBD, future intermodal hub, Myriad Gardens and CHK Arena. Broadway would be a vehicular street with two lanes and parallel parking while California Ave. would act as a pedestrian-only thoroughfare linking Bricktown (via the Santa Fe station) to the Myriad Gardens. If OKC ever has a chance at an upscale retailer downtown, this concept would provide its best opportunity.

It would be fairly easy to incorporate the convention center hotel into the SW block of the redeveloped Cox Site. Visitors could arrive via train to the intermodal hub and enjoy shopping and restaurants within the 4 block vicinity.

In my opinion, it would be a mistake for a new convention center hotel to be arranged on the existing Cox site in a way that prevents the future restoration of California Ave.

3550

This is a wonderful idea and I would fully support it as it makes perfect sense. Unfortunately, this means OKC will not even begin to consider such designs.

Also, such a solution may circumvent the fact that MAPS3 funds cannot be used to purchase land for the hotel - the city already owns the land underneath the Cox Center. The opportunity to develop an entire block or multi-block area with a large hotel might be more attractve for a national real estate developer (Hines, Forest City, Trammell Crow, etc.) than simply taking on the hotel alone.

Not only that, but there would be 3 new blocks the city could sell that would raise some funds for the CC - or at least attract some serious development.

Not only that, but there would be 3 new blocks the city could sell that would raise some funds for the CC - or at least attract some serious development.

I was thinking the same thing. If the city plays it right, there could be a big win-win here. Give that part to the hotel developer as incentive and sell off the rest for redevelopment.

If there ever would be a great place to build up retail with new construction, that is it. It would be equally accessible from the CBD and Convention Center / Arena, as well as into the Bricktown and Deep Deuce Areas. It would also be right in the middle of all the largest hotels downtown, so between the work day labor force, event / game attendees, tourists, conventioneers, and downtown residences, a block of shops and restaurants where Broadway would go to Reno shouldn't have any trouble having traffic counts that appeal to retailers.

...and direct access to streetcar and regional rail.

...and direct access to streetcar and regional rail.

yep. The more I think about it, the more obvious it becomes that such a move is as about as close to a slam dunk as you can get. It would not only undue the damage done by creating another superblock, but actually be the final piece needed to make downtown a fully rounded urban district. It's certainly something into which I would put money, given the opportunity.

This might seem like a little question in the grand scheme of things, but where would the Barons play if there was no more CCC? Plan to play home games when the Thunder are away? Maybe the state fairgrounds arena?

They would play at the Chesapeake Arena. It only takes a couple of hours to switch over. Dozens of teams in the NBA and NHL share arenas (and some share with 3 teams). The Thunder can play at 3PM on Saturday and the Barons can play that night.

They would play at the Chesapeake Arena. It only takes a couple of hours to switch over. Dozens of teams in the NBA and NHL share arenas (and some share with 3 teams). The Thunder can play at 3PM on Saturday and the Barons can play that night.


more likely the cox site is the site for the new downtown arena coming soon to OKC (2030 at the latest)

more likely the cox site is the site for the new downtown arena coming soon to OKC (2030 at the latest)

I'll bet that would go south of the current arena or maybe even on the Bricktown Events site if it is still a surface parking lot in 2030. The Cox site won't sit unused until 2030.

This might seem like a little question in the grand scheme of things, but where would the Barons play if there was no more CCC? Plan to play home games when the Thunder are away? Maybe the state fairgrounds arena?

depends upon cost of a contract to play there... if the cheasapeake arena is willing to work with them on a price... then yes, it will be there. the houston rockets and the AHL Houston Aeros share a stadium, the Spurs and the AHL Rampage share... so we could as well, as long as the contract works. I still think there is a need for a cheaper arena in this city as well, and i think it should be at the fairgrounds. the arena there now is really in bad shape when you get to looking at it, and so i'm not sure if renovation is the right move, or as i have said before, perhaps this is something for MAPS IV is a demo and rebuilding of the fairgrounds arena. it's about the right size, just an awkward configuration, and needs some massive renovations and amenities.

depends upon cost of a contract to play there... if the cheasapeake arena is willing to work with them on a price... then yes, it will be there. the houston rockets and the AHL Houston Aeros share a stadium, the Spurs and the AHL Rampage share... so we could as well, as long as the contract works. I still think there is a need for a cheaper arena in this city as well, and i think it should be at the fairgrounds. the arena there now is really in bad shape when you get to looking at it, and so i'm not sure if renovation is the right move, or as i have said before, perhaps this is something for MAPS IV is a demo and rebuilding of the fairgrounds arena. it's about the right size, just an awkward configuration, and needs some massive renovations and amenities.

