I am FOR taking some of the superblock impact away from the C2S Park. That's why we first called that site into question, when it was previously the proposed site.

We are in a very weird situation where we have a funded project but limited decent locations to build it.

Sounds to me after listening to Steve's interview with Mayor Cornett tonight that the Cox site is the next man up since the city already owns the property.

What about on the surface parking lot in front of the Chevy? Would that be enough space?

I'd build it in Yukon. Connect it to a 30 lane highway and call it good.

Does anyone else think that besides the massive waste of money and resources that this might end up being a good thing? If that real estate truly is some of the most prime downtown, maybe there is a good chance that it will turn in to a development much more suited to be between two parks and add more street life than the CC would've.

I'd build it in Yukon. Connect it to a 30 lane highway and call it good.

Amen brotha!

Does anyone else think that besides the massive waste of money and resources that this might end up being a good thing? If that real estate truly is some of the most prime downtown, maybe there is a good chance that it will turn in to a development much more suited to be between two parks and add more street life than the CC would've.

I agree. I think this could really be a good thing as long as it doesn't jeopardize any of the Hall Capital projects since I believe the land is owned by the same people.

Amen brotha!
;)

Sounds to me after listening to Steve's interview with Mayor Cornett tonight that the Cox site is the next man up since the city already owns the property.

It was the #4 rated site by the consultants and everyone had bought into the idea that their ratings would guide the process.

At least that was the case when it delivered the answer wanted by the committee and powers that be.

Now, we're going to completely throw that away and at least not broaden the study and look at all possibilities?

Seems to me you either stick with the study you have, or you start over. How else do you come to a fair decision?

Uhaul site is best option now. Obviously I would say lumber or coop - but we know those are unlikely.


The current CCC is too valuable, it needs to be private development.

How would doing it on the Cox site not be a great deal in the long term?

In addition, how long will this thing take to build? The viability of doing it on the Cox site depends on how long OKC will have to go without a convention center considering the existing one would have to come down before the construction of the new one.

^
That study should not be taken as the gold standard. So much has changed in DT since 2010-11, I'd rather them just toss it frankly.

We now have a confirmed streetcar route, a renewed emphasis on walkability, and a hotel boom in Bricktown/Deep Deuce And if I am not mistaken, the thought process back then was that future development would be funneled south towards the river i.e. Core 2 Shore. Instead, its shooting upwards along Broadway and beginning to creep westward; I can't remember the last time I heard C2S mentioned by anyone in the past two years.

All these things should be taken into consideration. If they can somehow figure out the logistics of building the CC at the current Cox (which was the main issue with that site), I don't know how you don't take a serious look at it.

BTW, that interview with the Mayor was just pure spin.

This is a huge setback right when they thought they had everything in place. Good grief, they just field 7 responses to the the hotel RFP today.

Also, keep in mind the mayor is just one vote on City Council and in no way represents the convention center committee.

I like Mick and he's great in front of the camera and people, but frankly what he has to say about this right now doesn't mean much of anything.

Uhaul site is best option now. Obviously I would say lumber or coop - but we know those are unlikely.


The current CCC is too valuable, it needs to be private development.

The Uhaul site would be BAE, because then we could tear it down too!

If the (now old designed) convention center was projected to cost around $230M, and the land where they were going to put it was $100M. Just think of how valuable the current convention center site is worth. And then imagine this value with another 5-7 years of aging and growth in OKC. We are talking about a super block directly across the street from the eventual central HUB for all downtown transit, a link between the CBD-C2S, CBD-Bricktown, CBD-Central Park/Arena. This block has too much opportunity to let it remain. if the $100M value for the wasteland south of the Myriad Gardens is any indication about how much the area properties are worth, then the CCC site sold off could build 2 or 3 new convention centers in dollars.

It was the #4 rated site by the consultants and everyone had bought into the idea that their ratings would guide the process.

At least that was the case when it delivered the answer wanted by the committee and powers that be.

Now, we're going to completely throw that away and at least not broaden the study and look at all possibilities?

Seems to me you either stick with the study you have, or you start over. How else do you come to a fair decision?

Simple - $$.

It's clear the city underestimated real estate costs.

Also, this bit from the Oklahoman article is highly misleading:


The decision to drop the purchase effort came during a city council executive session Tuesday

The Council was merely briefed by the City Attorney that they planned to dismiss the eminent domain action. The decision had already been made and in fact was filed with the court within just a couple of hours of that executive session.

