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.

Well then.

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.

Which can only be accessed by the SkyDance bridge from the north. You might as well save your money were that our "central" park. Not to mention blocking all views of the Union Station.

Urbanized do you not agree fronting the CC to the northeast and on shields and not towards the park can help make up those precious few minutes? Especially with the new boulevard as a (hopefully) walking environment it can serve right into brick town or redoing shields a little can provide walking as well? I think everyone is aware of the issues that every site faces and no one here wants a CC that fails.

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.

I never saw Claus fight for a seat at any of these tables. I really liked the guy but I rarely if ever saw him fight for the dreams that he helped create.

Maybe the ghost of Garner Stoll OKC's career or Paul Brum was haunting his career. Who knows.

Urbanized do you not agree fronting the CC to the northeast and on shields and not towards the park can help make up those precious few minutes? Especially with the new boulevard as a (hopefully) walking environment it can serve right into brick town or redoing shields a little can provide walking as well? I think everyone is aware of the issues that every site faces and no one here wants a CC that fails.
Honestly I think there are a number of people here who really don't care one way or the other if it succeeds or fails, and a number who would be tickled pink to see it done away with altogether.

I do think that the configuration shown fronting Shields is an interesting, creative idea. Where it is likely problematic is that somewhere along the way you have to account for a massive number of loading docks, and this orientation would make that very problematic. I also think people are still blowing right past how much site acquisition and remediation would be for C2S.

But seriously, I don't think it's going there. And I also don't think it's going to take up any park space. I believe at this point that it is probably moving toward a resolution that is not even being contemplated in this thread.

Where it is likely problematic is that somewhere along the way you have to account for a massive number of loading docks, and this orientation would make that very problematic.

What if that exit ramp off of Robinson was retained? It dumps right into the southern part of the site. I noticed it for the first time yesterday when I was taking pictures of the tunnel. That would provide a direct almost dedicated connection into the site from I-40 westbound.

Honestly I think there are a number of people here who really don't care one way or the other if it succeeds or fails, and a number who would be tickled pink to see it done away with altogether.

I do think that the configuration shown fronting Shields is an interesting, creative idea. Where it is likely problematic is that somewhere along the way you have to account for a massive number of loading docks, and this orientation would make that very problematic. I also think people are still blowing right past how much site acquisition and remediation would be for C2S.

But seriously, I don't think it's going there. And I also don't think it's going to take up any park space. I believe at this point that it is probably moving toward a resolution that is not even being contemplated in this thread.

This seems dramatic and inaccurate. The position would probably be better stated that there are a lot of people for whom this was not a high priority, but fought for MAPS 3 and this is an important element of MAPS 3. There are a lot of other folks who were rubbed the wrong way by the way the CC subcommittee tried to push itself in front of other projects and has consistently lobbied for more money.

That should not be confused with the Mitch McConnell / Rush Limbaugh "rooting for failure" approach. Not at all.

Oh, come on Guru. Don't make me go back and find quotes. Just go back and read the last ten pages or so and you'll understand what I mean. Or better yet, don't. I'd hate to subject a friend of mine to all of the dreck in this thread... ;)

This should be looked at as an opportunity to build it right in the location that the Planning Department said it should be.

But seriously, I don't think it's going there. And I also don't think it's going to take up any park space. I believe at this point that it is probably moving toward a resolution that is not even being contemplated in this thread.

That is twice you eluded to another site.

Please elaborate.

That is twice you eluded to another site.

Please elaborate.

Perhaps they land on a settlement for the C2S North site? An ED lawsuit need not finish for them to settle at something like $50M for the site. . .

If it is the Karchmer Parking site that the city owns, I suspect there will be a pretty vigorous fight from the commuter rail folks who want to make sure that the right-of-way necessary for lines out to Tinker, the NE side, and service to Tulsa/Kansas City is preserved into Santa Fe Station.

The Convention Center designers/planners would need to demonstrate how that could be done.

Oh, come on Guru. Don't make me go back and find quotes. Just go back and read the last ten pages or so and you'll understand what I mean. Or better yet, don't. I'd hate to subject a friend of mine to all of the dreck in this thread... ;)

That's rather condescending of you. Although, I must admit I have yet to see a single post in this thread by anyone with acknowledged expertise in the field of convention center location determination. At least people posting here care enough for this city that they are thinking about this. And what is a message board like this anyway but a place to share ideas? Clearly, there has never been a perfect solution. If the primary determinant for convention center selection is proximity to lunch, then the original site fails as well. I agree, it's nearly impossible to reliably eat lunch anywhere in the CBD or Bricktown in under 40 min.

