This is why I have to stop getting so worked up over this whole thing. The CC isn't going on the Ford site anyhow.

yes it will but the city may half to do a land swap or find another way to come up with the money for the land ..

and i predict that they will say that the hotel land was not part of maps 3 (or something like that) to justify the added cost

A bar/gastro pub I would bet is a sure-fire thing in the Hotel and not the convention center, as might be a coffee shop (for a hotel that large).

I think they should push the Convention Center to Hudson and put a restaurant on the east side of the CC with a nice patio space in between the Hotel and the CC. They could make the "center piece" an ornate covered walkway between the two buildings with some sort of iconic structure involved in the structure: on top of the walk way, as a center piece inside the walk way, or any variety of alternative ideas. That would help the issue of convention goers going back and forth between the Hotel (which is sure to have meeting rooms) and the CC in "the elements".

Now, finish the hall, tear down the Cox center halls and develop the east side of the gardens and this is a home run.

So, the loading docks are now across the street from the above-ground portion of the CC. I like how they depicted a nice, fat parking lot to front our new boulevard and the Hudson intersection. All for the sake of keeping those loading docks out of sight. Wow, hopefully that is purely conceptual because I'm pretty sure loading docks don't need a Walmart sized parking lot to be functional. Lord.

Fourth: I've not heard the subcommittee mention the streetcar system at all in the several months. They're under the assumption the two will come together, and they've left that discussion up to the streetcar subcommittee.

Roy Williams brought up the streetcar and transit connectivity at their March meeting. You must have forgotten.

There was discussion as to whether the streetcar could connect the alternate proposed hotel site at the the SW corner of Robinson/OKC Boulevard to the Ford CC site.

Obviously with the new site plan, that March discussion, (should these plans move further forward) is irrelevant now.

However, irregardless of whether the streetcar ends up with a Boulevard/Robinson or Boulevard/Hudson alignment, the Ford Dealership CC and hotel site will be well served by streetcar.

One thing that does strike me, what sort of discussion has been had about restoring the actual Harvey street grid there and pushing the building frontages up to the property line for streetwalls? I mean, that would be a true urban design. But yeah, I guess a "plaza" is better for convention planners and easy pedestrian activity.

I vehemently disagree. Committees getting tunnel vision on their own project is how we ended up tearing up downtown streets twice in a matter of a few years (Project 180 and MAPS Streetcar) and costing taxpayers a ton of cash. I really appreciate it when people in charge of MAPS implementation
take a holistic view of things.

Its a shame that they are going to tear up a brand new P180 Hudson to do this. As pointed out in many threads, the absence of Russel Claus and the Planning Department as a whole, is becoming all that more palpable. It's extremely unfortunate. Streetcar advocates and the Subcommittee did everything they could with regards to coordinating with P180 as well. But undeniably, we are going to tear up a bunch of streets because of the earlier unwillingness to slow P180 to match up with where we ended.

But, it does seem as though advocates' success in delaying the Boulevard, and the coincidental timing of these remaining projects, offer many opportunities for efficiencies. And it does seem that all of the MAPS 3 consultants are now in the same room talking to one another. Undoubtedly, this will save money and create better value for the taxpayer in the final MAPS 3 product.

So, have the architects given any hints at how much it will cost to build having so much underground with our clay soils and the river being 90% underground only a half mile away? I still can't believe they are doing all this design work and haven't even made an offer on the land? They are also planning on street parking to the west? Really?

These plans are horrible for that site. What a waste of land. A 80% of the time dead space in the heart of our downtown!

Then trying to make a connection with the park across a busy freeway... boulevard? How safe is that?

These are the from the consultants... Shows the latest concept.

I agree, this is the best alternative I've seen so far and really like how the hotel brings life to Robinson:


http://www.okctalk.com/attachments/urban-development-buildings/3666d1366899100-convention-center-hotel-cc42513a.jpg

This. This I like.

I'd have my bets that parking lot would be a future site of a parking garage.

I'd have my bets that parking lot would be a future site of a parking garage.

I hope not. A parking garage taking up an entire block of the new boulevard isn't the last thing OKC needs, but it is darn close to it. Frankly, I am stunned that anyone on OKCTalk (save Rover and Popsey) likes anything they see in this plan. I don't know if the past proposal have been so bad that this looks good or if people are just mesmerized by colorful pictures, but this design is a disaster on almost every level and I am more than a little disconcerted that the major site plan consideration is if Devon Tower is visable from the river or not.

