Just goes to show how completely unprepared the City was to deal with this eventuality, even though it was very obvious there was always going to be a huge gulf between budget and fair market value for that property.

The questions is: Why?

The best I can determine is, 1) The powerful people behind the cc only wanted that particular site; and 2) they assumed they could somehow get REHCO to give them a great deal (an odd assumption) and/or they would work out some elaborate land swap / TIF / revenue bond / favor trading that wouldn't get directly charged against the cc budget.

Here is another thing to think about...

As things stand now, the substation on the east side of Central Park will be screened off in some sort of way. When they moved the $35 million into the convention center budget a few months ago they also moved $1 million from the general contingency fund for the screen.

However, the substation itself is hardly the only eyesore in this situation. What doesn't show well on the aerials is that there are tons of heavy-duty wires coming in and out of that facility and there are more big, industrial structures all along the east side of the park to carry those wires.

In fact, some of them actually cross over the park land itself. Those may be buried but I'm not 100% sure. In any event, just putting a screen around this mess is not going to cover other pretty hideous infrastructure.

Pretty sure if we spend the money to move the substation as part of the Core to Shore South cc plan, this would also be dealt with. As it stands now, it would remain (thanks to Urban Pioneer for the photo):

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/c2s030715c.jpg

And here's that tunnel under Robinson I mentioned previously (thanks again to Urban Pioneer):


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/c2s030715a.jpg

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

It may be totally impractical, but I remember an early concept drawing of a parkside CC that had apartments all along the western side facing the park. Maybe there's some some sort of public-private partnership that could make it more affordable. Dunno.

The more I think about it the less I care where it goes except for the old cox site. I think that should be used for the thunders new arena on maps 4-5 or if we had a maps sports (hopefully pro soccer at the peake with a new arena on cox). It would be really cool to make the entrance to the new arena facing myriad gardens.

I wish the city would be bold and see the potential in investing in the Coop. Yes, it costs more, but it would take care of an issue (smell), be a world-class reuse of buildings, and potentially lead to recovering much of the costs by using some of the space for private development. It takes great leadership and vision to make something like that happen, and I do not see the city staff in OKC having what it takes. Shame as a development such as that could very well take OKC to the next level of cities. It could be a project that really would make Dallas and KC (and Charlotte) jealous.

Reading the articles its amazing to me how some at city hall expected them to "cut them a deal" based off past ventures. The REHCO group is not being greedy by letting a court asses its value or typical car salesmen but not selling for half price. As Pete pointed out the inclusion of the alleyways seems to be a sticking point in why the city pulled out. The other thing that stuck out is what the city sold the parking lot to Hines for, for 499. It's almost as if they made a deal to get a new parking garage for a "deal" on city property. Where are the transcripts between the two? How did they settle on the price. No wonder the DDRC and BOA were unwilling to deny their sea of parking garages. Lastly, the idea to put the CC in the park is awful. The park, while big for the area would be dominated by a CC so it would turn into a CC would disjointed gardens around it. As well as we would be throwing away all the money we have already paid for them to design the park, kinda like the money to design a CC that is no longer relevant.

I wish the city would be bold and see the potential in investing in the Coop. Yes, it costs more, but it would take care of an issue (smell), be a world-class reuse of buildings, and potentially lead to recovering much of the costs by using some of the space for private development. It takes great leadership and vision to make something like that happen, and I do not see the city staff in OKC having what it takes. Shame as a development such as that could very well take OKC to the next level of cities. It could be a project that really would make Dallas and KC (and Charlotte) jealous.

Yeah, that would be so very cool, but where is all that money going to come from? We've already shifted a ton of extra money to the most recent plan and can't afford that.

How much money has already been spent on the CC, and how much over budget have they gone? Just trying to keep up.

How much money has already been spent on the CC, and how much over budget have they gone? Just trying to keep up.

The budget I received about a month ago showed $3.6 million had been obligated. However, that might not include all the A&E that was being performed on the old site.

With the recent decision to move more money into the cc budget, it currently stands at $287 million.

It may be totally impractical, but I remember an early concept drawing of a parkside CC that had apartments all along the western side facing the park. Maybe there's some some sort of public-private partnership that could make it more affordable. Dunno.

You're probably remembering the architectural renderings from the C2S plan:

10320

10321

10322

10323

10324

10325

I am afraid the cost to clean up the Coop site will add another huge amount to the final costs for that piece of property. However, it is something all cities face and it seems some are able to make it happen. The mayor of Denver was blasted hard about DIA, but in the end, it is probably a key factor in allowing Denver to jump into the big leagues. Salt Lake City was somehow able to fund the Olympics and be successful. I have faith San Diego will be able to swing a new stadium at a cost of around 1.5billion. Andrew said Seattle is looking at a billion dollar expansion for their convention center. I just think redevelopment of the Coop into a convention center and multipurpose residential/commercial development in that location could be something that future generations will view as the true game changer for OKC.

