Once the commissioners rule, it's binding.

The only option is to appeal to a jury but the City Attorney told City Council that juries will almost always decided in favor of a property owner vs. the government.

So if it is the purchase that is binding, and not just the price, then this is first sensible CC related item to happen so far. Could you imagine the firestorm if the City blew 1/3 of the whole budget just on a few acres of land. We would have to make the CC out of straw or sticks.

Well if the ED procedure required the governmental body to pay the price no matter what it is, it certainly was correct to terminate the court case before an unfavorable price was set. I thought the court process only set the price and the city could then purchase at that price or walk. I suppose the ED process assumes the government body must want the property no matter what price is set or they wouldn't force ED in the first place.

The process is effectively binding arbitration; it's just that the property owners can be dragged in against their will and can't just terminate the proceedings if things start looking bad for them.

Or, we could just build the project that was approved by voters within the established budget and do it in an open and honest way.

That is all anybody is expecting. Why is that so much to ask?After all this delay, with inflation continuing every year, is that still possible to do?

After all this delay, with inflation continuing every year, is that still possible to do?

That certainly remains to be seen.

But before we deviate from the agreed upon plan and parameters there needs to be a public process rather than a lot of behind-doors dealings.

After all this delay, with inflation continuing every year, is that still possible to do?

If not, then just like the sidewalks and trails and the park and the senior wellness aquatic centers (which may or may not be aquatic and most certainly will be fewer in number than originally touted), maybe, just maybe, the cc needs to be scaled back like everything else, or the right folks needs to sit down with the press and say ok, we ca not get this done for X dollars, so just like the finish the arena, and then the refinish the arena, we are going to ask peeps to vote for X and use that extra to get it done. If you say no, you say no, but we think you should say yes and here is why. AND THEN, NO BS. GIVE REALISTIC REASONS AND PROJECTIONS.

Sheesh, John and Jane Q might even surprise them if they just talk to them like reasonable adults instead of a wasted out stoner audience at a bad magic show.

Finally got a chance to watch most of the council meeting today and as Ed Shadid asked Brent Bryant and Jim Couch about TIF funding, it was determined that "about 8 weeks ago and certainly in the last 90 days" a TIF proposal from REHCO was completely declined. The refusal occured in the stage when only City staff are involved in the decision making; not at City Council level where TIF awards must be ultimately approved.

Pressing further, it was revealed that that was the first time REHCO had been completely refused.

Reading between the lines, does this suggest that city staff is acting to punish REHCO for their actions in regards to the convention center site?

Reading between the lines, does this suggest that city staff is acting to punish REHCO for their actions in regards to the convention center site?

I'm sure this was over the Francis Apartments, as has been previously posted and discussed.

I have way bigger concerns about how the lingering effects might impact the land around 21c (Fred Hall) and all the remaining MidtownR projects (Bob Howard).

Hope everyone can just move on, regardless of what may or may not happen on the original cc site.

If not, then just like the sidewalks and trails and the park and the senior wellness aquatic centers (which may or may not be aquatic and most certainly will be fewer in number than originally touted), maybe, just maybe, the cc needs to be scaled back like everything else, or the right folks needs to sit down with the press and say ok, we ca not get this done for X dollars, so just like the finish the arena, and then the refinish the arena, we are going to ask peeps to vote for X and use that extra to get it done. If you say no, you say no, but we think you should say yes and here is why. AND THEN, NO BS. GIVE REALISTIC REASONS AND PROJECTIONS.

Sheesh, John and Jane Q might even surprise them if they just talk to them like reasonable adults instead of a wasted out stoner audience at a bad magic show.

So much this.

Quick question:

We keep saying "City staff"…who exactly is "City staff"?

I'm sure this was over the Francis Apartments, as has been previously posted and discussed.

I have way bigger concerns about how the lingering effects might impact the land around 21c (Fred Hall) and all the remaining MidtownR projects (Bob Howard).

Hope everyone can just move on, regardless of what may or may not happen on the original cc site.

It does put the last few posts in that thread from January in an interesting light. Why the denial, indeed.

Quick question:

We keep saying "City staff"…who exactly is "City staff"?

The parties vary... In the case of the TIF denial I'm not sure if it got nixed at the Brent Bryant / Cathy O'Connor level or at the TIF Review Committee level. All are City staff.

