I'm liking the Cox Center site at the moment.

I would remove the Cox Center completely (including parking) and put in 2-3 levels of underground parking covering the entire site. At the street level, I would restore the street grid (Probably would be pedestrian-only) and place retail uses on the ground floor of the 4 new blocks that have been created. The 2nd levels of the 4 blocks would contain meeting rooms and the Ballroom. The 3rd level would contain the exhibit hall and would span across all 4 blocks.

And since my imagination has an unlimited budget, I'd like to knock down the cheap-looking Marriott Courtyard and the adjacent parking garage and replace it with the convention hotel. Once the boulevard is complete, the intersection of EKG/Shields become a very significant intersection in DTOKC. At the moment, that corner is occupied by ho-hum parking garage. Since this new intersection will be quite a bit lower than the surrounding grade, I'd make sure the new hotel was dug down at that corner to create a street-level presence on the intersection.

Maybe some sketching is in order...

Well the overall city does get more from that specific change, but the big picture suffers if we break any promise to voters. MAPS probaby shouldn't change.


Not really his job is it? I understand the desire to want to have seamless integration, but his priorities are conventions and visitors.

Also not his job - to be hostile toward other interests that deserve to not just be at the table, but to be balanced into the equation. OKC is not a tourist city and should not put tourists first above all other downtown users when choices do have to be made. However the convention and tourism component is a valuable piece of the puzzle, maybe even a growth opportunity, but one must truly be insane to insist the potential for growth is greater than housing or office uses.

Of the alternate sites which has the most likelihood of being selected? I still think across the boulevard from CHK Arena is a good option because you could then have the convention hotel at the SE corner of the intersection with Robinson with the convention center stretching to the east to Shields with all of the loading docks facing that side. Leave the land south of the Myriad Gardens open for future mixed use development something like the Clayco project on the west side. And then do the same with the Cox once the new CC is built. Much better use of prime land in south downtown than a big convention center.

I'm liking the Cox Center site at the moment.

Sketch it up!

But there is no way we could do that site in a responsible manner with the existing budget.

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/option6.jpg

Oh, forgot to mention one other (probably unrealistic) alternate site... didn't we want to cap I-235 anyway? So do that and put the CC there (like Seattle), which also puts the CC between OUHSC and the CBD (which maybe helps?), and it also encourages the streetcar expansion to OUHSC with the CC just being a stop along the way...

I'm beginning to believe there is no way to do this project successfully without additional money, and maybe a lot of it.

I just don't see how they can piece together a big enough site that is anywhere near the hotel stock and other amenities that everyone seems to agree are vital to it's success -- at least not within the current budget.

I bet they end up needing another $50-$100 million to make that happen.

Doesn't the city actually own the parking lot east of the ballpark and lease it to Funk? If so, there should be a fair settlement that would allow the CC to go there. It's big enough area isn't it? Then, use the site at the lumberyard to build the CC hotel. Would that work?

The cox site like Andrew suggested would probably be the best case scenario but like Pete said, it is going to take more money and where that money comes from will be interesting. By removing the cox completely and planning right they could still follow the study that was done and have some mid-high rises in there. But it turns into a project that is far more complected than what we were looking at just a week ago.

Oh, forgot to mention one other (probably unrealistic) alternate site... didn't we want to cap I-235 anyway? So do that and put the CC there (like Seattle), which also puts the CC between OUHSC and the CBD (which maybe helps?), and it also encourages the streetcar expansion to OUHSC with the CC just being a stop along the way...

Kansas City has this as well. Their CC is built over I-670.

Or, jump over and put it in the innovation district. I know it is a little farther, but would jump start development in that area. Put the CC hotel at 4th and Lincoln. Doesn't OCURA own that anyway? A high rise at that corner would be dramatic. Then, do a Maps 3.5 to extend the streetcar along 4th, up to Lincoln to Health Center and back to midtown.

Doesn't the city actually own the parking lot east of the ballpark and lease it to Funk? If so, there should be a fair settlement that would allow the CC to go there. It's big enough area isn't it? Then, use the site at the lumberyard to build the CC hotel. Would that work?

Yes, the City owns it. I don't think they have any deal with the OKC Dodgers; Funk is no longer involved in any way. People park there for the games; perhaps the team ownership gets a percentage of parking revenues; you only pay to park there on game days (at least that used to be the case).

I just don't think it is nearly big enough, even with the Bodyworks site to the east, which we may not be able to afford anyway.

But the idea of putting structured parking next to Bass Pro is a great one.