Cleanup costs shouldn't be a factor for those types of sites. We could add to the CC budget by accessing some brownfields funding through either the EPA or if there's a state program like most states have. That is one way that we could sloooow this project down and come out way ahead, add to the budget, do this right, and end up with the right convention center and not just any convention center.


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.

I'm sorry lol, but by "bringing things back to center" do you mean that the CC will go to the park? Because that's what most everyone on here does NOT want, and if I could remind everybody the history behind this project, that is what everyone has NOT wanted all along.

Otherwise, I am all for bringing things back to center. I am not for wasting $400M of $777M on two projects that don't go together. That is not why I drove down every wknd to volunteer on the MAPS3 campaign while I was still doing my undergrad in Stillwater.


My horrifed response to that story: IN the park? ....
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.

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.

This post of Betts' is one of the best viewpoints expressed in this thread, and I recommend people give serious consideration to the bolded points she made.

I can't say this enough. We need to take a broader view. MAPS3 simply can't be like MAPS1. As "victims of our own success," we simply can't concentrate everything together this time around, and we shouldn't. We need to spread the impact and be strategic in how we connect the far corners of our center city. We need to create the best possible opportunities for investment (ie., not gobble up ALL park-front real estate) and grow connections between the center city and its surrounding inner city regions like Capitol Hill, OUHSC/Capitol Complex, and the Classen corridor.

Downtown needs to become a region that you access through those surrounding neighborhoods, and not solely by exiting I-40 at Western or Shields. OKC can become a great city, but right now that is not the goal. The goal is just to get a damn convention center and to have it on the damn park for the damn tourists (imagine my Okie accent there for added effect, lol).

the CC will go to the park? Because that's what most everyone on here does NOT want,

http://www.okctalk.com/general-civic-issues/40279-poll-oklahoma-city-convention-center-best-site.html

I am sorry, but you're really going to point to Hot Rod's poll that didn't even include a number of other sites like potentially Lower Bricktown? I mean at least cite Hot Rod's Poll so we're all clear.

You're probably remembering the architectural renderings from the C2S plan:

10320

10321

10322

10323

10324

10325



That was it precisely. It would solve multiple problems. It would get rid of the ugly substation. It wouldput more housing along the park, move the CC a wee bit closer to Bricktown and, with adjacent housing, likely encourage development of shops, restaurants, coffee shops, etc. to serve people who would be there all of the time. We would have to go up, which doesn't seem like a big deal to me, but could split costs with a developer. Again, I don't know if something like this is possible, but it certainly looks good to me. Thanks for finding that Hutch.

That was it precisely. It would solve multiple problems. It would get rid of the ugly substation. It wouldput more housing along the park, move the CC a wee bit closer to Bricktown and, with adjacent housing, likely encourage development of shops, restaurants, coffee shops, etc. to serve people who would be there all of the time. We would have to go up, which doesn't seem like a big deal to me, but could split costs with a developer. Again, I don't know if something like this is possible, but it certainly looks good to me. Thanks for finding that Hutch.

I love the idea, too.

However... There is are a couple of cool historic buildings on the east side of those parcels that would have to be scraped to make room for the convention center which would have to slide in that direction to make room for the housing/commercial.

But the biggest issue is budget. If they just take the 3 blocks along the park, the City already owns a good chunk and the rest would not be expensive to obtain.

I think the only way this could happen would be to get a private developer on board for the apartments first, and have them inject capital to help pay for all the land that would be needed. Might be worth an RFP to find out.

The problem with skinning the CC front with housing units is that it is still a superblock. Is there any way we could have a compromise where the convention center structure drops to the back along Robinson, and Broadway's ROW is preserved with a few small housing blocks up against the park.... just thinking out loud about this site. Broadway could even be moved closer to Shields for smaller blocks, so long as they are real blocks that preserve a since of flow (natural breaks in the fabric) into the park from that side. The CC could even include one of the smaller blocks (for a T or L shape) or even cantilever over the substation (which we need to skin anyway), just to increase an exhibit hall's floorplate.

I think this site is so large that there is no reason we should have direct conflict on the park. The point here is that we need to build whatever CC we deem necessary, but first and foremost we need to value good city planning and investment opportunities, and then plan everything else around that goal. A CC doesn't need a massive square box. The Chamber junta needs to balance the community's goals in order to truly succeed, rather than just railroad their vision just because they can.

