If the Uhaul site is considered then they might as well stop construction on the east portion of the boulevard now because it will connect to nothing. Oklahoma Ave was to be the only connecting street into Bricktown from the boulevard. Lose that intersection and the next is all the way to Robinson, which already has an exit from I-40.

What about Shields ?

The biggest problem for the North Bricktown site is that the Intermodal Hub Study and Master Plan for Santa Fe Station requires a right-of-way envelope and elevated ramp across the site in order to provide effective connectivity into and out of Santa Fe Station for future Commuter Rail, Intercity Rail and/or High-Speed Rail services to the Adventure District, Midwest City, Tulsa and other destinations to the east. The earlier convention center proposal for this site would have eliminated that connection. Currently, the City is trying to find a way to develop a parking garage on the site that would also preserve the necessary rail connectivity. So far, they have not come up with a workable solution. Siting the convention center there would necessitate the same design considerations. It's likely a fatal flaw, unless you're willing to disregard the connectivity requirements for Santa Fe Station.

Here's the initial operating design for Santa Fe (two platforms utilizing the existing terminal area):

10307

Here's the future expansion design for Santa Fe (three platforms and an expanded terminal area):

10308

I still wonder if we could run the rail line through the convention center. I really don't see why we couldn't. Put parking on the bottom two floors of the building. Leave an empty path in the design for the future expanded rail line. Put the contiguous exhibit space on the third floor, above the rail.

That location has the advantage that most of the walls are going to be shielded from the street. You don't have to worry about making a lot of the exterior look "pretty". The west portion will be blocked by the elevated N/S rail lines. The east portion can have the loading docks and all the ugly stuff, and you run it right up to the Mickey Mantle bridge. With both of those sides you just need to worry about whatever sticks out on top being presentable. On the north facing, half of the space will be blocked from the street by Aloft. You can put one of the street entrances there between Aloft and that renovated house thing. You can keep the old wooden train platform there as a piece of history. The second piece that faces the street would be the one on Main between the train tracks and Oklahoma Ave.

There should be significant cost savings because you've got already-existing barriers that can shield the ugly parts of the center from people walking by on the street.

Personally, I'm against the Core 2 Shore site because I think the park is more valuable to the city, overall, than the convention center. That land will be one of the most prime spaces in the city. If you want housing, offices, and retail all along Robinson, if you want to eventually redevelop the Cotton Mill and connect it with the rest of the city, then you don't want to plop a convention center right there and form a superblock that will be there for the next 50 years.

Just as an aside, I'm noticing some trends rising to the forefront. Certain people are literally tunnel-visioned into the mindset of "get the CC as close to the center of downtown AS POSSIBLE." Most of those ideas seem to be horrible ideas.

We are a community that is showing a fear of thinking outside of the box, especially on the convention center issue. The frustrating thing is it's a project nobody wants to begin with, but we gotta have, so some outside the box thinking could potentially turn this from a mediocre project comin' to a block near you, into a GREAT project. But we aren't there yet and show no signs (or interest) of getting there.


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.

The problem is that because ODOT got an element of design wrong on that project, doesn't make it okay to just add another layer of bad design surrounding that. One layer of bad design is very easy to peel off and correct, but multiple layers - it's doomed for eternity.

I was joking with "you hate the park" by the way! Frankly though, my honest reaction is that I can't help but be blown away that you'd willingly cover half of the park's eastern side with "CC expansion zone." There should be no CC expansion, to be honest.

We voted for no less than $250 million, and no more than $280 million, of convention center that nobody wants to begin with. I can't say that enough. There's the debate between 250 and 280, but beyond that, sorry CC that's all you get. I'd go further to say that's all it should get until another 50 years.

Just a note. While the blvd will be at a lower elevation that what it is currently. It doesn't really need to be "below grade". As in relates to this site. You could absolute build to the level of the new road. As that is how the sidewalks will be.

Clear the peake can't do that. But new construction would not have an issue with it

Yes. I 'd guess that the elevation change will start a 150' back from the intersection. Also important to note, the sidewalks planned are 9' - 12'+ wide going under the new railroad overpass.

Depending on the new CC location, there will likely need to be an adjustment or two to the route, but nothing major.

If the C2S south site is chosen, there will be some major changes that need to be made to this part of the streetcar route. I think some of them will actually be awesome.