When I talked to Brent about this originally and long before there was any connection drawn to the cc, I got the impression it stopped at his desk but I may be wrong about that.

10340

This is what I had in mind, conceptually...

Does this satisfy all of the CC needs, Bricktown needs, C2S needs, good urbanism needs?

^^^I think its a great design. It allows for lots of growth. Shields is the entrance to downtown from I40E and what better than a large, stylish CC with the park right behind it. Spartan where would you put the entrance though?

With the shift of the convention center over to Shields and the new Boulevard, does it help solve the walkability distance problem to local attractions?

Also, since we've over closer to the viaduct underpass, could we cap the Boulevard over there to help with pedestrian access to points north?

So does anyone have any idea what plans RHECO has for their expensive property? If they had no intentions on selling they must have some plans for the prop, right?

The CC Committee has called a special meeting for Monday at 3:30.

For anyone interested, it's an open meeting and I'm sure the conversations would be fascinating.


Meeting Date: Monday, March 16, 2015

Meeting Time: 3:30 PM

Meeting Place: 420 West Main Street
10th Floor Conference Room
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

^^^I think its a great design. It allows for lots of growth. Shields is the entrance to downtown from I40E and what better than a large, stylish CC with the park right behind it. Spartan where would you put the entrance though?

There should be a ton of entrances, really. Most large CC's are designed so that large crowds can filter through quickly without waiting at entrances.

So my question. When is REHCO going to get their tax assessment upped to the new valuation of $100M. I mean they fought for that valuation, so shouldn't they pay taxes on it? ;)

So my question. When is REHCO going to get their tax assessment upped to the new valuation of $100M. I mean they fought for that valuation, so shouldn't they pay taxes on it? ;)

I know you're joking but since 1996 Oklahoma state law limits the annual increase to no more than 5% per year (3% for homestead or agricultural land).

The only exception is if the property is sold, then the sales price is usually used to set a new assessed value.

Also, property is assessed by the County, not the City.

10340

This is what I had in mind, conceptually...

Does this satisfy all of the CC needs, Bricktown needs, C2S needs, good urbanism needs?

I like this - let's get it done. :)

Where is the parking though? :-D

I like this - let's get it done. :)

Where is the parking though? :-D

The retail spaces he indicated on his map are actually vending machines located in the elevator lobbys of the parking garages. lol

In a tough spot: Using Cox site for new convention center could cost 85 pct. of contracts
By: Brian Brus The Journal Record March 10, 20150

OKLAHOMA CITY – Rebuilding the Cox Convention Center to meet MAPS 3 expectations would result in the loss of as much as 85 percent of the contracts for events held in the building, Mike Carrier said.

Merely refurbishing the 50-year-old building piecemeal so that it could remain open for some business would be so challenging that the overall price tag of the project would likely rise and still result in losses, said Carrier, president of the Oklahoma City Convention and Visitors Bureau.

Yet that’s a possibility that he and the rest of the MAPS 3 subcommittee must weigh now that the former Fred Jones automobile dealership property has become too expensive for the city to acquire.

“We now find ourselves in a position in which we have to consider every available option,” he said. “And the idea of not doing anything is equally as bad, because we’ll lose business for lack of a workable facility.

“We’ve got to regroup and figure out where the next best location is,” he said.

City leaders recently ran into a big problem in realizing the promise of the $777 million MAPS 3 sales tax-funded projects that voters approved in 2009: They found out the REHCO ownership group that holds several blocks just south of the Myriad Botanical Gardens expected about $100 million in the condemnation process started last year by the Urban Renewal Authority. The city had intended to spend about $12 million for land.

The original MAPS 3 campaign material from City Hall listed several projects that included an approximately 70-acre park for $130 million, a rail-based transit system for $130 million and a new downtown convention center for $280 million. The final item in that list would ensure the continued health of $2.1 billion in economic impact for central Oklahoma, according to a flier, because the city has been losing business to venues elsewhere.

As the new convention center took shape, the MAPS 3 oversight board started looking for a construction site. The Urban Renewal Authority condemned the Fred Jones property, which put the matter before a board of commissioners to set a fair price.