You could have the housing/commercial between Robinson and Broadway and the convention center between Broadway and Shields.

That way the only big chunk is removed from the park and the commercial development could be broken up a bit.

You could have the housing/commercial between Robinson and Broadway and the convention center between Broadway and Shields.

That way the only big chunk is removed from the park and the commercial development could be broken up a bit.

I would feel a lot better about that.

But I read David Greenwell, Larry McAtee, Mike Carrier, and Roy Williams, say IN the park. They have made it very clear (C2S South site, Stage Center, Preftakes block, Downtown Ford site, and more) that they don't want anything between Chamber junta developments and the park. They don't care about anyone but them having frontage around these parks. That is literally as clear of a trend as this city's HP record.

What about this idea... If we leave Broadway open, you could put the parking garage in the middle of this area, push the cc to the east and away from the park and allow private development all along the park.

One of the properties on the east side of this area is already owned by a hotel developer... Swap it for the property along the park. Think he's probably go for that deal and we'd probably get another hotel deal pretty quickly.

Then, we could put our RFP's for the remaining commercial development and use their capital to help buy the required property.

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/c2ss4.jpg

The idea of leveraging it as a funding source is brilliant. Like I said, there are really good ways to find more funding (from other sources) for a MAPS3 project, as long as they don't affect any other budgets and add to the overall. The only change I'd suggest though is to break up the blocks of development by keeping 5th, 6th, and 7th open as long as possible, at least to Broadway.

I'd say to keep the developable blocks apart, maybe allow for the parking structure to be either cantilevered or air rights construction (if it has to be a continuous floorplate to bring the construction cost down). Maybe even parts of the CC if you want to really blend it in with the developable area and the park (like find an innovative way to integrate SW 5th into the heart of the CC as a "main street" on the ground level that provides a clear walkway into the heart of the park from the east, thinking of how the Denver LRT cuts through their CC).

I just lack confidence that these decisions will be made by people with real estate savvy, like the Planning Dept or the Alliance.

So I put on my walking shoes and used my trusty fitbit and I walked, again from approximately where the front door of each CC would be. It was a bit more accurate then my car odometer. The substation site is 0.66 miles from what would likely be the Bricktown Starbucks. It is 1520 steps. The original CC site is 0.52 miles from the Bricktown Starbucks, or 1330 steps.

Moving the CC east to front shields and the boulevard is the creative ideas that I hope are being looked at. Being near the new work is important but fronting it isn't a must. By moving it east it puts it closer to bricktown but a few
Minutes which then helps that key 10 min walk. It also makes the inspection of the boulevard and shields that much more important.

I really, REALLY like the idea to have the CC between Broadway and Shields. Not only does this improve walkability to Bricktown and the SE corner of the CBD, but it provides a bit of a buffer between the CC and central park, allows the CC hotel to overlook the park and the CC, and allows visitors that arrive via rail to see the CC as they arrive into Santa Fe Station. If this plan gets put into place, I'd be willing to bet that the proposed area for private development would become extremely hot property, and quick.

Reading Steve's article on the city councilmembers was deeply disconcerting. Greenwell may mean well, but his suggestion to put the CC "in the park" is an absolutely horrible idea.

What about this idea... If we leave Broadway open, you could put the parking garage in the middle of this area, push the cc to the east and away from the park and allow private development all along the park.

One of the properties on the east side of this area is already owned by a hotel developer... Swap it for the property along the park. Think he's probably go for that deal and we'd probably get another hotel deal pretty quickly.

Then, we could put our RFP's for the remaining commercial development and use their capital to help buy the required property.

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/c2ss4.jpg

I really like this idea a lot Pete. I by far and away have a favorite though. That is once again another of Pete's ideas. I think the city needs to find a few investors (wouldn't be hard to do) and develop the Producer's Co-Op area. I LOVED the idea of incorporating the silos in to the Convention Center and I would like to see the following. CC and CC Hotel on this site along with some retail and perhaps a high rise residential tower (like the proposed BT Tower). I would find a way to fund a 30 million dollar state of the art Soccer Stadium and try to attract an MLS team here. This would be a huge development and a vision that OKC needs now to save face for what has been happening lately. If they did this, the city of OKC and its leaders will look back and realize that it was a game changer for this city not seen since they built a ditch/canal in the middle of no where when people were calling them crazy.

