Surely they could find a way to incorporate the building into the design

Surely they could find a way to incorporate the building into the design

They could. Hines could also incorporate the Hotel Black, Motor Hotel, and the Bus Station into their development but that isn't the way things usually work in OKC. I don't think anybody can blame anybody for being skeptical that if the UHaul site was chosen, that there would be any legitimate effort with the exception of Ed & Co to save the building.

Seems to me you either stick with the study you have, or you start over. How else do you come to a fair decision?But when did TPTB in OKC ever want a fair decision? Seems that it's only important to give an impression of fairness. As in, when you can fake integrity and sincerity, you've got it made.

Here is what I was imagining a page or two back:

http://i.imgur.com/5TZJpIx.jpg

Build it such that the continuous floor space is on a level extending over the boulevard and you even have the potential for future expansion down into the COOP.

The land costs and/or construction costs may make it unfeasible, but if we're thinking pie in the sky I figured I might as well draw some lines.

Why not lower the amount of land needed by burying the large hall of the convention center mostly under the new boulevard and connect it directly underground to The Chesapeake? You can then have a much smaller multi-level showpiece building above ground on a much smaller footprint. Think a smaller scale Moscone Center in San Francisco.

The one major positive I can think of, is that with the limited space available for the convention center the Convention center hotel will almost have no choice but to go more vertical than what was originally anticipated.

Why not lower the amount of land needed by burying the large hall of the convention center mostly under the new boulevard and connect it directly underground to The Chesapeake? You can then have a much smaller multi-level showpiece building above ground on a much smaller footprint. Think a smaller scale Moscone Center in San Francisco.

This is a great idea!

Why not lower the amount of land needed by burying the large hall of the convention center mostly under the new boulevard and connect it directly underground to The Chesapeake? You can then have a much smaller multi-level showpiece building above ground on a much smaller footprint. Think a smaller scale Moscone Center in San Francisco.

Nailed it.

Why not lower the amount of land needed by burying the large hall of the convention center mostly under the new boulevard and connect it directly underground to The Chesapeake? You can then have a much smaller multi-level showpiece building above ground on a much smaller footprint. Think a smaller scale Moscone Center in San Francisco.

A bonus to this is temperature control/energy conservation. One of the hurdles of these large halls are that when they're full in the summer, they become very difficult to keep comfortable temperature wise.

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?

pipe dream, considering construction is about to start on the portion from Toby Keith's to EK Gaylord

Not a bad idea at all…In fact, we just bought a ton of park land…we could easily build the exhibit hall under that land without having to worry about who owns it.

If you built the Exhibit Hall under the Boulevard, could you not connect it to an exit that would come out at the top of Reno and Robinson, or even further, with a tunnel that has a moving sidewalk, all the way to Robinson/Sheridan?

That would sure as heck cut down on walk times to the CBD and even Bricktown.

In fact, it might be a GREAT idea to build a tunnel on the Robinson Spine that releases at the halfway point on the Cox Block…Ideally there will eventually be a major public point of interest at the very center of the Cox site that would represent the city very well. They'd come out, look to their left, see MBG and Devon, look to their right, see Santa Fe Station and a public center at the intersection of "California" and "Broadway"

[Sorry for a bunch of consecutive posts]

Translation: Expanding the Underground solves all our problems?

I really wonder if our city leaders, who actually get paid read this board. I mean this as a compliment, despite some crazy things that occasionally get said on here, their are some truly bright minds and ideas that get mentioned. I know this is a forum and our opinions and sometimes get heated and we have to agree to disagree, but I really mean this when I say I think they have to be somewhat impressed with some of the ideas and vision from some of you all. In fact, I wish our city leaders had some of the people on here to help them with some of these projects that they are failing on lately. (as long as it isn't JTF) ;) If some of the vision shared on here actually took place, OKC would be quite the happening place.

It's probably blocked at the firewall :-)

No, we know some city employees do, such as frittergirl. There's likely more.

Translation: Expanding the Underground solves all our problems?

