Just the A/E budget completely wasted is substantial. Not to mention probably far north of $100K expended by hotel responders that are completely flushed down the drain through ignorance. They've pissed away millions!

This is rather annoying, i don't expect a private development to be very pedestrian friendly between the 2 parks, or fit in between them very well..What other sites (beside the Steelyard) have been thought of or are accessible?

The City can dictate that through the design review process -- if they so choose.

Also, the streets in that block have not been closed and that requires a separate action that has been denied the current owners but the cc plans showed they City planned to closed them when they got control.

Why don't they just put the new convention center on the Cox site? It's the perfect location in the middle of everything.

Man, between this post and the ones in the streetcar thread. I feel like you just enjoy going against the grain around here.

Don't knock him too bad. Although most would agree the current Cox is completely inadequate, how plausible would it be to construct a new CC on the current Cox site? Especially now that the Barons are gone after this season, what's the likelihood that the arena can be turned into temp meeting space while the new center is built in phases?

It seems the main issue with the CC is they have an unrealistic budget for land acquisition. The easiest solution to this is building on land already owned by the city.

Why don't they just put the new convention center on the Cox site? It's the perfect location in the middle of everything.

Because the consultants ranked it #4; didn't even make the final 3.

Mainly, because of the disruption to current parking and convention biz.

Don't knock him too bad. Although most would agree the current Cox is completely inadequate, how plausible would it be to construct a new CC on the current Cox site? Especially now that the Barons are gone, what's the likelihood that the arena can be turned into temp meeting space while the new center is built in phases?

It seems the main issue with the CC is they have an unrealistic budget for land acquisition. The easiest solution to this is building on land already owned by the city.


The current CCC is prime real estate. In fact, I would value it as the most valuable real estate downtown right now (not on the market). Not to mention the positive urban effects this would have on the area linking the CBD/Bricktown/Park/South of Reno. Once we get a new CC, this can be bulldozed and sold in multiple plots for insane amounts of money for the city. The problem with the current (now old) CC site west of the Arena, is that through MAPS the money has to be available now.

Welcome to the world of costly real estate. In the end, I hope the city does not compromise the success of the convention center by choosing a sub-par site just to save money. I cannot believe OKC's land value is greater than in all the other U.S. cities that have convention centers. If it costs more than the original estimate, they need to refresh the numbers and be realistic. There is no reason OKC cannot have a cc when every other city can make it happen.

As to a waste of money. That is the way these things go. I know San Diego has spend $$$$ of dollars in the last decade on the stadium site, and we just learned this week that if the downtown site is chosen, it could take 7 years for them to get the rights to the property and clear it for construction. After millions of dollars in studies and proposals, that site is not even feasible in the timeline dictated by the Chargers.

Why don't they just put the new convention center on the Cox site? It's the perfect location in the middle of everything.

That's what I was thinking. Seems like an ideal spot.

Why don't they just put the new convention center on the Cox site? It's the perfect location in the middle of everything.

Looks like that will have to happen or at least be considered as a location. The Cox Center is the same size of block as what was proposed, not including the future expansion. A center and hotel can be done, parking will have to be underground(this will make some people happy).

Agree that the Cox Center site seems the closest to all the hotels for walkability needed. Assuming the logistics for keeping any conventions going while tearing down the current cc and building anew may make the idea unpalatable in the short term, it may not be as high on the list of new desired locations. Seems to me to be the best option in the long term though.

I agree. The Cox site would be excellent. Question is, does the city want to lose convention business while the new CC is being built? Is a short term sacrifice worth it for an ideal long-term solution?

Realistically, how fast could they build the new CC?

Brick town north or park east for the win.

As a reminder, here is how the consultants rated the various sites. Those without a number were eliminated early on; the top 3 were given more scrutiny as finalists:

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/grenade1.jpg

I think the Cox Center is a terrible choice for three reasons. Putting another super SUPER block in place of the super block that already exists seems like a bad idea. Also, if it is built elsewhere, lots of money goes into two locations (the new CC and private development over the old CC). And I want that super block broken up.

I have not posted a thought on here in quite some time, but feel like it now. I believe it would be very interesting if the city provided the county assessor a copy of the document that the owners came up with that claimed the property was worth 100 million dollars. Let the assessor tell the owners that their figures will be used to value the property in the future for tax purposes. Same thing with the cotton processing property. Paying increased taxes on an empty non revenue producing property will probably not be pleasant for them. I also wonder if Mr. Hall was counting on reaping a bonanza from selling this property, thus the investment in the hotel in the old Ford Building. It will be interesting to see if that gets slowed down or even cancelled.

One other thought and question. How can you evaluate a site for anything without having a locked in price for the site if it is selected?