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.

This whole maps program is one big chance and apparently the experts in the industry don't even agree on what makes a good location. Otherwise, I don't get why a crappy location was rated in the top 3. The first two locations we can't even afford.

Condescending? What are you talking about? I'm sure I've made condescending posts on this board but that certainly wasn't one of them.

Go back and read the thread yourself. There are multiple posts from people saying things like


They think the CC should be scrapped and the budget moved to the streetcar budget
They don't care where the CC goes, as long as it doesnt take up valuable land downtown
They don't care where it goes, as long as it doesn't create a superblock downtown
They don't care where it goes, as long as it doesn't touch a park
OKC will probably never get much convenion business anyway, so why bother?
The convention industry is dead and this is just a giant waste of money
The CC committee is some nefarious group of power brokers who somehow stand to personally gain from its construction, though exactly how has never been explained

Are you suggesting that posts like this haven't been made here? As far as Guru and I are concerned, we've been personal friends for 15 years or more. I'm pretty unlikely to post something that is personally condescending to him.

That is twice you eluded to another site.

Please elaborate.
Pete, if you'll read Steve's analysis is in yesterday's paper again, I think he pretty openly hints at the direction this discussion could take. I think everyone was too caught up in the sensational nature of the quotes in Crum's article and in being mad at the whole process to pay attention to his observations.

...The first two locations we can't even afford.
Are you certain about this?

And there were all sorts of suggestions on the streetcar thread, some of which were unusual, to say the least. I suspect there are suggestions that seem odd and/or grandiose on every thread of a major project, the scope of which has yet to be determined. I didn't think you were being condescending to guru. I know you're friends. But people take the time to post, which at least means they care about something. It may be urban development rather than the CC. Almost everyone who belongs to this forum does because at minimum they're interested in OKC and at maximum they are fervently passionate. Out of unusual ideas, perhaps the seed of an idea that's workable could grow. I hate to see their efforts called dreck. None of us is an expert, even if we've read a paper or two or gone to a meeting. And ideas that are touted as gospel today may be dumped in 10 years. That evens happens in medicine, which is a heck of a lot closer to a science than convention center placement.

Pete, if you'll read Steve's analysis is in yesterday's paper again, I think he pretty openly hints at the direction this discussion could take. I think everyone was too caught up in the sensational nature of the quotes in Crum's article and in being mad at the whole process to pay attention to his observations.

I picked up on the hints, but moving the hotel to the Cox site would only reduce the land cost by about 1/3rd which mean REHCO would still want approximately $66 million for the land, far north of the $13 million budget. Still absolutely no public discussion on how that might be covered.

There is clearly much more to all this and at some point it needs to come out.

I continue to be incredibly uncomfortable with how all this has been handled.

LOL. "Dreck" was the condescension? A large portion of what is posted on this board daily is dreck, but I keep coming back and so do you. "Dreck" was said in a joking manner. I wouldn't wish upon anyone the tediousness of going back and reading this thread start to finish, or even the last 10 pages.

Are you certain about this?

Well, we wouldn't be having this conversation if the original site was. Regarding the Cox site, that really first depends on how much opportunity cost is going to be for not having a convention center for at least 3 years. It may be affordable if were willing to give up a convention center for a few years.

Well, we wouldn't be having this conversation if the original site was. Regarding the Cox site, that really first depends on how much opportunity cost is going to be for not having a convention center for at least 3 years. It may be affordable if were willing to give up a convention center for a few years.

It seems what they want to do now is move the hotel to the Cox site and thus not completely tear it down.

This was one of the ideas that consultants and committees considered early on and they must be coming back to that.

But as I pointed out, the reason given to the press for backing out was due to the cost per SF, and even moving the hotel would not in itself solve that problem.

I'm sure there are lots of things behind the scenes that are not being being shared with the public.

One more thing betts: regarding the idea that none of us here has much of anything legitimate upon which to base an opinion on regarding location (oops, I think I found the condescension in this thread!): though I certainly have never claimed to be a site location expert myself, I haven't just "read a paper" on the matter.