Considering the alternatives....it's a pretty decent site plan. With some basic modifications it will be acceptable. If they shift the convention center to the west to put it up against Hudson (or allow development of retail along that edge) would be my modification. I'd also try and keep the Harvey spine linear with the rest of the grid.

Unfortunately that won't happen.

I'd like to know the reasoning for all the angles/curves. They seem like meaningless architectural va-va-voom.

With so much setback from 3 of the surrounding 4 streets why does it have to take up 2/3 of the old I-40 right-of-way causing the new boulevard to deflect south? It make the new multi-million dollar entrance of the arena over 200' from the new boulevard.

Frankly, I am stunned that anyone on OKCTalk (save Rover and Popsey) likes anything they see in this plan....

I am more than a little disconcerted that the major site plan consideration is if Devon Tower is visable from the river or not.

LOL. Thanks for the shout out.

As for the Devon tower, I am sure this is just another Larry Nichols ego move and a conspiracy by the city fathers and anti urban fat cats. That's the only answer.


It seems like there is no acceptable answer to some except to just cancel the CC, cancel parking garages, cancel getting businesses downtown, and just make everything a big apartment complex.

This plan seems like it can be tweaked to provide the urbanist elements needed, but is otherwise a fairly pragmatic solution. It reduces sight blockage between the parks a great deal and gets us a nice full service hotel facility in downtown in a very serviceable and accessible area. It allows us to use the Cox until this is complete and then to tear it down and re-develop that site with better urban design and utilization. It isn't urbana nirvana, but then we couldn't get agreement as to what that is anyway.

I am not nearly as opposed to the Ford dealer site as I used to be (after all - civic buildings should be give a high profile so it builds community pride - among other things) and I still think the economics and engineering will win out (I don't care if they did build an underground convention space in the desert - it wasn't as deep as this and it wasn't in an old riverbed with a large amount of underground water) but if they are going to build it here then this plan is just as bad, if not worse, than the previous ones. As for visual interruption between the two parks - the average human is like 5'7'' so anything higher than that would be a visual interruption - it makes no difference if it is a 2 story convention center vs. a 3 story convention center or a 17 story hotel vs. a 20 story hotel - unless - the person doing the viewing or the thing be viewed ISN'T at ground level.

I'd like to know the reasoning for all the angles/curves. They seem like meaningless architectural va-va-voom.

Emphatic +1!

LOL. Thanks for the shout out.

As for the Devon tower, I am sure this is just another Larry Nichols ego move and a conspiracy by the city fathers and anti urban fat cats. That's the only answer.


It seems like there is no acceptable answer to some except to just cancel the CC, cancel parking garages, cancel getting businesses downtown, and just make everything a big apartment complex.

This plan seems like it can be tweaked to provide the urbanist elements needed, but is otherwise a fairly pragmatic solution. It reduces sight blockage between the parks a great deal and gets us a nice full service hotel facility in downtown in a very serviceable and accessible area. It allows us to use the Cox until this is complete and then to tear it down and re-develop that site with better urban design and utilization. It isn't urbana nirvana, but then we couldn't get agreement as to what that is anyway.

I agree, it seems impossible to make everyone happy. I love the positive aspects of this whole thing. I am looking forward to having a completed convention center with a new hotel. As for the specifics of the plan, I have no control over it and have confidence that it will all turn out fine. I have heard all the negative stuff before with the first MAPS and if some people would have gotten their way. We would not be playing NBA basketball in OKC. No arguments here, just my viewpoint.

I only know of 1 person on OKCTalk who has voiced support for or advocated the no-build option.

LOL. Thanks for the shout out.

As for the Devon tower, I am sure this is just another Larry Nichols ego move and a conspiracy by the city fathers and anti urban fat cats. That's the only answer.


It seems like there is no acceptable answer to some except to just cancel the CC, cancel parking garages, cancel getting businesses downtown, and just make everything a big apartment complex.

This plan seems like it can be tweaked to provide the urbanist elements needed, but is otherwise a fairly pragmatic solution. It reduces sight blockage between the parks a great deal and gets us a nice full service hotel facility in downtown in a very serviceable and accessible area. It allows us to use the Cox until this is complete and then to tear it down and re-develop that site with better urban design and utilization. It isn't urbana nirvana, but then we couldn't get agreement as to what that is anyway.

Your snide hyperbole is tiresome. Seriously give it a rest.