City Council members said Tuesday that turning away from the property was a good decision. If the city had pursued the process and the commissioners’ decision had been challenged and taken to court, Oklahoma City taxpayers could have been stuck paying much more than originally planned, Councilman Pete White said.

Councilman Ed Shadid said he was surprised at another aspect of the situation as the legal staff explained it: Condemned property cannot be used for private development, so if city leaders pursued plans to build a hotel adjacent to the center, the city would have been forced to keep and operate it somehow. Shadid said that detail was not made apparent in earlier discussions.

Carrier said he’s got to keep an open mind until the search committee produces a new list of potential sites. The Cox Center is obviously in a good spot – it made the committee’s list on the first pass a few years ago – but the economic damage that would be caused by rebuilding it into something better presents a big obstacle, he said.

Other city officials said there has also been talk of taking some of the land from the central park project. The new convention center, as it is now envisioned, will need about 500,000 square feet, or 11.5 acres, a significant portion of the park.

“The reality is that if we rebuild the entire Cox Center, I can’t say that we would lose every bit of business that could be relocated to other sites in the city,” Carrier said. “But we would probably lose 85 percent of events at least. And we would lose it for a period of time with no guarantee of ever getting it back.”

In August, the United Pentecostal Church will hold its international youth congress in Oklahoma City, an event of about 20,000 people. And the Oklahoma Indian Gaming Association conference and trade show attracts about 7,500 delegates and vendors from around the country. Many such events cannot simply be shunted to other buildings – at the state fairgrounds, for example – because organizations expect easy connectivity to room and board for attendees.

Carrier said all the businesses that have grown around downtown convention business would be hurt – hotels and restaurants, for example, to say nothing of business supplies companies, caterers, taxis and other services.

“Convention business represents their profit margin,” he said. “Many of them would not be able to stay open.”

Even if they go to the park for land, can the hotel go there? Which lots were brought vs. ED? Also, is there an issue about taking land by ED for a park, and then not building the park?

How much land would be left at Central Park if they went this route? Seems like a great deal is left over, certainly as far as maintenance is concerned.

Even if they go to the park for land, can the hotel go there? Which lots were brought vs. ED? Also, is there an issue about taking land by ED for a park, and then not building the park?

This whole issue is complex and confusing. I've researched it extensively, read all the court documents, watched the City Council meeting yesterday and heard what the City Attorney had to say about it, and I'm still not clear.

Here's what I do know:

1. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2006 that it is legal for a government entity to take land through eminent domain then use it for private development.
2. Oklahoma has a constitutional statute that specifically prevents this, as do other states. And the in 2007 the OK Supreme Court ruled in a landmark case against this very practice.
3. Subsequently, there was a new state urban renewal law passed that allowed the taking of land for private development, but only under strict circumstances that almost certainly wouldn't apply to any site now being considered (as I understand it).

Also, in yesterday's council meeting the City Attorney said the hotel wasn't an issue because it would be owned by the City. But 1) If that was the case, on what grounds could REHCO challenge their right to take (which was identified as THE reason the ED action was dropped, NOT the price); and 2) I'm looking at the hotel RFP right now and is specifically states "The convention center hotel may be either privately or publicly owned".

The CC is different than something like the Santa Fe Station because the Brewers may have given their specific consent to allow private development on that property but even if they didn't, renting out space to a restaurant or retail shop would likely fall under the "insignificant part of the development" clause provided for in #3 above.

The CC hotel would not be an insignificant part of the overall development, obviously. It would be about a third of the land and a $200+ million investment.


So, I honestly don't know where we stand.

I'm sorry to sound like such a harsh critic on this project but why on earth is this issue just now coming up and why wasn't it factored when we started the site selection process SIX YEARS ago.

And as a reminder, the City issued a press release last week and the mayor gave several interviews and in all cases it was specifically said the price gap was the reason the City dropped their pursuit of the property and only after Shadid asked questions in yesterday's council meeting did this issue come out at all.

The attorney also said they knew on February 18th "100%" that REHCO was going to challenge the City's right to take the land from them over this issue. But he also said they knew it was an issue before, they just weren't 100% sure REHCO was going to force it until 2/18.

Shadid also asked why they waited until March 3rd to bring the matter to the council and then ultimately inform the public. There had been another council meeting on February 24th. And the City Attorney said it was because one of the attorneys in their office who had been working on this was out of town on the 24th.