Every problem that isn't money related. It actually creates a money problem. :p

More important than the conceptual ideas…look at that bad ass mastery of Photoshop that I have...

10316

That's not a bad idea. But if we do that, might as well make the underground exhibit hall firkin' huge. Let's go all the way across to Hudson.

Would it be possible to build the parking garage over the substation to save some of the $30million relocation costs? The first floor of the parking garage would be the substation and then have parking starting at level 2 and above?

More important than the conceptual ideas…look at that bad ass mastery of Photoshop that I have...

10316

That's bad ass all right.

But keep in mind that the land to the south of the substation is likely not to be expensive, so no reason to put anything underground at this location.

Really, the issue here is the substation but they should be able to pin down numbers on that in a pretty short time if so motivated.

Sounds like a nice tornado/bomb shelter.

Funding source?

https://www.fema.gov/safe-room-funding

Here are some thoughts creeping into my head:

If we stick with the C2S site, and we build the Exhibition Hall underground, we preserve park frontage by potentially only needing to buy the block south of the substation for future expansion. In fact, I'd probably put the parking garage on the SE corner of 4th/Broadway and leave the block south of that one open for development as well.

This opens up the ability for more businesses that will likely be convention related to open up just to the south of the center fronting the park, but businesses that can also be useful for our citizens or for other tourists (It would be great to limit the number of hotels in West C2S except for maybe River front, and so you could get maybe 300 more rooms out of 1 to 3 hotels on East Parkside. Furthermore, we then have future ability for expansion of the exhibit hall because we already, and always will own the Boulevard and Park. It limits how far to the south we're stretching so as to avoid rendering Bricktown and the CBD essentially useless to convention planners.

Lastly, I think this is an important point: The underground Exhibit hall will make the project expensive, but I think it will also make the CC more viable as it pushes the overall footprint of the convention center closer to the CBD. So instead of building the entire Convention Center right now we could: 1. buy the properties to the south 2. move the substation 3. fund the underground exhibition hall 4. build a very small Phase I unit that's above ground on the SE corner of NW Robinson (The Hotel should help increase convention related space for the time being) and 5. build a sizable parking garage on the SE Corner of 4th/Broadway.

We could then incorporate a plan to expand the CC in a MAPS 4 that also demolishes the Cox Center and develop an idea for a public space at the hypothetical intersection of California and Broadway, while simultaneously putting out RFPs and subsequently selling partitions of the Cox blocks (ha!).

And on the possibility that we fail to pass MAPS4, the sale of the Cox site(s) would become the entire funding source for the new expansion.

I believe the City's leadership will be able to work out something that ensures a successful CC. Therefore I am going to retire from this discussion for a while, which undoubtedly will be appreciated by many.

I believe the City's leadership will be able to work out something that ensures a successful CC. Therefore I am going to retire from this discussion for a while, which undoubtedly will be appreciated by many.

Your input has been interesting and valued.

Thanks, Pete.

I believe the City's leadership will be able to work out something that ensures a successful CC. Therefore I am going to retire from this discussion for a while, which undoubtedly will be appreciated by many.

I don't think there's any need for that unless you personally are tired of it. Don't let other people run you off when you are pretty clearly one of the people bringing actual knowledge about the convention industry to the table.

I hope the paper tells the full story tomorrow about our leaders, including the legal fees the taxpayers are responsible for the representation of the property owners against eminent domain.

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.

For lack of city planning sophistication, OKC is just completely numb to any of the downfalls of a convention center. It is "THE" ultimate highest and best use.

In general, I worry a fair bit about this site becoming an echo chamber where there is tyranny by the majority view.

This is almost inevitable in discussion forums and is always dangerous.

I view my primary role here (other than as a reporter of facts and info) as a moderator; to bring things back to center when they get too skewed one way or another.

The last thing we need is bright, passionate, informed people to stop contributing on an important subject simply due to feeling ganged up on.


Not saying that's the case here but it's an issue in general that concerns me and works contrary to the goal of enlightened discussion where people are actually open to different perspectives rather than committed to stubbornly defending their viewpoint.

