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

The paid consultants and the committee we empowered to make the site selection chose it as one of the finalists and it seems now to be the only doable option of the three. They clearly thought the project could be successful there.

Everybody bought into that process and we shouldn't just throw it away because some don't like the result.

As a reminder, there were two years of work, workshops and meetings that went into that. Not to mention a fair amount of money.

It doesn't get built.......do not count on another MAPS vote.

I'm not proposing any site. I am proposing that we thoroughly investigate all options and act on the best one available, as determined by experts, in light of conditions as we know them today and as far as we can predict the future.

The best site will also provide the best return on investment, thereby justifying its use even if more expensive. Too much reliance on a study that is several years old is fraught with peril; much has changed downtown since then (except for the absolute lack of development in C2S).

A rush to name "the best location" based upon factors that only tangentially consider what will guarantee a successful facility is a recipe for disaster. We've already had a major setback. At this point we need to focus on being wise, well-reasoned and creative.

^

I haven't seen another idea that even comes close to being realistic based on the current budget.

We've talked about every conceivable option.

At least C2S is feasible and already identified as a good option.

We had a major set back do to the lack of communication. Assumption is a sure way to failure. The City leaders need to pay for the coring samples that were done and the contingency fees (legal fee for the parties involved) and move on.

Here was the East Bricktown site that was rated #2.

There is simply no way this is feasible. I realize it's not the only other option, but it was rated second best.

Since this was drawn up, the IHOP building sold for a ton of money, as did the lot to the north. Criterion Concert Hall just broke ground. The Brewers just spent millions on the Bricktown Events Center. SpringHill suites is now under construction. The Bodyworks site is under contract, no doubt at a large amount. I don't think we could cobble together anything remotely large enough given the cc budget and all these movements.

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/option13.jpg

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?

Urbanized, I completely agree with everything you've said about the convention center and best practices for the convention industry. However, I am wondering why the site Pete suggested doesn't work when its literally across the street from the site initially chosen?

You aren't including across the street to the south as a part of the equation. City-owned property, BTW.

You aren't including across the street to the south as a part of the equation. City-owned property, BTW.

Which would almost certainly be needed as parking and probably a parking garage.

Otherwise, where would people park?

Urbanized, I completely agree with everything you've said about the convention center and best practices for the convention industry. However, I am wondering why the site Pete suggested doesn't work when its literally across the street from the site initially chosen?

nm

I agree; probably structured parking. And perhaps some other elements. Again, I'm interested in fresh professional opinions being rendered on all sites worthy of consideration. Not ballpark guesses, not speculation, and with as few political agendas as possible. If it takes another consultant agreements so be it.

Hopefully that transpires here. If the City is as eager as you are to decide on a replacement location only 24 hours in, they aren't giving the process due consideration. Thankfully the City staff is blessed with lots of smart folks who take their jobs very seriously, and I don't think they will rush to judgment quite as quickly as we seem to be on this board.

Any analysis would have to start with the given budget.

We can talk for years about the ideal piece of real estate (wait, we already did that!) but it's time to deal with that reality up front, rather than spending more time, energy and money on a wild goose chase.

I don't think it's worthwhile to consider any site before it's determined the acquisition would be at least close to the budget and it would provide the necessary space for the cc, hotel and parking.

And yet you are discounting sites that we already substantially own.

And yet you are discounting sites that we already substantially own.

I -- and everyone else -- am all ears!

Put forth your suggestion / recommendation as I did.

Any analysis would have to start with the given budget.

We can talk for years about the ideal piece of real estate (wait, we already did that!) but it's time to deal with that reality up front, rather than spending more time, energy and money on a wild goose chase.

I don't think it's worthwhile to consider any site before it's determined the acquisition would be at least close to the budget and it would provide the necessary space for the cc, hotel and parking.

He is right. Let me put it this way, it is 11:30 pm in the bar, you have only 10 bucks in your wallet and most of the pretty girls have already left. Oh and BTW, they called last call.......
WHAT R U GOING TO DO?

