I will try to put some more thoughts together later. I recorded the meeting. There was more discussion had by the subcommittee members than was eluded to. Also, it was pleasant to see Aubrey Hammontree (Planning Director) address the committee about the proposed location options.

Right now... After this... and discussions afterward... My guess is either east or west of the park due to land costs.

I made a public statement and asked that the $30 million be placed back into contingency until the full costs to the streetcar were assessed due to the potential delay and potential route changes. They need to assume they have $250 million to work with... Not $280.

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.

Good point.

Also, keep in mind that you can put private development on land City acquires, just not through eminent domain.

But that also means you have to negotiate with private land owners who can drive up their asking price knowing that eminent domain -- and thus an objective decision by the courts -- can't be used. If they want to ask an outrageous sum, the City would either have to pay it or move on to yet another site.

I do like the Reno & Dewey location in terms of what that does for OKC.

It would put only the hotel on the park and then take land that is presently undeveloped and help draw private development to the west and south and deal with some pretty ugly properties along the boulevard.

Also, the City owns the land on the south side of the boulevard, so it should be easy to jump-start private investment in that area.

Good point.

Also, keep in mind that you can put private development on land City acquires, just not through eminent domain.

But that also means you have to negotiate with private land owners who can drive up their asking price knowing that eminent domain -- and thus an objective decision by the courts -- can't be used. If they want to ask an outrageous sum, the City would either have to pay it or move on to yet another site.

Right. I was looking at the Reno and Dewey location. If I remember correctly, a lot of the land on one of those blocks was recently purchased by a single owner, like within the last year. If the sale price was low enough, that would give the city a great argument for the cost of an eminent domain action in that area.

Not I. Not anymore. Steelyard project alone is enough to make me want to see those types of projects continue on the east side of Bricktown. Let's keep the CC in the core.

How about keep in the Core to Shore? ;)

Agree about East Bricktown because all of the land they would be taking (apart from the parking lot) is either developed or slated for development. And everything around it, too. So that area is already raging and no sense in displacing planned private development with a big public block.

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.

It is both realistic and possible. It isn't a definite, but it isn't dead either.

Right. I was looking at the Reno and Dewey location. If I remember correctly, a lot of the land on one of those blocks was recently purchased by a single owner, like within the last year. If the sale price was low enough, that would give the city a great argument for the cost of an eminent domain action in that area.

It's not even a full block and it was $4.2 million to get about 3/4 of it. Plus, they have plans of their own to develop there. That one block would be at least $6 million and then there are 4 more to be acquired, not counting the Clayco land.

It's not even a full block and it was $4.2 million to get about 3/4 of it. Plus, they have plans of their own to develop there. That one block would be at least $6 million and then there are 4 more to be acquired, not counting the Clayco land.

That's still significantly less than anywhere else, for more land. The block that was bought up was the one 600 block of W California, right? Or was it the Allen Contracting block? I know they just completed some renovations to their building, and that had to run them a few million dollars. But one of the blocks is mostly empty, and the other has a halfway house on it. Even if you assume each block averages $6 million, that's $24 million instead of the $100M you're looking at elsewhere. With a land swap, that starts to look doable.

I like the site but good luck getting the CVB and thus the Chamber to go along with it.

Just curious, but why would you say that?

Do they have something against that area?

They don't want to be that far from existing hotels and Bricktown.

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.

Sadly, this is a true statement. These projects get built like hot cakes in those cities. In fact, even lesser tier cities like Little Rock, Wichita, etc. can manage to find ways to get them built, but not here in OKC. I too have lost a lot of faith in this city and its direction. The cool vibe we had is losing it's luster and decisions from the Capitol and here in this city are playing a huge role in that.

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.

Great idea hoyasooner. They need to find some investors and buy this land and develop the crap out of it. It is close to CBD and BT and it will only enhance and improve Brickown (which by the way is probably the cities biggest tourist and local draw). So in a sense, they would also be improving, expanding BT as well and that bodes well for the city and everyone anywhere near this area. Sometimes you have to think a little out of the box rather than just CC and CC Hotel. I think a combination that both enhance and and help each others growth and success is the most important thing and decision to be made. If they put this in the Lumber Yard and develop that area, it is by far the best choice proximity wise, but if it helps BT grow and improve and further develop, guys we will have a lot of winners in the end. Sometimes you have to spend a little more to get a whole lot more in return. My point is OKC needs to figure out ways to stop always playing the "cheap card" all the time.

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.

This.