There are many architects / designers who participate on this board with extensive training and experience. Why ignore people who do this for a living? I'm not aware that your background provides you special insight on the design of large public facilities (correct me if I'm wrong).

And last I checked, this is a discussion board. Your attempt to mute discussion by patronizing nearly everyone who comments here violates the ethos of this community.

I think it's a barely acceptable plan made necessary by a poor location, but I'm no architect, just an opinionated person. I think we probably need a new convention center, but I think there are better locations that almost assuredly have cheaper construction costs.

I still can't believe they are doing all this design work and they still haven't made an offer for the land.

^
These are just basic concepts. Very little if any designs have been done. Thats just how big projects work.

They also know the approximate range of land costs, because worse case this would head to eminent domain and arbitration.

They've already gone through this process dozens of times for Central Park and all the previous downtown MAPS projects, so they already have a good idea what they can expect to pay.

No doubt, the owners will ask for some absurd amount, just like with the Santa Fe Station. But the City won't take a lot of time with back-and-forth; they will make what they feel is a good faith offer then pursue legal avenues if they feel the owners are not being reasonable.

They also know the approximate range of land costs, because worse case this would head to eminent domain and arbitration.


I wonder what that would do the MAPS III timeline and then what happens if they buy the land and then figure out they can't afford to build any of these underground halls. If it wasn't for the members of the committee being dead-set on underground halls I would think we were in store for one giant bait and switch.

The design is a failure if they don't push the convention center to the west at least 70% closer to Hudson. That's a simple fix. Having a "park-like" area line a street is asinine when you can have a park like area be an alley between the Hotel and CC that conveniently connects the MBG and MAPS Park.

This design is also a failure if it inhibits the ability to build on the Hudson/Walker/Boulevard/Reno blocks. A Parking garage on part of that land is acceptable. The unfortunate thing is that the underground exhibit hall is obviously going to impede the potential for any sort of substantive height on the north side of the block.

The design is a failure if they don't push the convention center to the west at least 70% closer to Hudson. That's a simple fix. Having a "park-like" area line a street is asinine when you can have a park like area be an alley between the Hotel and CC that conveniently connects the MBG and MAPS Park.

This design is also a failure if it inhibits the ability to build on the Hudson/Walker/Boulevard/Reno blocks. A Parking garage on part of that land is acceptable. The unfortunate thing is that the underground exhibit hall is obviously going to impede the potential for any sort of substantive height on the north side of the block.

Yeah it is sort of bizarre to see the new plaza between Hudson and the CC when the biggest gripe with the whole thing is that it blockades a green strip from connecting core to shore. That's what happens when different parts of this MAPS3 planning process get divided up and contracted out to out of state planners who have no idea our goals as a community and haven't been a part of any holistic planning process.

While I would never call asinine the well-intended efforts of people seeking to build a better OKC in their own way, this convention center is still mushrooming out of a vacuum. This plaza thing, and while "they're just preliminary renderings," if this is a real idea that has any local backing or origination, is strange. By eliminating a problematic dead frontage we could possibly make this CC thing work within the bigger plan/goal of trying to connect core to shore with a landmark green spine.

This and everything else just underscores the question of whether we are serious or not with Core 2 Shore. It's not a question of whether people care, or are competent, or know how to design a convention center - the opposition needs to stop debating that and carry on a more positive dialog - but it is a question of how these MAPS3 pieces connect with each other and with what we've already built in the last 20 years.

I also don't understand why the hotel tower is pushed up toward Sheridan and not the Boulevard. It would seem as though you want to really arrange the massing in a way that builds up the Boulevard frontage, if we're serious about having a landmark Boulevard. I understand that the hotel model is the most tentative in nature of all these moving pieces, but in most cases when a city such as OKC does an RFP for hotel operators (which we'll have to dig deep and find some funding first) the planning model moves forward and evolved throughout the process, so the design will likely evolve from what we have here.

That was the case with Dallas' Omni Hotel. Indy also recently did a CC hotel and their RFP process was vastly different, with each hotel operator submitting their own designs along with specs and financing proposal. I tend to think OKC would go more of the Dallas route, although the Indy route would ensure a process in which there is more competition and creativity, and allow the public vetting to take into account all of these issues comparatively rather than just from reading a report paid for by the Chamber.

Being in the Hotel and Restaurant business for several years, I couldn't agree more with your observations. Including the Chamber to assist in decision making and to analyze the competitive climate would be the first step in the right direction. Does OKC have the demand for a Convention Center?