I'm glad I'm not the one that now has to figure this out! I'm not seeing may solutions given the needed size and limited budget.

You could make a very strong case that this whole project was unrealistically budgeted from the outset without even mentioning the hotel or required parking.

I'm liking the Cox Center site at the moment.

I would remove the Cox Center completely (including parking) and put in 2-3 levels of underground parking covering the entire site. At the street level, I would restore the street grid (Probably would be pedestrian-only) and place retail uses on the ground floor of the 4 new blocks that have been created. The 2nd levels of the 4 blocks would contain meeting rooms and the Ballroom. The 3rd level would contain the exhibit hall and would span across all 4 blocks.

And since my imagination has an unlimited budget, I'd like to knock down the cheap-looking Marriott Courtyard and the adjacent parking garage and replace it with the convention hotel. Once the boulevard is complete, the intersection of EKG/Shields become a very significant intersection in DTOKC. At the moment, that corner is occupied by ho-hum parking garage. Since this new intersection will be quite a bit lower than the surrounding grade, I'd make sure the new hotel was dug down at that corner to create a street-level presence on the intersection.

Maybe some sketching is in order...

I've looked online this morning and cannot find one instance of a convention center being built on site of an older, existing one with the older one still operating. The CC in Vegas may come close; however, the bulk of the expansion would cover what is now a hotel. And its costing them over $2 billion.

The ONLY way I could see this working is take the land acquisition costs and repurpose the arena to a giant meeting hall, demolish and rebuild the western half of the CC, and then demolish and rebuild the eastern half and area space. The current floorplan of the arena would only be able to hold two halls, whereas the west side of the CCC holds 3, so we would be losing space in the interm.

It can work, but somebody will need to be thinking way out of the box.

count me in the crowd of seeing no possible way how the Cox site is feasible in a real world scenario.

I've looked online this morning and cannot find one instance of a convention center being built on site of an older, existing one with the older one still operating. The CC in Vegas may come close; however, the bulk of the expansion would cover what is now a hotel. And its costing them over $2 billion.

The ONLY way I could see this working is take the land acquisition costs and repurpose the arena to a giant meeting hall, demolish and rebuild the western half of the CC, and then demolish and rebuild the eastern half and area space. The current floorplan of the arena would only be able to hold two halls, whereas the west side of the CCC holds 3, so we would be losing space in the interm.

It can work, but somebody will need to be thinking way out of the box.

I think most of us are making the assumption that the Cox Center will be completely demolished before a new one is built which will hurt the convention business for 4 to 5 years. The cost of demolition, site prep, new parking garages, and the lost of convention business are certainly the biggest negatives to the Cox Convention site.

so what are the "land acquisition costs" if we cap I-235 and put the CC on top of it?

There is lots of vacant ground at the OK School of Science and Math that will NEVER be developed by the school. Good access. Close to OUHSC, GE, AutoAlley, etc. Not in the center of everything, but not that far either. Could extend streetcar and serve it, OUHSC, GE, etc.

Someone mentioned it earlier and It seems obvious that it's the best option since rebuilding on the Cox site just isn't feasible. Swap the Cox site for the currently planned location and proceed as planned. I would trust Howard and Hall Capital to redevelop the Cox site about as much as I would trust anyone else...

so what are the "land acquisition costs" if we cap I-235 and put the CC on top of it?

Way more than the $13 million we have budgeted.

so what are the "land acquisition costs" if we cap I-235 and put the CC on top of it?

Engineering costs.

But it is an intriguing location...medical conferences anyone? Bioscience conferences? I have always wished we would integrate a thematic element so that we were playing to our strengths... Could jointly host some kind of medical mart and energy mart facilities.

Someone mentioned it earlier and It seems obvious that it's the best option since rebuilding on the Cox site just isn't feasible. Swap the Cox site for the currently planned location and proceed as planned. I would trust Howard and Hall Capital to redevelop the Cox site about as much as I would trust anyone else...

That won't happen because Populous meet with downtown stakeholders and they want parking garages on the Cox site. If they give it to Hall Capital then they can't get the garages. Of course, without the garages we don't need a 90,000 car per day boulevard either.

Engineering costs.

But it is an intriguing location...medical conferences anyone? Bioscience conferences? I have always wished we would integrate a thematic element so that we were playing to our strengths... Could jointly host some kind of medical mart and energy mart facilities.

Global Bioscience convention...i like where your head is sir

I'm liking the Cox Center site at the moment.