Personally, even when I am debating and seem to be taking a stand, I always, always listen, especially when I respect the person I may be disagreeing with.

It might not appear that way some times, but it's absolutely true and I've shifted my opinions and stances several times based on someone challenging assumptions or simply raising good points.


Anyway, this particular issue is very important and I know key decision makers read this thread. I hope we can continue to debate and dissect and still be respectful to each other.

AGREE. I will tone down the negativity.

I think the most important thing is that lots of progress is being made in ideas on each and every site that could potentially land the CC.

I think we have 2 - 4 sites that could all be worked around with the right budget, right site layout, and right design.

What I think we all agree with is that we don't have enough money and that we will need expansion. So any idea presented needs to start right there: How does fundraising/expansion fit into the overall idea? Because if that's not part of the equation, we 100% need to scrap the project. Oklahoma City does not NEED a convention center, and expansion of the Streetcar would go a LLLOOONNNGGG way to making this a much better city that eventually will gladly pay for a convention center all by itself. I totally disagree with the assertion that "This is our only chance". That's shortsighted and dismissive commentary of OKC citizens.

I think we're 10 years too early on this project to be quite honest. I'd rather it eventually go on the Cotton Mill site with space for an eventual new arena so we can tear down CHK and have the heart of our city be what the heart of a city should be.

I think the most important thing is that lots of progress is being made in ideas on each and every site that could potentially land the CC.

I think we have 2 - 4 sites that could all be worked around with the right budget, right site layout, and right design.

What I think we all agree with is that we don't have enough money and that we will need expansion. So any idea presented needs to start right there: How does fundraising/expansion fit into the overall idea? Because if that's not part of the equation, we 100% need to scrap the project. Oklahoma City does not NEED a convention center, and expansion of the Streetcar would go a LLLOOONNNGGG way to making this a much better city that eventually will gladly pay for a convention center all by itself. I totally disagree with the assertion that "This is our only chance". That's shortsighted and dismissive commentary of OKC citizens.

I think we're 10 years too early on this project to be quite honest. I'd rather it eventually go on the Cotton Mill site with space for an eventual new arena so we can tear down CHK and have the heart of our city be what the heart of a city should be.

As I have said before, if you think the bolded text is true, you haven't been to many conventions outside of Oklahoma. Something needs to be done, whether that is a substantial renovation of CCC or a new building.

As I have said before, if you think the bolded text is true, you haven't been to many conventions outside of Oklahoma. Something needs to be done, whether that is a substantial renovation of CCC or a new building.

You assume we need major conventions. We don't.

We're at least $150M short and probably $250M short of what we really need to have a strong convention market.

So like I said, unless expansion and fundraising are apart of the equation, we are better off without for now. The next convention center will be our only for the next 40 years. This isn't a "find a way to think outside of the box" issue. This is an "Oklahoma City is not currently planned well enough" issue.

And yes, I have been to major conventions outside of OKC and in OKC. We're way behind.

You assume we need major conventions. We don't.

We're at least $150M short and probably $250M short of what we really need to have a strong convention market.

So like I said, unless expansion and fundraising are apart of the equation, we are better off without for now. The next convention center will be our only for the next 40 years. This isn't a "find a way to think outside of the box" issue. This is an "Oklahoma City is not currently planned well enough" issue.

And yes, I have been to major conventions outside of OKC and in OKC. We're way behind.

We will have to agree to disagree.

As I have said before, if you think the bolded text is true, you haven't been to many conventions outside of Oklahoma. Something needs to be done, whether that is a substantial renovation of CCC or a new building.

I agree with this. If OKC is okay with never being a player in the national convention market, then I could you could say it doesn't need a convention center, but the city is in a unique position to do very well in that area if only there was an adequate facility. The Cox Convention Center is a joke for a market this size.

With that said, would it even be possible to bring the CCC up to standard? Even if that meant tearing out the arena and expanding into that space?

There is also the age-old debate about the return on investment from increased convention business, assuming it comes at all.