Yeah, there were pretty good reasons they eliminated North BT pretty early on.

Still, besides the C2S South site, we need another option; at least as a Plan B.

C2S south has the largest problems, honestly. Why not accept other sites that also have problems? That is if you have to get this thing as close to the BNSF tracks as possible.

Just as an aside, I'm noticing some trends rising to the forefront. Certain people are literally tunnel-visioned into the mindset of "get the CC as close to the center of downtown AS POSSIBLE." Most of those ideas seem to be horrible ideas.

We are a community that is showing a fear of thinking outside of the box, especially on the convention center issue. The frustrating thing is it's a project nobody wants to begin with, but we gotta have, so some outside the box thinking could potentially turn this from a mediocre project comin' to a block near you, into a GREAT project. But we aren't there yet and show no signs (or interest) of getting there.


Urbanized is going to have an aneurism.

I took a look around with Google Maps. There's a pretty large chunk of vacant land that's kinda near downtown. There's loads of room for the convention center. You don't connect to Bricktown at all. But it's big and it's probably cheap.

10310

This is over by the Farmer's Market area. If you wanted a very large building with a lot of space, this could be a spot. You'd want to encourage as much development in this area as possible. I know things are really trashy in that area right now, but in 15 or 20 years this could be a great place. Development is just starting to pick up there, with stuff like Power House.

I think that's a phenomenal idea, I'm just not sure that it should be so far from Bricktown. I really do want to do this project right, but it has to be balanced with what is best for the non convention-going public, as well. The rest of us have to (or want to) live here, ferchrissakes! :P

I'm not for one site over another specifically, although I do like the idea of one of many possible locations along I-235. You gotta look at the big picture and realize that if we don't kill downtown first, it will expand eastward to Lincoln and points beyond. Bricktown's eastern half will be pretty central, too.

People are ignoring the costs of these CC sites because they don't think we have options. They can't expand their view to see what downtown could be in the future. They don't realize that these tough choices aren't really necessary.

I would integrate the CC with the new park. Take the park site and the C2S site and put them together and make the best of it. It can be done. And the new street car would be integrated also. Walk out of the CC, jump on the streetcar and head to BT or wherever.

It has to be as close to bricktown as possible in a logical way. I've thought about this nonstop and I don't see any way it doesn't go to the east of the c2s park.

No way parking is located along the crosstown blvd. It will be the convention center or the convention center hotel. We are going to want the entrance from the boulavard in to downtown and bricktown to be as grand as possible. The Peake achieves this especially with the new entrance. Its why I've always believed the lumberyard site was going to eventually be special, despite Steve saying otherwise. Something amazing will also go in the uhaul parking lot and whatever the jealous thing Steve was tracking I'd bet some money on was going to be located here.

^^^^^^
It wasn't/isn't.

Back to the CC, I think people are focusing too much on Bricktown, and certainly are at least assuming that I am doing the same. If there were a large contiguous site available near the north edge of the CBD, for instance, I would believe it should be considered, as it would be walkable to a large number of hotel rooms PLUS dining/entertainment in Automobile Alley and Midtown. That works. Unfortunately, there isn't. The same could be true for something in east Deep Deuce, but unfortunately (FORTUNATELY, actually) that is now too built out.

The goal simply needs to be a CC that sustains itself, and is attractive for convention bookings, based on industry standards. THAT is what I'm stressing, NOT a connection to Bricktown specifically.

Personally, I'm against the Core 2 Shore site because I think the park is more valuable to the city, overall, than the convention center. That land will be one of the most prime spaces in the city. If you want housing, offices, and retail all along Robinson, if you want to eventually redevelop the Cotton Mill and connect it with the rest of the city, then you don't want to plop a convention center right there and form a superblock that will be there for the next 50 years.

Sitting back and reading the comments posted over last few days has been an education. What struck me about yours is there seems to be a philosophical difference between those who have a common goal of a better urban environment. There appears to be camp who feels the way to get there is through massive buildings that will draw tourists and help fund future growth. The other camp feels that instead of investing in buildings it would make more sense to invest in "people", i.e.. streetcars, parks, restaurants and such. Thoughts?

What about Shields ?

