Betts: I agree but didn't you just say you wanted the CC to go there, that means you are eliminating "prime real estate" from being developed with higher ROI...the current site takes up the width of the park instead of the length, right? I don't think it should be fronting any of the Park. Will the higher cost of removing the substation be covered by any development revenue gained?

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.

It could have pleanty of interior columns without taking away from the space. I know george r brown in Houston does and it's much larger than this will be.

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??

If the CC is pushed east so that the loading docks are adjacent to Shields, then build the CC hotel on the "cloverleaf" site, there would be plenty of room for mixed use development along Robinson facing the park.

It could have pleanty of interior columns without taking away from the space. I know george r brown in Houston does and it's much larger than this will be.

Yep, I receive a PM to look at the Cleveland Convention Center which is underground and they were able to use a limited number of very large columns. However, the big difference is that the George R Brown and the Cleveland Convention Center don't have 2 story buildings and a hotel above them. All their support beams have to hold up is the roof.

Yep, I receive a PM to look at the Cleveland Convention Center which is underground and they were able to use a limited number of very large columns. However, the big difference is that the George R Brown and the Cleveland Convention Center don't have 2 story buildings and a hotel above them. All their support beams have to hold up is the roof.

I'm pretty sure george r brown has one story worth of conference and exhibit space and a mini arena type thing above the main convention hall. It's 3 stories, big exhibit hall on bottom, second story is on top of part of the exhibit hall and overlooks the higher ceiling portion, and the third floor is over both the 2nd floor and the 2 story tall part of the main exhibit hall. Granted its not two stories on top, but the 3rd floor does have about 20-30 foot ceilings.

Yep, I receive a PM to look at the Cleveland Convention Center which is underground and they were able to use a limited number of very large columns. However, the big difference is that the George R Brown and the Cleveland Convention Center don't have 2 story buildings and a hotel above them. All their support beams have to hold up is the roof.

The Cleveland Medical Mart ("Global Center for Health Innovation") has the Daniel Burnham-designed beaux arts Cleveland Mall above it, which was originally a green that linked Public Square to Lake Erie, though now it's been cut up by a below ground freeway and Browns Stadium.

They had to put it underground in order to preserve the green, the opposite of what OKC is doing. Progressive Insurance and their crazy CEO Peter B. Lewis wanted to build Ohio's tallest scraper on the site of the Cleveland Mall and the city killed the idea. They took their billions and moved out to the Outerloop and nobody misses them too much.

The Cleveland CC was built within a much more complicated urban environment in which 200 year old basements keep being uncovered. The Cleveland project was extremely expensive though, a lot more expensive than OKC is willing to spend for a CC.

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 that a new CC is a great idea to 1) modernize what the CCC provides, 2) return the CCC superblock to usable normal-sized-block prime real estate (and NOT create another super-block as much as possible), and 3) make it very programmable because (IMHO) conventions in the next 20 years WILL happen, but they won't look like conventions do today.

I think that a new CC is a great idea to 1) modernize what the CCC provides, 2) return the CCC superblock to usable normal-sized-block prime real estate (and NOT create another super-block as much as possible), and 3) make it very programmable because (IMHO) conventions in the next 20 years WILL happen, but they won't look like conventions do today.

#2, YES! This is what I've been screaming. Broadway should go all the way to Chesapeake Arena. If California was just a pedestrian corridor then that would still be fine by me because it's just another vehicular street to nowhere if you mark it for automobile use. Using it to get from Point A to B for foot traffic is more appealing to me in a city that isn't designed for walking but can be if that is what we program it for.

Just like the west side of the MBG, keep California as a pedestrian corridor between the elementary school and whatever future developments there are north of it on the Stage Center site and south of it to Reno. Pedestrian corridors leading to the MBG from east and west & north and south along the Harvey spine would be the tie that binds.

If I knew how to draw a conceptual rendering using computer software I would do so to show you the idea that is in my head. I'll see if I can't sketch something up on paper and show you how I see it.

Not much of a betting man, but if I were, I'd be more inclined to bet the Current Cox CC superblock will one day become the replacement arena superblock rather than returning to the street grid.

Not much of a betting man, but if I were, I'd be more inclined to bet the Current Cox CC superblock will one day become the replacement arena superblock rather than returning to the street grid.

God I hope that city leaders see how horrible of an idea this is over the next 10 to 15 years.

Having something more attractive and useful than an arena right by the intermodal hub would be amazing. An arena that will only be useful less than 100 nights/year (and only nights) would be a wasted opportunity.

Not much of a betting man, but if I were, I'd be more inclined to bet the Current Cox CC superblock will one day become the replacement arena superblock rather than returning to the street grid.