OKC could support at least one luxury condo high-rise. They have worked in similar sized cities and even smaller cities and are going up like weeds in the major boomtowns. OKC could at least support one. Like so many other things though, developers for one reason or another lack faith in this market.

It is both realistic and possible. It isn't a definite, but it isn't dead either.I think if one were to be built here, it would be wildly successful and I believe the Clayco towers are going to exceed expectations and show there is a huge demand here in OKC.

How is the economic impact of the Cox Center only $30m/yr? Usually these numbers seem massively inflated, so if that is really the estimate, I say we should just get out of the convention business.

I mean $30m is about the average payroll of ~300 engineers. Boeing is bringing in about 900 more of those, and 300 can easily fit in less than 50,000 square feet.

Use the money to put a free-to-park garage at central park and BT, or something else that will actually have some real benefit.

It is worse than you think Zorba. About 70% of the attendance at Cox are by poeople from metro OKC, so most of that $30 million isn't even new money in the local economy. Also, that figure includes employee salarys which are paid for by local taxes because the CC itself actually operates at a loss.

I think if one were to be built here, it would be wildly successful and I believe the Clayco towers are going to exceed expectations and show there is a huge demand here in OKC.

I don't see how they can have all this development with one of the highest demands in the country for office space in the CBD and many things popping up in the area, yet really don't think the demand would be there for a high rise? It makes zero sense to be honest. As I mentioned, cities like Little Rock and Wichita have these and we don't and that is hard to wrap my brain around. I truly believe that OKC could support several of these projects and we can't seem to even get 1 of these built.

Like I said before, the city does NOT need to cheap out and use the existing Cox site. That is too prime and needs to be used for something spectacular. If this city still has any vision at all and sometimes I doubt that and think it's in the hands of a select few now, it needs to choose the Lumber Yard and Co-Op site. They need to bring in some investors to help develop the site to help with the cost of it. They can link that to BT and DT and it will all flow together. They can do an expansion of the canal and have space for a Soccer Complex and attract and MLS team. We could have a new CC and CC Hotel almost connected to BT. I think this would be impressive to many visitors and their experience will only enhance OKC's reputation as having that cool vibe (which we are losing currently) and will bring more people here and money into the economy.

I LOVED Pete's idea of what they could do with this site and perhaps using the existing Silo's somehow in the CC Center. It would be unique and quite the conversation piece for everyone. The investors could develop a high rise residential as well as some retail which is sorely needed in this area. Retail would trickle to BT since they would essentially be linked for the most part. I can't imagine why anyone who owns a business in BT is not at these meetings or calling any investors they know to beg them to make something like this happen. Believe me, it may be more money up front but the amount of money and exposure it will make and bring in will pay for itself 100 fold. It is the vision that is needed so everyone wins in this deal and that means not just people in the area but the whole city. All you city leaders and investors out there, if you read this board I urge you to make this the site and have the vision to make this OKC an even greater city for everyone to enjoy.

I asked for anyone who has the skills to do some type of rendering or photo shopping of what this area could look like if we did the CC and CC Hotel there, linked to BT and expanded canal perhaps extending to the Soccer Complex. Also, add in a high rise residential and retail and as bonus, could someone do a mock CC at that site with the Silo's being incorporated in the building? I've asked a couple times, now I am begging for just one person to just show us what this could look like and in my opinion would be one of the more amazing things OKC could ever do for the future of this area. Thanks.

Even if they wanted to go with the silo look, they will not be using the existing metal structures for a million reasons.

just a wag - final two options will be the ones due north and due south of the Peake.
Winning the day will be due south of the Peake.

If they canna afford the spot they've bailed on, they canna afford anywhere other
than the already owned or mostly owned by the city properties.

Not saying I think that is the ideal spot, but I think it almost has to land there. Moving the substation is not cheap. Ripping out the Cox Center isn't either. The former doesn't shut down existing conventions so the south of Peake location loses by a thin margin. Mayor mutters told ya under his breath when it is all said and decided.

I will try to put some more thoughts together later. I recorded the meeting. There was more discussion had by the subcommittee members than was eluded to. Also, it was pleasant to see Aubrey Hammontree (Planning Director) address the committee about the proposed location options.

Right now... After this... and discussions afterward... My guess is either east or west of the park due to land costs.

I made a public statement and asked that the $30 million be placed back into contingency until the full costs to the streetcar were assessed due to the potential delay and potential route changes. They need to assume they have $250 million to work with... Not $280.

Is there any chance the streetcar and maintenance facility could go down Robinson instead of Hudson? Maybe some contingency could be used to cover that difference and maybe even have the maintenance facility just south of I-40 if that's the nearest open site going south down Robinson...