I am curious what the funds for the fairgrounds from MAPS 3 are going to be used for. Could they use $5 million to do a nice upgrade to it? Would that be enough? Too little? Would it take too much away from a new expo building? Lots of questions...

Attaching the CC hotel to the CC sounds convenient, but it looks like it would "cut off" downtown from the central park. Almost like a wall. I'm no expert on this stuff but thats how I see it. It just doesn't seem like a good idea.

depends upon cost of a contract to play there... if the cheasapeake arena is willing to work with them on a price... then yes, it will be there. the houston rockets and the AHL Houston Aeros share a stadium, the Spurs and the AHL Rampage share... so we could as well, as long as the contract works. I still think there is a need for a cheaper arena in this city as well, and i think it should be at the fairgrounds. the arena there now is really in bad shape when you get to looking at it, and so i'm not sure if renovation is the right move, or as i have said before, perhaps this is something for MAPS IV is a demo and rebuilding of the fairgrounds arena. it's about the right size, just an awkward configuration, and needs some massive renovations and amenities.

The Barons only average about 4k a game. I'm not saying a new arena at the fairgrounds is a bad idea, but I wouldn't pay for it just for the Barons. Given that the Cox arena is no looker, I doubt the state fair arena would be much of a difference. However, I am not sure what it can be configured for.

Ultimately, I don't think the Barons are a good enough reason on their own to not tear down the Cox Center. If there was a good plan to redevelop that land for a convention hotel and urban retail district and tearing down the arena meant the departure of the Barons, well, I wouldn't have much problem with that.

I'll bet that would go south of the current arena or maybe even on the Bricktown Events site if it is still a surface parking lot in 2030. The Cox site won't sit unused until 2030.

IMO the new arena will be completed by 2030 maps 5 vote around 2024 the new CC won't be finished until 2020ish thus the cox site would only "sit unused" for 4 years and in reality it would still be used during that time period

I'll bet that would go south of the current arena or maybe even on the Bricktown Events site if it is still a surface parking lot in 2030. The Cox site won't sit unused until 2030.

The BEC location would be very cool. It would create a nice little sports complex.

The only bad part is that it would put Bass Pro in its front yard.

The BEC location would be very cool. It would create a nice little sports complex.

The only bad part is that it would put Bass Pro in its front yard.

Let's just hope they are gone by that time and we can redevelop that area as well.

Let's just hope they are gone by that time and we can redevelop that area as well.

Maybe we could just put it there and integrate the canal into the arena site plan.

Alas, you have given me too much to hope for...

I am curious what the funds for the fairgrounds from MAPS 3 are going to be used for. Could they use $5 million to do a nice upgrade to it? Would that be enough? Too little? Would it take too much away from a new expo building? Lots of questions...

Pete had a Fairgrounds thread that showed the MAPS3 plans.
State Fairgrounds - OKCTalk (http://www.okctalk.com/showwiki.php?title=State+Fairgrounds) ... and in the header:

The MAPS 3 Fairground Improvement projects will consist of a new Expo Building, which will replace aging event buildings that are used year round, along with additional parking and relocation of a portion of the carnival/midway area. The proposed projects will be constructed in two phases, Phase 1 – Parking and Site Improvements and Phase 2 – New Expo Building. The budget for Phase 1 is $4,716,000 and the budget for Phase 2 is $53,974,000 for a total Fairgrounds budget of $58,690,000.
From the Chesapeake Arena (http://www.okctalk.com/showwiki.php?title=OKC+Chesapeake+Arena) thread:


First, having minor league sports isn't the same as having a major sports team... Second, there is serious talk of tearing down the Myriad. It'll probably be gone within 10 years IMHO.

exactly... which is why i just hope something is done at the fairgrounds for a Cox Center sized arena (either improve the one that's there or build new) for the minor league sports, before the Cox Center is demo'd, possibly for a new NBA arena

The current state fair arena holds 11k. Not sure what it can be configured for, but that should be enough for any minor league team.