Spartan: may need to update your signature...Gary Marrs has left the building!

Does OKC have the demand for a Convention Center?

Excellent question. Too bad it is being ignored. As to the CC hotel ZERO public money should be involved. It will be interesting how much crow if any will be served on this forum and in the public domain if the CC is not a rousing success from day one?

Excellent question. Too bad it is being ignored. As to the CC hotel ZERO public money should be involved. It will be interesting how much crow if any will be served on this forum and in the public domain if the CC is not a rousing success from day one?

our current CC is being used and it is an embarrassment for a city our size to have such an outdated facility (to just stay relevant we need a new facility) .. as to the CC hotel .. it should be and will be partially (at least) publicly funded

Excellent question. Too bad it is being ignored. As to the CC hotel ZERO public money should be involved. It will be interesting how much crow if any will be served on this forum and in the public domain if the CC is not a rousing success from day one?

We should be able to capture close to 100% of the current Cox events. Beyond that I am not really sure what our target market is. However, I do know the Cox is sitting on some prime land that will produce 10X as much revenue to the city in the hands of the private sector as it does now.

However, I do know the Cox is sitting on some prime land that will produce 10X as much revenue to the city in the hands of the private sector as it does now.

Unfortunately the same thing will be said about the site chosen for the new CC. Although I think a modern CC will be a positive thing for OKC, I am still puzzled by the site selected. I think Mayor Cornett's preferred location was and is far better.

I'm not worried about the location of the new convention center. It isn't going on the Ford dealer site. It will end up going either in East Bricktown or right where the Mayor said.

I hope you are proven correct JTF.

Can you refresh my mind to where the mayor wanted the CC located? Was it the mill site? And, is their a graphic for prior considered locations?

Can you refresh my mind to where the mayor wanted the CC located? Was it the mill site? And, is their a graphic for prior considered locations?

Mayor Cornett preferred a site south of Chesapeake Arena and to the east of the MAPS3 park. This was the reason for including approx $30 million in MAPS for a contingency fund to relocate an OG&E substation.

That site simplifies many design issues such as loading dock location (facing BNSF viaduct) and would permit more money to be invested in making the CC a high quality venue.

Thanks CaptDave

But many on here bashed the mayor's idea. Acted like it was a good ole boy move. Doesn't look so bad now, I guess.

But many on here bashed the mayor's idea. Acted like it was a good ole boy move. Doesn't look so bad now, I guess.

I suppose there were some who didn't like that site, but I think the majority of people would prefer it over the Ford site. A poster, BG918, posted an excellent conceptual drawing of how a cc would fit the site south of the arena. Maybe it will end up there after all is said and done.

I don't really care for the current site myself...south of the Peake Arena would have been more ideal, IMO.

But of course, I don't like the CC idea in general haha...creates another super block...and im quite skeptical of the prospects of conventions in the next 20 years or so.

I think one of the main concerns of putting the CC south of arena was the proximity to restaurants and hotels, at least early on until the area was built up. Also, it would require tearing down some buildings people thought could be reused and the power station between 4&5 and Robinson. The idea of moving the convention center was that we wouldn't have to use the $30 million to move the sub station. Of course, as we know now, that is not the case.

But many on here bashed the mayor's idea. Acted like it was a good ole boy move. Doesn't look so bad now, I guess.

I always thought the substation block should be the preferred site. Not only does it make more sense to put the CC there due to the simple fact that it can be built above ground, but also because I think it's ridiculous to have a substation adjacent to your premier park. You lose an entire block of developable land, and I guarantee we'll be shocked by how much money it will cost to disguise it. I'd rather put that money towards moving the substation.

I'm not worried about the location of the new convention center. It isn't going on the Ford dealer site. It will end up going either in East Bricktown or right where the Mayor said.

Politically, I don't see the possibility of a change. It would probably be due to land costs or underground utility relocation costs if it were to happen.

Politically, I don't see the possibility of a change. It would probably be due to land costs or underground utility relocation costs if it were to happen.

That is what I am counting on. The cost to not only acquire the site, but the cost to actually build the convention center there will doom it. They are talking about having to go 50' or more below the surface.

i bet we will see a land swap under the guise of getting land for the CC hotel before we see a site change

i bet we will see a land swap under the guise of getting land for the CC hotel before we see a site change

That might solve the land acquisition cost but it does nothing to cover the construction cost - and that is what is going to break the bank. Here is my guess how the CC subcommittee hopes it goes down.

