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?

The key really is hotel stock. Unfortunately you can't just drop the CC into Midtown/AA because there is a scarcity of hotel rooms in those districts.

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?

Good observation by bcris02 & Urbanized.

Big disappointment for the convention center & conference hotel. If there is a silver lining; it gives us time to re-evaluate.

We will just have to put the convention center & conference hotel on hold; it needs to be the last item built so that we can get our ducks in a row to get it right. Afterall, it was the least popular among the items on the MAPS 3 referendum.

I like the idea of putting it where the BEC parking lot is now and maybe build the hotel on the parking lot adjacent to the ball park (for all the height junkies, it would have to be narrow and therefore taller).

It may not be as big or as expandable as they want it, but I think that may just be the reality they're facing now.

...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.

Man you and your secret options.

Gotta love the comments on the NewsOK article.


Jane Cox Martin: they don't need another convention center and hotels. we have a convention center and hotels downtown. stop wasting money.

Shows what little the average person knows about it.

As far as this.project is concerned, I don't care about 2020, I care about 2030.

This is why the C2S East site works well. There is an abundance of land and OKC will improve such that the limiting factors of today will not hamper the center in the long run. Again...we're talking CADDY CORNER to the previously selected site.

When you consider the growth potential of nearby sites: Bob Howard, Cox CC future, SW Bricktown and East Parkside, the C2S site works. These developments aren't 15 years away like the Health Science center, they are with the Health Science Center...they'll likely come to fruition in the next 5-10 years.

Not only that, with This site, there is plenty of expansion opportunities, and a phase 2 is a lot more realistic and doable here than in Bricktown.

Count me in as well on at least taking a look at the financial considerations for building along the river and perhaps routing the streetcar through there.

Shows what little the average person knows about it.

Casuals...

I'm a fan of C2S east also. We're talking as if there is no open land in OKC, when we've got more open land in C2S than most cities can dream of. And we're looking at having a huge city park in its front yard. There's likely to be another hotel across the park. The Chesapeake Arena is available for overflow or related events. It can all be above ground and it removes the problem of hiding the substation. It's less far to walk to Bricktown or the CBD than people think (I've done it to check) and now we have things like Uber to make travel simpler. There's al sorts of open land around it for development. I think we're selling OKC short and I think it would work.

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?

That characterization is not at all accurate. I can't accept a CC that is not within a ten minute walk of dining, amenities and a good variety of hotel stock. Nor should any taxpayer, regardless of loyalty to Bricktown. Because it would be a failure (or at least a minimal success) as a convention center. Because it would fall outside of the best practices of the convention industry. And because in doing so it would give conference planners a compelling reason to rule out OKC as a destination. I must be doing a terrible job of communicating my thoughts on this.

Core to shore east in addition to the issues with the site. Will also cost far more than 13 mil to acquire

Again, the streetcar would barely make a dent in a several thousand people simultaneously released from an event with an hour to get to lunch, consume lunch, and get back.

Where the streetcar makes sense is as a way of exploring other parts of downtown after hours without time constraints. It's important to the experience, but it doesn't make a bad location workable.

Core to shore east in addition to the issues with the site. Will also cost far more than 13 mil to acquire

Thank you.

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.

I suppose the better questions might be "How much risk does each represent?" and "What level of risk is the city willing to accept for the convention center, notwithstanding the city's lack of backbone on other recent projects?" By deciding to pony up for the original site anyway, the city would get the devil they know. All other options represent the devils they don't yet know. Even with research into the alternate sites, there will likely be a few more devils in the details that can't be anticipated.

That characterization is not at all accurate. I can't accept a CC that is not within a ten minute walk of dining, amenities and a good variety of hotel stock. Nor should any taxpayer, regardless of loyalty to Bricktown. Because it would be a failure (or at least a minimal success) as a convention center. Because it would fall outside of the best practices of the convention industry. And because in doing so it would give conference planners a compelling reason to rule out OKC as a destination. I must be doing a terrible job of communicating my thoughts on this.But you don't think by the time this is built, this will be an up and coming area with some options and more to come?

But you don't think by the time this is built, this will be an up and coming area with some options and more to come?

It's possible if not likely but I am not sure the city should automatically assume that will be the case. In order for the convention center to be a success, it needs to be placed in a location that will be attractive to the convention industry. While getting convention business will give OKC more exposure and will intangibly jump start development, the convention center itself is not the kind of project that should be approached with a "lets use this to kick start development in xxx district" mindset.