If (this obviously won't happen) they would do something similar to my programmatic site plan, you would have a great mixed-use/CC complex across from the park's "active edge" scheme along Robinson, which would bookend the streetcar extension with active uses. This potential level of density is obviously much earlier than we previously expected with a C2S extension...but only if they can get some mixed-use development to also occupy that massive C2S South site and break up the superblock beside the park.

How is the economic impact of the Cox Center only $30m/yr? Usually these numbers seem massively inflated, so if that is really the estimate, I say we should just get out of the convention business.

I mean $30m is about the average payroll of ~300 engineers. Boeing is bringing in about 900 more of those, and 300 can easily fit in less than 50,000 square feet.

Use the money to put a free-to-park garage at central park and BT, or something else that will actually have some real benefit.

I think the article in the Oklahoman this morning identified direct income of about double this amount ...$55-60 million per year even at our crappy current facility. The number took into account mix of out of town guests vs. local guests.

The $30 million annual impact of the Cox Center was something I found in CVB materials a few years back. It seemed very low to me as well but that's the only thing I could find about that particular facility, as opposed to total convention business for the whole City.

Maybe I'll see if someone from the CVB can provide better numbers. At the very least, over 3 years you are looking at $100 million in economic impact and it's probably a lot more if the Cox site has to be completely closed and renovated.

In the initial round of the Populous scoring, the Cox site was ranked #1 but was later moved out of the 3 finalists due to the cost and impact of disrupting convention business.

If it is now to be reconsidered, they had better plan on fully disclosing all the potential costs, including lost parking revenue which I estimate to be at least $20 million for 3 years. However, the far bigger cost will be to the downtown businesses that currently rely on it's 1,000 spaces. All those cars would have to go somewhere in the interim and since parking capacity is at a critical state, it's safe to say there is no easy solution to that very big issue.

The Reno/Walker site would have a lot more vacant, publicly-owned land if the city had chosen Alternative D for the boulevard.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpf1/t31.0-8/10333530_834212236608736_4763013824555236477_o.jpg

Lol Heyefahl. Those chickens came home to roost real fast.

Hahaha! On man, that is rich.

WELL, it is definitely not too late for the Council to demand Alternative D! Might as well if we're already going to hold up all of MAPS because CONVENTION CENTER.

Is there any chance the streetcar and maintenance facility could go down Robinson instead of Hudson? Maybe some contingency could be used to cover that difference and maybe even have the maintenance facility just south of I-40 if that's the nearest open site going south down Robinson...

If (this obviously won't happen) they would do something similar to my programmatic site plan, you would have a great mixed-use/CC complex across from the park's "active edge" scheme along Robinson, which would bookend the streetcar extension with active uses. This potential level of density is obviously much earlier than we previously expected with a C2S extension...but only if they can get some mixed-use development to also occupy that massive C2S South site and break up the superblock beside the park.

Yes

This is from the Populous report as part of the explanation as to why the Cox Center site was eliminated:


The Cox Center site could not be re-built to meet the required program using phased construction without seriously impacting the continuous booking and hosting of events. Due to the facility’s structural design, sequential demolition and replacement was deemed infeasible. In addition, a central plant providing heating and cooling to the Cox Center and the Oklahoma City Arena would require relocation or extensive modifications affecting the operation of both facilities.

They say elsewhere that the structural design issue has to do with the arena supporting the existing exhibit space, which is why they couldn't just demolish parts and keep the rest operating.

They also said construction costs on this site would not fit within the existing budget.

well, it is definitely not too late for the council to demand alternative d! Might as well if we're already going to hold up all of maps because convention center.

like!!!!

So keep the arena and rebuild the exhibit space.

^

Not nearly enough room which is why they need a new cc in the first place.

^

Not nearly enough room which is why they need a new cc in the first place.

The new CC isn't much bigger. The issue was column free space. If they bump the west wall out to Robinson they could make it even bigger than the new CC. Then spend the rest of the money fixing the stuff they left out of MAPS I.

The new CC isn't much bigger. The issue was column free space. If they bump the west wall out to Robinson they could make it even bigger than the new CC. Then spend the rest of the money fixing the stuff they left out of MAPS I.

They currently only have 100,000 SF of exhibit space at the Cox Center and the main exhibit hall alone in the new cc was to be over 300,000 SF.

Similar big bumps in meeting space and ballroom space are planned.

This is all included in the studies done by Populous and well documented elsewhere.