I already have already detailed some thoughts, in this very thread. But my best suggestion is that we allow the City's leadership to use their creativity and smarts to work themselves out of this mess. I'm willing to wait and see what they come up with. Fortunately for both of us (and probably for the city) you and I aren't the ones charged with making this decision.

We don't have to get in a rush but we also don't need to waste more time and money on sites that we can't afford and/or don't offer the required space.

I would love to come up with a scenario for East Bricktown but I just don't see one.

I also can't come up with any other decent site give the parameters of budget, size and decent location.

It sure would be nice to have a couple of good options that the consultants and committee could hone in on and pit against each other.

Agree. This is where I think some creativity possibly could carry the day. LITERALLY out-of-the-box thinking, if you will.

I can't believe people don't like my idea of using the northern most part of the new core 2 shore maps park.

Why not just scrap the pond. Do we really need it with a world class rowing river a walk away?

We've acquired all the land while it was cheap. It would still be basically in the same spot as the ford dealership, only across the boulavard. It also allows more space to be developed downtown, including the most prime location in okc which is the ford dealership, since nothing else would've been allowed to be built on the park land.

It would allow great access to the park from convention attendees without ever having to cross the street. Come on guys I know you can picture it!!

I already have already detailed some thoughts, in this very thread. But my best suggestion is that we allow the City's leadership to use their creativity and smarts to work themselves out of this mess. I'm willing to wait and see what they come up with. Fortunately for both of us (and probably for the city) you and I aren't the ones charged with making this decision.

Well, of course.

All of us are just trying to step through this as they would and we're not coming up with many options.

I'm sure as of yesterday afternoon they have all been going through a similar process and I bet it will lead them to similar conclusions.

I hope they find a way to get a little bit more creative than we have. IMO putting the CC in C2S is about as much of a nonstarter as putting the streetcar at the fairgrounds.

Is taking park land a better result than putting it to the east of the park? They are basically the same answer. One option gives you a smaller park and more room for private development. The other gives you a larger public space. Since I am to poor to play in the core to shore area I choose the larger park.

IMO putting the CC in C2S is about as much of a nonstarter as putting the streetcar at the fairgrounds.

I respect where you are coming from on this and why you think the way you do about that site.

I don't happen to agree, but fair enough.

More importantly, though, the consultants and committee that we are relying upon to chose a site seem to disagree with you too. I'm sure it never would have made the final round had they not considered it at least viable and probably even a good option.

Is taking park land a better result than putting it to the east of the park? They are basically the same answer. One option gives you a smaller park and more room for private development. The other gives you a larger public space. Since I am to poor to play in the core to shore area I choose the larger park.

It would also give you more money for a better convention center by decreasing acquisition and moving the substation costs.

And would basically leave more money for the park due to lowered land acquisition cost . And due to less land they could invest more money per each square foot giving us a more quality park.

Room for future growth is a big positive.

You can add a moving sidewalk along EKGaylord that would take conventioneers from the CC and cc hotel directly to the tunnel in the transportation hub and then they only have a very short walk through the tunnel into brick town. Likewise, it would only be a couple more blocks west to the Sheraton and Skirvin. It would also link the cc to the transportation options at the hub. Think Vegas or any number of airports. It would cut 4 blocks off the walk to lunch or hotels and get people across the boulevard without waiting for lights.

Another benefit to the C2S South site: It would likely speed redevelopment of the Producer's Coop property, as it would be quite close and accessible through a couple of existing underpasses that go under the rail line.

Once the boulevard goes in that Coop is going to be even a bigger offense to the eye and nose.

Here's what I mean:

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/c2ss2.jpg

The only thing that sucks about that Pete is the hotel doesn't front the Boulevard, but I understand why it you have it like that (vehicular access)

It might force a kinder, gentler boulevard in that area. Pedestrian friendly and all that. I am having trouble seeing a significant change in distance between the 2 sites if you look at the map relative to Bricktown. That was my impression when I walked it a few years ago.

