I don't know who had the bright Idea to have the parking lot facing west.

Agreed. Bass Pro could have been integrated into the district at no additional cost and on the exact same land, yet they decided to go with a standard big box. Having the parking lot facing east and the building interacting with the canal would have helped Bricktown, the canal, and Bass Pro. It would have been a win for everyone.

You're correct, Bass Pro is still very busy pretty much all of the time, and still draws an amazingly large contingent of out-of-towners. Pete is also right that a huge percentage of them drive there, shop, get back in the car and leave the area without buying so much as a cup of coffee elsewhere. That could have been avoided or greatly mitigated with the exact same store and location, but with better land use that encourages walkable interaction with the rest of the district. This would have also been a benefit for Bass Pro, as I can guarantee you that many people already in the district don't walk into BP, yet would if it didn't feel so remote and detatched. I do think that there are ways that it could be retrofitted. For instance, allowing small permanent retail structures to follow the "stream" that leads from the store to the canal.

By the way, you would also be surprised at how much of Bricktown's business revolves around Harkins. In fact I think it was much more of a game-changer for the district than BP was, since it is better integrated with the district and serves as one portion of a visit to BT rather than as the entire visit.

Agreed that Bass Pro could be retrofitted... But will it? Likely never. It comes down to what Bass Pro wants, and whether or not urbanism really favors them, they don't want it. They made a brand decision for a regional store.

We are losing all of our historic building stock. This CC is likely going to take away even more historic building stock. When the options are to demo everything on Main Street (talk about an unlucky address lately), or to tear down something in LB, which is a better option? Those buildings on Main have good uses in them, and will last forever. Those bldg's in LB have okay uses and a limited life span ahead of them, and the land is held by a developer who is in noncompliance with OCURA with zero intentions of finishing the project in a realistic time frame.

The Bass Pro building is owned by the City. Bass Pro has a 20 year lease which is coming up soon. As for Spartan's Main Street comment, OKC will soon rival Jax as the largest city with no businesses with a Main St address.

Lower BT may not be all that and a bag of chips when it comes to appearance, but there is a lot of money flowing in through there. Pretty, ugly, or pretty ugly, it's not a waste of space.

There's actually a lot of wasted space. I think the success of what is there only goes to show what a missed opportunity it was.

The Bass Pro building is owned by the City. Bass Pro has a 20 year lease which is coming up soon. As for Spartan's Main Street comment, OKC will soon rival Jax as the largest city with no businesses with a Main St address.

Whatever lease the City has with Bass Pro no doubt contains options that BP can exercise and you can bet they will.

The Bass Pro building is owned by the City. Bass Pro has a 20 year lease which is coming up soon. As for Spartan's Main Street comment, OKC will soon rival Jax as the largest city with no businesses with a Main St address.

Not to be too nitpicking here, but 900 W. Main will be dynamite.

After Steve's chat today in the Daily I wonder what the Monday meeting will be like? Maybe a lot of finger pointing, huh?

I don't know who had the bright Idea to have the parking lot facing west. It would have been so much better it they either built a corner entrance or two entrances and had the building built where the current parking lot is.

Agreed. Bass Pro could have been integrated into the district at no additional cost and on the exact same land, yet they decided to go with a standard big box. Having the parking lot facing east and the building interacting with the canal would have helped Bricktown, the canal, and Bass Pro. It would have been a win for everyone.

I actually wrote a column suggesting exactly this in The Gazette circa June 2002. This was before I was in my current role and written only as an interested citizen with some urban redevelopment training. It was also before any of the public nastiness regarding funding and the feud between OPUBCO and The Gazette; in fact I think it was the very first printed article or opinion piece of any type critical of any aspect of the BP deal. I am hardly a BP apologist, but it has definitely provided a good return on investment; just not as good as it COULD have been.

The Bass Pro building is owned by the City. Bass Pro has a 20 year lease which is coming up soon. As for Spartan's Main Street comment, OKC will soon rival Jax as the largest city with no businesses with a Main St address.

Claw back baby. Land assembly nightmare over.