The mayor even said in the video interview "no formal action was taken by the council; that may come later". Although, of course, the whole thing has already been dropped anyway.


The spin here is, "Oh, it just turned out to be too expensive."

That makes no sense because they have been working with this ownership group since 2011 and the eminent domain was filed 9 months ago. It doesn't add up that all the sudden they just realized they were too far apart.

Also, this happened very suddenly as I've already pointed out; and that has not been explained.

This is a huge setback right when they thought they had everything in place. Good grief, they just field 7 responses to the the hotel RFP today.


Maybe next time they will wait to own the land before they start trying to build on it.

BTW, that interview with the Mayor was just pure spin.

This is a huge setback right when they thought they had everything in place. Good grief, they just field 7 responses to the the hotel RFP today.

Also, keep in mind the mayor is just one vote on City Council and in no way represents the convention center committee.

I like Mick and he's great in front of the camera and people, but frankly what he has to say about this right now doesn't mean much of anything.

So you're saying he just "Scott Brooksed" or "Thunder press conferenced" that interview? :D

Man, I'll bet that there have been some sleepless nights had by a few mid-powerful folks in OKC! And I'll bet that's not over with.

Maybe next time they will wait to own the land before they start trying to build on it.

You can't do that with the way MAPS funds projects. None of these elections or processes have been so presumptive that land assembly could be done sooner.

I am honestly shocked, surprised, and impressed by the move away from this site. For once, I have no idea how to read what OKC is doing. I don't think anyone knows what is coming.

So mindbogglingly insane. They spent 4~ years planning this out while not even assured of having the plot....And, why was eminent domain dropped?
You would've thought that they would have made some contingency plans in case this failed.

You can't do that with the way MAPS funds projects. None of these elections or processes have been so presumptive that land assembly could be done sooner.


The City put out an RFP for land it didn't even own. All I am saying is that next time they should wait until they own it.

The more I think about it that had to be some serious "OH ****!" stuff going on behind closed doors. In 20 years if Steve writes a book on the history of each MAPS project I am turning to this chapter first.

The city did not put out an RFP? They had an open selection process for the site, but first they kept it vague to secure funding. They then attempted to buy a site that made virtually zero sense. Demand side economics won in the end, which may suggest that OKC has restored an urban economy.

I still would go with C2S South. If you go with North Bricktown you still face an issue with the dreamt of railroad bridge wye thingy for future commuter rail that you would have to build around.

Seriously, if there was a Top 50 list for City Planning, OKC would come in at 99.

I still would go with C2S South. If you go with North Bricktown you still face an issue with the dreamt of railroad bridge wye thingy for future commuter rail that you would have to build around.

Seriously, if there was a Top 50 list for City Planning, OKC would come in at 99.

Woah easy, city planners haven't been allowed to touch this project. That's not a fair accusation. OKC has skilled city planners that it in turn has gotten skilled at ignoring.

Woah easy, city planners haven't been allowed to touch this project. That's not a fair accusation. OKC has skilled city planners that it in turn has gotten skilled at ignoring.

My badddd, 98th.

C2S south would have a disastrous effect on convention bookings. Great spot if you don't care whether the CC is actually successful or not.

And JTF, I can't believe you of all people is pitching the AICCM site, other than the fact that you hate that project so much. The one MAPS3 project most dependent upon walkability, and you're willing to send it to a place that's not walkable to anywhere in OKC? We'd be better off to not build at all.

Urbanized, how bout the Staybridg Suites site?

C2S south would have a disastrous effect on convention bookings. Great spot if you don't care whether the CC is actually successful or not.

And JTF, I can't believe you of all people is pitching the AICCM site, other than the fact that you hate that project so much. The one MAPS3 project most dependent upon walkability, and you're willing to send it to a place that's not walkable to anywhere in OKC? We'd be better off to not build at all.

So, Cox?

I like the Uhaul site and the rose rock concept.

From a convention planner standpoint, cox is the best option I've seen mentioned. But personally, I'd love that block broken up and put to better use.

So, Cox?

Man, the whole thing is just pretty tough at this point. Over the years I've had lots of conversations on this topic with people the people in charge of booking conventions, including many candid conversations with the president of the CVB, who I consider a friend.