I feel like this puts a huge freeze on c2s. Hopefully somebody else can develop that property.

Looking at that map above, I think the uhaul parking lot would be the best.

I also wonder if Mr. Hall was counting on reaping a bonanza from selling this property, thus the investment in the hotel in the old Ford Building. It will be interesting to see if that gets slowed down or even cancelled.


Hopefully that isn't the case. The 21c hotel and associated redevelopment is one of the most exciting things in the pipeline. If it doesn't happen, that will also be a huge setback for Film Row and all of the west side of downtown.

Can we bulldoze most of lower bricktown and put it there? :)

On a serious note, do the property owners of the recently thrown out site bring back their plans for development? Because that would be awesome.

And what exactly was the development PLAN that was to go on that site?

Isn't the Core to Shore east the site the mayor originally proposed anyway?

On a serious note, do the property owners of the recently thrown out site bring back their plans for development? Because that would be awesome.

As of this afternoon, the legal action by the City is completely dismissed, so they are free to do anything they wish.

They could make a strong argument that the City kept the property tied up during a huge boom period and now there is a bit of a slump (which may turn out to be more than small) and they were deprived of developing or selling during a red-hot window of opportunity.

I have not posted a thought on here in quite some time, but feel like it now. I believe it would be very interesting if the city provided the county assessor a copy of the document that the owners came up with that claimed the property was worth 100 million dollars. Let the assessor tell the owners that their figures will be used to value the property in the future for tax purposes. Same thing with the cotton processing property. Paying increased taxes on an empty non revenue producing property will probably not be pleasant for them. I also wonder if Mr. Hall was counting on reaping a bonanza from selling this property, thus the investment in the hotel in the old Ford Building. It will be interesting to see if that gets slowed down or even cancelled.

One other thought and question. How can you evaluate a site for anything without having a locked in price for the site if it is selected?

Property tax increases are capped year to year by state law

Wow, took them 5 years to realize this is not a cost effective location. We were arguing that from the beginning all along, what a waste of time. Looks like Mayor Cornett will get his wish, and have it in C2S.

I've got my fingers crossed for #5 North Bricktown. I'm not a fan of that parking lot, and see this as a good way to bridge CBD/Bricktown/DD.

The North Bricktown (#5) site would be terrible because it would make it much more difficult to get the Eastern Flyer up to the platform at Santa Fe Station. To make that happen, a new wye track that goes from the existing rail corridor separating Bricktown and Deep Deuce up to the top of the rail viaduct would have to be built, and having the convention center in that block would make this impossible. Not only that, but many of the buildings in that parcel are being renovated or have already been renovated.

Choosing a new site for the convention center this late in the game is a HUGE problem, and I have my doubts that they'll be able to build it in the downtown area now with the land budget they have.

Not just a waste of time, lots of money and also the energy of tons of City staff and committee members.

nm

I am curious what this means for the streetcar, maybe some of our posters that work closely with it can tell us, what if anything can does this change. Is it to late in the process to rethink the routes( not that I want that just curious) or could it be a plus and speed up the timeline?

I have not posted a thought on here in quite some time, but feel like it now. I believe it would be very interesting if the city provided the county assessor a copy of the document that the owners came up with that claimed the property was worth 100 million dollars. Let the assessor tell the owners that their figures will be used to value the property in the future for tax purposes. Same thing with the cotton processing property. Paying increased taxes on an empty non revenue producing property will probably not be pleasant for them. I also wonder if Mr. Hall was counting on reaping a bonanza from selling this property, thus the investment in the hotel in the old Ford Building. It will be interesting to see if that gets slowed down or even cancelled.

One other thought and question. How can you evaluate a site for anything without having a locked in price for the site if it is selected?
Very good questions. I've wondered what the property is valued at for tax proposes also. Seems like an easy way to find out what the current owners truly think it's actual worth is. I doubt seriously they're petitioning to have it valued at $100 million.

Man, between this post and the ones in the streetcar thread. I feel like you just enjoy going against the grain around here.

Maybe in your mind I'm going against the majority of those on this board, but in the real world I can probably bring an army who agree with that thinking.

Now what you are missing is I'm not necessarily arguing that my comment here was right or wrong, but it is another side to the story. Sometimes when the big shiny new building doesn't happen it's nice to step back and re-evaluate, to see if it still is the best option.

It will be interesting to see the domino effect this creates. I am sure the developers of nearby garages were expecting convention revenue in their plans.

^^ agreed! Pete do you have any idea if that extra 30 million that allotted to the CC will be put back into limbo or will it stay for a expansion for whatever site they choose? If they choose the east C2S site will they need to find another 30 million for the substation relocation?