As a further reminder, voters were at the polls on March 3rd when this was announced late that afternoon.

Taking land from the park is not a viable solution. You don't take from one of the most popular projects (when construction is about to begin) and give it to the least popular (which has been mismanaged). That will cause huge resentment.

How popular is the park today? When the park was approved, Myriad Gardens had not yet been revitalized and the organic urban growth north of Reno had not yet taken off, hence a greater need for Core 2 Shore. The city needs to evaluate where its at TODAY and determine if the vision laid out a decade ago is still relevant in light of everything that has changed in this city over the past five years.

Personally if there was one project I would cancel it would be the park. I would divide the money between the streetcar and the convention center.

We would waste even more taxpayer dollars by using parkland, as it would have to be completely reconfigured. All the money spent on park design and planning would be lost. You'd end up with a park about 2 city blocks in size and you would lose a lot of park side land for housing. Convention Centers aren't hot items to live across from. Worst of all, you would go back on your contract with voters to build what they voted for. It would give anti-MAPS folks tons of ammunition to use to defeat further MAPS initiatives. And if we are worried about walking time to Bricktown, which I am told we are, you just added a few of those critical minutes to the walk. We need to get over this "convention center is the crown jewel" of MAPS 3 idea -it isn't and never was-and look for a reasonable solution that does not have a negative impact on other MAPS projects that were more popular with voters.

I suppose you are right.....p--ssing the voters off is not a good idea.
MY HEAD HURTS right now.

:1217:

We would waste even more taxpayer dollars by using parkland, as it would have to be completely reconfigured. All the money spent on park design and planning would be lost. You'd end up with a park about 2 city blocks in size and you would lose a lot of park side land for housing. Convention Centers aren't hot items to live across from. Worst of all, you would go back on your contract with voters to build what they voted for. It would give anti-MAPS folks tons of ammunition to use to defeat further MAPS initiatives. And if we are worried about walking time to Bricktown, which I am told we are, you just added a few of those critical minutes to the walk. We need to get over this "convention center is the crown jewel" of MAPS 3 idea -it isn't and never was-and look for a reasonable solution that does not have a negative impact on other MAPS projects that were more popular with voters.

Not true regarding walking time. If it was built on park land every single new retail destination that is built around the MAPs park over time will be within site distance. Something that will never be possible with anything in bricktown. Not even it was right beside the railline 50% of people would never know bricktown existed because they couldn't see it.

The cox wasn't built to be close to bricktown. Bricktown didn't even exhist when it was built.

I'll do a mock up soon, but I really think the park land could work. Especially since most of the convention center is below ground.

BTW, if there was a last gasp attempt at working something out at the original site, my understanding is that is now completely over.


I've had a feeling since this blew up the cc would end up on the Cox site because the committee has put the City in a situation where there just doesn't seem to be another option.

I still think that is a very bad idea for lots of reasons and am increasingly worried it will happen despite the concerns of the CVB simply because Cox may be presented as the only workable solution.

Does the city own any of the land in Spartan's proposal above? Why wouldn't that work?

http://s28.postimg.org/qgmwp98x9/map_park_convention.png

Above is my mock up of the park site. I used the same convention center footprint from what was determined as needed from the old ford dealership sit.

I fit the current park model on the same site with the above ground convention center. All I did was shrink a portion of lake in the park, which is unneeded because the river is directly to the south of the park.

I know we have sunk costs in the planning of the park, but those can easily be changed. Also, don't forget we have the entire south park of the park on the other side of I40.

All of the brown/black boxes are private development that could be turned in to retail/housing/hotels/restaurants. This solves the problem of not being directly next to bricktown, but still close enough that people could visit.

Has great visibility access along the new blvd, and from people exiting I40 in to bricktown.

The hotel isn't located in the new park lands, or land that needs to be acquired so no issues with eminent domain can arise.

Land acquisition costs will decrease, and will also prevent a new "super block" from being built which decreases walk ability.

Now imagine walking out of the convention center & seeing the park & a ton of floor level retail around the park. You can visually see the places you want to visit & can walk directly to your attended destination due to the openness of the park.