For all the business owners in BT, I would be flooding the city offices or reaching out to contacts and potential investors to make something like this happen. It wold link up to BT and DT in a way that would make this place explode even more and would open up the door for more residential and hopefully canal development. It is time for the BT to expand out to this newly developed site which even further links us to the River. In the mean time, the C2S and park can develop more organically and it will. I am serious, this CC incorporated with the existing structures would look out of this world cool! The city can't afford it, but I would think some investors teaming up with the city could make this the ONLY place if you want to see an area like BT and Coop and River transformed and expand the canal!

This may be a stupid question but Pete or anyone else, could you draw up some renderings and kind of show an example of what this area would look like if this was done. I am talking about the CC Center and CC Hotel and we could use the BT Tower that was proposed and put it somewhere on that property. Then we can see the canal expanded to the around the Soccer complex, etc. I would love, love to see something like this and perhaps it can be forwarded to anyone that could run with it. It is brilliant, I mean Pete is brilliant!

The Cotton Mill site probably needs it's own dedicated MAPS program. With the prices that downtown land has been reaching, the $120 million they were asking for is starting to look a little more rational. I think this may be a MAPS 5, 2030ish time frame though. There's still way too much undeveloped land in the downtown area.

Perhaps the city should purchase the land now though, before the price goes even higher. They could lease the land back to the Cotton Mill until they've got projects lined up.

I know the city won't go for it, but I'm thinking something outside of the immediate Bricktown/Central Park area is the way to go. There's a bajillion empty spaces over by the Farmer's Market, and that is an area that will be redeveloped sooner or later. If you jump start that area with a $250 million convention center, other people will build there. I'm sure by the time the convention center is finished you'll have 3 or 4 East Bricktowny-style hotels owned by a guy named Patel that will appear nearby. Yes, convention goers will have to drive to Bricktown, but that's only going to be the case for the next 5 to 10 years until the area around it fully develops.

That area will have the Farmer's Market building (which could be a really cool retail area), the 21c hotel, whatever development they're planning that will surround 21c, fantastic interstate access, and will be directly across the river from the dang Ferris Wheel. It is a prime location.

Asking because I don't know but ....can Convention Center activities be temporarily moved to the Fair Grounds?
I'd love to see Cox site go vertical. Here's a thought
G3 Parking
G2 Parking
G1 Transit, freight, VIP, taxi, and staff parking
L1 Retail facing the street and central great hall for convention use
L2-5 Convention use
L6-L10 - Hotel
L11 - 12 - Lite commercial, specifically for businesses that support activities that service and use the convention space (trade groups, the Chamber, etc).
L13-20 - Residential

I know, We'd be talking about a massive vertical building but hey, this is OKC. If we're going to do super blocks, maybe we need to build super towers? Talk about an anchor structure...

Also, keep in mind that convention activities could resume again after Floors G3-L5 were completed. The hotel, commercial, and residential components wouldn't need to be completed. I'm such a fan of the Cox site for so many reasons (Gardens, Park, Bricktown access, etc....). If the city came back and said, you know what, we're going to use the money from the land to just make the Cox site awesome, I think taxpayers would be in favor of the change.

You could also go multi-tower above the convention floors, i.e., have a hotel/residential tower and a commercial tower ala OGE site.

I like the idea of using Central Park land for the convention center because I think they are putting in far too much park space, but then we end up with park frontage being used by a convention center - but that is still better than the old location which had park frontage on 2 parks taken up by the same convention center - however, the park land used by the convention center should come out of the CC budget and added to the park budget.

r_pqnsKWlpc

I can't imagine the Park subcommittee or the folks at Hargreaves allowing the convention center to eat up their project. The only possibility would be the land for phase two south of I-40 that fronts the river.

Putting the convention center in Central Park would be breaking the agreement made with voters and drastically reducing a popular project for one that was the least popular.

Never going to happen and I'm shocked a city councilman would even suggest it so flippantly.

Give the choice between the CC subcommittee or the Park subcommittee getting their way - my money will be on the CC subcommittee.

What about this idea... If we leave Broadway open, you could put the parking garage in the middle of this area, push the cc to the east and away from the park and allow private development all along the park.

One of the properties on the east side of this area is already owned by a hotel developer... Swap it for the property along the park. Think he's probably go for that deal and we'd probably get another hotel deal pretty quickly.

Then, we could put our RFP's for the remaining commercial development and use their capital to help buy the required property.

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/c2ss4.jpg

Yes! Finally someone else says it.

Give the choice between the CC subcommittee or the Park subcommittee getting their way - my money will be on the CC subcommittee.