Well, we did spend a lot of money on a ballpark and canal when there wasn't much around and that was during a time when the whole CBD was dead.

Now, we have a booming CBD, booming metro, and booming economy, so there is no reason to think why it wouldn't happen. A large park is about to be built, a huge community is underway a mile or two to the south... so I think if the cards are played right, the dominoes could fall into place and when this thing is open, there might already be some options or some to soon open with many planned or underway.

I love the idea over the highway though. There was an article about a possible freeway cap mentioned by some chamber or something and maybe they are taking it seriously.

http://backstage.visitmusiccity.com/conventions/default.aspx
This is a web site for the Nashville convention events. Check this out and then go check out the Cox convention events. Pretty SAD........
To say we will lose events while we are tearing down and rebuilding the Cox center is ridiculous. We can have the home and garden show at the new EXPO center at the Fairgrounds.

But you don't think by the time this is built, this will be an up and coming area with some options and more to come?

Which? OUHSC? No, it won't be adequate (meaning walkable hotels and dining/entertainment) for years, if ever.

Or do you mean C2S? It was planned nine years ago, and not the first project has so much as turned dirt. We're going to gamble the future of the most expensive component of MAPS3 on a decade-old set of plans that included few entertainment elements? Exactly zero hotels are there currently. Will we have enough demand to ignore the existing hotel stock downtown and from-scratch build the number on walkable, non-HQ rooms we would need to be competitive? We already HAVE those rooms elsewhere.

Should C2S even BE an entertainment district? Or is it best-suited to be housing, office and mixed use? Does anyone even know? Won't we have to revisit C2S at some point before proceeding? No way those nine-year-old plans are even RELEVANT at this point.

You guys have a much higher appetite and tolerance for blindly gambling with taxpayer money than I do, I'll tell you that much.

I was thinking C2S. You really seem to know your stuff on this, so I'm not going to argue with you because I don't know squat. I was just thinking out loud.

Which? OUHSC? No, it won't be adequate (meaning walkable hotels and dining/entertainment) for years, if ever.

Or do you mean C2S? It was planned nine years ago, and not the first project has so much as turned dirt. We're going to gamble the future of the most expensive component of MAPS3 on a decade-old set of plans that included few entertainment elements? Exactly zero hotels are there currently. Will we have enough demand to ignore the existing hotel stock downtown and from-scratch build the number on walkable, non-HQ rooms we would need to be competitive? We already HAVE those rooms elsewhere.

Should C2S even BE an entertainment district? Or is it best-suited to be housing, office and mixed use? Does anyone even know? Won't we have to revisit C2S at some point before proceeding? No way those nine-year-old plans are even RELEVANT at this point.

You guys have a much higher appetite and tolerance for blindly gambling with taxpayer money than I do, I'll tell you that much.

Like.

One thing I want to remind people is the debacle that was the Pei urban renewal plan was based on false assumptions that didn't come to fruition. Times changed and the market changed yet the city stayed the course. OKC would be very foolish to gamble the success of the convention center on an assumption that Core 2 Shore is going to be what was originally envisioned or that it will be developed in a timely manner. It could turn out to be great or it could be a disaster. The CC needs to be in a location where it will be a guaranteed success.

Like.

One thing I want to remind people is the debacle that was the Pei urban renewal plan was based on false assumptions that didn't come to fruition. Times changed and the market changed yet the city stayed the course. OKC would be very foolish to gamble the success of the convention center on an assumption that Core 2 Shore is going to be what was originally envisioned or that it will be developed in a timely manner. It could turn out to be great or it could be a disaster. The CC needs to be in a location where it will be a guaranteed success.

And unfortunately the number of financially sensible locations in currently suggested areas that would guarantee such a success approach zero.

And unfortunately the number of financially sensible locations in currently suggested areas that would guarantee such a success approach zero.

There are a few. The most obvious is the Bricktown Events Center parking lot.

There are a few. The most obvious is the Bricktown Events Center parking lot.

Hardly "a few." And it has already been discussed here several times that particular lot would not support the size of the proposed CC without incorporating the Body Works lot adjacent -- which again would come at a significant financial cost.