1) City does land swap + cash deal
2) Find out it cost too much to build on site
3) MAPS IIIB - finish the CC Right Campaign comes to life (includes regional rail funding to get the masses aboard)
4) City issues bonds against future MAPS IIIB funds so they can keep CC on schedule

Why that plan won't happen: People aren't stupid and MAPS IIIB doesn't pass

How it should happen

1) City realizes the site is a bad choice from a cost/benefit perspective
2) Picks new site

I don't think that the underground is as big of a dealbreaker as you might think. Utility relocation yes. Basements these days, no.

I don't think that the underground is as big of a dealbreaker as you might think. Utility relocation yes. Basements these days, no.

You are talking about a basement covering several acres with 35' ceilings and little to no interior columns with at least 2 floors over the top of it - for less than $250 million.

JTF- I'm talking about the earlier claims that the water table and former riverbed would make the project cost prohibitive. Whether the overall building complex can be built within budget remains to be seen.

My point, to be more blunt, is that the Cox CC has an underground parking garage across the street and that water mitigation technology has improved and become much cheaper.

My point, to be more blunt, is that the Cox CC has an underground parking garage across the street and that water mitigation technology has improved and become much cheaper.

I am not concerned about the water really. I am more concerned about how much it cost to hold back the earth at that depth. That will be some intense pressure pushing on a large open space. Also, look how many columns it takes in the Cox parking garage to hold up the COX building. I'm not saying it can't be done - modern engineering can do almost anything. I'm just saying it can't be done for $250 million. And of course, that is only for phase I. We have already been told a phase II would be required to meet the goals the Chamber put out on attracting big (and more) conventions.

An underground exhibit hall will cost more than an above ground hall, but the order of magnitude greater is likely not cost-prohibitive. (However, at the $/SF costs we might be looking at for the project, Even small premiums could be an issue) Ultimately, Populous has been "around the block" with these types of projects, so I trust their judgment.

Well, I am content to wait and see. We will all know for sure in about a year.

I always thought the substation block should be the preferred site. Not only does it make more sense to put the CC there due to the simple fact that it can be built above ground, but also because I think it's ridiculous to have a substation adjacent to your premier park. You lose an entire block of developable land, and I guarantee we'll be shocked by how much money it will cost to disguise it. I'd rather put that money towards moving the substation.
The cost to disguise it was significantly less than moving it. IIRC it was less than half???

What bout all the developable land along the length of the Park that you would lose if the CC had been placed there??

That might solve the land acquisition cost but it does nothing to cover the construction cost - and that is what is going to break the bank. Here is my guess how the CC subcommittee hopes it goes down.

1) City does land swap + cash deal
2) Find out it cost too much to build on site
3) MAPS IIIB - finish the CC Right Campaign comes to life (includes regional rail funding to get the masses aboard)
4) City issues bonds against future MAPS IIIB funds so they can keep CC on schedule

Why that plan won't happen: People aren't stupid and MAPS IIIB doesn't pass

How it should happen

1) City realizes the site is a bad choice from a cost/benefit perspective
2) Picks new site

That's debatable since the MAPS plans keep passing even though City leadership keeps lying about little things like everything being built as promised, on time & on budget. And the precedent for the Finish MAPS3 Right has been set. They did it with the Arena and subsequent NBA Improvement Tax. They set up the Convention Center into two phases (not to mention the unfunded CC hotel) so voters wouldn't balk at the true cost and make an unpopular project even more so, thus putting all of MAPS 3 in jeopardy.

That's debatable since the MAPS plans keep passing even though City leadership keeps lying about little things like everything being built as promised, on time & on budget. And the precedent for the Finish MAPS3 Right has been set. They did it with the Arena and subsequent NBA Improvement Tax. They set up the Convention Center into two phases (not to mention the unfunded CC hotel) so voters wouldn't balk at the true cost and make an unpopular project even more so, thus putting all of MAPS 3 in jeopardy.

It's only in jeopardy if they don't pull it off. MAPS has benefitted from being generally successful. There are some projects that didn't get completed on time, or that cost more than promised, but all I have to do is walk around Bricktown to see the positive impact it has had on our city. The average citizen expects a certain amount of under-performance and over-expense when it comes to government work. Surprise, this cost more than we thought, it didn't quite work out as planned. Until something is an unmitigated disaster, MAPS will continue to have public goodwill. The Thunder have assured that. Right now, to most Oklahoma Citians, MAPS = Thunder.