I would remove the Cox Center completely (including parking) and put in 2-3 levels of underground parking covering the entire site. At the street level, I would restore the street grid (Probably would be pedestrian-only) and place retail uses on the ground floor of the 4 new blocks that have been created. The 2nd levels of the 4 blocks would contain meeting rooms and the Ballroom. The 3rd level would contain the exhibit hall and would span across all 4 blocks.

And since my imagination has an unlimited budget, I'd like to knock down the cheap-looking Marriott Courtyard and the adjacent parking garage and replace it with the convention hotel. Once the boulevard is complete, the intersection of EKG/Shields become a very significant intersection in DTOKC. At the moment, that corner is occupied by ho-hum parking garage. Since this new intersection will be quite a bit lower than the surrounding grade, I'd make sure the new hotel was dug down at that corner to create a street-level presence on the intersection.

Maybe some sketching is in order...

This would be amazing but probably too expensive. Could the overall plan be feasible if, instead of a new CC hotel as you described, they enlarge the Sheraton by adding to it and then possibly redirecting the south lot from Clayco and do a CC hotel there? Would take less overall money for the hotel and redirect it to the cc itself. Plus if you incorporate retail on the first level, you have income to offset the CC maintenance and ongoing expenses.

That won't happen because Populous meet with downtown stakeholders and they want parking garages on the Cox site. If they give it to Hall Capital then they can't get the garages.

Are you just trolling? That doesn't seem to match up with what they actually recommended. OKCTalk - Consultants recommend demolishing Cox Center, adding office towers (http://www.okctalk.com/content/45-consultants-recommend-demolishing-cox-center-adding-office-towers.html)

Someone mentioned it earlier and It seems obvious that it's the best option since rebuilding on the Cox site just isn't feasible. Swap the Cox site for the currently planned location and proceed as planned. I would trust Howard and Hall Capital to redevelop the Cox site about as much as I would trust anyone else...

It appears things reached such an impasse that there was no more negotiating to be done.

As much as I questioned swapping land as a way to stay on budget, I would have been fine with it as long as there was a full public understanding and open process.

Frankly, we're probably going to end up there no matter the location because it seems they are going to need a lot more money no matter what they do.

But there is no way we could do that site in a responsible manner with the existing budget.

I completely agree. But like I've said from the beginning, I'm not sure they can afford to build what they want on ANY site with the current budget.

Seattle is planning on expanding their convention center by about 1.2 million SF...the price tag? Over $1 BILLION.

I wonder as all the decision makers are sitting around today without any sort of feasible Plan B they might be thinking about coming back to the site in another way.

Why not just go back to the public and ask for more money? Have a full public process and some sort of vote.

As I said, I think we are going to end up there no matter where this thing goes so might as well take your medicine now while the site and all the related plans are still a possibility.

I wonder as all the decision makers are sitting around today without any sort of feasible Plan B they might be thinking about coming back to the site in another way.

Why not just go back to the public and ask for more money? Have a full public process and some sort of vote.

As I said, I think we are going to end up there no matter where this thing goes so might as well take your medicine now while the site and all the related plans are still a possibility.


So a MAPS 3 extension or a MAPS 3/4 bridge like the NBA Arena vote between 2 and 3?

So a MAPS 3 extension or a MAPS 3/4 bridge like the NBA Arena vote between 2 and 3?

Yes, or something similar.

Otherwise, if we only put it somewhere we can afford, we may be wasting the $280 million.

I wonder as all the decision makers are sitting around today without any sort of feasible Plan B they might be thinking about coming back to the site in another way.

Why not just go back to the public and ask for more money? Have a full public process and some sort of vote.

As I said, I think we are going to end up there no matter where this thing goes so might as well take your medicine now while the site and all the related plans are still a possibility.

OKC needs a new convention center, but how do you convince the average OKC resident of that? Putting a convention center alone to a vote would likely fail. The average joe will be wondering why so much money is needed for a new convention center when there already is the Cox Center. I am sure many people in OKC don't realize how bad the Cox center really is and have no experience with conventions in other cities. The convention center was one of the least popular MAPS3 projects. It was part of MAPS3 because the only way it would pass if coupled with other projects that the average OKC resident is in favor of.

OKC needs a new convention center, but how do you convince the average OKC resident of that? Putting a convention center alone to a vote would likely fail. The average joe will be wondering why so much money is needed for a new convention center when there already is the Cox Center. I am sure many people in OKC don't realize how bad the Cox center really is and have no experience with conventions in other cities. The convention center was one of the least popular MAPS3 projects. It was part of MAPS3 because the only way it would pass if coupled with other projects that the average OKC resident was in favor of.