I've spent the last 13 years working regularly and directly with not only the people who go out and sell our city and our facilities but also with the convention planners who decide whether to book here or not. I've met with these people, I've been a part of pitches to them, I've hosted events and tours, I've had drinks with them. I've heard from their own mouths what they think is great about OKC as a conference destination (and what is not great). They have told me what will make OKC more bookable, and what will make it less bookable. Overwhelmingly, the thing that gets us and keeps us in the game is our current (and until recently planned) dense walkability to hotels and entertainment for their attendees. Period.

Their opinions, BTW, are based upon best practices in their industry, established by years of practice and observation of things that work vs things that don't. Sort of like science, if you will. I know it's not medicine, but believe it or not it's not all guessing either (was that even MORE condescension on your part, BTW)?

So again, while I don't claim to be an expert on CC site location, my background probably makes me at least as qualified to comment on this topic as say - for instance - a medical doctor might be qualified to help plan streetcar routes.

Well, we wouldn't be having this conversation if the original site was...
Are you certain about THIS?

One more thing betts: regarding the idea that none of us here has much of anything legitimate upon which to base an opinion on regarding location (oops, I think I found the condescension in this thread!): though I certainly have never claimed to be a site location expert myself, I haven't just "read a paper" on the matter.

I've spent the last 13 years working regularly and directly with not only the people who go out and sell our city and our facilities but also with the convention planners who decide whether to book here or not. I've met with these people, I've been a part of pitches to them, I've hosted events and tours, I've had drinks with them. I've heard from their own mouths what they think is great about OKC as a conference destination (and what is not great). They have told me what will make OKC more bookable, and what will make it less bookable. Overwhelmingly, the thing that gets us and keeps us in the game is our current (and until recently planned) dense walkability to hotels and entertainment for their attendees. Period.

Their opinions, BTW, are based upon best practices in their industry, established by years of practice and observation of things that work vs things that don't. Sort of like science, if you will. I know it's not medicine, but believe it or not it's not all guessing either (was that even MORE condescension on your part, BTW)?

So again, while I don't claim to be an expert on CC site location, my background probably makes me at least as qualified to comment on this topic as say - for instance - a medical doctor might be qualified to help plan streetcar routes.

And while I (and I'm sure others) completely respect all of that, if we left it up to the CVB they would build the thing in the middle of the Myriad Gardens if we let them.

Their wants and desires are only a very small part of this whole thing and should not be the driving force.


I also reject the claim the cc would 'fail' if it wasn't ideally located. First of all, this thing is being paid for with cash by tax payers so there is little financial risk. Secondly, I can't imagine any scenario where we do less convention business than we are now, and the annual economic impact of the Cox Center is estimated at about $30 million a year.

You can argue a new cc might be less successful if it was in one location over another, but I can't see any way it would fail.

It seems what they want to do now is move the hotel to the Cox site and thus not completely tear it down.

This was one of the ideas that consultants and committees considered early on and they must be coming back to that.

But as I pointed out, the reason given to the press for backing out was due to the cost per SF, and even moving the hotel would not in itself solve that problem.

I'm sure there are lots of things behind the scenes that are not being being shared with the public.

I guess the idea is that they can make the cost overrun bill an easier pill to swallow and may involve making big cuts to the actual building.

...But as I pointed out, the reason given to the press for backing out was due to the cost per SF, and even moving the hotel would not in itself solve that problem.

I'm sure there are lots of things behind the scenes that are not being being shared with the public.
But if you again look at Steve's commentary there are defensible comps nearby that are a fraction of the price. They took a hard-nosed position with a top-of-market price, which as he points out is just business. It sounds like where things went off the rails was with the court case. Probably part of the problem there was that the city would have been obligated to buy all of the land at whatever the determined price was, and as Steve points out in the article it might be possible to pull off the project with less land assembly than the City's "in a perfect world" plan called for. A smaller site would also please a lot of the people who are worried about superblocks and park frontage.

Either way, it seems obvious from Steve's article that a deal might still be in the offing, and that getting one done might be a way for all parties to save face.

And while I (and I'm sure others) completely respect all of that, if we left it up to the CVB they would build the thing in the middle of the Myriad Gardens if we let them.

Their wants and desires are only a very small part of this whole thing and should not be the driving force.

I also reject the claim the cc would 'fail' if it wasn't ideally located. First of all, this thing is being paid for with cash by tax payers so there is little financial risk. Secondly, I can't imagine any scenario where we do less convention business than we are now, and the annual economic impact of the Cox Center is estimated at about $30 million a year.