After walking around the area and looking at all the options discussed here I think I am coming to the conclusion that the COX site is going to be the best option, but it will take some creative thinking to make it blend in with the area and I doubt we can build any of the exhibit halls underground, which is too bad because I really want that superblock gone. I am thinking that there will need to be decorative entrances facing the Arena, Santa Fe, and Broadway but on the MBG side they can build the convention hotel. The loading docs will have to be inside the building and to save space they can use air bearings to move them.

-2Fghb--gw0

So are you saying the other two options: Howard/Hall or the South of the Arena are off the table completely?

After walking around the area and looking at all the options discussed here I think I am coming to the conclusion that the COX site is going to be the best option, but it will take some creative thinking to make it blend in with the area and I doubt we can build any of the exhibit halls underground, which is too bad because I really want that superblock gone. I am thinking that there will need to be decorative entrances facing the Arena, Santa Fe, and Broadway but on the MBG side they can build the convention hotel. The loading docs will have to be inside the building and to save space they can use air bearings to move them.

Agreed. I really do think it's the best solution. And that allows Hall and Howard to hopefully develop something truly kickass on the lot they own.

So are you saying the other two options: Howard/Hall or the South of the Arena are off the table completely?

The problem I am seeing south of the boulevard is that a super block in that area will cut-off traffic trying to get into the area from Shields, Everyone would have to funnel onto the boulevard to get to any place in core to shore, which will make traffic horrendous, and make the convention center even more isolated for pedrstrians. No east-west access for cars between SW25th and the boulevard because of the park will be bad enough.

Parking garage????????? lol

Hopefully something better.

The problem I am seeing south of the boulevard is that a super block in that area will cut-off traffic trying to get into the area from Shields, Everyone would have to funnel onto the boulevard to get to any place in core to shore, which will make traffic horrendous, and make the convention center even more isolated for pedrstrians. No east-west access for cars between SW25th and the boulevard because of the park will be bad enough.

Using the Cox Center would totally cut off the expansion of the CBD to the south and perpetuate the super block that already sits in the middle of downtown.

The cc is going to create a super block no matter where you put it.

Agreed, but what land would they have to purchase next to the park. Price comps on property seem to have gone off the chart.
Just this week a small piece of property on the S side of Reno and Lee went up for sale. Its not cheap either. .08 acres with a no account of a building on it is close to 3m asking.

Agreed, but what land would they have to purchase next to the park. Price comps on property seem to have gone off the chart.
Just this week a small piece of property on the S side of Reno and Lee went up for sale. Its not cheap either. .08 acres with a no account of a building on it is close to 3m asking.

The City could trade land for the ODOT property next to the park and it already owns the substation.

I already went over in detail how the land next to the park would likely fit in the budget.

The Cox site is an incredibly valuable asset to the City and may be a way around the cc budget, but the cost to the City would still be incredibly high in terms of the value of the asset and lost opportunity to grow the CBD and dissolve the super block.

As I see it, they are all out of affordable options. They need $500 million more to build what they envisioned. This has AICCM written all over it if they aren't careful.

Argument against using Cox Center for the MAPS 3 Convention Center:


It's 14 acres is roughly the same size as the Core to Shore North site and is at least and arguably considerably more valuable. Core to Shore North was rejected due to cost; why would we switch to a more expensive site? (Remember, whether we pay out of pocket for the site or not, it is still a valuable asset owned by the City and using it for this purpose is no different than spending other assets like cash.)
The City just paid consultants for a long-range development plan that included the Cox site. They concluded the Cox site is needed for expansion of the Central Business District, which is currently bound to the south. There would be great economic value to the City to have room for private business to expand. (Consider the economic impact generated by a similar sized portion of the existing CBD).
We are trying desperately to undo the massive harm inflicted by super blocks of the 1960's and a new convention center on this site would just perpetuate that existing issue for at least several more generations.
The new Transit Hub is directly across from the Cox site and replacing the existing Cox monolith with another for a new convention center greatly detracts from the potential of the hub and works against the substantial public investment being made there.
Much existing convention business would be suspended and disrupted during an at least two year redevelopment cycle. The CVB estimates the annual economic impact of the Cox Center to be approximately $30 million. Therefore, there would be at least $60 million in additional cost to the City, and that number could prove to be considerably higher, especially if there are construction delays. Would also be much more difficult to restart downtown convention business after it was at a dead stop for 2-3 years.
The Cox Center is currently the largest parking structure downtown and is operating at over 100% capacity BEFORE greatly expanding our convention space and business. The parking would be completely out of commission for at least two years which would cripple existing downtown businesses and still not provide nearly enough capacity for the new facility.
There is no clear location for additional parking to serve this facility and due to the location, anything nearby be constructed on very expensive land.
The cost to demolish and rebuild on this site would almost certainly not fall within the existing budget.
Like the Core to Shore North (original choice) site, all four sides of the Cox site would need to be made 'pretty' due tremendous visibility. That would mean burying the docks, investing in expensive facades all the way around, etc.
The Cox Center was rated #4 in the semi-final round of site selection and was cut from the list of 3 finalists. The Core to Shore South site – still a very viable option and with many advantages and few of the disadvantages listed here – is the only remaining option among the three finalists.