No matter how you fund it (TIF's, revenue bonds, land swaps), there are lots of public costs beyond the current $285 million budget.

And there is also the opportunity of cost of taking a big chunk of downtown for this use rather than anything else, no matter where you put it.


To me, the strongest argument for a new cc is not the center itself but the fact it will free up the Cox site and allow (hopefully) for a much higher and better use.

Now, if they try and stuff this project on that site, I'm going to have a huge problem and would probably just start advocating for dropping the whole thing. At that point the real and opportunity costs just get so massive the already debatable value of the returns will be far too overshadowed IMO.

BTW, I had an idea a long time ago and it's still probably premature but hear me out...

I know a lot of people hate the sight of the Producer's Coop but it *is* unique and OKC has too little of that. I've talked to a couple of local architects who really believe the Coop has great potential and should not be scraped. I know Rand Elliott is of this opinion.

I thought it would be cool, innovative and iconic to use some of the existing silos as meeting rooms, connected together through glass and steel walkways, pre-function and support facilities.

The main exhibit hall needs to be expandable to around 300,000 SF of contiguous space, so that would almost certainly have to be new construction, but could be connected to the other spaces.

Very rough but something like this:


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

http://cdn2.newsok.biz/cache/r620-19c888eb6e66b6bbd8e621464bcad96e.jpg

I'm 100% sure we would make money hand over fist in the convention business.

It takes money to make money though. We're playing with the short-stack and trying to go all in with something between 5/6 off-suit and a pair of 9s.

We're so far behind our potential that we really need to focus on the small things right now, get those right, and build a core that attracts money. We don't have enough money to focus on the big projects…not even something like the Cox site. The Cox site needs a bare minimum of probably $1.5B (and probably closer $2B) to be what it should be. The convention center needs to be a $500M - $750M project to be what it should be. We need billions to pour into Midtown, Auto Alley, Bricktown, Wheeler Park, C2S.

The difference between the Cox site/the convention center et. al. and our neighborhoods like MT, AA, BT, WP, C2S is that our neighborhoods don't need it in large chunks. We can piece-meal 500 $5M projects all around the core and create unique, organic neighborhoods that make this city attractive to live in and subsequently visit. What we cannot do is invest $250M into a convention center and call it good or $750M into the cox site and think it's lived up to its potential.

A convention center should never be built for a city as it stands in the present. It's a project that should be peaking around 20 years from its completion. If we build it out of a sense of "OMG we need convention business" on a budget that was already too small when we passed MAPS, what are we going to do in 2030?

I like it Pete but it similar short comings as the lumber yard site yet it accomplishes so much more. It ties together the canal to the convention center. Money is obviously the biggest issues but in a free world I'd put it there in a heartbeat.

BTW, I had an idea a long time ago and it's still probably premature but hear me out...

I know a lot of people hate the sight of the Producer's Coop but it *is* unique and OKC has too little of that. I've talked to a couple of local architects who really believe the Coop has great potential and should not be scraped. I know Rand Elliott is of this opinion.

I thought it would be cool, innovative and iconic to use some of the existing silos as meeting rooms, connected together through glass and steel walkways, pre-function and support facilities.

The main exhibit hall needs to be expandable to around 300,000 SF of contiguous space, so that would almost certainly have to be new construction, but could be connected to the other spaces.

Very rough but something like this:


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

http://cdn2.newsok.biz/cache/r620-19c888eb6e66b6bbd8e621464bcad96e.jpg


This is great.

And if we could leave space to eventually move the CHK over there, that would be awesome. Then we could break up super blocks that are really hurting the core.

I love the idea, Pete. That would be incredibly unique.

Those silos are all clear-span inside, which would allow for some cool staging with the high sloped ceilings.

I know they are a contaminated mess, but that will eventually have to be cleaned up anyway.

And the buildings and canal would allow us to differentiate ourselves with more than just a new box.

How much would the 2 sites cost together?

How much would the 2 sites cost together?