You can argue a new cc might be less successful if it was in one location over another, but I can't see any way it would fail.
I agree with you that it might be marginally successful - it certainly would host events and it's not like it would be boarded up or torn down - but that could still be a failure depending upon how view success/failure.

I think quarter billion building that only books about the same amount of business as the Cox (your example, not mine) would/should be considered a RUNAWAY failure. I also think a building that doesn't stay booked - and by extension becomes a maintenance drain on City resources and the general fund - would also be a failure.

True success, IMO, would include the following:


A significant uptick in bookings
OKC pulls above its weight in convention business (we already have the amenities to do this)
The new building sees enough bookings to significantly offset its operating costs, perhaps even making it cost less to maintain and operate than the Cox
The building is well-integrated enough with its surroundings that they each help the other to achieve even more success

To achieve these points wise (rather than casual) location planning MUST be a part of the equation.

Remember, this is NOT a negotiation. It's a legal process initiated by the City because direct negotiations failed (their own filing said this) and thus a fair price was to be arbitrated by the three appointed independent commissioners.

So, it doesn't flipping matter what comps REHCO was citing. They were merely advocating for the best possible price as anyone would in that situation. And the City was doing the same thing on their side: presenting evidence the land was worth less.

In the end, the objective commissioners would have weighed all the evidence and made a ruling.

So, if the City was so sure they were right with the lower comps, why not just continue the process they themselves initiated? Because they knew there was a very good chance that the commissioners would decide on the the higher end, which is another way of saying the City knew REHCO was right and justified in their asking price.


And to imply the City is 'mad' and that future requests for TIF grants and other public assistance might be treated differently -- or that past awards should have caused a private owner to reduce their asking price -- is simply incredible. If that was implied by the City, that is not only concerning, but an admission of out-right corruption. And if the Oklahoman is drawing that conclusion on their own and printing in their paper, that's simply ridiculous.

Remember, this is NOT a negotiation. It's a legal process initiated by the City because direct negotiations failed (their own filing said this) and thus a fair price was to be arbitrated by the three appointed independent commissioners.

So, it doesn't flipping matter what comps REHCO was citing. They were merely advocating for the best possible price as anyone would in that situation. And the City was doing the same thing on their side: presenting evidence the land was worth less.

In the end, the objective commissioners would have weighed all the evidence and made a ruling.

So, if the City was so sure they were right with the lower comps, why not just continue the process they themselves initiated? Because they knew there was a very good chance that the commissioners would decide on the the higher end, which is another way of saying the City knew REHCO was right and justified in their asking price.


And to imply the City is 'mad' and that future requests for TIF grants and other public assistance might be treated differently -- or that past awards should have caused a private owner to reduce their asking price -- is simply incredible. If that was implied by the City, that is not only concerning, but and admission of out-right corruption. And if the Oklahoman is drawing that conclusion on their own and printing in their paper, that's simply ridiculous.

+1 on all of this.

So here's an idea. What if we only built half or even a quarter of the exhibit hall underground at the Ford site, built some temporary walls along Robinson and then demolished the Cox center and continued the convention center to half of the Cox site. I'm sure we are still way off from the land budget, but that would allow some convention business to continue. Maybe this is the idea they are having.

Also, the suggestion that the CVB would be happy to place the CC in the middle of the MBG is pretty disingenuous; the MBG is a major part of the CVB's sales efforts. I know the CVB staff very well, and few people in this city have a more genuine interest in seeing the entire community thrive, or in protecting the things that make us unique.

I think one of the things that bothers me the most in this discussion is the constant drumbeat that good people who serve this community well are somehow nefarious in their plans and uncaring about the success of other MAPS projects and the rest of the community.

One more thing: despite the constant fretting that the CC is somehow going to steal money from other projects, it remains the only one to have double digit millions plucked from its bottom line (since restored), and I have never - NEVER - heard of someone in a position of influence suggesting defunding one project to the CC's benefit (other than recent grasping-at-straws comments from a council member suggesting using some land acquired for the park). As a matter of fact - and I'm sure this will plunge a dagger into any small popularity I ever may have had here - the only suggestions I have ever heard like this are calls from streetcar supporters to defund the CC and add streetcar miles (made often over the years but also recently in this very thread, in fact) or from park partisans suggesting doing away with the CC and shifting the budget to the park (ditto).