The City could trade land for the ODOT property next to the park and it already owns the substation.

I already went over in detail how the land next to the park would likely fit in the budget.

The Cox site is an incredibly valuable asset to the City and may be a way around the cc budget, but the cost to the City would still be incredibly high in terms of the value of the asset and lost opportunity to grow the CBD and dissolve the super block.

Sorry; going the long way around the barn. I agree the South site is the best, what I'm referring to is the price of land including the sale to the new hoteliers from Tulsa. I guess the right land swap could cure this.
Your thoughts................gotta go.

The proposed Core to Shore Hotel site would likely not be needed for the convention center.

As I see it, they are all out of affordable options. They need $500 million more to build what they envisioned. This has AICCM written all over it if they aren't careful.

I agree. They can't build the type of convention center they want without a lot more money. I see three options:

1) Build a smaller, specialized convention center with the money they have available. Save the big Cox Center replacement for another day. I'm sure you could do a very nice Bricktown Convention Center on the Uhaul parking lot or on the Chevy Events Center parking lot for the money they have available. It's not going to replace the Cox Center by any means, but it adds to the resources of the city and buys you time to work out a better solution, albeit with a different funding source than MAPS 3.

2) Build the big convention center in a place you don't like, on cheaper land, and work to make the area around it usable for future conventions. I'm talking about places like the area immediately east of I-235 between the railroad tracks and NE 4th. You could put a pedestrian path right along the railroad tracks, making it not too far a walk into Bricktown. You could also run a dedicated rail shuttle service to the Santa Fe station. It would be like a 2 minute ride. It's not the ideal location, but we don't have the money for the ideal location.

3) Go big. Get more money from somewhere. Sell the Cox Center now, perhaps, but the city rents the land from the new owner for the next 5 years or however long we need. Use the money from that sale to buy the Lumber Yard and the Cotton Mill. Use money from a seperate pile, whether state or federal credits, to do environmental cleanup on the site. In the end, the city will only use a portion of the land in that area for a convention center. Once it's been cleaned up, the city can ask for significantly more money than they paid for it for the rest of the land. This requires a lot of cash up front, however.

If you include a parking garage and the public portion for the convention hotel (likely $70+ million) then no way the cc can be built for the $282 million budget.

However, those items have thus far been excluded.

So, for the $282 million they could very likely build on the Core to Shore South site. The big wildcard is the cost to relocate the OG&E substation but that is simple matter of getting a current and detailed estimate. If it could be done for near the previously estimated $30 million, than that site would almost certainly work within the budget.

Since that is the highest rated of the currently available options, IMO they should be taking a hard look at the costs for that site while also being open to other ideas as Plan B.

But the only other site that I can see working at all within the existing budget is the Cox site, and I've already outlined why I think that is a horrible idea. And only within in the budget as in throwing in at least another $200 million in hidden costs (value of Cox Center land, the cost to area businesses for lost parking and lost convention business).


If they can't make this project work for the existing budget, then I think it's time to push this back to MAPS 4 and be upfront about all the related costs. In the meantime, the existing budget could be carried forward or split among the other projects.

I'll post a response to those items when I have access to a keyboard. However, the biggest challenge they are going to have is building what they envision for the money they have available. In hind-sight, this should have never been a MAPS project because of the limited funds typical of MAPS projects. If their study say X sq feet are required and anything less is a failure in the making then MAPS was definately the wrong funding vehicle.