Normally, I would agree with your cynical viewpoint. But the CC subcommittee is at least partially responsible for this debacle. Any efforts to bully other subcommittees would be shut down by a cacophony of angry citizens and bad media. The CC folks are going to have to show some penitence and humility unless they just want to sink the entire MAPS brand.

Normally, I would agree with your cynical viewpoint. But the CC subcommittee is at least partially responsible for this debacle. Any efforts to bully other subcommittees would be shut down by a cacophony of angry citizens and bad media. The CC folks are going to have to show some penitence and humility unless they just want to sink the entire MAPS brand.

I am not sure 'penitence and humility' are in their vocabulary.

I'm not sure I 100% agree. Depends on how much land we'd need to consume I suppose. If SERIOUS land management is made (below ground parking and main event hall, for example) then the park might actually benefit from an integration relationship.

We would only be saving $13 million in land acquisition if we used the park in some way.

Putting everything underground would likely be more expensive than that and still completely disrupt the plans for the park, which have been finalized. They will be starting starting on the first phase soon.

This may be a stupid question but Pete or anyone else, could you draw up some renderings and kind of show an example of what this area would look like if this was done.!

A cc rendering on this site has been done. Search BG918 - he did it a long time ago and I still think that is the type of cc we should be considering. Not flashy, but well executed on a site that makes sense.

Glad to see betts' FitBit verified my Google Maps distances. It is not that much of a walk to Bricktown from C2S East - still in the 10 minute range.

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/c2ss4.jpg

Best idea yet to build a center at the scale they desired. That section of Shields will never be more than what it is now anyhow so no money needs to be spent making that whole side decorative. I hate to lose the International Harvester building though. I also wonder what the price tag is for that land considering a hotel is set to be developed on one block. Also, they would have to buy the expansion land now or they will have a repeat of this same problem when they get ready to expand.

Are TIF funds available for this project?

Any TIF award has to be approved by the city council and I think that would be a tough move politically. But legally, I think they could do it.

They were planning to use TIF for both the convention hotel and parking garage, so in that way that was already a big part of the strategy.

Okay, following up my earlier post.

The land near the Farmer's Market:

10326

This is just over twice the size of the Cox Center block, about 26 acres. There's over a million square feet of land here in one spot. There's room to expand almost forever.

Here's what is nearby that area:

10327

The yellow squares at the top of the photo are housing -- the Civic Center Flats and 700 West -- nearly 300 units of housing.

The green squares are the 21c hotel and the projects that are supposed to spring up around it. We don't know what those are yet, but that's where they will be.

The yellow line is the new Boulevard.

The medium blue is my proposed Convention Center site.

The pink box is the Farmer's Market building.

The very light blue is the top of the Wheeler District. The red circle is the Santa Monica Ferris Wheel.

This location has, I think, the highest potential of any of the ones we've looked at so far, with the exception of the Cotton Mill. It has the advantage of being far more affordable than the Cotton Mill site as well. Now, this potential won't be realized in 2020, when this thing gets built. But as the Wheeler District grows, and when 21c is finished, and as development starts to stretch to the west, this location will come into its own. We can get a LOT of bang for our buck here, and that's what MAPS projects are really about.

Are we ignoring the Bricktown hotels? Yes, but those hotels have been able to support themselves. They aren't reliant upon the convention business. This also starts renovation of two very important corridors -- Western and Exchange. I'm sure we are going to want to connect the Wheeler District with downtown through a future expansion of the streetcar. This gives us more reason to do that. It also potentially lets us connect Stockyard City and Cattlemen's the same way.

Is this the best place to host a convention in 2015? No.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-gRcbgqxo3K0/To0BJ1qAyUI/AAAAAAAAAoY/NPR0269ABvA/s320/fourth-dim-final.jpg

But it's going to be absolutely amazing in 2035. It'll be built by 2020, and we'll have torn down the Cox Center by 2025. That gives us ample time to get the area into decent shape so conventioneers aren't scared off.

You slap a $250 million convention center and a $130 million Omni hotel on this land and you can bet you'll attract investment in the area.

Edit:

I also think it's best to spread out our civic investment dollars. With the money we invested in the Myriad Gardens and the Central Park, we totally priced ourselves out of the original convention center space. That land was cheap before we made everything nice. We shouldn't be bidding against ourselves for the land. We should make public investment in different areas of downtown, and let private dollars fill in the gaps. Right now the Central Park has the potential to make dozens of blocks of land very valuable and spur a lot of development. Let's leave that land alone so we can reap the full rewards of that project. The convention center can have a similar effect a little bit to the west. Let's let it be the western anchor for the Core 2 Shore area.