Ooops, you're right. At one time I thought the boulevard would go under Shields and I keep reverting back to that image for some reason. However, the point is still valid. The UHaul site removes the last connection between Bricktown and the boulevard.

Has the East Bricktown site been ruled out? To me, that would be the best fit possible. It's a perfect location for convention visitors.

I agree with Spartan that there is no need to have your convention center in the heart of your CBD. Accessible to, yes, but it's not necessary to have it centered in your CBD.

Sitting back and reading the comments posted over last few days has been an education. What struck me about yours is there seems to be a philosophical difference between those who have a common goal of a better urban environment. There appears to be camp who feels the way to get there is through massive buildings that will draw tourists and help fund future growth. The other camp feels that instead of investing in buildings it would make more sense to invest in "people", i.e.. streetcars, parks, restaurants and such. Thoughts?

That's interesting. I hadn't thought about it that way before. I'm not sure if I'm comfortable with the distinction. I like big buildings too. :)

My thoughts on the best way to rebuild our downtown have definitely changed over the years. When I first started posting I would have definitely fallen into the "big building" camp. I thought that a lot of the little amenities, like parks and shops, weren't really that important. What mattered was big office buildings where people would go and work. At 5 pm everything would close down and you would go home. And I thought that's the way it was supposed to be. I was a lot like PluPan.

The more I've posted here, the more the things that JTF and Betts have said have started to sink in. I think the most important thing, certainly now that our downtown is "alive" again, is to make it a place where people want to be. Urban neighborhoods that develop naturally, with housing and shopping and dining, are going to be more appealing than a huge multi-block convention center. The central park has the potential to be really special. It won't all be done tomorrow, but if you fast forward 30 years, you're probably going to have a dozen high rises lining the park, stuff similar to the ClayCo project. You can put the convention center there to "jump start" Core 2 Shore, but I think what you really end up doing is putting a hard limit on the type of development you're going to get there.

Private money outstripped MAPS 1 public money probably 20 times over. The investments we made in the ballpark and canal, etc, made Bricktown a fun and exciting place to be and then the private investment dollars flowed in. I think we need to have faith that the other downtown quality of life projects, the park and the streetcar, will do the same. But we limit what the park can do if we take up half of the frontage with something that most of the citizens are never going to use.

I'm too tired to think through this logically, but this is my sorry attempt at trying to think "outside the box."

Would the boulevard be far enough below grade that the convention center could straddle it and use both the Uhaul plot and the Lumber Yard plot? You wouldn't even need need all of the Lumber Yard site unless you wanted to put the hotel and/or parking garage on the east side of the Lumber Yard. You could even have one or two levels of the convention center underground but exposed to the boulevard (maybe with retail on the bottom floor fronting the boulevard?). This would allow for the loading docks to be on the same level as the large, contiguous space that is a necessity for the convention center. The hotel could be on the north or east part of Uhaul or on the east side of Lumber Yard. With the convention center fronting Reno, convention-goers would have easy access to Bricktown and are still close to the park and all of the hotels. It would also be neat for people driving on the boulevard to be able to drive under the building (though maybe this isn't safe...). This probably isn't a realistic idea since the boulevard would be finished by the time the convention center would start construction, plus it's probably way outside the budget.

Alternatively, is either site big enough to hold just the convention center, while the other site could be used for the hotel and parking? Again, I'm not sure how buying two plots of land is better than one. :)

I would support a MAPS 3.5 to raise enough money to purchase the land where the convention center was originally supposed to go (C2S North).

ok folks, we've had a couple of days of shock and awe and a little bit of scortched earth thrown in with regard to the convention center - that I think it is time for a poll (http://www.okctalk.com/general-civic-issues/40279-poll-oklahoma-city-convention-center-best-site.html). I will create the poll based on the sites I've heard/read (and can remember).

Cox Convention Center site
C2S South (East actually)
Main Street
Bricktown North/Skirvin
E Bricktown
U-Haul
Lumberyard
Coop
Oklahoma Health Center/Oklahoma School of Science and Mathematics
Farmer's Market
repurpose AICCM
Fairgrounds
Suburban - near Yukon was suggested

hope that captures everything. Here is the poll: http://www.okctalk.com/general-civic-issues/40279-poll-oklahoma-city-convention-center-best-site.html

I don't see the Hoverboards/Floating City option.