^

Except what they'll end up doing is taking that site then building a new monolith not unlike what is there, just newer.

They can't afford to do it any other way.

So, when they talk about using that site, we need to deal with the current realities and ask if that is anywhere near the highest and best use of that property for the rest of our lifetimes.

BTW, in addition to not budgeting for parking or the now-deemed-essential convention hotel, they also didn't budget for expansion; either the building or the land. So, throw that on the pile.


Let's now total this all up:

Current budget with only $13 million in budgeted land costs: $282 million
Public piece of convention hotel: $70 to $140 million
Parking structure (land & construction): $50 to $70 million
Convention Center expansion (land & construction): $50 to $100 million

That's $452 to $592 million.


And that does not include:
Cox site value: $150 million
Lost convention business: $60 to $120 million
3 years of lost parking revenues from Cox: $20 million
Downtown business lost due to 1,000 spaces taken out of inventory for 3 years
Fancy hidden docks and other elaborate design plans

Emergency meeting is going on now Steve is live tweeting it for those interested https://twitter.com/stevelackmeyer

They are basically extended the contract with Populous to the end of June and want a new site selected by July 7th for city council to review.

Many more involved in the site selection this time around: MAPS 3 subcommittee, MAPS office, ADG, Planning, Public Works, Alliance for Economic Development.

Many more involved in the site selection this time around

Is this a good thing or does it get into too many cooks territory?

From Urban Pioneer:

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/cc031615a.jpg

So, basically starting all over and doing what took two years in a few months.

Larry Nichols noticeably absent from the meeting.

Also, this is a presentation by Mike Mize from the City of OKC.

Not discussing what the process should be, but rather telling the group what has already been decided.

So, basically starting all over and doing what took two years in a few months.

Hmm, The new plan has already been decided upon and this is all just for show?

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/cc031615b.jpg

Looks like the UHaul Site, Co-Op/Lumberyard location, and Reno & Dewey have been added as possible locations

Note new Reno & Dewey location incorporates south parcel of proposed Clayco development, as was proposed here.

The West Park site is largely owned by the City.

Reno & Dewey seems like the only realistic new addition but the land costs would still be way too high, even though the City does own the south half of the Clayco site.

If the East Park sites are too far away for the CVB lobby, then West Park might as well be at the Fairgrounds.

Looks like the UHaul Site, Co-Op/Lumberyard location, and Reno & Dewey have been added as possible locationsi thought they're building a high rise on the lumber yard? ;)

Wonder the reason for the weird gerrymandering of the possible coop site?

Note how no part of the REHCO property is being considered; not even the parcel south of the south half of the Clayco site.

Also, no consideration of taking any part of Central Park.

Environmental cleanup at the Coop site would take years and cost who knows how much. Plus they would have to move first.

On edit, they would also have to buy land from a railroad and we know how fast (slow) that happens.

I also find it interesting that the south Clayco site is even being suggested. I don't think that bodes well for the Clayco project.

I really like the East Bricktown site but just can't fathom how land costs could come anywhere close to budget.

They'd have to buy out part of the Bodyworks site, the new McDonald's and Circle K. And that doesn't even include what would be needed for a hotel and parking.

Entire meeting was 40 minutes. No one from the cc committee even spoke.

Yet another bizarre chapter in the story of this project.

Hardly a meeting. Seemed to be more of a press conference-ish update on what has already been decided. I understand the importance of picking a site as quickly as possible but it seems they are massively rushing.

Why does almost every proposal look like a reverse image of Utah?

Now I definitely don't think you were kidding when you said the people who can make things happen, watch this thread.

From Steve's Twitter feed:


Possible new criteria: efficiencies w existing/planned development, synergies w streetcar, transit hub, Bricktown, Myriad Gardens, new park
3:44pm - 16 Mar 15

Why are these NEW criteria ?

The only things that have changed on that list since they did the initial process is that we now know the location of the transit hub (although it was pretty much known it would be in its current location all along) and the streetcar route, but even that could still be slightly adjusted without having to complete redraw.