And for the record, both UP and BoulderSooner can vouch for the fact that I am an enthusiastic streetcar supporter. I'm only holding a mirror up to hypocrisy and irony.

As far as the REHCO deal still being alive, I hope they don't try some 50 yr lease deal. If they want to swap for some land down by the airport; fine, and buy just 2/3 of the original property and build taller. I would rather own the land we are going to spend close to a 1/2 billion(including the hotel).

Just to be clear, the Convention Center is the only project to draw from the general contingency fund set aside for all projects.

And it did that before it had even purchased land, finalized a design or put the project out to bid.

It's fine to hold a negative opinion of that, but it is NOT the same as taking away money earmarked for a specific project.

Not saying it's the same, just saying that it's the only project to take money from that common pool (for expansion beyond the original scope) while others which have already gone to bid had to cut back substantially.

Kind of off topic from current discussion, but exactly how long has the Ford site sat vacant? It seems like it has been a decade if not longer.

At the $100 million price tag, how realistic is it that this property will ever be developed? This seems to happen far too often in OKC, where land owners hold on to their property for ions waiting for the perfect deal to fall in to their lap. Sure, its "business" playing hard ball with OKC but I really hope they have an intention of doing something with this land instead of just sitting on it.

Kind of off topic from current discussion, but exactly how long has the Ford site sat vacant? It seems like it has been a decade if not longer.

At the $100 million price tag, how realistic is it that this property will ever be developed? This seems to happen far too often in OKC, where land owners hold on to their property for ions waiting for the perfect deal to fall in to their lap. Sure, its "business" playing hard ball with OKC but I really hope they have an intention of doing something with this land instead of just sitting on it.

They were only sitting on it because they thought they were going to get the city to pay a good price on it or more importantly there was uncertainly with the land because of pending eminent domain action on it. I'm sure they are eager to develop it now and start collecting rent.

If the city is going to try to negotiate a modified proposal, it will have to happen relatively quickly.

Just before the site was chosen for the CC the owners had announced plans for a large, multi-use development.

The people involved have plenty of money to make it happen and the two main parties have done great work with more planned (all the Midtown Renaissance stuff plus the 21c and surrounding properties).

It's fine to hold a negative opinion of that, but it is NOT the same as taking away money earmarked for a specific project.

While I agree with this, by taking contingency funds they are draining revenues that could be applied to cost overruns with other projects. Remember what happened with the sidewalks?

Kind of off topic from current discussion, but exactly how long has the Ford site sat vacant? It seems like it has been a decade if not longer.

At the $100 million price tag, how realistic is it that this property will ever be developed? This seems to happen far too often in OKC, where land owners hold on to their property for ions waiting for the perfect deal to fall in to their lap. Sure, its "business" playing hard ball with OKC but I really hope they have an intention of doing something with this land instead of just sitting on it.
The land was the site of an active and successful automobile dealership until 2010, when the owners announced a plan to redevelop it as mixed use housing/retail/entertainment. As Pete points out they certainly had the means to accomplish this, and as he again pointed out those plans were only interrupted by the city's choice of that location as the site of the new CC.

Are there renderings for what their plans were? Any possible legal action against the city for interrupting their plans, and basically holding them hostage?

There were never any specific plans but there were articles in the press about it.

Wasn't this the fres jones dealership though? Years ago I had heard, that in his will he stated the land was to go to the city at a reasonable price and the current owners where just handling that? It could be completely false so I don't mean to start a rumor but that was this person understanding of the situation.

Here is an Oklahoman article from 11/20/2010 about the dealership closing and the group's plan to redevelop:

Bob Howard Downtown Ford closing; site being eyed for redevelopment | News OK (http://newsok.com/bob-howard-downtown-ford-closing-site-being-eyed-for-redevelopment/article/3516295)

Wasn't this the fres jones dealership though? Years ago I had heard, that in his will he stated the land was to go to the city at a reasonable price and the current owners where just handling that? It could be completely false so I don't mean to start a rumor but that was this person understanding of the situation.

If that is true, then you get into what is defined as "reasonable". If it went to court you would have a hard time attacking a finding by neutral arbitrators as being unreasonable.