Edit 2:

That Ferris Wheel is going to be a major attraction, and a lot of convention goers will want to ride on it. I think maybe everybody will want to ride it. As the Wheeler District builds up, there will be a lot of restaurants and hotels there. That will be a very easy walk (we can put a pedestrian bridge across the river if we want so they aren't having to walk on the sidewalk of Western) and it will be very visible. That's the thing they're going to look at when they walk outside of the convention. They'll all go that way in the evening. With the Farmer's Market right across the street (I'm already turning it into retail in my mind), they'll have a lot of things to do right there.

...Glad to see betts' FitBit verified my Google Maps distances. It is not that much of a walk to Bricktown from C2S East - still in the 10 minute range.

Actually it did nothing of the sort. Credit to Betts - a loyal proponent of the C2S location - for being honest about numbers that are damaging to that site from a walkability standpoint.

For those who care, a universally-accepted walking speed is about 3.1 MPH. That would place the dealership location as she measured it (.52 miles) 10 minutes and 3 seconds from the Bricktown Starbucks, while the C2S site (.66 miles by her measure) would be nearly THIRTEEN MINUTES (12:46). Which means literally every other business in Bricktown (save Fuzzy's) is more than 13 minutes. Most of them - as I have been saying all along - are FIFTEEN MINUTES PLUS.

Doesn't sound like much, but it almost assuredly can't be done round trip during a one-hour lunch break. Not to mention the fact that statistically people start driving when a walk exceeds 10 minutes. And that C2S number doesn't factor crossing the soon-to appear six lane boulevard with interstate on-ramps on each end. It renders EVERY LAST BUILDING IN BRICKTOWN outside of the 10 minute amenities bubble that is used to make convention space salable.

Of course, the dealership location also had a long distance relationship with Bricktown (though not AS long), but full service hotels were squarely in the bubble; they are completely out of the bubble in C2S.

Credit Betts for doing the on-the-ground research and posting results, despite the fact that they don't support the C2S location.

Sorry, I will crawl back into my hole now; I just couldn't let such blatant misinterpretation of data go without comment.

I guess I have to wonder if convention centers are a development magnet outside of the adjacent convention hotel (which is also built with public funds). Based on my observations convention center actually discourage an active civic life around them, mostly because they are impossible to build at the human scale and by their very nature are not used frequently on nights and weekends. Orlando has one of the largest and most attended convention centers on the planet and there isn't squat to do around it and the convention center in Philadelphia is a human repellent after 5PM. Not even the bums go there because there is no one to beg money from.

One more thing: Hoya, I almost always agree with you on this board, but the Farmers Market thing is even more troubling than most that have been mentioned. The same people have owned much of that area for more than a decade now, and what do we have to show for it? A single 20x20 (admittedly great) bar.

I simply can't believe the cavalier attitudes thrown around on here regarding ensuring that a QUARTER BILLION DOLLAR taxpayer investment be successful. It's not something that can simply be left to chance, or guessing.

Anyway, all of the guesses and drawings on this board are an interesting distraction, but to be honest I think the solution is going to end up being one we're not even discussing here.

Actually it did nothing of the sort. Credit to Betts - a loyal proponent of the C2S location - for being honest about numbers that are damaging to that site from a walkability standpoint.

For those who care, a universally-accepted walking speed is about 3.1 MPH. That would place the dealership location as she measured it (.52 miles) 10 minutes and 3 seconds from the Bricktown Starbucks, while the C2S site (.66 miles by her measure) would be nearly THIRTEEN MINUTES (12:46). Which means literally every other business in Bricktown (save Fuzzy's) is more than 13 minutes. Most of them - as I have been saying all along - are FIFTEEN MINUTES PLUS.

Doesn't sound like much, but it almost assuredly can't be done round trip during a one-hour lunch break. Not to mention the fact that statistically people start driving when a walk exceeds 10 minutes. And that C2S number doesn't factor crossing the soon-to appear six lane boulevard with interstate on-ramps on each end. It renders EVERY LAST BUILDING IN BRICKTOWN outside of the 10 minute amenities bubble that is used to make convention space salable.

Of course, the dealership location also had a long distance relationship with Bricktown (though not AS long), but full service hotels were squarely in the bubble; they are completely out of the bubble in C2S.

Credit Betts for doing the on-the-ground research and posting results, despite the fact that they don't support the C2S location.

Sorry, I will crawl back into my hole now; I just couldn't let such blatant misinterpretation of data go without comment.