^^ agreed! Pete do you have any idea if that extra 30 million that allotted to the CC will be put back into limbo or will it stay for a expansion for whatever site they choose? If they choose the east C2S site will they need to find another 30 million for the substation relocation?

That $30 million was previously set aside to relocate the substation when it looked like the cc was going to the east of Central Park.

So, that's probably what it will actually be used for now.

Welcome to the world of costly real estate. In the end, I hope the city does not compromise the success of the convention center by choosing a sub-par site just to save money. I cannot believe OKC's land value is greater than in all the other U.S. cities that have convention centers. If it costs more than the original estimate, they need to refresh the numbers and be realistic. There is no reason OKC cannot have a cc when every other city can make it happen.

As to a waste of money. That is the way these things go. I know San Diego has spend $$$$ of dollars in the last decade on the stadium site, and we just learned this week that if the downtown site is chosen, it could take 7 years for them to get the rights to the property and clear it for construction. After millions of dollars in studies and proposals, that site is not even feasible in the timeline dictated by the Chargers.

Land value is definently not more expensive in OKC than all cities with convention centers. Not even close.

That $30 million was previously set aside to relocate the substation when it looked like the cc was going to the east of Central Park.

So, that's probably what it will actually be used for now.

And before all of that it was part of the cc budget

Land valua in most cities on the plains are relatively cheap with a few exceptions.

Land value is definently not more expensive in OKC than all cities with convention centers. Not even close.

AGREE! Waaaaaay overpriced. :headscrat

I doubt many cities have built convention centers on land for which they paid $100 million.

They should have studied the Bass Pro site. After all, we love to tear things down, so why don't we have a demo that unites everyone? Plus, pretty sure we already own that land...

They should have studied the Bass Pro site. After all, we love to tear things down, so why don't we have a demo that unites everyone? Plus, pretty sure we already own that land...

I would totally support this.

No need to go underground anywhere else either. That's one good thing that could come of this.

One other thing has changed that favors the South Core to Shore site (the name given for east of Central Park)...

In the image I posted, they had left out the OG&E offices as part of the proposed site. But now, OG&E has said it would give that property to the City if they moved to the Clayco site.

It seems like it almost has to go there or the Cox Center site and of the two, I'd rather they save the Cox site for a higher and better use.

On the other hand, Cox may be the only way this project is ever done on the scale on which they have been discussing (expanded meeting space, large hotel, etc.) But in that case, we still have the super block issue that would lead us back to underground solutions.

So what about taking the south half of the ClayCo property, and the space immediately to the south? It's the part I've marked here in blue.

10284

If you're worried about eminent domain proceedings and using for a convention hotel, that's easy. Just put the hotel portion on the south part of the ClayCo site. We haven't sold that land to ClayCo yet.

If you're going to make some of it underground, it can run underneath Reno. ClayCo can either move all 4 of their buildings to the Stage Center site (which would make JTF happy), or they can change the site plan for the south portion so that you can fit in a convention hotel and some portion of the convention center.

Just so you know, the south part of that site you highlighted is owned by REHCO, the group the City was just doing battle with.

Well, poop. Perhaps they'll accept less money for that portion.

I just can't get over the timing and the length of time it took to make the decision to abandon the plan. Certainly the most controversial MAPS project to date and one that could cause voters to lose faith.

But it's a very good idea and thought.

I wonder if they'll even consider sites previously not identified in their study.

We would have to pay Populous all over again in that case, I'm sure. But, almost four years have passed since they did they final work.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I have to believe there is more to this decision than we know. Is it a hardball tactic to get this property at a lower price? Is some better property becoming available at a much lower price? Did some other buyer/use for the REHCO property strike a deal that cannot yet be announced? Or maybe there is nothing more to the situation. Regardless, this will be fun to watch.

The situation between REHCO and the City turned very sour and I believe it was not just due to the wide difference in price, but because the City denied REHCO the ability to incorporate the streets and alleys into their property and thus, did not want to pay them for that additional acreage.

In the end, REHCO had subpoena'd Cathy O'Connor and members of the Chamber for depositions and for whatever reason, the City did not want that to happen.

I don't think it's a coincidence the judge ruled Cathy had to testify on Friday and the date to do so was this coming Thursday. Today, Tuesday, the City pulls out completely after a 9-month process.

I'm trying to figure out what had the City so worried. I think I have a general idea but don't want to engage in too much conjecture until I do more research.

Wouldn't a good use of the lumberyard site (due to its proximity to the Coop) be the convention center? They could connect to the UHaul site or to the site west over Gaylord, and either build a cap or go underground with a peoplemover (like the trains at Denver International). Probably as expensive an option as buying the land from REHCO but on the other hand, it would put that land to good use and allow for the creation of a really unique convention complex on land that might be the most desirable for another use.