The only thing that sucks about that Pete is the hotel doesn't front the Boulevard, but I understand why it you have it like that (vehicular access)

That's a different "proposed hotel" that's labeled on the pic. Pete's proposal would put the convention hotel on the boulevard.

That's not bad, Pete. Some of the other options are far worse. In fact - I like it.

Yes my label was referring to the Core to Shore Hotel.

My other plan for where to put the convention center involves buying a bunch of these:

http://www5.pcmag.com/media/images/334550-bttf-hover-board.jpg?thumb=y

And letting it float around above downtown.

Just throwing a couple things out... Aren't there a few cool old buildings that would have to be demolished in this plan? I think one of the buildings recently flipped.

Also, at least half of the Boulevard frontage will be on a new grade decline to go under the railroad tracks. The underpass is slated at 17.50' feet. I think the depression is 8' or 9'. It is fairly gradual over that distance but it will affect how much of the frontage will end up being at an even grade.

My other plan for where to put the convention center involves buying a bunch of these:

http://www5.pcmag.com/media/images/334550-bttf-hover-board.jpg?thumb=y

And letting it float around above downtown.

Awesome. That's exactly what we need (of course, we would need to make sure it hovered directly over Bricktown and not C2S):

http://tonightswatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/district-9-original-780x400.jpg

If we are going to surround MBG with office buildings we might as well dedicate the entire east side of Central Park to a convention center.

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

Serious question - define 'failed' (or 'successful' if it is easier).

That's a different "proposed hotel" that's labeled on the pic. Pete's proposal would put the convention hotel on the boulevard.

got it now that i'm not viewing on my phone, thanks. yeah i like that.

So the U Haul site and adjacent surface lot is too small. I'm kinda with betts here that C2S south isn't as bad as Urbanized wants us to belive (I really value your input though, and it's very convincing and smart). I work south of 40 and just east of Robinson north of 15th, so I definitely welcome any development towards us, but I see Urbanized's point about asking developers to move into an area that no one has shown interest in ever. Also, I want to know what REHCO is going to do with their site west of the Peake, if you have a CC at the C2S South site, and a park, and then a blank space, that sucks.

Also, I want to know what REHCO is going to do with their site west of the Peake, if you have a CC at the C2S South site, and a park, and then a blank space, that sucks.

You have to assume they either have big plans of their own or a serious offer from someone else if they turned down +$17 million.

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've favored this from the beginning. This site is now the top rated one from the study and has more merit than some wish to give. Someone used the Dallas CC island as an example of a CC removed from restaurants. That is true, but the C2S South site is not as isolated from restaurants and hotels as the Dallas CC is. It is a short walk to Bricktown and will have a very large park that will doubtlessly spur more development even closer.

Urbanized,

You are clearly the most informed person in this thread in terms of what is needed for a convention center to be successful. My biggest problem with your statements is not that I think you're lying…it's that you absolutely refuse to acknowledge that your requirements will all be substantially met in the very near future. Furthermore, you exaggerate walk time so that they just fall outside of your acknowledged timeframes. For instance, from SW4th/Robinson (which is unlikely the exit that convention planners would assume, as there would almost certainly be a north exit incorporated, even with the Hotel on the north site, but I'm using it here as a conservative estimate) is 9/10 minutes away from Sheridan/Broadway, which means 3 of the current 4 full service hotels are within the appropriate radius. Bricktown is a bit further 11/12 minutes to Fuzzy's or Zio's (Texadelphia is 10 minute exactly)…But nearly all of Bricktown is within a very reasonable 15 minute walk for many convention goers and for the evenings where generally the dining options present are far more important (Lunch time is always far more scattered and hurried during conventions whereas dinner usually affords more time).

And again, none of this counts the fact that there will be new dining and hotel options on the current Bob Howard site, the current Cox site, and on the East side of the park (let alone anything that comes along West Parkside).

I can't see how any reasonable glance into the not-so-distant future (2030 at the absolute latest) could paint C2S South site as anything but the *BEST* option, if not before, certainly now.

And all this is without any sort of creative solutions being offered that can expedite the times from the C2S south to other important OKC locations.