Yes, you are right it would probably fail and I'm sure they know that.

It was not a popular choice when citizens were polled about MAPS 3 and there would certainly be a lot of political opposition (and not just Ed Shadid) that would campaign very hard against it.

I still like the 235 cap idea even if we have to vote for more money to get it.

I don't see how the city would have enough political capital after this debacle to get approval from citizens on an increase in funding for the project. I am sure many would rather the city just take the money already raised and use as some sort of development incentive for C2S or other areas of town and scrap the new CC altogether.

Dang, good point.

Seems the real failure here is that the city (for whatever reason) is absolutely underestimating costs. Do they do that to get the public onboard? I don't know, but I do get a sense that the citizens of OKC are subject to sticker shock more than in other places. Will the citizens of Seattle stop the convention center expansion due to the price? There will likely be concerns raised, but most people will go along since they realize to compete with the top players, they have to spend the money. OKC needs to realize investments have to be made to move forward. Sounds like there is really no cheap alternative to the site the city just gave up on, that indicates it really has a far greater value than the city was thinking. If so, it makes these other sites more feasible since they really weren't more costly to begin with.

I just hate it when OKC cheaps out on plans and projects. This to me is more detrimental than the "crazies" in the legislature. It is like the citizens in OK all suffer from the post-depression frugality of our grandparents.

I wonder as all the decision makers are sitting around today without any sort of feasible Plan B they might be thinking about coming back to the site in another way.

Why not just go back to the public and ask for more money? Have a full public process and some sort of vote.

As I said, I think we are going to end up there no matter where this thing goes so might as well take your medicine now while the site and all the related plans are still a possibility.

MORE MONEY........NO WAY won't happen. Definitely a conundrum!

Maybe you can get the civic minded Hall group (LOL) to build the hotel on the NE corner of their property while we tear down the CCC
and rebuild. I guess skywalks are in order, no matter where they try to locate.

Engineering costs.

But it is an intriguing location...medical conferences anyone? Bioscience conferences? I have always wished we would integrate a thematic element so that we were playing to our strengths... Could jointly host some kind of medical mart and energy mart facilities.

And GE's presence there plays to our strengths, too, doesn't it?

Alright, how about this.. What if we scrapped the Santa Fe location for the Regional Transit Hub. We then make North Bricktown the location for the Regional Transit Hub and the CC. I believe that space was an issue with the Santa Fe location. That would give us roughly $128 million more to spend. As I have depicted in blue, the west side of the North Bricktown location could be used for the terminals. People riding the bus could go west under the railroad, people going on the train could take escalators to their terminal. Also, we could now run the streetcar through Oklahoma, connecting everything. The streetcar route is depicted in green. Also, future terminal space could be left for the existing spur.

How cool would it be for anyone coming from Norman, Edmond, buses, streetcars and everywhere to this literal "central station"/CC?

The CC Would be above the Hub, and parking to the east as depicted.


10292

The average citizen doesn't know the difference between a convention center and an arena. No way you capture their imagination (or even their attention) asking for more budget for a CC. Only the aginners would show up.

The ship has sailed on Santa Fe I suspect

I thought the ship sailed on the CC too :/ just throwing it out there.

The average citizen doesn't know the difference between a convention center and an arena. No way you capture their imagination (or even their attention) asking for more budget for a CC. Only the aginners would show up.

Yes. The vast majority of people in OKC don't even know that the selected site was scraped. And probably don't even know where the site was to begin with...

I thought the ship sailed on the CC too :/ just throwing it out there.

Except Santa Fe is bought and reno is about to begin?

We do not have a space issue with Santa Fe Station. That rumor was deployed by several activists who wanted to save Union Station in lieu of the I-40 location. Santa Fe Station and the area behind it has the capacity for 65 - 80 years of typical rail growth with typical rail spacing and alignment.

Just glancing at the map that Steve Lackmeyer posted of the the alternative site locations in the newsok article, it would seem that the East Bricktown location would incur no significant changes to the streetcar route to connect to the convention center should that site be selected.

Yeah, I'm sure you're right. My thought process was that $4.5 million to acquire Santa Fe was very small in the grand scheme of this whole thing.

Except Santa Fe is bought and reno is about to begin?

yes

Yeah, I'm sure you're right. My thought process was that $4.5 million to acquire Santa Fe was very small in the grand scheme of this whole thing.

Jared, respect your passion for trying to find a solution.

Keep swinging!