I'm too tired to think through this logically, but this is my sorry attempt at trying to think "outside the box."

Would the boulevard be far enough below grade that the convention center could straddle it and use both the Uhaul plot and the Lumber Yard plot? You wouldn't even need need all of the Lumber Yard site unless you wanted to put the hotel and/or parking garage on the east side of the Lumber Yard. You could even have one or two levels of the convention center underground but exposed to the boulevard (maybe with retail on the bottom floor fronting the boulevard?). This would allow for the loading docks to be on the same level as the large, contiguous space that is a necessity for the convention center. The hotel could be on the north or east part of Uhaul or on the east side of Lumber Yard. With the convention center fronting Reno, convention-goers would have easy access to Bricktown and are still close to the park and all of the hotels. It would also be neat for people driving on the boulevard to be able to drive under the building (though maybe this isn't safe...). This probably isn't a realistic idea since the boulevard would be finished by the time the convention center would start construction, plus it's probably way outside the budget.

Alternatively, is either site big enough to hold just the convention center, while the other site could be used for the hotel and parking? Again, I'm not sure how buying two plots of land is better than one. :)

I would support a MAPS 3.5 to raise enough money to purchase the land where the convention center was originally supposed to go (C2S North).

At first glance that doesn't seem like a terrible idea, the convention center I've been to in DC straddles a road. Depends on land acquisition costs and whether it provides the continuous space Pete has been talking about.

If you want to keep walkability as an option you can't have it straddle a road. For pedestrians it might as well be a solid wall.

I'm too tired to think through this logically, but this is my sorry attempt at trying to think "outside the box."

Would the boulevard be far enough below grade that the convention center could straddle it and use both the Uhaul plot and the Lumber Yard plot? You wouldn't even need need all of the Lumber Yard site unless you wanted to put the hotel and/or parking garage on the east side of the Lumber Yard. You could even have one or two levels of the convention center underground but exposed to the boulevard (maybe with retail on the bottom floor fronting the boulevard?). This would allow for the loading docks to be on the same level as the large, contiguous space that is a necessity for the convention center. The hotel could be on the north or east part of Uhaul or on the east side of Lumber Yard. With the convention center fronting Reno, convention-goers would have easy access to Bricktown and are still close to the park and all of the hotels. It would also be neat for people driving on the boulevard to be able to drive under the building (though maybe this isn't safe...). This probably isn't a realistic idea since the boulevard would be finished by the time the convention center would start construction, plus it's probably way outside the budget.

Alternatively, is either site big enough to hold just the convention center, while the other site could be used for the hotel and parking? Again, I'm not sure how buying two plots of land is better than one. :)

I would support a MAPS 3.5 to raise enough money to purchase the land where the convention center was originally supposed to go (C2S North).

The boulevard is already going to be starting its upward climb once it passes underneath the railroad tracks so the convention center would have to be built on a higher elevation also which would stick out like a sore thumb in Bricktown.

The boulevard is already going to be starting its upward climb once it passes underneath the railroad tracks so the convention center would have to be built on a higher elevation also which would stick out like a sore thumb in Bricktown.

The elevated and depressed nature of the boulevard east of the railroad, coupled with a view of Lower Bricktown parking lots and the back of a movie theater, is never going to promote street facing development. That section of the boulevard really is just going to be a car sewer.

IIR we spent $16 million on land acquisition for MAPs I parcels which included the arena, ballpark & canal we now showcase.

You can imagine the devastation we felt when news came that $100 million was asked for the convention center site. So, it's back to square one.

Oh, now some are calling the leadership dysfunctional; yet we forget what the leadership has inherited over the years. Our city remained so stagnant from 1960-90 until MAPS jump-started OKC. Our city didn't get in the shape it's in overnight; therefore don't expect fast-fix changes. Yes, we need constructive criticism as we progress.

Real estate in downtown OKC is so much more valuable now than it was in 1990, thanks to the success of the first MAPS program. There is really no comparison between the costs of land acquisition in downtown for the first MAPS and land acquisition today. It might as well not even be the same city.

Just a reminder that the site selection study was complete in June of 2011. In fact, the current site was identified as the leader long before that.

The eminent domain action wasn't even filed until the middle of 2014. And now they are claiming they had no idea that the owners wanted $100 million until last month.