Not true regarding walking time. If it was built on park land every single new retail destination that is built around the MAPs park over time will be within site distance. Something that will never be possible with anything in bricktown. Not even it was right beside the railline 50% of people would never know bricktown existed because they couldn't see it.

The cox wasn't built to be close to bricktown. Bricktown didn't even exhist when it was built.

I'll do a mock up soon, but I really think the park land could work. Especially since most of the convention center is below ground.

Using that argument, the east side of the park would be fine also. And why build underground if you don't have to? Single story buildings downtown look out of place, IMO. Underground construction is a huge waste of money that could be spent on actually making the building attractive.

http://s28.postimg.org/qgmwp98x9/map_park_convention.png

Above is my mock up of the park site. I used the same convention center footprint from what was determined as needed from the old ford dealership sit.

I fit the current park model on the same site with the above ground convention center. All I did was shrink a portion of lake in the park, which is unneeded because the river is directly to the south of the park.

I know we have sunk costs in the planning of the park, but those can easily be changed. Also, don't forget we have the entire south park of the park on the other side of I40.

All of the brown/black boxes are private development that could be turned in to retail/housing/hotels/restaurants. This solves the problem of not being directly next to bricktown, but still hclose enough that people could visit.

Has great visibility access along the new blvd, and from people exiting I40 in to bricktown.

The hotel isn't located in the new park lands, or land that needs to be acquired so no issues with eminent domain can arise.

Land acquisition costs will decrease, and will also prevent a new "super block" from being built which decreases walk ability.

Now imagine walking out of the convention center & seeing the park & a ton of floor level retail around the park. You can visually see the places you want to visit & can walk directly to your attended destination due to the openness of the park.

Where are your loading docks?

Either to the east or the west, most likely the west. Where would they have been if built on the ford site?

Does the city own any of the land in Spartan's proposal above? Why wouldn't that work?

It could very well work and I've advocated for that site and listed the many reasons why.

However, I'm not sure the committee would ever agree to it.

How popular is the park today? When the park was approved, Myriad Gardens had not yet been revitalized and the organic urban growth north of Reno had not yet taken off, hence a greater need for Core 2 Shore. The city needs to evaluate where its at TODAY and determine if the vision laid out a decade ago is still relevant in light of everything that has changed in this city over the past five years.

Personally if there was one project I would cancel it would be the park. I would divide the money between the streetcar and the convention center.

Good question, but I would be willing to bet the Park is more popular as more locals would benefit from it.

I've had a feeling since this blew up the cc would end up on the Cox site because the committee has put the City in a situation where there just doesn't seem to be another option.

I still think that is a very bad idea for lots of reasons and am increasingly worried it will happen despite the concerns of the CVB simply because Cox may be presented as the only workable solution.

Could a deal be worked to use the new fairgrounds Expo Center in place of the Cox during the interim? I know that's not ideal but could that be a temporary solution to avoid OKC losing the convention business it already has while the Cox is being rebuilt/expanded?

Could a deal be worked to use the new fairgrounds Expo Center in place of the Cox during the interim? I know that's not ideal but could that be a temporary solution to avoid OKC losing the convention business it already has while the Cox is being rebuilt/expanded?

On the previous page of this thread is an article from today's JR that speaks to this issue.

The plan still suffers from being to far from the bricktown amenities in that 10 min walk. It is no doubt a interesting idea but the retail around the park can happen with any of the proposals but you cant go off what hasnt been built yet. Also, how does it get expanded? We have to tear up the park for every expansion? In the end you save something around 14 million for land acquisition which is 5% or so of the CC budget. It would be nice to have since I still will be surprised to see bids come in at budget. Lastly, I understand what you are saying about the river just south but the lake is my favorite part of the park. With it smaller it loses any functionality it has as being used rather than something nice to look it. While I love the water at the MG you can't do anything but look at it. Again its a great idea and if we ended up with it, Its still better than what we have but I think there are better options.

I've glossed over all the pros/cons and still do not see why the C2S South is such a bad backup plan. While I completely understand the walking distance to amenities argument, I just don't see a big geographic difference in the two sites other than the main part of the hall would extend South instead of West.

