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.

Pretty sure that's the least of the worries. 420x860 is not that awkward at all. No meeting rooms/ball rooms I've ever been in have been much bigger than a couple hundred feet by a couple hundred feet.

Like I have said before, "great insight" on the part of the Tulsa developer.
Sure seems to throw a wrench into the C2S plans.

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.

I respectfully disagree, both from a planning perspective and from a convention-experience perspective. It's an entire city block wide, from Broadway to Shields/EKG. We voted for a convention center hoping it wouldn't lay waste to our city. We didn't specifically vote for the largest possible super block, so we don't have to have that. A more slender site plan is the only way to balance the footprint needs with...not laying waste to the park, C2S, and downtown. I just really don't want to end up with the awful CC I know is coming...

It's actually pretty uncommon for a CC to just be a square site. Most cities actually try to not lay waste to downtown, whereas your implication seems that's the stated goal. There is nothing we truly gain from having a big square. In fact, in the Big Square we currently have we usually break the exhibition hall into long, slender spaces. The Columbus CC almost always has its 1M+ sf contiguous exhibition space broken down into halls A-F which are slender, more functional spaces.

Other slender CC's:
Dallas
Houston
Cleveland
Pittsburgh
Cincinnati
Kansas City
Dozens of other major cities

I respectfully disagree, but from a planning perspective and from a convention-experience perspective. It's an entire city block wide, from Broadway to Shields/EKG. We voted for a convention center hoping it wouldn't lay waste to our city. We didn't specifically vote for the largest possible super block, so we don't have to have that. A more slender site plan is the only way to balance the footprint needs with...not laying waste to the park, C2S, and downtown. I just really don't want to end up with the awful CC I know is coming...

It's actually pretty uncommon for a CC to just be a square site. Most cities actually try to not lay waste to downtown, whereas your implication seems that's the stated goal.

With the longer slender layout you could actually have more than one expo going at a time. No need to serially book expos which is inefficient.

Expo areas don't need vistas, or even windows. This is a good layout.

Here's the very-competitive KC convention center, which they reeeeally placed out of the way of downtown (cantilevered over I-70).

http://kcconvention.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/BartleHallPLANS.jpg

KC's ED people might want a big new Indiana Center or Music City Center, but they're holding their own with a good, unique, and well-planned facility. Kudos to KC for balancing ther convention, tourism, and urban planning needs to get the best result for everyone. KC is a phenomenal city from whom we could learn a lot about the art and science of city-building.

So we'd need 3 loading docks than, cause you wouldn't be able to drag stuff from one end to the other.

That's reasonable, or maybe two on opposite ends. You could add another loading area along Shields.

10463Took my proposal a little further...

This is the clear choice IMO.

While I like Spartans idea, I don't think the CC committe will go for it for one reason. The location isn't high profile enough. They maintain the CC is the center piece of MAPS III and this is hidden behind parking garages and the only major street frontage will be depressed 15 feet.

Hopefully they will be a little more pragmatic now.

Here's the existing rail line from Santa Fe to the airport...

10467

The line crosses Airport Road just north of Will Rogers and could easily be extended to near the terminal to provide direct rail transit service to downtown. It's possible that a stop could be created for direct service to the CC at the C2S site.

This is the clear choice IMO.
...based upon presently-available information, as you understand it. I am not trying to argue with you. This is true of every single opinion espoused here, my own opinion included.

...based upon presently-available information, as you understand it. I am not trying to argue with you. This is true of every single opinion espoused here, my own opinion included.

Do you know something that we don't know, which makes you favor some other site/configuration?

very good analysis of the transit viability of the C2S South site with access to both the Santa Fe station and the International Airport. Imagine major convention or two with folks arriving at the airport then wisked away via commuter rail train straight to downtown OKC and the CC. They could go straight to the CC, or into downtown to shop, or to their downtown hotel with easy walks or with a transfer to the streetcar. OMG, I'm even more excited about the C2S site - particularly Spartan's layout.

As for the Fairfield, couldn't the city just do a land-swap so Patel could face Central Park (and likely have a little more land for a garage)? Win-Win!

The cc committee meets next week and notice that the original site has been added back to the list of potentials.

Also, they will vote to approve another $265K for Populous for architectural services, raising that total to $19.6 million.

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/convention032015.jpg

Other slender CC's:
Dallas
Houston
Cleveland
Pittsburgh
Cincinnati
Kansas City
Dozens of other major cities

I've been to large events at both the Dallas and Cincinnati CCs and they both worked out really well.

Even though Las Vegas's convection center is huge and wide. The actual exhibit halls are long and slender, which has always worked out well when I have been there:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-IxGYGP4VH3c/TvDwL3QaVRI/AAAAAAAABVw/HKKb_OXwbPo/s1600/LVCC-Main.png

I think the slender approach makes it easier to see everything as a guest.