I agree

Not much of a betting man, but if I were, I'd be more inclined to bet the Current Cox CC superblock will one day become the replacement arena superblock rather than returning to the street grid.

This just occurred to me as I was looking at an aerial photo of Bricktown. This is a minor derail, but what about the "new" arena being built on the parking lot(s) between the BNSF viaduct and the U-Haul building? I think the site is large enough and the Cox CC site could have the street grid restored and redeveloped.

This just occurred to me as I was looking at an aerial photo of Bricktown. This is a minor derail, but what about the "new" arena being built on the parking lot(s) between the BNSF viaduct and the U-Haul building? I think the site is large enough and the Cox CC site could have the street grid restored and redeveloped.

Look at Google Maps...that area is about 1/3 the size the new arena will need.

This just occurred to me as I was looking at an aerial photo of Bricktown. This is a minor derail, but what about the "new" arena being built on the parking lot(s) between the BNSF viaduct and the U-Haul building? I think the site is large enough and the Cox CC site could have the street grid restored and redeveloped.

keep in mind the peake is built on a tiny (relative to modern arenas) plot of land ... our next arena will need a much bigger space (about the size of the cox)

I am going to go out on a limb and say that the period in American life where new arenas were built to replace out-dated arenas (not old - just functionally obsolete) is over.

Have you all seen the new Golden State Warriors arena design?

Warriors San Francisco Venue Development Project | THE OFFICIAL SITE OF THE GOLDEN STATE WARRIORS (http://www.nba.com/warriors/sf)

I would love to see us build our next arena on the pull-a-part auto yard with I-40 on the north, Shields to the west and right on the river.

I am going to go out on a limb and say that the period in American life where new arenas were built to replace out-dated arenas (not old - just functionally obsolete) is over.

as Sacramento just approved a plan to build one

I understand that in about 15 years or so, we are going to be faced with building a new arena for the Thunder. It's just the way things are with major league sports. As popular as the Thunder are, I don't think there will be any problem getting support (assuming they are as popular in the future as they are now). My bet is that the next arena will require a significant investment beyond what the Ford Center cost. I would bet they seek state funding for the project the next time. I'm sure there will be a similar discussion about appropriate location, land cost, formation of a superblock, putting public buildings where private development could take place, etc.

I am going to go out on a limb and say that the period in American life where new arenas were built to replace out-dated arenas (not old - just functionally obsolete) is over.

There is no evidence to support that idea. Sacremento, Seattle, San Francisco, Edmonton, Allentown, Toronto, Quebec, Las Vegas are all building new arenas. This follows new arenas in Brooklyn, Kansas City, Wichita, Tulsa, Ontario and others over the last few years. Others are in discussion.

keep in mind the peake is built on a tiny (relative to modern arenas) plot of land ... our next arena will need a much bigger space (about the size of the cox)

So, the Cotton Mill site would be perfect.

So, the Cotton Mill site would be perfect.

The Cottonmill site will be perfect for a new football stadium. There will have to be an enormous development there in order to fill up all the land.

I would love to see us build our next arena on the pull-a-part auto yard with I-40 on the north, Shields to the west and right on the river.


The Cottonmill site will be perfect for a new football stadium. There will have to be an enormous development there in order to fill up all the land.

Access to these sites would have to be added. I could see a new bridge being built across the river to the Pull Apart site from the SE 15th/Lincoln-Beyers intersection. 15th west of the river would need to be widened to four lanes to accommodate traffic (meaning a new railroad bridge overhead (start planning now since working with railroads can be difficult). All access to the cotton mill site would have to come off the new boulevard. Future commuter rail accommodations could be provided as well along the UP line.

Honestly, the cotton mill would be great for a football and basketball stadium to be built on. The problem would be where do you the parking garage to take care of everyone coming to that area? Facing I-40, the boulevard or shields?

Easy on and off I-40, I-35, Centennial Expressway, Shields. Parking garage backing up to Shields which can be used for Union Greens and Regatta Park as well.

There is no evidence to support that idea. Sacremento, Seattle, San Francisco, Edmonton, Allentown, Toronto, Quebec, Las Vegas are all building new arenas. This follows new arenas in Brooklyn, Kansas City, Wichita, Tulsa, Ontario and others over the last few years. Others are in discussion.

Orlando just finished a new $500 million arena for the Magic as well.

Easy on and off I-40, I-35, Centennial Expressway, Shields. Parking garage backing up to Shields which can be used for Union Greens and Regatta Park as well.