First of all, it was very clear they would never be able to afford the land a long time ago.

Then they spend FOUR YEARS jacking around with no Plan B?


This mess in entirely the making of the people involved with the convention center and we need better answers than, "Oh, we had no idea they wanted so much money. And gee wow, land prices have really gone up lately and all the good spots have been developed. Hmm. Well, haha, I guess downtown is just a victim of it's own success! Have you noticed how well downtown is doing? It's really doing great, isn't it?? Because that's really the issue, not the fact we've spent four years and a ton of money and resources and now have no clue what we're going to do."

Victims of our own success in a way.

Victims of our own success in a way.

That misses the point. Sure, land prices went up because of downtown success, but that is not what Pete is getting at. The citizens are the victims of poor planning by the convention center committee. The committee were idiots to put all of our eggs in one basket for 4 years, and then try to put rose colored glasses over our eyes & spin it to make it look like this is a good thing when their plans fell through.

^

I'm sure David's comment was a cross-post with mine; he was commenting on the post above mine.


I'm just tired of no one being held accountable over these kinds of issues, and as a result, the underlying issues are never dealt with.

If we can not find a spot that is affordable where a convention center would be successful, and instead spent the money on a streetcar how many extra miles of track could we get? Would that streetcar lose money like the convention center will lose money or will it make money for the city? Could we reduce bus service with an increase in streetcar service?

If we can not find a spot that is affordable where a convention center would be successful, and instead spent the money on a streetcar how many extra miles of track could we get? Would that streetcar lose money like the convention center will lose money or will it make money for the city? Could we reduce bus service with an increase in streetcar service?

We can't just cancel one MAPs project and divert that money to another. That wouldn't be what the voters agreed to even if they really just liked the rest of MAPs 3 program. If anything it would just mean early ending of the MAPs sales tax.

Not proceeding forward with the convention center is far from city leaders minds at this point.

Question for those that may know. Does anyone know who owns the properties just east of 235 between NE4th and NE 1st & Lincoln and N High Ave?

I think this would be a great location for the CC as it is a short walk to Bricktown and Deep Deuce and the road and walkways would make the trek very easy to mesh with both Bricktown/Deep Deuce and the OUHSC area. I would also think this land would be much cheaper to come by than taking up prime real estate next to the C2S Park. This area also provides plenty of room for future expansion and access to both highways, hotels and entertainment would make it a positive location. It would also drive development in the area.

It looks as if there is some small homes and a foster center but also lots of vacant lots.

Exactly, go back to post 290...........says all you need to know.

It has been interesting to read the mass of comments from so many great posters on this subject, which I think is a very important one. My vote was always for the original CC site, south of the Peake for several reasons: 1. It would help jumpstart C2S, 2. The city already owns or can own quickly much of the land and 3. It is literally the exact same distance as the old location.

If you took a walk from the corner of Reno and Harvey to Zio’s in BT it is an eight minute walk, all the way down Reno. If you took a walk from the corner of SW 4th and Shields/EK Gaylord, it is the same distance. From the SE corner of Boulevard and Robinson, it is less than a ten minute walk to the Renaissance and the Sheraton, downtown’s two largest hotels. Also, this might force the city to rethink the EK Gaylord/Shields layout south of the boulevard while they are working on it for the boulevard and maybe narrow it a little bit to add wide sidewalks and possibly bike lanes. This also makes the chance for expansion to the south that much easier.

Putting the convention center where our existing one is located is a logistical nightmare. We can’t just tear it down to the parking garage and build on top of it, it would have to go all the way down and then back up due to new building standards. We would again run into the issue of the water table and we would be without any sizeable conventions downtown for about four years.

The other option I think would be good would be the large parking lot in between Bass Pro and the Residence inn in BT. Straddle the canal (San Antonio did it) with the larger meeting space on the second floor and smaller spaces on the first floor with the hotel on the corner of Reno and Byers. The parking garage can be built to the south of the boulevard along with other meeting space, if necessary.

Just one man's opinion. Carry on...

I don't care where they build it but they need to do their homework. If you want South of the arena; fine, but the first thing to do is find out exactly how much it will be to move the sub-station.

Exactly, go back to post 290...........says all you need to know.