FYI Link to Cincinnati's floor plans and square footages. It is only one block wide. ::: Duke Energy Convention Center ::: : Floor Plans and Capacity Chart (http://www.duke-energycenter.com/2300/FloorPlansandCapacityChart.asp)

Edit: I was thinking about this before then I noticed it on the Vegas CC. We could cap Shields with a second level. Especially since shields will be depressed. Could add some extra space and you could do something really cool like having a restaurant with a glass floor looking down on the road.

Vegas is a bit of a beast all of it's own when it comes to convention centers. I've been to sizable events there multiple times, but haven't been anywhere near the actual Vegas CC. My experience is with Mandalay Bay, which has a large enough facility to easily house a 6-8k person convention.

Las Vegas Convention Center - 1959

http://www.exhibitcitynews.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/TBT_LVCVA_04102014.jpg

Vegas is a bit of a beast all of it's own when it comes to convention centers. I've been to sizable events there multiple times, but haven't been anywhere near the actual Vegas CC. My experience is with Mandalay Bay, which has a large enough facility to easily house a 6-8k person convention.

Yeah. I've been to IAAPA in Vegas, which is huge, with tons of amusement rides inside and outside, with well more than 10K visitors. IIRC, it was only in the areas labeled S1, S2, parking lot and meeting rooms. That convention center just eats people. It is also ugly as sin from the outside.

...based upon presently-available information, as you understand it. I am not trying to argue with you. This is true of every single opinion espoused here, my own opinion included.

Whatever. That location is also more than the distance I measured from Bricktown according to you too. It has been the best within budget location all along for several reasons. These include proximity to future transit, close enough proximity to Bricktown, good location for CC hotel, reduced impact on other civic investments such as Myriad and Central Park, better use of the Ford dealer location for private development vs CC, and keeping the Cox block available for future development.

The Reno & Dewey location is intriguing for other reasons, but I think the other options all have fatal flaws that will probably preclude their selection.

Whatever.
Sorry, I didn't realize that you had all of the facts at your disposal.

Do you know something that we don't know, which makes you favor some other site/configuration?
Spartan, all I know is that there are discussions ongoing which include locations that have either been universally dismissed here or are getting little to no consideration or discussion In the forum. I also know there are additional configurations and financing options/vehicles that have not been discussed here at all, by anyone, some of which have been a part of the plan all along, some of which are being driven by the new conditions. That's the reality of the situation as I understand it. Most of what is being discussed in this thread currently is just a lot of noise, based on incomplete information.

Regarding the second part of your question, I have no favored site and would be happy with several of them. All I care about is that the building succeeds in its intended purpose, and I've previously laid out the parameters that the industry looks for so won't bore with a rehash.

Spartan, all I know is that there are discussions ongoing which include locations that have either been universally dismissed here or are getting little to no consideration or discussion In the forum. I also know there are additional configurations and financing options/vehicles that have not been discussed here at all, by anyone, some of which have been a part of the plan all along, some of which are being driven by the new conditions. That's the reality of the situation as I understand it. Most of what is being discussed in this thread currently is just a lot of noise, based on incomplete information.

Regarding the second part of your question, I have no favored site and would be happy with several of them. All I care about is that the building succeeds in its intended purpose, and I've previously laid out the parameters that the industry looks for so won't bore with a rehash.

So is it reasonably safe to say your interest then is the extent to which the CC succeeds as economic development, and not so much looking at the other needs that need to be balanced? Do you acknowledge that there are any other needs to be balanced?

And thanks for the honest answer and the helpful, though vague, insight on how this is shaking out.

Spartan, all I know is that there are discussions ongoing which include locations that have either been universally dismissed here or are getting little to no consideration or discussion In the forum. I also know there are additional configurations and financing options/vehicles that have not been discussed here at all, by anyone, some of which have been a part of the plan all along, some of which are being driven by the new conditions. That's the reality of the situation as I understand it. Most of what is being discussed in this thread currently is just a lot of noise, based on incomplete information.

If this is all true, then that would mean lots of big, important things have been discussed outside the dozens of public meetings, which is troubling in itself.

In fact, I still haven't heard any official mention of the proposed land swap that was being considered for the old site and if not for the pressing of Ed Shadid at the last City Council meeting, no one would have known there was an issue with the eminent domain action in itself, particularly as it has to do with the cc hotel. And that *still* hasn't been reported or mentioned by anyone affiliated with this process; the only time it came up was when the City Attorney casually slipped into the council discussion. And nobody -- including the Council -- seems to understand the implications or even what happened.

So, if the public (such as people on this board) are engaging in "just a lot of noise" that is because what is supposed to be a very transparent and highly public process is in fact neither of those things.

So is it reasonably safe to say your interest then is the extent to which the CC succeeds as economic development, and not so much looking at the other needs that need to be balanced? Do you acknowledge that there are any other needs to be balanced?