Yeah, I'm sure you're right. My thought process was that $4.5 million to acquire Santa Fe was very small in the grand scheme of this whole thing.

True. But we also received $14 million in funds from the Federal Transit Administration and several matching millions from other agencies (including ODOT). All of that money would have to be returned if we chose a different site. It is now a nearly $30 million project in it's own right outside of the streetcar system.

I don't see how the city would have enough political capital after this debacle to get approval from citizens on an increase in funding for the project. I am sure many would rather the city just take the money already raised and use as some sort of development incentive for C2S or other areas of town and scrap the new CC altogether.

Not to mention the public didn't really want the CC in MAPS 3, to begin with. It had to be logrolled with more popular items like the streetcar and park.


And GE's presence there plays to our strengths, too, doesn't it?

Exactly. The worst we could do is make GE feel more welcomed, and possibly expand. I have noticed in general, most convention centers are bad ideas. The convention centers that find a way to stand out and play to their city's strengths seem to perform better. Cleveland's "Medical Mart" convention center, for instance, is looking promising. Nashville also looked at a "medical mart" and I don't know whether they did it or not, but I'm sure other cities have a special floor or amenity suited to their community's strongest industry.

OKC could find a way to use this planned facility to corner the market on conferences relating to energy, healthcare, or aviation (but not all of these). An "energy mart" is obvious (could anchor the W side of the 235 cap) and maybe a smaller "medical mart" (anchoring the E side of the 235 cap).

What about using the old vacant Downtown Airpark as the new CC site?

I hear there's not much going on there these days...

:o

I know Jack and Crap about convention center design, and Jack left town. Can we build up instead of out? Could you have a 20 story convention center on a normal sized block?

The key in attracting conventions is contiguous exhibition floor space. However the amenity spaces, ballroom, meeting rooms, etc - could all go up.. It seems like a wasted consideration that most CCs are 2 levels max. The hotels especially should require a lot less land assembly.

What if we made a deal for the OK School of Science and Math where they trade land for the City agreeing to build a structured parking garage for the Innovation District and the school receives the income from it. If we ran the streetcar by it we could build a big one that also serves downtown for commuters. Then, we could also make a case for more urban type development along Lincoln and HSC since we would eliminate the argument for each building having massive parking with it.

Along the lines Spartan is saying, use part of the CC for small/med bioscience and energy science meeting, as well as seminars, etc. that would also be attractive to the school.

Just trying to think out of the box.

What if we made a deal for the OK School of Science and Math where they trade land for the City agreeing to build a structured parking garage for the Innovation District and the school receives the income from it. If we ran the streetcar by it we could build a big one that also serves downtown for commuters. Then, we could also make a case for more urban type development along Lincoln and HSC since we would eliminate the argument for each building having massive parking with it.

Along the lines Spartan is saying, use part of the CC for small/med bioscience and energy science meeting, as well as seminars, etc. that would also be attractive to the school.

Just trying to think out of the box.

+1

Maybe it's time to buy the Dolese plant, and put the convention center there. Jump-start development east of I-235. But that would probably cost more than $13 million.

*sigh*

*sigh*

:)

We should just convert crossroads mall in to the new convention center. Within walking distance to fully nude strip clubs in Valley Brook! What out of towners wouldn't enjoy that?

*sigh*

I understand that you can't accept a CC that isn't in or adjacent to Bricktown. Are you okay if buildings are demolished or a new superblock is added in Bricktown?

*sigh*

As I said earlier, we have 3 options:

1) Spend a lot more money than we have on land that fits our convention needs
2) Squeeze the convention center in on land we already own
3) Build it in a different spot and encourage growth around it

Which of those options do you like? Option 1 isn't really an option. We can cram it into one of a handful of spots in Bricktown or Core 2 Shore or we can stick it somewhere else.

Maybe we can get the surrounding municipalities to hurry up and we can get a metro area rail transit system started. Put the convention center right on that path and attendees can take a dedicated light rail train from Bricktown right to the convention center.

...or secret option #4 - Give up on the idea of building a facility that can compete for national conventions and down-scale it to target local and state conventions/trade shows/etc. I think OKC would be well served with a Cox size facility (minus the arena) with better interior space configuration, better architectural design, and better building materials.

It may be thinking outside the box, but there is a ton of empty space up north of Automobile Alley or in Midtown. Does the Convention Center have to be in or near Bricktown or can it possibly go elsewhere (as long as its still in the core)? Urbanized makes some good points about it being within walking distance of amenities, but if its on the streetcar route does it have to be in Bricktown?