The arena itself, though, needs some serious updates. I'll bet the city would get more bang for its buck by demo-ing it and building a better one. I fully agree with JediCurt. I love hockey in OKC, but looking at the Cox/Myriad and thinking of what a waste of good CBD real estate that is, I think it's time to embrace the suck of the Cox/Myriad going away, set up the State Fairgrounds Arena for greater success and move the Barons there. Make sure it can accommodate a good concert, too, and maybe OKC wouldn't be whining so much about missing out on all the concerts that go to the BOk (even though I think that's just perception, not reality).
I really think that the Cox Convention Center should become the prime real estate that it is and put the new convention center there, per some of the pictures above.

They would play at the Chesapeake Arena. It only takes a couple of hours to switch over. Dozens of teams in the NBA and NHL share arenas (and some share with 3 teams). The Thunder can play at 3PM on Saturday and the Barons can play that night.

The Thunder will play at the specified TV contract time, the Barons would fill the void.

Why does OKC think they have to re-invent the wheel for every little issue. The rest of the international sports world has figured out how to have two teams play in the same arena. People in OKC are smart, they can figure it out also.

Why does OKC think they have to re-invent the wheel for every little issue. The rest of the international sports world has figured out how to have two teams play in the same arena. People in OKC are smart, they can figure it out also.

I don't think it's reinventing the wheel. I think we have 3 arenas now and can easily go down to two, but the runt of the litter (the State Fairground Arena) needs to be reno'd or demo'd/rebuilt in order to be part of the team. It's a win for the city, too, I think, spreading the entertainment part of the city all along the Oklahoma River, from the Fairgrounds to the new whitewater facility. The problem with forcing the Barons to the 'Peake is cost. If the 'Peake is willing to cut 'em a deal, then no worries. If not and the State Fairground Arena goes unchanged, say goodbye to NHL affliate hockey.

I don't think it's reinventing the wheel. I think we have 3 arenas now and can easily go down to two, but the runt of the litter (the State Fairground Arena) needs to be reno'd or demo'd/rebuilt in order to be part of the team. It's a win for the city, too, I think, spreading the entertainment part of the city all along the Oklahoma River, from the Fairgrounds to the new whitewater facility. The problem with forcing the Barons to the 'Peake is cost. If the 'Peake is willing to cut 'em a deal, then no worries. If not and the State Fairground Arena goes unchanged, say goodbye to NHL affliate hockey.

The fairgrounds arena primarily serves the horse show community. It is adjacent to the horse barn facilities which are state of the art. The 8 major horse shows have a 181,000,000.00 impact on Oklahoma City annually. This is not something that would be a good fit for the river. If anything the horse show people love the Stockyards.

The fairgrounds arena primarily serves the horse show community. It is adjacent to the horse barn facilities which are state of the art. The 8 major horse shows have a 181,000,000.00 impact on Oklahoma City annually.

Which is why it makes more sense to consider their needs than the needs of a sports team with average attendance of 4k and no meaningful TV contract.


The problem with forcing the Barons to the 'Peake is cost. If the 'Peake is willing to cut 'em a deal, then no worries. If not and the State Fairground Arena goes unchanged, say goodbye to NHL affliate hockey.

If it's between a minor league hockey team and major league development, I will take the latter every time.

I still don't understand why people are so damn set on having the convention center there. It's incredibly expensive land. We'll eat up the entire convention center budget just to buy the land. If we are planning on tearing down the Myriad anyway, why not just a direct replacement? The proposed convention center appears, to my untrained eye, to be significantly smaller than the Myriad (probably due to lack of an arena). We could bulldoze the Myriad, restore the street grid, sell off some of the land, build a convention center and hotel, and we're golden.

I'd bet you could design the convention center to take up the land from California to Reno, put the hotel on the border of the Myriad Gardens between California and Sheridan, and open up the remaining half of the space. This idea probably won't get as many kudos as huskysooner's idea, but I don't like the idea of spending an arm and a leg for land that's right next door to land the city already owns.

I wouldn't be surprised to see Devon and/or Larry Nichols sponsor the convention center in order to offset land costs and the expense of building the main exhibit halls underground.

Nichols really, really wants this to happen... He was overheard just this week saying it was his next big priority. He is the big driver on that committee and in OKC in general and I'm sure he is working hard to get this done. The last thing he would want is to re-open the issue of location and start going backwards in this process.