Also, there are considerably more hotels planned now but I seriously doubt that represents a marked change since June of 2011 when they last scored the sites.

i thought they're building a high rise on the lumber yard? ;)

That was never a realistic development.

That was never a realistic development.Obviously not in OKC. In nearly any other city, it is realistic and would almost certainly be done in a city of 1.4 million people.

You know, if Austin and Dallas(yes, I know they are much larger) can support all of the highrises there, surely OKC can support one.

Environmental cleanup at the Coop site would take years and cost who knows how much. Plus they would have to move first.

On edit, they would also have to buy land from a railroad and we know how fast (slow) that happens.

I also find it interesting that the south Clayco site is even being suggested. I don't think that bodes well for the Clayco project.

I would imagine that the south ClayCo site would be for the convention hotel portion. The ClayCo plan included a rendering with a proposed hotel.

My guess is that is your new convention center site. The city grants ClayCo's crazy high TIF request, and as part of the deal the convention hotel becomes a part of the ClayCo development. ClayCo also increases the amount of parking on both the north and south property, adding 2 or 3 more levels to each design. The south lot acts as part of the garage for the convention center. With the new TIF district, this lets the city effectively raise the funding for a lot of the convention center amenities (garage, hotel) without it coming from the dedicated convention center funding.

The only things that have changed on that list since they did the initial process is that we now know the location of the transit hub (although it was pretty much known it would be in its current location all along) and the streetcar route, but even that could still be slightly adjusted without having to complete redraw.

Also, there are considerably more hotels planned now but I seriously doubt that represents a marked change since June of 2011 when they last scored the sites.

I'm sure property values have increased unlinearly in different parts of downtown.

My preference for these would be the Lumber Yard, with a hotel in Lower West Bricktown. Connect the two via a decorative sky bridge (don't kill me, JTF), that way conventioners don't have to walk across the downtown expressway, err, boulevard.

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/cc031615b.jpg

Here are the main site constraints as I see them (all this before even bothering to score for proximity to hotels and that other stuff):


Room for at least 300,000 square feet of contiguous exhibit hall space; i.e. parcel has to be at least this big
Room for neighboring convention hotel
Room for parking
Land acquisition can't exceed $13 million out of pocket (but seemingly can include existing City-owned property)


Looking at things from this perspective, you might as well cut Lower West Bricktown (Uhaul) because it only has about 240,000 square feet total, even if you pull down that beautiful, historic building.

All the other sites other than Cox have big land acquisition cots but it seems the City was willing to trade land before and will probably consider that again.

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/cc031615b.jpg

Here are the main site constraints as I see them (all this before even bothering to score for proximity to hotels and that other stuff):


Room for at least 300,000 square feet of contiguous exhibit hall space; i.e. parcel has to be at least this big
Room for neighboring convention hotel
Room for parking
Land acquisition can't exceed $13 million out of pocket (but seemingly can include existing City-owned property)


Looking at things from this perspective, you might as well cut Lower West Bricktown (Uhaul) because it only has about 240,000 square feet total, even if you pull down that beautiful, historic building.

All the other sites other than Cox have big land acquisition cots but it seems the City was willing to trade land before and will probably consider that again.

Of the available options, I prefer the East Bricktown site, with the "South of Chesapeake" site second.

Can't see any way East Bricktown is remotely affordable.

There is an existing McDonald's plus Circle K plus a good chunk of the Bodywork's site which is currently under contract for no doubt a big chunk.

Then, you still have to have land for a hotel; the land as outlined only has enough for the cc itself.

Parking could be structured across Reno to the south, so that's a big plus. But the other two things seem to be hurdles there is no way to clear.

BTW, since the city attorney said the reason they dropped the pursuit of the REHCO property was due to issues with eminent domain, where is that issue in this evaluation?

I'm warming up to Reno and Dewey.

Still close to the streetcar; only an extra block or two to BT (still not super close, but at least its a straight shot), close enough to Film Row, and DT in general is growing westward.

BTW, since the city attorney said the reason they dropped the pursuit of the REHCO property was due to issues with eminent domain, where is that issue in this evaluation?

I'm thinking that pushes for a site that has easy access to a location the city already owns. That's why you're getting the weird gerrymandered site on ClayCo land. The private portion of the development goes someplace where they don't need to use eminent domain.