I think my next selection would be the North Bricktown site. As part of the convention center design, you could protect the rail line that would run through there. Whatever your preferred future rail path would be (looks like they'd want to curve it south so that it would flow more easily towards the Santa Fe station), it could integrate with the convention center itself. That shouldn't be too difficult.

On one side you'd have Deep Deuce and Aloft. On the other side you'd have Bricktown and the Holiday Inn Express. True, neither of those are convention hotels, but it would be quite convenient to have an extra 250 rooms literally right next door to the convention center. The Skirvin is a very short walk away, and so are the other Bricktown hotels on Sheridan.

Edit: You'd also have easy parking with the Ugliest Parking Garage in the World right on the other side of EK Gaylord. You might have to make up for the loss of those spaces elsewhere, but that's doable.

I am surprised no one has suggested the AICCM site as an alternative.

But it's a very good idea and thought.

I wonder if they'll even consider sites previously not identified in their study.

We would have to pay Populous all over again in that case, I'm sure. But, almost four years have passed since they did they final work.

Why don't we go and get some real consultants instead? Definitely not Populous or CSL, which have track records as shills that just tell you what you want to hear. Find a consultant who gives more critical insights.

It's hard to believe that the site selection was made almost 4 years ago; it was June of 2011. That was after a lot of time was spent in workshops and studies.

And here we sit all this time, money and effort later, back at square 1.

I wonder if the city has already determined where the new location for the convention center will be. Maybe something fell into their laps while they were screwing around with the current group and decided to say screw 'em.

I wonder if the city has already determined where the new location for the convention center will be. Maybe something fell into their laps while they were screwing around with the current group and decided to say screw 'em.

I honestly don't think so.

It appears they made a hasty decision to drop the action completely after the depositions could no longer be delayed or avoided.

They briefed the City Council this AM and filed the dismissal within a few hours. Up until that time, there had been no inkling (unless you happened to be following postings to the case on-line and recognized the escalating issues in the last few weeks).

Also, remember this decision to dismiss was made by the City Attorney, not by the convention center committee.

I was told even the architects working on the plans only learned about it through the press release.

It's hard to believe that the site selection was made almost 4 years ago; it was June of 2011. That was after a lot of time was spent in workshops and studies.

And here we sit all this time, money and effort later, back at square 1.

We are only back at square 1 if we want to do this right. Downtown has changed so much, and with the dust still not settled, it is extremely crucial that we evaluate new sites. The only other ideal site was gobbled up by a huge upscale development.

I think the Bass Pro site or over by the County Jail are where we should be looking.

Imagine a convention district on the AICCM site. Everyone wants to place the CC near existing facilities, even if there isn't a place for it to fit in nicely, when just down the river are 250 acres waiting for the city to take back ownership. That is enough land to build an entire new district - Wheeler District style. Selling off city owned CC adjacent land could raise millions more for CC hotel costs or CC expansion. The ugly loading docks could face the railroad, no superblocks to worry about, and pedestrian dead space won't be an issue for downtown.

If you want to see something similar check out the Savannah Convention Center.

constant reader, seldom poster here.
What if they took the area from Shields West to Robinson, from 2nd Street (which was the Service Rd South of I-40 down to 5th St.
The Hotel could be on the West end overlooking the park, Incoming & outgoing traffic could be on S 5th where travelers would avoid the Boulevard. It would not interfere (much) with afternoon rush hour enroute to I-40 via Shields (S on Robinson to 5th & East to Shields)
This would include the current OG&E operation (which the City should end up with) The Fire Station the City owns, the area the former I-40 cloverleaf was. On 5th is one building where a planned remodel was announced, but I've seen no activity yet.
Just thinking is all.

constant reader, seldom poster here.
What if they took the area from Shields West to Robinson, from 2nd Street (which was the Service Rd South of I-40 down to 5th St.
The Hotel could be on the West end overlooking the park, Incoming & outgoing traffic could be on S 5th where travelers would avoid the Boulevard. It would not interfere (much) with afternoon rush hour enroute to I-40 via Shields (S on Robinson to 5th & East to Shields)
This would include the current OG&E operation (which the City should end up with) The Fire Station the City owns, the area the former I-40 cloverleaf was. On 5th is one building where a planned remodel was announced, but I've seen no activity yet.
Just thinking is all.

Good to hear from you!

That makes every bit as much sense as having the cc oriented length-wise to the park.

I think what you are saying is have it run more E/W rather than N/S.

And since OG&E would be contributing their existing property, that would even make more sense.