I-35 has no access to these areas unless you get ODOT to build a new ramp. Same goes for 235. Shields has BNSF tracks in the way so you really can't use it either unless you go underneath the tracks.

The Mill site is probably MAPS 5 all by itself. It is so big and requires so much to fill it that it's going to be a billion dollar job. And I don't think we have to worry about access. Once you start a project that big, ODOT will put in an off-ramp.

There is no evidence to support that idea. Sacremento, Seattle, San Francisco, Edmonton, Allentown, Toronto, Quebec, Las Vegas are all building new arenas. This follows new arenas in Brooklyn, Kansas City, Wichita, Tulsa, Ontario and others over the last few years. Others are in discussion.

And which of those are replacing non-obsolete arenas in the same city?

So, the Cotton Mill site would be perfect.

Agree with this - I really hope the Cox blocks are a mix of office, residential, and retail by the time a new arena is discussed. The Cotton site make more sense than most other sites.

Agree with this - I really hope the Cox blocks are a mix of office, residential, and retail by the time a new arena is discussed. The Cotton site make more sense than most other sites.

http://p.twimg.com/Ax5ALqyCIAEoLmo.jpg:small

And which of those are replacing non-obsolete arenas in the same city?

I've noticed you never lose an argument, you just change the definitions. :-)

I've noticed you never lose an argument, you just change the definitions. :-)

or.... you can try reading what I wrote, not what you assume I wrote.


I am going to go out on a limb and say that the period in American life where new arenas were built to replace out-dated arenas (not old - just functionally obsolete) is over.

I just think we are entering a period in history where people are going to prefer nostalgia, history, and place over 'new and shinny'. Now if a team owner wants to build his own arena - all bets are off.

or.... you can try reading what I wrote, not what you assume I wrote.



I just think we are entering a period in history where people are going to prefer nostalgia, history, and place over 'new and shinny'. Now if a team owner wants to build his own arena - all bets are off.

there is no "nostalgia, history, and place" to a 20 year old or 30 year old arena were not talking about Wrigley field here

there is no "nostalgia, history, and place" to a 20 year old or 30 year old arena were not talking about Wrigley field here

I think a strong argument could be made that if Wrigley had been built 20 years ago, people would want to implode it and replace it with new and shiny. You have to give a place time to become nostalgic and most sports venues built recently will never get the chance.

I think people are mistaking each individual city replace their obsolete arena with the same city replacing arenas on a continual basis. Yes, 25 (or whatever number you want it be) cities have replaced their arenas, but no single city has done it more than once in the last 20 years. Seattle has come closer than anyone - and even they haven't done it. However, when they rebuild Key Arena they built a functionally obsolete building - it only had 4 luxury suites. Their issue was timing as it was built just before the trend went from individual seats to corporate suites. So unless someone comes up with a second major shift in who buys tickets the current crop of arenas should last a long long time.

or.... you can try reading what I wrote, not what you assume I wrote.



I just think we are entering a period in history where people are going to prefer nostalgia, history, and place over 'new and shinny'. Now if a team owner wants to build his own arena - all bets are off.

While you wax nostalgic, there is real data which disputes your observation. Here is an excerpt from a fairly recent New York Times article disputing this "new era" you are pronouncing.

"2010 census figures show that during the past decade just 8.6 percent of the population growth in metropolitan areas with more than a million people took place in city cores. The rest took place in the suburbs, which are home to more than 6 in 10 Americans.

The 8.6 percent is even lower than in the 1990s when the figure was 15.1 percent. New York City did better than the national average, getting 29 percent of the growth in the metropolitan area, but that was down from 46 percent in the 1990s. Of the 51 metropolitan areas with more than 1 million residents, only three — Boston, Providence, and Oklahoma City — saw their core cities grow faster than their suburbs. And the growth is hardly the mono-dimensional suburbia of hoary stereotype."

Now, the good news is that OKC was an anomaly. We should be proud of that.

It's not just about a new arena. It's about the teams being profitable. Teams that are making lots of money are happy. Good relationships between the city and their team keep new arena dscussions from becoming a problem.

We have heard the first whispers about new arena construction to replace the Ford Center (or whatever you want to call it) already, mostly by the media. There is an expectation that it will happen. The Ford Center was built very inexpensively and we got huge value for our money. The time will come when we have to shell out a lot more cash. And with the amount of money and exposure that the Thunder bring to the city, I don't have a problem with that. They should have a quality arena to call home. It needn't drip with luxury, but if they are legitimately falling behind other teams, we should step up and support them. You don't want the relationship between the city and the team to become toxic. Right now we have a great relationship, and I think if that continues, there won't be any problem with getting public support when the time comes for a new arena.