Great post but just so everyone doesn't have to go back and find it like i did this is post 290. Like Pete said, they have known for 4 years this site was going to be expensive and foolishy went forward without a plan B.

Juel
10:38 a.m.

I am hearing the asking price of the proposed convention center site is cost prohibitive and alternatives are beginning to be considered. Any validity to that.
Steve Lackmeyer
10:39 a.m.

I've asked City Manager Jim Couch last week about whether other sites are getting second look. He denied that the city is doing anything other than proceeding with ttrying to buy he site chosen south of the Myriad Gardens and move forward with designs. But those rumors are out there.


Read more: http://newsok.com/unedited-transcrip...#ixzz24l5ItkZN

Lower Bricktown - Bass Pro land swap?

Okc could use one of the newer version Bass Pro anyway.

The reason they only wanted that site and went forward while simultaneously ignoring the obvious realities and not having a backup plan is because a few very powerful people wanted it that way.

And they assumed they could pull all kinds of strings behind the scenes to make it happen.

Cathy O'Connor is far too smart and experienced in these matters to not know better; t's pretty obvious she was not the one calling the shots.

REHCO Downtown Development paid $6.5 million to Fred Jones Companies for the property South of Myriad Gardens on January 1, 2009. How on Earth can they possibly claim that the property is worth $100 million? One comp that was cited is 123 S. Hudson. Rick Dunning paid $1,452,500 to Fred Jones Properties on October 10, 2001 and then sold it to Myriad Gardens Foundation on September 16, 2014 for $6,908,000. Myriad Gardens Foundation transferred it to Oklahoma City Economic Development Trust. It sure seems like they way overpaid for this property. Steve Lackmeyer says that the Hall Family are partners in REHCO Downtown Development. Is there any evidence of this. It reminds me of OKC selling the Santa Fe Station to the Brewer family for a pittance. Then OKC wants to buy it back and the Brewer family claims that it's worth a fortune.

Since these events may have a signficant impact on Clayco's development plans, I wonder if it would be feasible for the city to partner with Clayco and Rainey Williams to merge the OG&E headquarters building, the convention center, and the convention center hotel into a singular development on the Stage Center land? Since Clayco was already seeking large amounts of TIF money to build, maybe they could benefit from scaling down their own plans and allowing the city to pay for all of the shared infrastructure in exchange for integrating a convention center and allowing Clayco to develop the adjoining convention center hotel? Just trying to think outside of the box here.

ok folks, we've had a couple of days of shock and awe and a little bit of scortched earth thrown in with regard to the convention center - that I think it is time for a poll (http://www.okctalk.com/general-civic-issues/40279-poll-oklahoma-city-convention-center-best-site.html). I will create the poll based on the sites I've heard/read (and can remember).

Cox Convention Center site
C2S South (East actually)
Main Street
Bricktown North/Skirvin
E Bricktown
U-Haul
Lumberyard
Coop
Oklahoma Health Center/Oklahoma School of Science and Mathematics
Farmer's Market
repurpose AICCM
Fairgrounds
Suburban - near Yukon was suggested

hope that captures everything. Here is the poll: http://www.okctalk.com/general-civic-issues/40279-poll-oklahoma-city-convention-center-best-site.html

You forgot "Cap I-235"

Urbanized is going to have an aneurism.

I took a look around with Google Maps. There's a pretty large chunk of vacant land that's kinda near downtown. There's loads of room for the convention center. You don't connect to Bricktown at all. But it's big and it's probably cheap.

10310

This is over by the Farmer's Market area. If you wanted a very large building with a lot of space, this could be a spot. You'd want to encourage as much development in this area as possible. I know things are really trashy in that area right now, but in 15 or 20 years this could be a great place. Development is just starting to pick up there, with stuff like Power House.


I almost suggested Farmer's Market, but it's probably too far from pretty much any ammenity at this time. True that might be quite different in 2020 with a fully built boulevard, and online 21C, and a developing Farmer's Market area due to these things, but would it be enough? I just don't think so quite yet. Now, if they'd bump it (CC) back and re-prioritize other projects? Maybe. But probably still not quite.