Way, way too much but it's fun to dream about what this could become:

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/coop030715c.jpg

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/coop030715a.jpg

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/coop030715d.jpg

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/coop030715b.jpg

BTW, I had an idea a long time ago and it's still probably premature but hear me out...

I know a lot of people hate the sight of the Producer's Coop but it *is* unique and OKC has too little of that. I've talked to a couple of local architects who really believe the Coop has great potential and should not be scraped. I know Rand Elliott is of this opinion.

I thought it would be cool, innovative and iconic to use some of the existing silos as meeting rooms, connected together through glass and steel walkways, pre-function and support facilities.

The main exhibit hall needs to be expandable to around 300,000 SF of contiguous space, so that would almost certainly have to be new construction, but could be connected to the other spaces.

Very rough but something like this:


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

http://cdn2.newsok.biz/cache/r620-19c888eb6e66b6bbd8e621464bcad96e.jpg
thats almost exactly what I was thinking minus the soccer stadium

BTW, I had an idea a long time ago and it's still probably premature but hear me out...

I know a lot of people hate the sight of the Producer's Coop but it *is* unique and OKC has too little of that. I've talked to a couple of local architects who really believe the Coop has great potential and should not be scraped. I know Rand Elliott is of this opinion.

I thought it would be cool, innovative and iconic to use some of the existing silos as meeting rooms, connected together through glass and steel walkways, pre-function and support facilities.

The main exhibit hall needs to be expandable to around 300,000 SF of contiguous space, so that would almost certainly have to be new construction, but could be connected to the other spaces.

Very rough but something like this:


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

http://cdn2.newsok.biz/cache/r620-19c888eb6e66b6bbd8e621464bcad96e.jpg


I think the Coop is very cool. I'd always hoped they would find a way to preserve the buildings. They are so unique and interesting. If they could find a way to make it the Convention Center (or anything else), I'd be all for it.

The coop could make for a cool dense roller coaster park

BTW, I was reminded today that the reason the cc is shown in all the early plans to be east of Central Park is because that was where Russel Klaus, the former planning director, thought it should go. And in turn, that's what made Mayor Cornett such an advocate.

Klaus was very well respected and he felt strongly that was always the best location.

In fact, they built a tunnel under Robinson -- City paid ODOT extra to do so -- at the south end of where the extended cc would go that could be used for access to back docks and other things.

Trying to confirm that money came out of the cc budget, but I was told it did.


So, the Core to Shore South site wasn't just shown on all the early plans as an idle thought, but due to the strong belief by Klaus and other planners it was the best spot for both the cc and all of OKC.

Doesn't mean they were right, but just more to consider.

If the site south of MBG was too expensive to proceed, how in the world could the COOP site, and its potential ground contamination issues, be more feasible as a cc site? Maybe it's just lack of information on my part, but it seems a non-starter (though if it were feasible, those would make some interesting repurposed structures..

The Coop site is nowhere near affordable, it just a fun pipe dream.

I went back on the Core To Shore thread (05/31/11) and found this, speaks briefly about where the convention center should go. I think HOT ROD had it right to begin with. This is dead on IMO and I have made my decision fwiw...I vote to put it South of the arena.


HOT ROD
i agree with the points noted, but - the key is, we're moving I-40 down which will render the C2S area as necessary to develop. The aformentioned points are true as long as downtown remains north of I-40. But with I-40 moving, we will have the C2S section still blighted, to greet visitors as they exit the freeway. This can not stand and it is in the city's best interest to do something proactively - and a Central Park is arguably the best and easiest solution.

The problems I have are 1) the price - seems like $130M is too much for blighted land and a rather low programmed park (considering MGB was $30M with a LOT more squeezed in). I think maybe half of that is probably sufficient and the city should use a portion of the C2S Central Park funds to remove the substation, with OG&E splitting the costs (dreaming, but that would be ethical of them). ... 2) purposefully not using the land adjacent for the cc. This remains to be seen, but if the city goes with anything other than the mayor's original idea of the cc E of the Park, then it is a - well, what the hell are we doing/planning moment for OKC, imo. To me, the park and the cc go together - two direct public injections to set the C2S area on its way quickly.