Perhaps an update to the building will be sufficient. Maybe we can dump another $150M into it and make it the equal of some of the nicest in the NBA. I don't know, I'm not an architect from the future. Certainly I'd prefer that that building stick around and develop a sense of history. Hopefully in 50 years, the Thunder are still playing there and it is one of the most celebrated arenas in the country. Who knows. But right now I've prepared myself that we'll be asked to fund a new one by around 2030.

Duplicate

While you wax nostalgic, there is real data which disputes your observation. Here is an excerpt from a fairly recent New York Times article disputing this "new era" you are pronouncing.

"2010 census figures show that during the past decade just 8.6 percent of the population growth in metropolitan areas with more than a million people took place in city cores. The rest took place in the suburbs, which are home to more than 6 in 10 Americans.

The 8.6 percent is even lower than in the 1990s when the figure was 15.1 percent. New York City did better than the national average, getting 29 percent of the growth in the metropolitan area, but that was down from 46 percent in the 1990s. Of the 51 metropolitan areas with more than 1 million residents, only three — Boston, Providence, and Oklahoma City — saw their core cities grow faster than their suburbs. And the growth is hardly the mono-dimensional suburbia of hoary stereotype."

Now, the good news is that OKC was an anomaly. We should be proud of that.

That's actually great news for us. Of course, our core is growing faster in part because it started out so small. If you have one person living downtown and then two more move in, you'll have a 300% increase. It hasn't taken a lot in terms of real numbers for our downtown to grow by a large percentage. Of course, for the first time in decades we're getting real urban neighborhoods and hopefully this trend will continue.

I think people are mistaking each individual city replace their obsolete arena with the same city replacing arenas on a continual basis. Yes, 25 (or whatever number you want it be) cities have replaced their arenas, but no single city has done it more than once in the last 20 years. Seattle has come closer than anyone - and even they haven't done it. However, when they rebuild Key Arena they built a functionally obsolete building - it only had 4 luxury suites. Their issue was timing as it was built just before the trend went from individual seats to corporate suites. So unless someone comes up with a second major shift in who buys tickets the current crop of arenas should last a long long time.

I think something you HAVE to take into consideration is that technology is advancing so much quicker now than it has in the last 25 years. Not just TV's and general electronics, but the technology to build an arena faster and with different materials than years ago. And, that technology will only advance more. Who knows what will be in arenas in 10 years? 3-D TV's in suites? Personal TV's as headrests in the seats in front of you?

Who knows what will be in arenas in 10 years? 3-D TV's in suites? Personal TV's as headrests in the seats in front of you?

All of which can be put it in the arena right now. You don't need to build a new arena to do those items. The shift from revenue being generated from individual seats to corporate sales was a one time shift - and every city had to do it. It isn't much different than Y2K where every company had to upgrade, but they only had to do it once. Of course, the tech industry thought companies would do it ever 3 years but we see how that worked out for them.

Of course, we are talking about something that won't happen in another 15 years anyhow so I am content to wait and see while you guys think I am crazy. Meanwhile, let's get back to building a new convention center.

All of which can be put it in the arena right now. You don't need to build a new arena to do those items. The shift from revenue being generated from individual seats to corporate sales was a one time shift - and every city had to do it. It isn't much different than Y2K where every company had to upgrade, but they only had to do it once. Of course, the tech industry thought companies would do it ever 3 years but we see how that worked out for them.

Of course, we are talking about something that won't happen in another 15 years anyhow so I am content to wait and see while you guys think I am crazy. Meanwhile, let's get back to building a new convention center.

our arena currently doesn't have all the amenities that you would want .. it is a top 50% arena ... but it will continue to fall down the list and OKC will need a new arena by 2030

Just to keep up with the Jones's. An example is the new score board that Houston unveiled this year at the Toyota Center. It's twice the size of ours, plus it has the current player stats, Not just the players number, points scored and fouls.

When our scoreboard was new 5 years ago, it was considered top of the line in the NBA, not so much any more.

Yeah but that can be upgraded. You don't need a new building for a new scoreboard. It's a question of whether the current building will become inadequate because of its structure.

Yeah but that can be upgraded. You don't need a new building for a new scoreboard. It's a question of whether the current building will become inadequate because of its structure.

^ This.


An example is the new score board that Houston unveiled this year at the Toyota Center

They didn't build a new Toyota Center just to put the new scoreboard in and OKC won't either.