REHCO Downtown Development paid $6.5 million to Fred Jones Companies for the property South of Myriad Gardens on January 1, 2009. How on Earth can they possibly claim that the property is worth $100 million? One comp that was cited is 123 S. Hudson. Rick Dunning paid $1,452,500 to Fred Jones Properties on October 10, 2001 and then sold it to Myriad Gardens Foundation on September 16, 2014 for $6,908,000. Myriad Gardens Foundation transferred it to Oklahoma City Economic Development Trust. It sure seems like they way overpaid for this property. Steve Lackmeyer says that the Hall Family are partners in REHCO Downtown Development. Is there any evidence of this. It reminds me of OKC selling the Santa Fe Station to the Brewer family for a pittance. Then OKC wants to buy it back and the Brewer family claims that it's worth a fortune.

That $6.9 million circuitous purchase by the City was the infamous Vitagraph property and everyone knew at the time it would go a long way towards driving up property comps in the area, and specifically the land the cc was seeking because it was the closest recent sale.

To determine fair market value in eminent domain cases, the commissioners, judge and ultimately a jury merely conduct a study of recent sales and do some math.

The Vitagraph property sold for $168 per square foot of land, and that's exactly what REHCO was asking -- and for good, justifiable reasons. If it was my property, I'd do the exact same thing.

Also, the Preftakes purchases on the 499 Sheridan site were even higher, and there are several other recent sales that justify a very high price.

Everyone knew this going in when this site was selected. The Preftakes sales had already occurred along with several others.

I took the final concept/design from the original location and dropped the buildings into the U-Haul site at the same resolution.

This would definitely fit with some redesign here and there, but the square footage is there to make it work, it just takes some redesigning. The reason the original CC block is so giant is because of all the outdoor landscaping that isn't necessary.

http://i.imgur.com/8DaGQiL.png


I would say sacrificing landscape for a better location is pretty good for me, and most likely cheaper - thus a more 'modern' CC.

I like the UHaul site location wise, but there's no way on earth any convention center of any quality is worth demolishing the Iten building.

Also, I'm not sure where you'd stick the loading docks in that setup because the boulevard will be below grade right there and you wouldn't want that facing Reno or Oklahoma I wouldn't think...

I like the UHaul site location wise, but there's no way on earth any convention center of any quality is worth demolishing the Iten building.

Also, I'm not sure where you'd stick the loading docks in that setup because the boulevard will be below grade right there and you wouldn't want that facing Reno or Oklahoma I wouldn't think...

Someone else may come along and demolish it anyway. That's if they can ever get the Uhaul owners to give it up at a good price. Hard enough for the state to get the ROW in front of the building for a connection to the boulevard.

Is there that many developers out there that even knows what is under the metal skin of the building?

I would like to see this building restored, but then again I would hate to see someone come along and demolished it and put up something that doesn't bring that much value to the city.

There are lots of issues / challenges but conceptually I love the Uhaul location.

Another comp would be Stage Center. 3.1681 acres for $4,275,000. $31/square foot. Buying that probably would have been too much of a "hot potato" for OKC to have done. It also seems "overreaching" that REHCO was including the square footage of streets which haven't been vacated yet in their $100 million asking price. I hope that OKC gets $168/square foot when they sell the block South of Stage Center to Clayco, but, I bet they won't. Or if and when the Exhibition Space in Cox Convention Center is taken down and they seek developers for that. Something is worth what someone will pay for it. IMHO, the buyer of 123 S. Hudson way overpaid. Of course, when one party wants to buy something and the other party doesn't really want to sell it, it strengthens the others party's negotiating position. I'll admit that the highest and best use for the land around Myriad Gardens is probably something other than a convention center. It is too bad that so much time and money was wasted on something which wasn't ever feasible. I wonder what OKC didn't want to come out in those depositions?

I like the idea of the Uhaul location as well. am trying to imagine if it were to be built across the boulevard right at the tracks and a bit East wouldn't be horrible. and the bulk of it be north of the boulevard but if it extended over the boulevard so docks could be against the track on the south side of the boulevard maybe.. don't everyone yell at me.. just thinking out loud.

What if we just demo'd the Cox arena and built the new CC in stages. Replace the arena with the new hall and leave the current Cox meeting areas. Then, when the new hall is complete, demo the old hall and use the south half or so to build a mixed use center where floor 1 is retail/restaurant that overlooks the park, with floors above for meeting rooms, etc,, hotel above that, and even possible residential above. Then, the north meeting rooms of the old Cox is demo'd and private development along that side.