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


I like this site for all those reasons, but I would shift the entire thing one block east. From the the point where the hotel meets the exhibit halls along the boulevard, it is approx 2550 feet to the plaza in front of Harkins Theater. The halls & garage can be arranged a couple different ways within that footprint and the hotel footprint can be reduced (and hotel height increased). It would take up less space fronting the park thereby freeing up more for private development, but would still be adjacent to it. Tuck the loading docks along Shields out of sight but still with more than adequate access. If even more space is desired, extend the footprint another block south. There is a lot of flexibility available at this site and has advantages over all the other ones mentioned.

10297

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.

Not to mention the city let the Stage Center for OG&E's headquarters (yes I know they didn't buy it directly) site go for basically nothing in light of the claimed value of the C2S North location, so they kind of owe the city some sort of consideration.

You can add a moving sidewalk along EKGaylord that would take conventioneers from the CC and cc hotel directly to the tunnel in the transportation hub and then they only have a very short walk through the tunnel into brick town. Likewise, it would only be a couple more blocks west to the Sheraton and Skirvin. It would also link the cc to the transportation options at the hub. Think Vegas or any number of airports. It would cut 4 blocks off the walk to lunch or hotels and get people across the boulevard without waiting for lights.

This is good out of the box thinking.

How would you align this moving sidewalk and where would you put it exactly?

BTW, I know we have now have to pay the $30 million to move the substation but that is at least somewhat off-set by:

1. We had to do something with it anyway. The Central Park plan called for it to at least be screened, although the park budget would not be used for that. And still, a massive screened substation would still be right next to the park and in the middle of any development in that area.

2. The old site required a bunch of extra money to put the main exhibit hall (and future expansions) and other things underground. They had to budget extra money for that and when the time came to actually bid out that work, it was likely to run even more; every single MAPS 3 project that has been put out to bid has come in over budget.

3. The old site also required the docks be underground and all four sides of the center to be 'pretty', because it fronted main roads on all four sides. With the C2S South site, you can put the docks in the back, don't have to bury them and you also don't have the expense of high-end finishes along at least one entire elevation.

4. We might have money left over in the land acquisition section of the budget.

5. $30 million was originally set aside for this purpose anyway.

Here's what I mean:

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/c2ss2.jpg

How many different owners would we have to deal with the acquire all this property? I know that took a while with the park, & property values have increased pretty substantially (A lot of that thanks to the new park.....)

If the property caddy corner was worth ~$100 million what makes you think this property would be so much less?

JTF, "successful" would mean pulling conferences and conventions above our weight; that is comparably more of them than similarly-sized cities with similar facilities. The way this is done is by being walkable to a variety of rooms and amenities. Oklahoma City is actually very unusual in our configuration and ability to do this...as long as the facility is within an industry-standard 10 minute bubble.

A "successful" facility would be able to cover most or all of its ongoing maintenance costs with booking revenues, and would not be a significant ongoing drain to City resources and the general fund. It would also bring enough out-of-metro bookings to have a positive economic impact, to the point where it even pays for itself (and more) long-term via increased sales tax revenues and hotel revenues associated with events. Local events, high school graduations, family reunions, etc., don't have the same economic impact.

A "failed" facility would do few if any of these things, would require significant ongoing operating subsidy, and would pull bookings below our weight and below the potential of our dense, amenity-rich downtown area. The path to a "failed" facility consists of a walk of over 10 minutes. We will automatically fall out of consideration for many if not most events.

Teo, these aren't exaggeratations. They are industry standards and best practices, and the walk time numbers I am using are obtainable by you or anybody use, derived from the walk time distance measuring tool in Google Maps, which assumes a standard 3MPH pace (a brisk walk speed, I might add). You're welcome to put in the work yourself; just please make sure that you factor hotel footprint, loading dock locations, likely entrances, etc. it's not rocket surgery.

Be fair and impartial, as I have been. And yes, I have been these things; I have little against the C2S site other than the distance/walkability issue, which will cause a large number of conventions to refuse to even consider OKC.