While I do not claim to know a typical convention planner's mindset or wish list, I do attend and exhibit at CCs around the country. Anyone ever been to the McCormick Place in Chicago?? It's an extremely successful CC venue that isn't even close to walking distance from the the South Loop part of downtown where many of the hotels and restaurants are. It's actually a 10 minute drive from there (not counting the wait time to get your car from Valet) and it is even farther if your hotel is in the North Loop area that is extremely popular with visitors. McCormick Place has only one hotel on site and no choice of restaurants that are even close. Everyone who isn't staying at the on-site Hyatt Hotel has to drive to the CC, ride shuttles, or take taxis just to get there. And if your convention is on the East side of the complex, it's an additional 10-12 minutes just to walk from the overpriced parking garage and through the skywalk over to those Exhibit Hall floors. With that said, it's booked solid pretty much year round. Yes...I know it's Chicago and not OKC. But the fact remains that it's not anywhere close to within walking distance of anything.

I also have exhibited at the Las Vegas Convention Center and I can tell you that really not very close to anything either other than some minor hotels along Paradise Rd. However, they have the Monorail that leads from there to most all of the hotels and restaurants along the East side of the Strip.

So...is it out of the realm of possibility to consider constructing a very short Monorail or Tram system from this proposed C2S South CC site over to the CBD or to Bricktown? That would drastically reduce travel times between this CC site and the amenities, and perhaps it could actually pay for itself with fees that would be generated and paid by Convention attendees. And people who are visiting the C2S Park would also have the option to use it for quick access over to the CBD and Bricktown since the Streetcar system currently does not have a proposed route over there. Maybe the idea is laughable...I really don't know. I've read other ideas about "capping" interstates and so forth, so I don't think my idea is necessarily all that outrageous. Perhaps it's cost prohibitive, but would it cost more to do this than to lose the revenue generated by 85% of the current convention business that would be lost if we went with the Cox site??

The plan still suffers from being to far from the bricktown amenities in that 10 min walk. It is no doubt a interesting idea but the retail around the park can happen with any of the proposals but you cant go off what hasnt been built yet. Also, how does it get expanded? We have to tear up the park for every expansion? In the end you save something around 14 million for land acquisition which is 5% or so of the CC budget. It would be nice to have since I still will be surprised to see bids come in at budget. Lastly, I understand what you are saying about the river just south but the lake is my favorite part of the park. With it smaller it loses any functionality it has as being used rather than something nice to look it. While I love the water at the MG you can't do anything but look at it. Again its a great idea and if we ended up with it, Its still better than what we have but I think there are better options.

I included the previous ford site expansion area in the floor plan of my site.

Also, the hotel where most people would be walking from is still pretty close to Bricktown.

Marge vs. the Monorail - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marge_vs._the_Monorail)

If they use the Cox site where do the loading docs go; A) facing the arena, B) facing MBG, C) facing the Sheraton/Renaissance, D) facing Santa Fe transit hub?

If they use the Cox site where do the loading docs go; A) facing the arena, B) facing MBG, C) facing the Sheraton/Renaissance, D) facing Santa Fe transit hub?

Well right now they face the Santa Fe transit hub. I mean, they grace the Santa Fe Depot with a complimentary blend of...ah **** it.

There are also docks on the west and south sides of the Cox center, facing both the Myriad Gardens and the arena.

That building can't go away soon enough to suit me.

There are also docks on the west and south sides of the Cox center, facing both the Myriad Gardens and the arena.

That building can't go away soon enough to suit me.

I'm okay with giving it a couple more years myself. We are clearly still not ready as a city to plan and subsequently develop according to urbanism best practices where they ought to be applied (which anything in the 13th/235/River/Classen box without question is such a place). The thought of the city making a move on the Cox site before 2020 scares the bejeezus out of me.

I don't know, we seem to have taken a u-turn in our urban learning curve...

Maybe we should redevelop that site ASAP. ;)

Everyone keeps saying that the site south of the Chesapeake Arena is further from Bricktown and Hotels, but I don't understand where they are coming up with that conclusion.

1. Yes, it's further from the Colcord, Sheraton and Renaissance Hotels by 1 block, compared to the Ford site. However, are we not building a hotel next to the convention center that will basically accommodate for all of the conventions room needs?

2. No, it's not further from an entry to Bricktown. If the building is 1 block south of the arena, then it's 1 block east of the old Ford site making it closer to Bricktown. With the addition of the Crosstown Blvd and a new underpass where the railroad currently separates this site, walking into south Bricktown is basically crossing the street.