The biggest problem with Core to Shore is the idiotic boulevard. We sound like people who think you have to be able to drive up and park in front of a store to shop (are we still those people?). Guys, it's not as if Core to Shore is in a different part of the city. It's immediately adjacent to the previously planned Convention Center. And I think OG&E owes us. That area is going to be a lot more attractive than East Bricktown, which has ODOT's Folly and Bass Pro as focal points.

The biggest problem with Core to Shore is the idiotic boulevard. We sound like people who think you have to be able to drive up and park in front of a store to shop (are we still those people?). Guys, it's not as if Core to Shore is in a different part of the city. It's immediately adjacent to the previously planned Convention Center. And I think OG&E owes us. That area is going to be a lot more attractive than East Bricktown, which has ODOT's Folly and Bass Pro as focal points.

Agreed.

I will use my trip to Orlando and the Orange County Convention Center for a conference last week as an example. For such a massive convention center, there are only two full-service hotels that actually service it (the POS Rosen and the Hyatt Regency). I ended up staying 3 miles away at an Embassy Suites and had zero issue with the 5 minute drive to the OCCC. While it is fairly convenient to International Dr, it is no closer to the main attractions than the C2S site would be to Bricktown.

I was just thinking about the unattractive and far away location of the New Orleans CC. Granted New Orleans is appealing to visit, but I've never once thought I wouldn't go to a convention there because of it. And we've always stayed in the French Quarter and walked.

I was just thinking about the unattractive and far away location of the New Orleans CC. Granted New Orleans is appealing to visit, but I've never once thought I wouldn't go to a convention there because of it. And we've always stayed in the French Quarter and walked.

New Orleans has the built in advantage of being New Orleans. It's like Las Vegas, Orlando, or Savannah. Those are cities people want to go to. OKC's national perception will come into play when it comes to getting conventions if the convention center isn't in a location that will knock the socks off convention organizers and convention attendees.

Again, I think we're being short-sighted. I agree about New Orleans being more appealing. But we're not talking about putting this in a backwater. If we do the park right, being right across from it is a heck of a lot better location than a lot of convention centers from an aesthetics standpoint. If we put the front on the park, you'll walk out to see the park in front of you, and hopefully some super land-is-worth-$100-million development to your right. To your left is the SkyDance bridge and Union Station, which will hopefully contain a great restaurant and a pretty cool event space - maybe some shops too. Maybe there will be food trucks outside as well. Maybe we can develop weekend outdoor kiosk shopping late spring-summer and fall. The streetcar will run by and its a pleasant stroll to the CBD or Bricktown. The streetcar or Uber will take you to Midtown for dining or shopping late afternoon. It was always my first choice.

Betts, it doesn't conform to industry best practices. By A LOT. Whether or not you don't find it that bad of a walk is immaterial. You could probably do an appendectomy with a rusty pocket knife too, but it is a really, REALLY bad idea to actually try it.

Again, I think we're being short-sighted. I agree about New Orleans being more appealing. But we're not talking about putting this in a backwater. If we do the park right, being right across from it is a heck of a lot better location than a lot of convention centers from an aesthetics standpoint. If we put the front on the park, you'll walk out to see the park in front of you, and hopefully some super land-is-worth-$100-million development to your right. To your left is the SkyDance bridge and Union Station, which will hopefully contain a great restaurant and a pretty cool event space - hopefully some shops too. Maybe there will be food trucks outside as well. Maybe we can develop outdoor kiosk shopping late spring-summer and fall. The streetcar will run by and its a pleasant stroll to the CBD or Bricktown. The streetcar or Uber will take you to Midtown for dining or shopping late afternoon. It was always my first choice.

This is absolutely correct, but we'd have to assume too many ifs (the park is well-constructed, the boulevard is pedestrian friendly, the Ford site is an appealing destination, there are natural and comfortable paths to Bricktown). I would actually prefer the C2S site if these things were assured of happening and the Cox site were also redeveloped. Other than that, the U-Haul location is likely the best place (proximity to existing amenities, not cutoff by ODOT's folly, no conflict with rail). The main drawback is the Iten Biscuit building, which I doubt would be integrated into the plan, unfortunately. Even further, we'd have to take the eventual CCC redevelopment as gospel -- so I'm making my own assumptions. :-/

^

Just so you know, the Uhaul site was considered but eliminated very early because there simply isn't enough land.

I think we should move the location of the Core 2 Shore Central Park. Let's put it out near the fairgrounds somewhere. That way the value of the original convention center site drops way down. Then we acquire the land. Then we change our minds and move the park back.

Brilliant!