You make a good point Larry but I truly believe the Chamber did their best to hide the true cost, scope, and benefit of the convention center. For example, they predict a 900% increase in out of state conventions but they don't tell us that number is based on the second phase and the hotel being developed. There are many people under the impression that the MAPS III component of the convention center will increase conventions above what the COX does now. It might even lose business because the rent will go up which will push some local groups (the vast vast vast majority of current COX users) into other metro venues, or even out of the metro completely. Of course, what we also don't get told is the substantial subsidies that go into luring groups in the first place - which eat in to the supposed economic benefit (I don't know if OKC does that but it is common practice in the industry).

But like I said - I have time to wait and I hope the they put up a giant bronze plaque with everyone's names on it so we know who was responsible.

Now having said that, I still want a new convention center because I want to see the Cox site redeveloped (which might have been a better sales pitch for them to push in the first place)

That's debatable since the MAPS plans keep passing even though City leadership keeps lying about little things like everything being built as promised, on time & on budget. And the precedent for the Finish MAPS3 Right has been set. They did it with the Arena and subsequent NBA Improvement Tax. They set up the Convention Center into two phases (not to mention the unfunded CC hotel) so voters wouldn't balk at the true cost and make an unpopular project even more so, thus putting all of MAPS 3 in jeopardy.

You have a valid point but with that being said; I would vote YES for a finish MAPS3 right sales tax today. I look back on OKC 20 years ago and don't think about what we were back then but more importantly what we were not. We have become a greater place to live and finishing the arena as well as adding the NBA improvements were all a key part. It was a small price to pay.

That's debatable since the MAPS plans keep passing even though City leadership keeps lying about little things like everything being built as promised, on time & on budget. And the precedent for the Finish MAPS3 Right has been set. They did it with the Arena and subsequent NBA Improvement Tax. They set up the Convention Center into two phases (not to mention the unfunded CC hotel) so voters wouldn't balk at the true cost and make an unpopular project even more so, thus putting all of MAPS 3 in jeopardy.

Larry,
How many years are you going to keep this going ? This has beaten to death over and over again.

To the other posts: no one is disputing that MAPS was successful and that it brought it many times more in private development than what they anticipated or that it did change OKC for the better. That said, why keep lying about how it was done? Funny that someone mentioned "disaster" as that is exactly how our last 3 mayors collectively described it when projects are behind schedule, aren't built as promised and are over budget. "some projects that didn't get completed on time, or that cost more than promised". Some? See below

Bellaboo: As long as they keep repeating the lies (the City Manager did it again this past Sunday in the Oklahoman see below), i will keep pointing it out.

Thunder thrives in Oklahoma City | News OK (http://newsok.com/thunder-thrives-in-oklahoma-city/article/3791799)

Thunder thrives in Oklahoma City
April 28, 2013

"We really haven’t spent dollar one on MAPS 3…"

Really? While the City has only spent a small fraction of what was proposed (which would lead one to believe that projects are way behind schedule), according to the City's yearly budget reports over $12.8 million has been spent thru 2012. With over $107.7 million adopted for this year.

and the whopper…

"Can we get everything built with good quality, on time and on budget, like we’ve done in the past?"

If quality equates to what voters were told, this isn't true. Many instances of over promising and under delivering, cutting things back due to cost over-runs (yet still going over budget).

The getting everything built "on time and on budget" just simply isn't true either. Mr. Couch should know this since he has been there from the first MAPS thru the present (he was the MAPS manager before becoming City Manager).

"On budget"? Nope, not even close (according to what voters were told pre-vote and what the City says was spent on each project). Not a single MAPS project came in under or on budget. Every project came in over budget and some significantly so (the Canal was 2.5 times over budget). Overall, MAPS came in nearly 47.75% over budget.

The "on time" claim is also doubtful as many of the projects (if not all of them) were well behind schedule. Beginning with the Ballpark. It was over a year behind. That pushed other projects back, so I don't see how any of the projects could have been built "on time".

The cost to disguise it was significantly less than moving it. IIRC it was less than half???

What bout all the developable land along the length of the Park that you would lose if the CC had been placed there??

But, you then have the current proposed site for the CC to develop as well. If I'm doing math correctly, if you remove the substation, no matter where you put the CC center, you increase the land around the park available for development. Of course it's going to cost more to move the substation than to hide it, but you gain prized developable land you can sell as well. In many cities, the land around major parks is prime real estate.