One more point, C2S likely would have different character and feel than the other downtown districts, so I don't really see them competing. We should build the park and cc, and let the surroundings redevelop organically. I believe there is increasing interest in the other downtown districts, with most of them starting to gain synergy (CBD - retail and office looks to be on the increase, B-Town - i hope/look for infill, AAlley - seems to be filling in nicely, Film Row - again, nice organic infill, Midtown - same, Arts District - MGB and the new elementary school will likely spur additiona residential, DD - holding its own as downtown's urban bedroom community, Triangle - look for it to take off). Just because we are building the park (which will take years), it will take even longer for C2S to ever be considered competition for ANY of the other downtown districts, which have had a tremendous head start and even more nourishment with the streetcar. I dont see the streetcar going into c2s for Maps III.

Anyways, those are my points/ideas, and why I think the city should go ahead and move forward. We can't let the land sit empty and we don't really want to open all of it up for private development/squatting either. So having the park (and cc to the east/northeast) to 'regulate' c2s development is a wonderful idea and at the same time will create a nice downtown gateway from I-40 - which is the primary civic reason for doing c2s in the first place imo.

Comments by several city council members.

http://www.oklahoman.com/article/5399399&headline=Oklahoma%20City%20Council%20to%20think%20 creatively%20on%20new%20convention%20center%20site

Along with Steve's extensive story;

http://www.oklahoman.com/article/5399396&headline=Oklahoma%20City%20checks%20its%20options% 20after%20convention%20site%20talks%20collapse

BTW, I had an idea a long time ago and it's still probably premature but hear me out...

I know a lot of people hate the sight of the Producer's Coop but it *is* unique and OKC has too little of that. I've talked to a couple of local architects who really believe the Coop has great potential and should not be scraped. I know Rand Elliott is of this opinion.

I thought it would be cool, innovative and iconic to use some of the existing silos as meeting rooms, connected together through glass and steel walkways, pre-function and support facilities.

The main exhibit hall needs to be expandable to around 300,000 SF of contiguous space, so that would almost certainly have to be new construction, but could be connected to the other spaces.

Very rough but something like this:


Yes, yes, & yes!

I believe Steve's analysis in today's Oklahoman merits much reading between the lines.

My horrifed response to that story: IN the park? A convention center and hotel would occupy most of it. Are David Greenwell and Larry McAtee forgetting that the only reason the convention center likely was funded is because they bundled it WITH the park? I'm all for a new convention center. It was second to last on my MAPS wish list, just in front of the State Fair improvements, but I recognize that we need a new one. However, it ranks far, far behind that park. Some images: Central Park, Millenium Park, Public Garden. Now, pull these images up: NYC Convention Center, Chicago Convention Center, Boston Convention Center. Which ones resonate? Great cities have great parks. Do they have great convention centers? I really don't know, because although I have been to conventions in Boston and Chicago, I cannot pull up a mental image of either of these buildings. I don't even know where the one in NYC is, despite the fact that half my family lives in Manhattan and I go there all the time. A stroll through Central Park is a must do on any visit, but not gazing at the convention center. Let's not misplace the priorities of the Chamber of Commerce and Mike Carrier for those of the voters. We were promised a great city park and voted for a great city park and.....I hate to sound like a broken record, but voters will be far more upset if they don't get a park than if they don't get a convention center.

Oh, and this morning I drove between the east park/substation location and two places that a convention goer might want to walk to. I was using my odometer, so the accuracy wasn't great. I will try to walk it later today and look at steps on my fitbit. I chose Starbucks in lower Bricktown, because that's the first place I would be going were I at a convention. I also chose the Skirvin, since it is our iconic hotel. I started at the middle of the substation block on the west side, because that is where the likely entrance would be. I started at the middle of the block, north side, on our previous convention center site, where the likely entrance would be. These are the figures I got: Old CC site to Starbucks: 0.5 miles. Substation to Starbucks: 0.55 miles. Old CC site to Skirvin: 0.6 miles. Substation site to Skirvin: 0.7 miles. You could save a bit of distance walking through the Myriad Gardens, but I couldn't do that driving, obviously. As I said, since my odometer only measures in tenths of miles, the accuracy is a little less fine than measuring steps, but I plan to do that later.