It's one block farther south and two blocks further east than the original site. It was on the Populous list and was the mayor's first choice. It's a heck of a lot closer to Bricktown and the CBD than the New Orleans convention center. I'm going to have to say that there are sometimes more important things than walking distance, and that the reason there was a list for scoring is that the best location is a gestalt of multiple positives. We aren't getting a CC in the location some people preferred. We have to go with the best option and I personally see more positives than negatives with that site. It's a moot point anyway. I'm not on the committee.

Thank goodness for small favors.

It was on the Populous list and quickly discarded as having FATAL FLAWS. Flaws which I have been detailing here, if anyone would listen. Oh, and it needs and extra $30 million for site remediation. At a minimum. Not that anyone cares...

^

It wasn't quickly discarded.

I was one of three finalists and the other two have been pretty much eliminated.

Thank goodness for small favors.

It was on the Populous list and quickly discarded as having FATAL FLAWS. Flaws which I have been detailing here, if anyone would listen. Oh, and it needs and extra $30 million for site remediation. At a minimum. Not that anyone cares...

I say we scrap the whole thing and build a 15-story parking garage next to Central Park with the money.

How expensive would it be to put in a people mover system from the site to say the transportation hub or north side of the gardens?

As a reminder, the site selection process started with a bunch of sites that have all pretty much been discussed.

In April of 2011, they narrowed down to five semi-finalists (order of scoring at that time):
1. Core to Shore North
2. Bricktown East Hybrid (I was wrong about this being the Steelyard site; it's the entire block where the Bricktown Events Center is located, plus the Bodworks site to the east, plus more)
3. Core to Shore South
4. Cox Center
5. Bricktown North

In June, they cut it down to the top three and the order remained the same; at that same time they declared C2S N as the winner:
1. C2S N
2. BT East
3. C2S S

Here was the preliminary plan for Core to Shore South. With recent transactions, I want to estimate what it would cost to acquire the land but at first glance, it seems doable (i.e. within the $13 million budget) for the first phase. That $30 million which was to have gone towards making the main exhibit hall larger than originally planned would have to go towards the substation relocation.

Also, this configuration means moving the convention hotel just SE on that same intersection of the Boulevard & Robinson.

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/option12.jpg

^

It wasn't quickly discarded.

I was one of three finalists and the other two have been pretty much eliminated.
Then as you previously said, time to revisit the Cox as an option. It would take creativity for sure. But sometimes adversity brings out the best of that trait in bright people.

Also, the east Bricktown location has some interesting possibilities, as I think more about it. First, walkable proximity to hotel stock is reasonably good, and getting better. Including full-service announced and on the way.

Second, the City could use TIF funding for structured parking across Reno, on the BP surface lot. This could actually serve a dual purpose of serving the CC and ALSO (if big enough) being an impetus to Hogan to infill some of his underutilized land. He has recently indicated a desire to revisit development in Lower Bricktown, but structured parking is needed and difficult to pull off. This would be a VERY justifiable use of TIF, and wouldn't take away from the CC budget.

Third, if the Bodyworks site were incorporated there would be room for growth, and the CC hotel could be located here and pushed vertical. The site is also already convenient to the streetcar route, for those who believe the streetcar is a CC magic bullet. This site has many of the same advantages of the second-choice location from the old study (now Steelyard), AND oh, BTW, most of it is already City-owned.

I still believe the Main Street lot could be done with a creative approach (GREAT proximity to existing full-service hotels), and frankly I still think the lumberyard is a decent site to explore. One if the knocks on it was price, but I'm guessing it won't be $100 million.

So, while the city is out of EASY options, it certainly isn't without any options whatsoever. They will only require more creativity.

If it's in Bricktown then we will see a 5 story hotel attached, height restrictions in BT. This CC must not be built in Bricktown. C2S is the only realistic site of the ones considered IMO.

I suspect that politically/realistically we are going to end up with Core 2 Shore south.