Who would have thought building across the street would be like building it across town. Surly the old site had to be garbage too. If building a successful convention center involves building dead center in downtown, I guess its not possible to build a successful convention center because OKC voters will never approve a sales tax extension. Yelling at people to be creative isn't going to change the amount it costs to buy land.

I know you're being mocking and sarcastic, but in many ways it WOULD be similar to locating across town, as far as convention planners would see it. According to commonly-held standards, anything over a ten minute walk will cause most people to opt for their car instead, which negates the convenience of downtown rooms and amenities.

I am going to trust Urbanized on this since he knows the industry. Looking on a map it doesn't seem like there would be that big of a difference but a 9 minute walk vs 11 minute walk could make all the difference when it comes to getting conventions. I guess the UHAUL site is probably best, but I will sure hate to see that building come down.

...Yelling at people to be creative isn't going to change the amount it costs to buy land.
You obviously haven't been reading my posts very closely, because unlike you I have been nothing but respectful to other posters, and the creativity I'm calling for mostly involves the use of sites that the City already owns.

How many different owners would we have to deal with the acquire all this property? I know that took a while with the park, & property values have increased pretty substantially (A lot of that thanks to the new park.....)

If the property caddy corner was worth ~$100 million what makes you think this property would be so much less?

There would be three blocks to be acquired (north to south):
1. Largely owned by ODOT and could be traded for existing City land (a common practice)
2. Electrical substation already owned by the City
3. A jumble of junky buildings of no historical value. The City already owns about a quarter of the parcels and there are four other owners.

Keep in mind, the City was able to acquire every parcel for Central Park directly to the west without much trouble. They now own everything within the park boundaries.

Convention Centers of the Future, Designed Today - Collaborate Meetings (http://www.collaboratemeetings.com/feature/convention-centers-of-the-future-designed-today-2/)

This is an interesting read since it quotes Populous. I still think, after reading it, that the appeal of the setting in C2S might ameliorate any negativity caused by that extra 2 minutes. Imagine the pictures in the brochure!

I've just been taking this in silently for the last couple of days, but while reading these last few posts something occurred to me. Will the boulevard north of the C2S East site be low enough (or could be built low enough) that it could be capped for more pedestrian friendly access to the north?

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/ima/pete/c2ss1.jpg

9. And because you hate the park?

That's literally the park's "active edge" LOL. Shoulda known. How can we lump as many superblock boondoggles as closely together as possible? I also liked your depiction of the parking garage fronting the boulevard. Perfectly sums up our "civic values" and puts them on display.

We'll have a great shot at hosting conventions on black hole theories.

I've just been taking this in silently for the last couple of days, but while reading these last few posts something occurred to me. Will the boulevard north of the C2S East site be low enough (or could be built low enough) that it could be capped for more pedestrian friendly access to the north?
David that's an interesting thought, but I doubt it. Recall that it must return to street level by the time it reaches the Robinson intersection and Chesapeake Arena entrance. The depth of the new underpass through the viaduct is being set by modern semi trailer heights, and that clearance would have to be maintained for the full length of any cap, so you would not be able to begin sloping up to Robinson (a significant height) until you cleared the cap. It becomes a geometry problem.

More detailed look at the property to be acquired (outlined in red).

Only buildings of historic value are highlighted in pink. This is the one that falls with the expansion area and could be built around and/or incorporated if need be:

http://www.oklahomacounty.org/assessor/Searches/sketches/picfile/1613/R017208280001tA.jpg

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/c2ss3.jpg

9. And because you hate the park?

That's literally the park's "active edge" LOL. Shoulda known. How can we lump as many superblock boondoggles as closely together as possible? I also liked your depiction of the parking garage fronting the boulevard. Perfectly sums up our "civic values" and puts them on display.

We'll have a great shot at hosting conventions on black hole theories.

The parking garage on the boulevard could easily contain retail on that side.

But as previously noted, the boulevard will be below grade at that point anyway.

And please, tone down the rhetoric.