Not sure what I'm missing here, but won't Bricktown be connected to the Convention Center by the Streetcar? Ideally, we could locate as close to our entertainment district as possible, but we seem to be running out of reasonable alternatives to make that happen. Along the same lines, if a new, doable location isn't quickly identified, this has the potential of derailing multiple MAPS projects.

It is clear to me that this project was under-budgeted from the get go. It's not clear that we would have even been able to produce a quality build on the existing budget at even the former location. Now, the project budget will surely explode, and I will be shocked if the CC subcommittee doesn't try to reach out and grab every existing dollar left in the contingency fund.

While it is not new for MAPS projects to go over budget, this one in particular has not been well managed.

I think it is a mistake to think that it was under-budgeted. They have continually chosen to expand the scope wherever possible.

Actually it did nothing of the sort. Credit to Betts - a loyal proponent of the C2S location - for being honest about numbers that are damaging to that site from a walkability standpoint.

For those who care, a universally-accepted walking speed is about 3.1 MPH. That would place the dealership location as she measured it (.52 miles) 10 minutes and 3 seconds from the Bricktown Starbucks, while the C2S site (.66 miles by her measure) would be nearly THIRTEEN MINUTES (12:46). Which means literally every other business in Bricktown (save Fuzzy's) is more than 13 minutes. Most of them - as I have been saying all along - are FIFTEEN MINUTES PLUS.

Doesn't sound like much, but it almost assuredly can't be done round trip during a one-hour lunch break. Not to mention the fact that statistically people start driving when a walk exceeds 10 minutes. And that C2S number doesn't factor crossing the soon-to appear six lane boulevard with interstate on-ramps on each end. It renders EVERY LAST BUILDING IN BRICKTOWN outside of the 10 minute amenities bubble that is used to make convention space salable.

Of course, the dealership location also had a long distance relationship with Bricktown (though not AS long), but full service hotels were squarely in the bubble; they are completely out of the bubble in C2S.

Credit Betts for doing the on-the-ground research and posting results, despite the fact that they don't support the C2S location.

Sorry, I will crawl back into my hole now; I just couldn't let such blatant misinterpretation of data go without comment.

Thank you.

Anyway, all of the guesses and drawings on this board are an interesting distraction, but to be honest I think the solution is going to end up being one we're not even discussing here.

Please enlighten us.

Guru, we've covered the streetcar's abilities and limitations as it relates to the CC before. If equipment is stacked at the front door, waiting for a program break, it could take a few hundred...and then not be back for what? Ten minutes? Fifteen? And that's assuming an express route with dedicated equipment. And after it picks them up, it leaves a few thousand standing there waiting. It is a great amenity for getting people around to dinner/bars/districts in the evening, or for trickling them into the area in the morning, but it won't help a lunch time crunch much at all. The streetcar is great, but for this particular purpose it is NOT the panacea we'd all like for it to be.

"but was also the initial favorite of Mayor Mick Cornett — the electrical substation block along Robinson Avenue between SW 3 and SW 7." —From Steve's article.

I think it is important to point out that this was Russell Claus' (former Planning Director) preferred location and he conveyed to the Mayor on the merits of this location. The Mayor listened to him and agreed. That is why it stuck in the Core to Shore Plan.

It was the CC Subcommittee that essentially escorted the multiple site evaluation scoring process. Maybe they thought that they were supposed to at the consultant's behest. Arguably, Russell Claus did not stick up for his plans. One can argue that his hands were tied. I would have gone stark raving mad if I was paid to come up with plans that were consistently ignored. But he didn't fight for them when it counted. And if you are a director of an entire City Department, you kind of need to fight for the things your staff comes up with.

One wonders where we would be if that study had been taken seriously and the effort had been exerted on making the site he identified work. The only major enigma was the cost for the substation removal or screening.

I think it is a mistake to think that it was under-budgeted. They have continually chosen to expand the scope wherever possible.

I think I misstated what I was trying to say. My point was they were not realistic about the budget they would need, which is why they continue to try to grab more and more.

Guru, we've covered the streetcar's abilities and limitations as it relates to the CC before. If equipment is stacked at the front door, waiting for a program break, it could take a few hundred...and then not be back for what? Ten minutes? Fifteen? And that's assuming an express route with dedicated equipment. And after it picks them up, it leaves a few thousand standing there waiting. It is a great amenity for getting people around to dinner/bars/districts in the evening, or for trickling them into the area in the morning, but it won't help a lunch time crunch much at all. The streetcar is great, but for this particular purpose it is NOT the panacea we'd all like for it to be.

Gotcha. It will help people not willing to walk another three minutes, though.