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.

Seattle has a sky bridge connecting their Convention Center over a 3 lane one way street. It's called Washington State CC. It has a huge canopy over the sky bridge and the street. Very cool looking.

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

I think this remains the best site plan we've seen. I'd like us to take this progression of action:

$30M - $60M: Use MAPS 3 money to buy any of the 10 blocks that are currently unowned
$30M - $45M: Move the sub-station
$50M - $60M: Build 2500 space Parking Garage
$50M - $100M: Subsidize Hotel

TOTAL: $160M - $265M

If we can keep under the $250M number, every penny goes into the Convention center account.

+$100M: MAPS 4
+$25M - $50M: Sale of Park-front Land
+$150M - $200M: Sale of Cox site

TOTAL: $275M - $350M + any potential balance from MAPS 3 money for construction of Convention Center.

[Edited for formatting and clarity]

And actually, you probably don't bill the $100M from MAPS 4, but just extend the MAPS 3 tax one extra year, and bill MAPS 4 as something else (Hopefully skip MAPS 4 in favor of an RTA)

Does anyone believe the City will sell the COX land at market value? My guess is they will either give it away or agree to put the proceeds back into whatever gets developed.

If it's the only way to fund the convention center, you bet your sweet tail they will.

And honestly, I'm okay with that. We're talking about selling our current CC for our new CC.

The Reno/Walker site would have a lot more vacant, publicly-owned land if the city had chosen Alternative D for the boulevard.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpf1/t31.0-8/10333530_834212236608736_4763013824555236477_o.jpg

I'd been holding off stating this ever since I saw that option.

I think this remains the best site plan we've seen. I'd like us to take this progression of action:

$30M - $60M: Use MAPS 3 money to buy any of the 10 blocks that are currently unowned
$30M - $45M: Move the sub-station
$50M - $60M: Build 2500 space Parking Garage
$50M - $100M: Subsidize Hotel

TOTAL: $160M - $265M

If we can keep under the $250M number, every penny goes into the Convention center account.

+$100M: MAPS 4
+$25M - $50M: Sale of Park-front Land
+$150M - $200M: Sale of Cox site

TOTAL: $275M - $350M + any potential balance from MAPS 3 money for construction of Convention Center.

[Edited for formatting and clarity]

No MAPS 4 convention center.

If we're going to spend over $100 million on land assembly, might as well do it on the current site.

No MAPS 4 convention center.

If we're going to spend over $100 million on land assembly, might as well do it on the current site.

I posted after that and suggested that we extend MAPS 3 by a year instead of calling it MAPS 4.

Where did you read in that post $100M on land assembly? It would be closer to half that amount, for a ton more land than the Ford site some of which would be sold at a later date anyway (At least 15% of said land)

As soon as the park is actually built, land values in the area will noticeably increase. We should use that to our advantage right now.

I posted after that and suggested that we extend MAPS 3 by a year instead of calling it MAPS 4.

Where did you read in that post $100M on land assembly? It would be closer to half that amount, for a ton more land than the Ford site some of which would be sold at a later date anyway (At least 15% of said land)

As soon as the park is actually built, land values in the area will noticeably increase. We should use that to our advantage right now.

Of course, extending MAPS 3 by a year would require a vote of the people. I think that might be a tough sell to complete the convention center. It could happen, but it wouldn't be easy.

:police:

Is the City waiting till July for more studies on other properties, or is there a moratorium on REASONABLE offers on the original site for 6 months?

I posted after that and suggested that we extend MAPS 3 by a year instead of calling it MAPS 4.

Where did you read in that post $100M on land assembly? It would be closer to half that amount, for a ton more land than the Ford site some of which would be sold at a later date anyway (At least 15% of said land)

As soon as the park is actually built, land values in the area will noticeably increase. We should use that to our advantage right now.

It seems like OCURA basically has all of the land at least under contract, except for the proposed hotel site, which is just one block to go get. The substation should stay honestly. $30+ mil to move, or $2 mil to cover with an architecturally interesting skin and have an instant substantial mass fronting the park... the latter sounds pretty good to me!

Daniel Libeskind did this with a substation in NYC:
http://www.archicentral.com/wp-content/images/unbenannt-24.jpg

I
it seems like ocura basically has all of the land at least under contract, except for the proposed hotel site, which is just one block to go get. The substation should stay honestly. $30+ mil to move, or $2 mil to cover with an architecturally interesting skin and have an instant substantial mass fronting the park... The latter sounds pretty good to me!