Just to clarify the eminent domain process in Oklahoma (and it works similarly in most other states):


A municipality files condemnation for property it wants but has not been able to obtain through mutual agreement with the property owner either due to price or willingness to sell.
The court appoints three independent commissioners (usually attorneys) which review documents from both parties and conduct their own research.
The municipality submits instructions for the commissioners (what property is being evaluated, other general info.)
The property owner has the right to review the instructions and request changes.
Ultimately the judge decides on the final instructions.
There is a hearing where both sides present their case to the commissioners.
The commissioners make a decision of fair value which is binding. If no appeal, the municipality must promptly pay (I believe within 60 days).
Either party can appeal and that appeal would be heard by a jury.


In this particular situation, the commissioners had been appointed and there was a ton of back and forth on the instructions over the streets and alley issue. Ultimately, the judge ruled that the commissioners would determine that issue along with reviewing property sales and other pertinent information before determining the value.

The City abruptly cut this short only after a judge ruled Cathy O'Connor had to testify; the City had filed a motion to quash her deposition. That decision was on a Friday, the City Attorney then told the city council on Tuesday they planned to dismiss, the dismissal was filed later that day and O'Connor was scheduled to be deposed on Thursday of that same week.

Just caught (mostly) up with the weekend posts. Count me in as a convert to Pete's layout with the CC along Shields and private dev along the park with parking garage in the middle. Though I'm a fan of Sid's thoughts on the Cox site. While I'd love to get rid of the superblock, I'd be cool with his lemonade.

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

OH I like this a lot!. love the garage being hidden instead of what we are getting with the sheridan project. this solves a lot of problems and would be a great set up IMO

Remember, this is NOT a negotiation...
Uh...it is NOW...

Uh...it is NOW...

I was referring to the Oklahoman's account of what happened in the case, not to what may be happening now.

Also, the suggestion that the CVB would be happy to place the CC in the middle of the MBG is pretty disingenuous; the MBG is a major part of the CVB's sales efforts. I know the CVB staff very well, and few people in this city have a more genuine interest in seeing the entire community thrive, or in protecting the things that make us unique.

I think one of the things that bothers me the most in this discussion is the constant drumbeat that good people who serve this community well are somehow nefarious in their plans and uncaring about the success of other MAPS projects and the rest of the community.

One more thing: despite the constant fretting that the CC is somehow going to steal money from other projects, it remains the only one to have double digit millions plucked from its bottom line (since restored), and I have never - NEVER - heard of someone in a position of influence suggesting defunding one project to the CC's benefit (other than recent grasping-at-straws comments from a council member suggesting using some land acquired for the park). As a matter of fact - and I'm sure this will plunge a dagger into any small popularity I ever may have had here - the only suggestions I have ever heard like this are calls from streetcar supporters to defund the CC and add streetcar miles (made often over the years but also recently in this very thread, in fact) or from park partisans suggesting doing away with the CC and shifting the budget to the park (ditto).

And for the record, both UP and BoulderSooner can vouch for the fact that I am an enthusiastic streetcar supporter. I'm only holding a mirror up to hypocrisy and irony.

You're trying too hard to accuse the streetcar supporters of hypocrisy. As for the nefarious CVB people, nobody ever said that or used that language. That's "grasping at straws," as you related to Greenwell's comments, except apparently comments from the horseshoe don't strike you as concerning compared to comments in OKC Talk posts.

I know you're a streetcar and urbanism supporter, and we all know that the CVB has the best intentions. I would have a beer with anyone from the CVB or Chamber, and actually know a lot of them personally. We all have the best intentions - isn't that amazing? However when they systemically discredit an entire profession and school of thought (urban planning) and hold theirs (economic development) up as the one true way (I'm reminded of religious wars), your best intentions fall short. Sorry they just do, and those "best intentions" don't mean a whole lot in the end when you've got a train wreck that didn't need to happen.

The CVB and assorted junta people, and to be fair all the pet interests behind each of these projects that have ensured those pesky city planners remain removed from any of this (ie the consultant gold rush that has been MAPS), are willfully doing things the wrong way. Each side is doing things THEIR way and no single MAPS project is being pulled off collaboratively.

By the way, it's also absurd that somehow the CC is the angel project that would never touch any other budgets. There is a bad vibe towards specifically the CC subcommittee for a reason. The "restored" $30M was a faulty "agreement" that I suppose the mayor had with a particular CC site (Mayor Mick put the cart before the horse). Like Pete said, only one project has already gotten into the contingency. I really hope and pray that nothing else runs over. The riverfront and sidewalks/trails were even forced to reduce scope bc we need that contingency for the CC! Not to leave anything unaccounted for, the CC people have been talking openly about getting their hands on even more money for a project nobody wants. Who knows how they talk privately.