I am ready to propose the the Core to Shore South site because:

1. Is is very close to the previous site
2. Hotel would only have to be moved across the street; will be on park and next to the arena
3. Preserves Cox site for future CBD expansion as identified in recent study
4. Two of the three blocks are already owned by a public entity: the substation and the ODOT block to the north
5. The OG&E property will be given to the City as part of the Clayco deal and could be used for the project or a parking garage (parking will have to be accounted for some way
6. The $30 million for cc expansion that was recently added back to the budget could be used for the substation relocation
7. It will completely redevelop a blighted area; the City has been concentrating on redevelopment on the other side of the park.
8. It would pull people and development south towards the next phase of Central Park, the river and points south

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/c2ss1.jpg

I am ready to propose the the Core to Shore South site because:

1. Is is very close to the previous site
2. Hotel would only have to be moved across the street; will be on park and next to the arena
3. Preserves Cox site for future CBD expansion as identified in recent study
4. Two of the three blocks are already owned by a public entity: the substation and the ODOT block to the north
5. The OG&E property will be given to the City as part of the Clayco deal and could be used for the project or a parking garage (parking will have to be accounted for some way
6. The $30 million for cc expansion that was recently added back to the budget could be used for the substation relocation
7. It will completely redevelop a blighted area; the City has been concentrating on redevelopment on the other side of the park.
8. It would pull people and development south towards the next phase of Central Park, the river and points south


Not to mention moving the substation away from Central Park will be more than beneficial regardless of where the CC is built.

Not that this is the perfect example by any means (and lord help me for even bringing it up), but what Dallas was able to turn a blighted, run-down brownfield into (arena, victory park, etc) should be hope enough for OKC to build a couple blocks away from Bricktown and inspire more development in the area.

Right, the substation still has to be dealt with whether we build the cc in the area or not.

This is really starting to grow on me. It really isn't that big of a difference compared to the old site either.

I am ready to propose the the Core to Shore South site because:

1. Is is very close to the previous site
2. Hotel would only have to be moved across the street; will be on park and next to the arena
3. Preserves Cox site for future CBD expansion as identified in recent study
4. Two of the three blocks are already owned by a public entity: the substation and the ODOT block to the north
5. The OG&E property will be given to the City as part of the Clayco deal and could be used for the project or a parking garage (parking will have to be accounted for some way
6. The $30 million for cc expansion that was recently added back to the budget could be used for the substation relocation
7. It will completely redevelop a blighted area; the City has been concentrating on redevelopment on the other side of the park.
8. It would pull people and development south towards the next phase of Central Park, the river and points south

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/c2ss1.jpg


This is rational, this or the Cox center. But the City needs to sit down with Pete and find out if the OGE deal is doable. DONT ASSUME LIKE THEY DID WITH HOWARD. He wasn't going to sell at a loss. Better planning is needed.

Welp, if so it will likely be pretty a pretty bad break for the convention center, the industry, and by extension taxpayers. Goes without saying (but I'll say it anyway) that I hope other options are thoroughly explored.

I really, really don't like the idea of using the Cox site unless we absolutely have to.

The study clearly indicated it's needed for growth of the business district and the last thing we need to do is cut that off and then replace it with another public super block. Plus, it would probably still not be doable within the existing budget.

We would probably have money left over in the land acquisition budget if we went C2S South which could go towards the substation or whatever may be needed.

Plus, it would leverage the free land from OG&E.


I really think this is the way to go and would make a huge difference in kick-starting Core to Shore and the park.

Just speculation....but who is to say Howard wouldn't leverage this particular CC location (C2S South), should it be chosen, and build a hotel or two (or even mixed residential/hotel, retail) adjacent on the other side of the blvd?

BTW, I'd feel much better about giving land to a hotel developer if we didn't have to pay for it ourselves, as opposed to paying REHCO a ton then essentially giving it away.

Just speculation....but who is to say Howard wouldn't leverage this particular CC location (C2S South), should it be chosen, and build a hotel or two (or even mixed residential/hotel) adjacent on the other side of the blvd?

You know a hotel or two would be part of whatever development goes on that site, whether it's developed by the current owners or if it's sold.

Also, you can bet more hotels will eventually go on the Cox site.

By all means, we all know the most important focus of building a $1/4 billion convention center should be activation of a park and kick starting growth in a part of town where the private sector has shown zero appetite to build.

Who cares if it actually, you know...books conventions?

Chicken or egg?

By all means, we all know the most important focus of building a $1/4 billion convention center should be activation of a park and kick starting growth in a part of town where the private sector has shown zero appetite to build.

The decision should be made in terms of what is best for OKC and not just what is best for the convention center.

If it's a failed convention center the best thing for OKC would be to not build it in the first place.

If it's a failed convention center the best thing for OKC would be to not build it in the first place.

I think that was the rationalization by many and always has been.

So your proposing the Cox site?