If there were such a thing as magic, the Cox would have been the best spot all along. If you had a fantasy location, that would be it. The Cox is perfectly located as far as walkability to full service hotels AND dining/entertainment. You can't get any better.

But I say magic, because the only way it really works is if you wave your magic wand and replace what's there with a modern facility, overnight. Otherwise, you take the city out of the convention game fully during demo and reconstruction. If you do this you lose perhaps hundreds of millions in economic impact in the interim, and it's even possible that the industry never fully recovers.

The other problems with the Cox site include structural ones. You can't just take it down to the concrete floor and then build new, as modern facilities require floor loads that can't be had using any of the existing structure. You also can't achieve the clear span requirements, or the loading dock requirements. You have to take it down to dirt, and lose any of the advantages of having existing structure. Plus, demo ain't cheap on something the size of the Cox.

Just because you already own the land doesn't mean that it is the value that it SEEMS like it would be.

It's just a tough, tough day for the City. I have confidence in their ability to figure it out, but it's bad.

I like the Uhaul site and the rose rock concept.

The problem I have with the Uhaul site is that it's actually a beautiful historic building underneath that ugly Uhaul exterior.

Is there enough room to do a CC west of the Uhaul site? It would butt up next to the railroad but have reno or the boulevard as frontage. Uhaul building would make for an awesome hotel and then they could build a CC hotel too.

They could just do a land swap with the ownership group? You got old CC site and we get the new site?

A rough estimate using google maps shows it a little over 530 feet long which I assume is on the small end and leaves it zero room to be expanded, unless they go under the new boulevard but I am sure they would be a nightmare.

You can't go under the boulevard unless you go 50-60 feet underground or more. Folks still don't seem to understand that the boulevard will be well below the surrounding terrain as it passes under the BNSF viaduct. Considerably lower than Reno is as it passes beneath.

I remembered your post on how low the boulevard has to go which is why I said a nightmare. Its a nightmare situation this late in the planning stages so I was just trying to think through another site. Besides the cox, what sites hold real possibilities that the city should consider? The east of the C2S site you mentioned above as a poor location and I agree but whats next? The ballparks parking lot?

It was the #4 rated site by the consultants and everyone had bought into the idea that their ratings would guide the process.

At least that was the case when it delivered the answer wanted by the committee and powers that be.

Now, we're going to completely throw that away and at least not broaden the study and look at all possibilities?

Seems to me you either stick with the study you have, or you start over. How else do you come to a fair decision?

I thought the study was flawed, personally. Some of their rankings made no sense. If we look at it, it should be with a slightly jaundiced eye. The scoring system seemed designed to give them the answer the committee wanted.

Maybe it's time to think outside of the box here,

The problem I have with the Uhaul site is that it's actually a beautiful historic building underneath that ugly Uhaul exterior.

Fair point. That crossed my mind as well.

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

Yes and it is the highest rated site available.

I'm going to go back to the earlier suggestion of the south part of the ClayCo block, and then see if the city can get the block immediately to the west of that, the one with the Allen Contracting building on it. From what I understand, those guys just about bought up the entire block, and have some sort of development plans. Don't know how much they'd want for it though.

This is now such a mess I don't even know how they go forward.

You can chuck out the study, but then what? Who makes the decision on the site? Does the convention center committee just vote on their own? Simple majority wins?

The mayor said, "We need to go back to the consultants" but that could take many forms.

This isn't just a failure because they couldn't agree on price; we are now completely adrift without even a clear plan on how to proceed.


Even though I've been critical of many aspects of this project, I find myself depressed about this situation. There was not only a plan and vision for the cc but also the hotel, the boulevard; how the Cox Center site would be redeveloped, etc. etc.

Now what? What happens to the old cc site? Where does the cc go? Will we be able to get a decent cc hotel operator? How does this affect the streetcar? How might this affect the Clayco plans? How does it affect the timing of all the MAPS programs?

Frankly, I feel a little sick and like the entire plan for downtown is now completely up in the air.


When I was drafting the article for the news section and putting together the graphics, I labeled everything 'grenade1', 'grenade2'.... Because it feels like a small bomb just went off and we now have to pick up the pieces.