Yeah but that can be upgraded. You don't need a new building for a new scoreboard. It's a question of whether the current building will become inadequate because of its structure.


also the okc metro population will continue to increase .. with both people and corporations ... i would expect the next okc arena to have double the suites and about 5 more bar/ restaurants in addition to about 1,500- 2k more seats

also the okc metro population will continue to increase .. with both people and corporations ... i would expect the next okc arena to have double the suites and about 5 more bar/ restaurants in addition to about 1,500- 2k more seats

or.... they can raise the price. One of the biggest mistakes in all of sports management is over-building the seating demand.

It's all about making sure supply meets the demand. The demand is very high for tickets right now because the Thunder are one of the best teams in the NBA and people can get Loud City tickets for as low as $10/each. That is $410 for the entire season. If you build an arena for 22,000 people and they five great seasons followed by four miserable seasons (like the Detroit Pistons) then you have a half empty arena where you could have spent less and built it for 18,000 (18,203 for the Thunder) and it wouldn't have looked less than half empty. I would hate to see our arena 10 years down the road look dead because we had a few bad seasons. The top arenas in the NBA in terms of capacity are Pistons (22,076), Chicago (20,916), Cleveland (20,562), 76ers (20,444) and Wizards (20,278). Only one of those teams is in the playoffs this year.

The Barclays center and proposed Golden State arenas both have significantly smaller seating capacity for the population they are surrounded with

You only have to look at Major League Baseball to see that the ownership groups understand it now. All the new baseball stadiums have greatly reduced seating capacity and even the RedHawks covered up a few thousand seats. The conventional wisdom used to be that you build for maximum demand - lest you have to turn someone away and you forever lost that ticket sale. Now they understand the value of limiting capacity and how that spurs demand and drives up ticket prices so that over the course of a facilities lifetime you can remove the boom and bust cycle excessive seating capacity creates. Very few things create profit like scarcity does, especially when it is in demand.

Scarcity Principle

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/scarcity-principle.asp

I do believe that we will have to build a new arena. This is not based upon any knowledge of engineering or architecture, but rather on the idea that there will be some sort of upgrade that is needed in the future that was not foreseen when we built it. We got an incredible bargain on the Ford Center and my general belief that you get what you pay for makes me think we must have cut some corners somewhere. I may be wrong. I'd like to be wrong. But in terms of problems facing the city, this is like paying for your hot wife's new boob job. "Honey, I wish my boobs were bigger. What do you think?" It's a good problem to have.

Scarcity doesn't create demand.....that is ludicrous. Scarcity MAY raise prices if the demand is present. There is also such a thing as elasticity of demand. Platitudes and more platitudes.

Scarcity doesn't create demand.....that is ludicrous. Scarcity MAY raise prices if the demand is present. There is also such a thing as elasticity of demand. Platitudes and more platitudes.

I saw that 'error' right after I posted it and corrected it - however, please explain precious metals demand without factoring scarcity into the equation (or for that matter, the Samsung tablet after they lost their Apple lawsuit). Also, elasticity of demand is not a straight line; it is a curve. Finally, I am not a Keynesian so his interpretation of the 'laws of supply and demand' don't matter as much to me.

I think perhaps we need a new thread.

Perhaps it is better to say that an 18,000 seat arena has certain advantages over a 25,000 seat arena.

1) It is easier to fill, which creates the appearance of desirability.
2) It is cheaper to build and maintain.

Rather than constructing an arena that allows for maximum profit during the up-times, perhaps you could build one that is profitable even in the down-times. "We'll never lose money on this" rather than "we'll make a lot that one year in ten when everything is perfect".

Perhaps it is better to say that an 18,000 seat arena has certain advantages over a 25,000 seat arena.

1) It is easier to fill, which creates the appearance of desirability.
2) It is cheaper to build and maintain.

Rather than constructing an arena that allows for maximum profit during the up-times, perhaps you could build one that is profitable even in the down-times. "We'll never lose money on this" rather than "we'll make a lot that one year in ten when everything is perfect".

Yep.

Last I checked, this thread was entitled "Convention Center & Hotel". PM'ing Pete...

What kind of hotel brand is appropriate for the presumed CC Hotel?

What kind of hotel brand is appropriate for the presumed CC Hotel?

Omni? I still hope for something like the Ft Worth Omni - hotel on lower floors and condos in the upper tower.

http://www.fortwortharchitecture.com/omni-const-sw.jpg

What kind of hotel brand is appropriate for the presumed CC Hotel?

Based on what we already have (Sheraton, Renaissance, Hilton Skirvin) I would hope we shoot for Omni, (JW) Marriott, or Grand Hyatt

Let's build one with just 12 rooms. It would be cheaper to maintain and full all the time. We could charge $10,000 a night because of the scarcity.



Just teasing...just teasing. Couldn't help myself.