Maybe my information is off a bit, but I actually think the site directly south of the Chesapeake Arena was the best site to begin with. How many Convention Centers in the country are across the street from a beautiful downtown park with easy access to highways?

Jrod, even if we build an adjacent convention hotel for big groups we would need as much access to the other downtown hotels as possible.

But I generally agree with your points. The real issue is that the cc committee has several powerful people and they don't seem to be too keen on that site east of the park.

Looking back I have to laugh at the idea that this was going to be built underground with enough room for 12 semis to unload - for $250 million.

Pete,

I agree with you on the big groups, but realistically OKC would attract maybe 2-3 very large groups per year and that would likely come with heavy incentives from the city towards the group. When I was the Sales Manager at the Sheraton, Legal Shield was the largest convention OKC was attracting. The group basically took up every single hotel in the downtown/bricktown area. If I remember correctly, their contract with the city ran through 2015-2016 calendar year. However, Las Vegas can calling and gave the group ridiculous discounts to move and the group paid a hefty fee to get out of the contract but did so gladly. Point being, any group that large in size is likely to go to cities like Las Vegas, San Diego, New Orleans or Orlando regardless of what we offer. So if we do get 1000 to 1500 person groups, i think it would be very limited, now if we are talking about 500-900 person groups, think OKC will make a killing on those sizes which would likely all fit in 1 large convention hotel.

I don't know, we seem to have taken a u-turn in our urban learning curve...

Maybe we should redevelop that site ASAP. ;)

What I don't understand is this: Is nobody listening, watching, pushing for better, and trying to uphold what the city has worked toward this far? So far 2015 has been a really ****ty year for downtown. Is this the new normal? Are we doomed?

The one thing that most people don't fully understand or anticipate is, what will the new hotel do to the rest of the hotels in the downtown/bricktown area. Right now, everyone is thriving with the convention business that OKC gets. But if the new hotel is lets say 700-800 rooms in size, then all of the sudden you have more space then the Sheraton, Renaissance and Skirvin combined. So if the city is attracting 20-25 conventions of 500-800 participants each and they are all staying in the new hotel, thats 2-3 major hotels that are losing sell out weeks 20-25 weeks out of the year.

Just a thought...

What I don't understand is this: Is nobody listening, watching, pushing for better, and trying to uphold what the city has worked toward this far? So far 2015 has been a really ****ty year for downtown. Is this the new normal? Are we doomed?

People are definitely pushing for better in all sorts of ways.

And lots of others would if not for undue influence.

We have a bunch or great urbanist / preservationist developers in OKC now and notice how not one of them spoke out about about the Preftakes Block? I have been told by more than one that is not a coincidence. There is still a big price to pay for trying to buck power in OKC.

It is also important to note our own Planning Department only advocated for ONE of nine buildings, And Preservation Oklahoma didn't even appeal the DDRC's decision.

The one thing that most people don't fully understand or anticipate is, what will the new hotel do to the rest of the hotels in the downtown/bricktown area. Right now, everyone is thriving with the convention business that OKC gets. But if the new hotel is lets say 700-800 rooms in size, then all of the sudden you have more space then the Sheraton, Renaissance and Skirvin combined. So if the city is attracting 20-25 conventions of 500-800 participants each and they are all staying in the new hotel, thats 2-3 major hotels that are losing sell out weeks 20-25 weeks out of the year.

Just a thought...

I don't think it usually works like that. Lots of people will stay in the cc hotel, yes. But many will stay in other places because they have brand loyalties, get better rates elsewhere, or want to stay somewhere closer to other activities. Plus, the cc hotel is still a normal operating hotel, and will have bookings at it that are not convention oriented. So even if it's a 700 room hotel, a portion of those will be booked by non convention attendees, especially if it's our highest quality full-service hotel downtown.

One of the big advantages of a convention hotel is they can work with the cc and carve out big blocks of rooms, then guarantee them to event organizers often at a discount.

That's a pretty big deal in terms of attracting conventions and other events.

If we offer discounts to convention planners to get the conventions, and then discounts to the attendees for the rooms, when do we start making the money we were told the conventions would bring in?