One more thing: Hoya, I almost always agree with you on this board, but the Farmers Market thing is even more troubling than most that have been mentioned. The same people have owned much of that area for more than a decade now, and what do we have to show for it? A single 20x20 (admittedly great) bar.

I simply can't believe the cavalier attitudes thrown around on here regarding ensuring that a QUARTER BILLION DOLLAR taxpayer investment be successful. It's not something that can simply be left to chance, or guessing.

Anyway, all of the guesses and drawings on this board are an interesting distraction, but to be honest I think the solution is going to end up being one we're not even discussing here.

I can't believe how people are wanting to neuter the effect of the park. That's still a $130 million-ish investment, and here we are wanting to take up half the adjacent land with another public building.

Unless you put this thing on the North Bricktown lot, and somehow incorporate the rail line into the design of the building, we can't afford to have a convention center of 1) the needed size, that will 2) be close enough to all the existing amenities. It's highly questionable even with the North Bricktown location. Downtown is building up to the point that all the easy locations for this thing have been taken. That's a good thing until you want to build a convention center there and not spend half a billion dollars.

I want the convention center to be very successful, but I'm thinking about it over the life of the facility, not just the first five years or so. I think the people who have owned a lot of that land have been waiting for future growth. They know that downtown is booming and they're waiting their turn. We are seeing investment creep that direction right now. You put a quarter billion dollars there along with thousands of conventioners, and they'll build some restaurants. Right now it's Bricktown circa 1995. It's got cheap land and loads of potential.

"but was also the initial favorite of Mayor Mick Cornett — the electrical substation block along Robinson Avenue between SW 3 and SW 7." —From Steve's article. I think it is important to point out that this was Russell Clause' (former Planning Director) preferred location and he conveyed to the Mayor on the merits of this location. The Mayor listened to him and agreed. That is why it stuck in the Core to Shore Plan.

It was the CC Subcommittee that essentially escorted the multiple site evaluation scoring process. Maybe they thought that they were supposed to at the consultant's behest. Arguably, Russell Claus did not stick up for his plans. One can argue that his hands were tied. I would have gone stark raving mad if I was paid to come up with plans that were consistently ignored. But he didn't fight for them when it counted. And if you are a director of an entire City Department, you kind of need to fight for the things your staff comes up with.

One wonders where we would be if that study had been taken seriously and the effort had been exerted on making the site he identified work. The only major enigma was the cost for the substation removal or screening.

I was told that in the convention center meetings that Klaus was not even at the table, both literally and figuratively.

That he sat in the corner while others sat around the table where all the decisions were made.

No wonder he left his job in OKC for a town about the size of Enid and that so many city planners have quit as well.

The fact that the City was willing to just snub our planner director (with the background he has) was pretty prophetic. OKC is going to keep paying the high cost of dismissing good urban planning.

I agree, but i'm not sure a lot of these folks will notice, or care. "Quality urban planning" is not high on their list of priorities.

Guru, we've covered the streetcar's abilities and limitations as it relates to the CC before. If equipment is stacked at the front door, waiting for a program break, it could take a few hundred...and then not be back for what? Ten minutes? Fifteen? And that's assuming an express route with dedicated equipment. And after it picks them up, it leaves a few thousand standing there waiting. It is a great amenity for getting people around to dinner/bars/districts in the evening, or for trickling them into the area in the morning, but it won't help a lunch time crunch much at all. The streetcar is great, but for this particular purpose it is NOT the panacea we'd all like for it to be.

I agree with you to some degree. However, I can't think of one convention where I didn't wander off during a conference or not return at the scheduled time. The streetcar is not the panacea for "crush load" scenarios. Wide sidewalks and direct routes are. However, it will play an important role in providing a consistent stream of people into Bricktown and help return those back to the Convention Center and hotels as people finish their meals or other experiences. And that is not just Bricktown. Arguably, Midtown and the Art District will benefit from the conventioneers as well.

If the south C2S site is chosen, I do not believe that the current design for the streetcar in the Convention Center and Bricktown areas will work. It will need to be redesigned. More to come about this later. We need to have some meetings first.

Gotcha. It will help people not willing to walk another three minutes, though.
Doubtful. After the first frustrating attempt, those people will be inclined to get into their cars. Again, just ask Dallas, which had to subsidize restaurant options surrounding their CC because the private sector wasn't building them, people didn't want to wait for trains, and they complained about lack of food options. These are the realities of that business.

they were not realistic about the budget they would need

But do they really need it? The description of an "arms race" between cities has been brought up time and time again. I think the question really is, what is an adequate size that is architecturally stimulating, with great finishes, that our citizens can be proud of?