This all goes back to the spirit of MAPS and the will of the voters, who were forced to accept the CC or get nothing at all. I can't say enough how opposed I am to any changes to the original plan bc I know the CC interests just need the door opened a little bit, and it will have been a long 7 years once all the funding trickles in. All that said, we shouldn't be doing this, and instead of feeling lucky or appreciative of the other projects that they owe their huge piece of the pie to (for passage back in December 2009), the CC project is not playing nice.

My point with all this being that it's not a credible or tenable position to balk at the CC's bad rap. This project actually needs a lot more scrutiny than it is getting, even now, with the subcommittee's propensity to not play nice. And then it needs to work collaboratively with other interests to deliver exactly what was initially proposed, nothing more, and nothing less.

not for nuttin, but if the cc will have multiple interior food operations, and if someone can figure out a setting just outside for a number of food trucks and if a couple of eateries can arrange shuttles fm cc to their tables and back, like some do now for Thunder games, wouldn't that cover a passle of lunch time needs of convention goers?

Isn't the point that you want people to stroll around at lunch and shop and dine and spend expense-account $$ on food and generally add to the street scene, not run to a shuttle and get dropped off back at the cc?

Isn't the point that you want people to stroll around at lunch and shop and dine and spend expense-account $$ on food and generally add to the street scene, not run to a shuttle and get dropped off back at the cc?

But we also want that park to be activated when it's not lunch time on a convention day. That's everything, make or break.

Isn't the point that you want people to stroll around at lunch and shop and dine and spend expense-account $$ on food and generally add to the street scene, not run to a shuttle and get dropped off back at the cc?

When I go to conventions, I almost always eat lunch at the convention center. I like to have a nice meal at dinner and so I like to eat a light breakfast and lunch. I also don't attend every meeting, so if I were going to leave the CC at lunch, I'd likely skip the pre or post lunch meeting so I didn't have to rush. That's why I've never once paid attention to the location of the CC. However, I will not attend a convention in a city without mass transit to the CC, as I hate driving when I'm on vacation.

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

So, David Greenwell said to put the convention center in the new park. I, like most people, hate that idea and think it is terrible. But thinking outside of the box, since we were planning on putting the exhibit halls underground anyways, what about putting the exhibit halls under the park and the meeting halls and hotel above ground to the east of the park?

The underground exhibit halls would run from Hudson to Broadway, from SW 3rd to SW 5th. The hotel would either be above the the exhibit halls on the corner bound by Broadway, Robinson, SW 3rd and SW 4th and the above ground meeting halls would be in the three square blocks to the east and south of the hotel. Not sold on this idea, just trying to think outside the box.

So, David Greenwell said to put the convention center in the new park. I, like most people, hate that idea and think it is terrible. But thinking outside of the box, since we were planning on putting the exhibit halls underground anyways, what about putting the exhibit halls under the park and the meeting halls and hotel above ground to the east of the park?

The underground exhibit halls would run from Hudson to Broadway, from SW 3rd to SW 5th. The hotel would either be above the the exhibit halls on the corner bound by Broadway, Robinson, SW 3rd and SW 4th and the above ground meeting halls would be in the three square blocks to the east and south of the hotel. Not sold on this idea, just trying to think outside the box.

What do you think of orienting the cc north-south instead of east-west? The city could purchase the land between Harvey and Robinson south of Reno. The exhibit hall could run underground, under the blvd and under the park's event lawn. Initially there were plans to put parking under it anyway. The hotel could be put on the se corner of blvd and Robinson or the sw corner of the Cox Center. The meeting rooms could be oriented from the Reno-Robinson corner. This would not take up all of the REHCO property allowing them to develop and profit from their land. They may be more willing to cut a deal with the city since they would still have opportunities. And the city could use land that it already owns to save on real estate costs.

Are the submitted RFPs not going to be made public anymore?

*EDIT* NVM just saw the posts on the Hotel Thread.

There is still a lot of talk about locating vast parts of the convention center underground. Let me let you in on a secret; vastly miscalculating the cost of the land pales in comparison to how far off they are on building underground. Just look at how much more expensive it is for underground parking vs. a garage vs. a surface lot. Now people are talking about building under major arterial streets. It simply isn't going to happen unless the plan is to spend over a billion dollars.