And clearly, these proposals alone represent yet more investment of both time and energy in that site, so it's probably time to concede that is where it is going to be built and start thinking about the related issues like the hotel, Cox Center, layout and design of the CC itself, etc.

I wouldn't be surprised to see Devon and/or Larry Nichols sponsor the convention center in order to offset land costs and the expense of building the main exhibit halls underground.

Nichols really, really wants this to happen... He was overheard just this week saying it was his next big priority. He is the big driver on that committee and in OKC in general and I'm sure he is working hard to get this done. The last thing he would want is to re-open the issue of location and start going backwards in this process.

And clearly, just these proposals along represent yet more investment in that site, so it's probably time to concede that is where it is going to be built and start thinking about the related issues like the hotel, Cox Center, layout and design of the CC itself, etc.

Why is Nichols so driven to have this done? What makes this project so personal to him that he's going to such lengths to see that it moves forward so quickly?

Nichols has been a big proponent of the CC from the very beginning. He and several other key leaders believe it's a key piece of the puzzle in moving the city forward.

He also clearly has a great love for the Myriad Gardens, since that was set as the first priority for the Devon-tax driven Project 180, and I bet he sees it as a centerpiece around which important new elements should be arranged: the Devon Complex, the nearby Preftakes block, the CC and you can bet he's been involved with whatever is going to happen on the Stage Center site.

The whole P180 thing came from him wanting to totally transform downtown OKC and make it a place for world-class company HQ's and amenities. The CC is clearly a big part of his vision.

Which is why it makes more sense to consider their needs than the needs of a sports team with average attendance of 4k and no meaningful TV contract.



If it's between a minor league hockey team and major league development, I will take the latter every time.


is it not possible to consider the needs of both? isn't diversity and use much better than just having something sit empty on a given night? I agree... i don't think that building a whole new arena just for the barons is even a remotely good idea... but combining the number of events that happen in the cox arena and the fairgrounds arena into a single arena that is able to support and accommodate both, only makes sense to me... this city has 3 arenas, and we don't need that many, so why not make sure that our second arena is usable for a multitude of events, rather than just one. That just seems like getting the most bang for your buck, which is something this city should look at when it comes to development and re-development

Great posts, huskysooner!

Here is a full-sized version of the OU proposal and this concept is more important than ever with the soon-to-be multi-modal Santa Fe station.

They could easily put the hotel on the SW corner of the Cox property, reopen California and break up that awful super-block.

This is the route I would like to see the city go. Build the new CC and the CCH on the same superblock with a canyon like garden/greenspace on the Harvey Spine connecting the two parks, have the Cox Convention Center superblock returned to 4 separate blocks with California either being a thru street or a pedestian only gateway (like it is between Hudson & Walker) and have Broadway brought down to the Chesapeake Arena. Seems like a logical choice to me!


More Renderings of Possible Lay-outs for the New Convention Center | OKC Central (http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/2013/03/27/more-renderings-of-possible-lay-outs-for-the-new-convention-center/)

Has anyone not noticed that the hotel in Scheme 1 is hanging out in to the alignment of the new boulevard??? That hotel is waaaaaaaaaaaaay too fat! They need to swing it over where the hotel is to the west in the "expansion blocks" and the convention center is on the blocks between Robinson & Hudson with a greenway/space on the Harvey Spine.

Why they city does not come to okctalk/THINK TANK is beyond me, but there are some awesome ideas here that I guarantee the dead heads spinning these rendering have not even considered!

is it not possible to consider the needs of both? isn't diversity and use much better than just having something sit empty on a given night? I agree... i don't think that building a whole new arena just for the barons is even a remotely good idea... but combining the number of events that happen in the cox arena and the fairgrounds arena into a single arena that is able to support and accommodate both, only makes sense to me... this city has 3 arenas, and we don't need that many, so why not make sure that our second arena is usable for a multitude of events, rather than just one. That just seems like getting the most bang for your buck, which is something this city should look at when it comes to development and re-development

Yes, but you have to look at he opportunity costs too to evaluate value for the dollar. The cox center is a waste of space and a huge obstruction in downtown's flow. This will be mostly duplicated in another super block when the new convention center is built. If having such a facility built that way is a necessity for the city (and that already seems decided), then, IMO, redeveloping the four square blocks on which the cox center sits could be much more valuable than anything the cox center arena can attract. If we needed anything other than what is sitting at the state fair, then I think it should be done there because there is no opportunity cost as you can't really do much else with the land.