Daniel libeskind did this with a substation in nyc:
http://www.archicentral.com/wp-content/images/unbenannt-24.jpg

+1

Does that substation in NYC have all of the overhead electrical wires going in and out like the one here?

I just looked through the County Assessor and it appears to me that Government (OK/OKC or otherwise) owns only between 25% and 35% of the land in the C2S East site.

Oops.

Does that substation in NYC have all of the overhead electrical wires going in and out like the one here?

I would think that's a separate issue of buried utility wires. Obviously along the park may be one area that it's worth "wasting money" on buried utility lines.

As for land acquisition, that's 25-35% more than we had on the C2S North site, and I was under the impression that the city had most of it under contract and was slooooowly working on each deal.

10463Took my proposal a little further...

^

Really like that.

Would need more parking but that could be worked in.

If they aren't going to the Cox Center, then they really have to find a way to make this site work. I just don't see any better alternative.

The thing about parking is that my grid-preservation approach surrounds the CC with parking on the two sides which are the primary frontage. The likely end game result (a superblock) will surround the CC with nothing except for other superblocks or boundaries on all sides.

My proposed alternative leaves the city with a mechanism to leverage profits from OCURA's holdings in the C2S impact area to support the overall CC budget. Land along the streetcar and a primary cross-town corridor (S. Robinson), wedged between one of the nation's best parks and one of the nation's best convention centers, will make even the REHCO site look like the Bottoms in terms of land values.

The game that the Junta is playing is to get a site that incorporates some sort of "future expansion" space (ie the southern half of the C2S East site) that can potentially sit as red dirt if voters don't give them more MAPS 4 money for the CC nobody wants as well. That's their idea of "leverage," and yet they somehow hold the finance-savvy trump card over planners?

As far as the expansion, that is not part of MAPS 3 so IMO they should not be looking to acquire land for that purpose with MAPS 3 money.

However, it would be wise to choose a site where there is at least the possibility exists for future expansion -- like the C2S south -- but money for the land and building itself would have to come later and from another source.

As far as the expansion, that is not part of MAPS 3 so IMO they should not be looking to acquire land for that purpose with MAPS 3 money.

However, it would be wise to choose a site where there is at least the possibility exists for future expansion -- like the C2S south -- but money for the land and building itself would have to come later and from another source.

It's all apart of the convention center at the end of the day. The problem I have with waiting to buy expansion land is that we know it's going to skyrocket. We have a chance to buy land at $x/acre and by the time enough MAPS 4 money (assuming there will even be a MAPS 4) is sufficient, we'll have to pay 2$x/2.5$x/3$x per acre. Construction costs are not going to rise like that in the next 8 years. So instead of the Convention center costing taxpayers $550M overall, it will end up costing taxpayers $650M overall…That's not a win, and that's not how we should approach this project.

If we're presented with a plan that can survive without ever expanding, then proceed thusly. But if expansion is readily admitted as necessary, we need to prepare for that now, not repeat the cycle of becoming a victim of our own success. That's the worst misappropriation of funds/resources: Not learning from previous mistakes.

^

I don't disagree but we only have $13 million for land acquisition and we'll be lucky to get enough property for Phase I let alone future expansion that may never come.

It's all apart of the convention center at the end of the day. The problem I have with waiting to buy expansion land is that we know it's going to skyrocket. We have a chance to buy land at $x/acre and by the time enough MAPS 4 money (assuming there will even be a MAPS 4) is sufficient, we'll have to pay 2$x/2.5$x/3$x per acre. Construction costs are not going to rise like that in the next 8 years. So instead of the Convention center costing taxpayers $550M overall, it will end up costing taxpayers $650M overall…That's not a win, and that's not how we should approach this project.

If we're presented with a plan that can survive without ever expanding, then proceed thusly. But if expansion is readily admitted as necessary, we need to prepare for that now, not repeat the cycle of becoming a victim of our own success. That's the worst misappropriation of funds/resources: Not learning from previous mistakes.

You talk about learning from past mistakes...what makes you so sure we will need an expansion? Glossing over your post I see $550-650 million referenced...I don't think that is EVER happening. Why the exuberance for a larger facility, rather than just a better facility? OKC needs to find something it can actually compete on.

How would the Fairfield Inn fit into that Spartan?

It doesn't...

10463Took my proposal a little further...

Eh, I don't really see how this could work. Sure, it probably meets the requirement for the amount of sq ft needed, but how could something so long & rectangular work for meeting space? The grand ballroom/meeting/exhibition space would not work well in something that is so limited from one side to the other.