This was a pretty convincing argument, but I think there are points that can be contended here:


The substation has a number of significant drawbacks:


The hotel location would by necessity be on the north end, which by necessity would require the entrance to the CC to be moved a block south of where you are thinking it would be.
The entrance would be required to be on the park (west) side, as loading docks would be on Shields (adding additional distance to entertainment amenities). [Creative site planning can land the entrance to both the CC and the Hotel on the North end and the CC would likely have multiple entrances/exits anyway. And considering that most convention hotels are essentially part of the convention center anyway, this wouldn't be impossible to figure out.]

It would place one more barrier to walkability (a speedway of a boulevard) between the CC and everything else, adding to the barriers that already unfortunately exist for the current site (while removing none).
Would be about 3/4 of a mile from the Skirvin, and nearly that for the Renaissance and Sheraton, taking all of them outside of the magical 10-minute walkability bubble [I think that OKC is lacking in Full-Service hotels anyway, and the CC will cover a large portion anyway. Furthermore, I believe the convention center going so far south would initiate development to the south and there would most certainly be hotels and other amenities that are desirable for a convention center.]

Would do the same for most of Bricktown (Sheridan/Oklahoma, considered zero corner for Bricktown, would be a 14 minute walk, Sheridan/Mickey Mantle even further)[There are ways to address this issue, whether it's dedicated shuttles during conventions, getting the street car on this route, etc.]
Would require an estimated $30 million relocation of the substation. Estimated years ago, I might add.

You're talking about placing millions of dollars in bookings and many millions more in economic impact and tax revenue into extreme jeopardy just to save a few million on the front end...that oh, guess what? You won't save anyway.

We've been over this it his thread before - ad nauseam - but monkeying with the location to save a few bucks is penny wise and pound foolish. Sacrificing the bookability and mortgaging the future of the most expensive component of MAPS3? Perish the thought. Only if you want to waste taxpayer dollars would I encourage you to stick with you substation idea.

Ironically, not giving this site and its practicality more consideration earlier on (or even the bricktown site) has ended up being the real waste to taxpayer dollars.

As JTF said a long time ago: Of course the Bob Howard site was the #1 choice…the best Real Estate is the best Real Estate, whether you're building a high rise, parking garage, hotel, convention center, or arena. The city can find a way to make the C2S site work very well.

The Cox site is far too valuable to give it to another convention center for far too many reasons, so unless we're going to tear up lower bricktown, this easily remains the most viable site to consider.

My North Bricktown proposal:

10286

Green is the convention center itself. You would lose these two buildings that currently front Main St.

1028710288

Orange is the rail line that runs through that property. I'm assuming you can run it through the convention center somehow. Shouldn't be hard if you plan on doing it from the beginning.

Yellow is a dedicated convention center parking garage / room for future expansion.

Blue is your convention hotel.

Doesn't the city own most of this land anyway?

How's this for an out of the box idea - I saw this posted elsewhere so it isn't mine, but I thought it was interesting.

Demo all the FNC complex except the Great Banking Hall and Tower, build a multi level CC and parking structure in that footprint (somehow), convert FNC tower to the CC hotel, and I guess use the Great Hall for something befitting its grandeur.

How's this for an out of the box idea - I saw this posted elsewhere so it isn't mine, but I thought it was interesting.

Demo all the FNC complex except the Great Banking Hall and Tower, build a multi level CC and parking structure in that footprint (somehow), convert FNC tower to the CC hotel, and I guess use the Great Hall for something befitting its grandeur.

Not nearly a big enough site. The amount of contiguous space they're looking to have in the exhibition hall, as I understand, is not much smaller than a whole city block.

I agree, but they get points for creativity.

Where will OKC's new convention center go now? | News OK (http://newsok.com/where-will-okcs-new-convention-center-go-now/article/5398243)

Here in Seattle, our convention center is built over both the interstate and adjoining streets.

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

Suggestion: (Don't know how economical this is, bear with me)

Why not add to the Cox Convention Center north (Gut the arena for convention exhibit or ballroom space); offer incentives to expand one or both (Sheraton & Renaissance Hotels) as the conference hotel, build over Sheridan Avenue? Once this is completed; renovate the existing parts of the Cox Convention Center.

I recall a pic of an expanded version of the Sheraton Hotel (30 stories) released by the Oklahoman in the 80s (Don't recall the room count).