I really don't care where the Convention Center is, as long as it's not in the center of our park, doesn't take money from the streetcar and doesn't affect future commuter rail. Those are the only dogs I have in the fight. I just like accuracy and I suspected the depiction of the substation site as being soooooo far away from Bricktown and the CBD (as opposed to the previous site) was a bit of hyperbole. The streetcar committee drove all those streets multiple times early on trying to figure out distances that would fit within our budget and I thought those two locations were closer than was being advertised. Once I get the walking data I'll post it here too.

What people need to realize is that we are victims of our own success. Fifteen years ago you could have bought any of this land for a song. MAPS (which has almost exclusively been quality of life improvements) has worked beyond the framers wildest dreams. But the reason it has worked is because it has improved quality of life for residents and made the downtown more attractive for visitors. That's the legacy of MAPS and that's what we need to keep in mind when deciding about convention center location.

After looking at all this again I see one of three things happening. 1) No new convention center is built and the money goes to retrofit the Cox. 2) The size gets cut in half and goes on downtown or downtown adjacent site, 3) It gets built at the planned size but won't be near downtown (airport east development, AICCM, Memorial Road).

A few points not mentioned in those articles:

1. The City and RECHO were engaged in an independent arbitration, not a simple negotiation. Commissioners and possibly a jury would have determined the fair market price just like they did with Santa Fe Station when the two sides could not agree on price; there have been many other instances as well. So, it's absurd to say REHCO was being 'greedy'; they were just asking the court to consider land comps that showed high per square foot values, just like any property owner would in that situation. But in the end, the court would have to rule on what was fair and there was a good reason the City did not want things to get to that point. They knew the court would likely decide on a number much closer to $100 million than $13 million -- which meant REHCO would have been actually right -- and of course, everyone knew that a long time ago.

2. Article says, " two-year-long assumption that a deal could be struck on price ". That site was officially chosen in June of 2011 and was identified as the front runner in scoring well before that. The assumption dates back at least four years.

3. No one mentions one of the biggest points of contention was that REHCO had been seeking to close adjacent streets and alleyways (something the City had done for Hines, would do for Clayco, etc.) and the City had denied approval long before they filed the eminent domain procedure. It's a key issue because REHCO wanted that land included in the value calculations and the City did not. REHCO had deposed the Chamber, CVB and Cathy O'Connor about this particular matter and only after a judge decided O'Connor must testify, did the City suddenly dismiss the case just two days before she had to do so. Again, the court would have made an objective ruling on the streets and alleys; it wasn't an issue either side could force.

4. The one article also goes to great lengths to point out all the previous ways the City had helped Howard and Hall's groups with redevelopments. So, they are now supposed to give the City an $83 million gift? It implies that the City gave the grants and loans with the idea they would get something in return on this deal, and that's highly unethical and is pretty much the definition of corruption. Others that are not engaged with the City to sell them a valuable piece of land would get less in public incentives on completely different deals? That seems to be the assumption here.

5. It is not mentioned there were three final sites chosen not only by Populous, but by the committee in a process that spanned 2 full years and cost a bunch of money. It is also said the Core to Shore South site "was deemed to be a poor choice in terms of distance to downtown hotels and Bricktown". Does not mention all three final sites were closely scored (which is why they were finalists) and all had pros and cons.

My horrifed response to that story: IN the park? A convention center and hotel would occupy most of it. Are David Greenwell and Larry McAtee forgetting that the only reason the convention center likely was funded is because they bundled it WITH the park?...
Your reaction appears to be based on Bill Crum's story, not Steve's analysis, which requires a more nuanced view than you appear to be giving it.

I read both. My horrified response was to David Greenwell's statement, not either story. I should have been more precise. Sorry.