Could it work? Doing it that way we wouldn't have to close out our current convention business.

In the cc study, they stated since the arena supports the entire structure, that it could not be redeveloped in phases.

Another comp would be Stage Center. 3.1681 acres for $4,275,000. $31/square foot. Buying that probably would have been too much of a "hot potato" for OKC to have done. It also seems "overreaching" that REHCO was including the square footage of streets which haven't been vacated yet in their $100 million asking price. I hope that OKC gets $168/square foot when they sell the block South of Stage Center to Clayco, but, I bet they won't. Or if and when the Exhibition Space in Cox Convention Center is taken down and they seek developers for that. Something is worth what someone will pay for it. IMHO, the buyer of 123 S. Hudson way overpaid. Of course, when one party wants to buy something and the other party doesn't really want to sell it, it strengthens the others party's negotiating position. I'll admit that the highest and best use for the land around Myriad Gardens is probably something other than a convention center. It is too bad that so much time and money was wasted on something which wasn't ever feasible. I wonder what OKC didn't want to come out in those depositions?

Remember that Stage Center wasn't sold to the highest bidder. The foundation that owned it chose what morphed into the Clayco group based on lots of factors, and those criteria were stated when they put the property on the market. They ended up paying well less per acre than the Preftakes/Devon/Hines block.

Also, Clayco will be paying LESS than what was paid for Stage Center for the south parcel, which is another big incentive being offered them that has flown under the radar.

I have a whole list of downtown comps that I maintain and there have been lots of very expensive $/SF numbers of late in addition to the ones we've already discussed.

The conference hotel is the anchor for the convention center; they need to be apart of the same complex. If we go with the 700 plus room study recommendation; this should allow us room availability to host some good tier II type conventions which would require blocks of 300-400 rooms.

A note on the arena: the Chesapeake Energy Arena opened in 2002 upgraded to NBA standards in 2010. Our arena investment includes a total of $190 million invested ($89 million original construction & $101 million in upgrades).

Chesapeake Energy Arena Renovation | ICON Venue Group (http://iconvenue.com/portfolio/chesapeake-energy-arena-renovation)

HotRod's suggestion would be our target replacement of The Peake in 15-20 years, so you'd want a new arena with the MAPS V (2024 referendum) sometime around 2026-27 construction. The Chesapeake Energy Arena will be 26 years old when it's retired having served the NBA for approximately (Hornets & Thunder 20-23 years).

The reason NBA arenas have been replaced recently is that owners found you could make a lot more money with luxury suites. Most arenas couldn't be upgraded to hold those. When the new collective bargaining agreement started pushing players' salaries higher, owners without luxury suites started losing money.

The Chesapeake has luxury boxes. Until there's some new advance in NBA arena cash-making technology, I don't think we need to worry about upgrading it.

The UHaul site now dramatically intrigues me.

How realistic would the burial of the Boulevard from Robinson until an ascent beginning at Toby Keith's be?

The reason NBA arenas have been replaced recently is that owners found you could make a lot more money with luxury suites. Most arenas couldn't be upgraded to hold those. When the new collective bargaining agreement started pushing players' salaries higher, owners without luxury suites started losing money.

The Chesapeake has luxury boxes. Until there's some new advance in NBA arena cash-making technology, I don't think we need to worry about upgrading it.

This.

I think a Peake upgrade is several decades away at least and is not something that should seriously be talked about at this time. Personally I think the city may get to the point (Metro population 1.8-2 million) where an NFL franchise and construction of a stadium might be viable before replacing the Peake will be necessary.

For those of you think the UHaul site is a desired location, I hope you understand what is underneath that metal skin and what OKC will lose in the process. The idea of putting Reno on a road-diet also goes out the window.

For those of you think the UHaul site is a desired location, I hope you understand what is underneath that metal skin and what OKC will lose in the process.

That would be the NBC building as in"National Biscuit Company. (NABISCO)

For those of you think the UHaul site is a desired location, I hope you understand what is underneath that metal skin and what OKC will lose in the process.

I agree. I have little faith that the city will make any effort at all to preserve it if that location is chosen. For that reason, I hope it doesn't go there even though otherwise that location would be ideal.