The streetcar will adapt if it needs to. Remember, there is already a couplet that runs on Sheridan and Reno to Perry, and there's a small phase 2 project as of yet of undetermined route. It looks like we'll have some time to think about it.

Who owns the land in lower brick town? Conventions would add so much life to the canal.

Who owns the land in lower brick town? Conventions would add so much life to the canal.

There is plenty of surface parking down there as well to build the convention center on.

How much did the Stage Center site sell for again? Seems like an even steeper discount now, considering the valuation on the Ford site. Oh, and now this...
OG&E customers could see dramatic rate hikes | KFOR.com (http://kfor.com/2015/03/03/oge-customers-could-see-dramatic-rate-hikes/?preview_id=411557)

Seems like there were so many pieces to this puzzle that are going to be effected by this. CS2 park, streetcar, Clayco & 499...

If this property is moved in to bricktown, that will leave VERY LITTLE available spaces for future development. Might as well say hasta la vista to whatever "KC & Dallas jealous" development that was going to take place there. Its going to shoot property values insanely high every where else, so any person that doesn't already own land isn't going to be acquiring any if financing is already as issue.

I wonder if the Hall property next to 21C will come in to play for the future site. Wonder if that was the plan all along by the Ford site group?

Hard to find any net positive outcome at this point, from what was already planned. Especially with so much sunk costs already in play from all the consulting & planning for ALL of the maps projects which will now be effected. Lets see what our city planners are capable of.

I remembered your post on how low the boulevard has to go which is why I said a nightmare. Its a nightmare situation this late in the planning stages so I was just trying to think through another site. Besides the cox, what sites hold real possibilities that the city should consider? The east of the C2S site you mentioned above as a poor location and I agree but whats next? The ballparks parking lot?
I think perhaps the redevelopment of the Cox SHOULD be considered, with thought given to how it might be redeveloped without significantly disrupting existing business during construction (easier said than done). If that site were used, I think the footprint is large enough that there could possibly eventually even be a mixed-use component included that could soften its impact on the surrounding neighborhood.

After that, I think some attention should be paid to the Main Street (N Bricktown) parking lot, with an eye to creative land use. The location from a walkability/booking standpoint is perfect (second only to Cox); the access is lousy. But perhaps some creativity could be brought to bear to improve both attendee and load-in/out access, and also to preserve the rail spur. Like the Cox site, there is a real advantage in that the site is already owned by the City.

The Lumberyard is probably next, due to convenient access to amenities, though the walk to full-service hotels dramatically hurts viability. Also it could turn into the same type of acquisition debacle as the dealership site.

Finally I would say the east Bricktown and/or body shop sites should be reviewed, though again proximity to hotels make it a challenge. In this case, City ownership of the parking lot also can help the budget situation.

Again, I'm going to reiterate my position (which should be the position of any taxpayer) is that if we are going to sink the largest part of the MAPS3 budget into something, the number one, overriding priority HAS to be to make sure that it succeeds in fulfilling it's intended purpose. If it doesn't, why spend the money? If it is a poorly-performing CC it will also become a longterm drain on City resources and budgets. If it is successful it will not only pay its own way, it will add significantly to the city's economy.

In the case of convention centers, this is a very delicate and well-documented balance, and adherence to convention center best practices is critical. Do it right and there is no question that we can pull above our weight in convention sales; do it only a LITTLE wrong and we become a very easy city to say "no" to.

Sorry, I know my last post was all over the place. There are just so many things to consider after this plan fell through, the logistical nightmare this is going to cause seems to be catastrophic.

What if they used the land directly across the new boulevard to the south of what would've been part of the C2S park? The city already owns the land, and yes the park would need to be reshuffled but who really cares that much?

The city did not put out an RFP? They had an open selection process for the site, but first they kept it vague to secure funding. They then attempted to buy a site that made virtually zero sense. Demand side economics won in the end, which may suggest that OKC has restored an urban economy.

Your question mark confuses me a bit - but they did put on an RFP to build on land they didn't own. This is from January 20, 2015.

Making reservations: OKC Council approves RFP for convention center hotel | The Journal Record (http://journalrecord.com/2015/01/20/making-reservations-council-approves-rfp-for-convention-center-hotel-real-estate/)


The Oklahoma City Council moved ahead with plans to develop a hotel to serve the planned MAPS 3 convention center by approving a request for proposals Tuesday.