And thanks for the honest answer and the helpful, though vague, insight on how this is shaking out.
I think that of course all needs should be balanced. I've never said differently. I've only said that if you're going to build a convention center that it should not fail to attract conventions. That would be dumb and wasteful. Seems like a simple idea to grasp.

This can be done without wrecking downtown, despite what others here seem to think. In fact, if done properly it becomes a driver for other great projects an development, as should most if not all MAPS projects; especially the expensive ones.

I think that of course all needs should be balanced. I've never said differently. I've only said that if you're going to build a convention center that it should not fail to attract conventions. That would be dumb and wasteful. Seems like a simple idea to grasp.

This can be done without wrecking downtown, despite what others here seem to think. In fact, if done properly it becomes a driver for other great projects an development, as should most if not all MAPS projects; especially the expensive ones.

My questions are, and I don't know if the answers are available. I've never seen them answered in a satisfactory fashion: Precisely what kind of conventions can we realistically assume we can attract? Will there be a significant increment in the size and type of conventions we can attract with a new convention center based on location? Can a convention center built with what many cities would consider a fairly small budget actually become a driver for other great projects? How and why?

Sorry, I didn't realize that you had all of the facts at your disposal.

So are you saying there is a lack of transparency in this process? There are discussions about locations other than what has been released to the public who is funding this project? Why not inform us about these "facts" most of us are evidently missing?

I don't doubt you may have heard a few things most of us are not privy to, but that only reinforces the impression this particular project has been a series of backroom deals of the sort no one should support.

The truth is this convention center is still going to be more for local and regional events than anything else. The GE facility may in fact attract more O&G related events and it would be nice to attract more medical research events - I hope it does. But there is no reasonable expectation this facility is going to rival or draw convention business away from established locations. The claim of the cc being the "crown jewel" of MAPS3 was stupid the first time it was uttered and still is. I agree OKC needs an improved convention facility but some perspective and realistic expectations also need to be maintained.

If the Chamber projections are going to be used as the 'success' measuring stick - prepare for disappointment.

Sorry everyone for the accidental double posts. Hard to do this in depth on my phone..

I think that of course all needs should be balanced. I've never said differently. I've only said that if you're going to build a convention center that it should not fail to attract conventions. That would be dumb and wasteful. Seems like a simple idea to grasp.

This can be done without wrecking downtown, despite what others here seem to think. In fact, if done properly it becomes a driver for other great projects an development, as should most if not all MAPS projects; especially the expensive ones.

Right, and sorry if the question sounded combative or if this thread has gotten so divisive that we resort to combat. That said, I really am curious specifically A) how you would word or express the need to balance goals and B) how specifically can these various sites NOT wreck downtown.

I too want conventions obviously, I've just not seen too many examples where a CC was a totally positive addition. I am for any CC that attracts conventions and doesn't wreck downtown, and I would even be for finding ways to enhance funding for such a facility. One thing I am not for though is leaving half the site undeveloped for the next twenty years to hold that section of downtown (possibly park frontage even) hostage until funding is procured.

I also agree with Betts that the off the record, behind the scenes discussions are troubling. This is what gives Ed Shadid a pedestal on which to continue to attack MAPS. While one may consider it reassuring that there are plans being formed to ensure we truly pull off a successful CC project including obtaining additional financing, it's understandably less reassuring that we have a projevt for which we're already on the hook, additional financing is allegedly wanted, and we don't know how that will be extracted nor can we plan for the impact of that because "smart people behind the scenes are currently solving te problem" or what have you.

I'll use this accidental double post to mention two CC articles in today's Plain Dealer:

Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati and others compete in convention-center 'arms race' | cleveland.com (http://www.cleveland.com/travel/index.ssf/2015/03/cleveland_columbus_cincinnati.html#incart_m-rpt-1)

http://www.cleveland.com/travel/index.ssf/2015/03/how_clevelands_big_bet_on_conv.html

I think the fallout of the Ford site makes it clear that being a little hush about site selection is necessary to prevent price gouging on land.

I think the Reno & Dewey site will probably be selected, with the south part of the clayco site being used for the hotel. It's weird how they have colored over Reno though in the map graphic, I don't have any idea what that could possibly mean. Hopefully they don't intend to remove a portion of one of the busiest streets in the city (or maybe that would be a good thing?)

I think the fallout of the Ford site makes it clear that being a little hush about site selection is necessary to prevent price gouging on land.

I think the Reno & Dewey site will probably be selected, with the south part of the clayco site being used for the hotel. It's weird how they have colored over Reno though in the map graphic, I don't have any idea what that could possibly mean. Hopefully they don't intend to remove a portion of one of the busiest streets in the city (or maybe that would be a good thing?)

Well we have already obliterated Main Street, with plans to do so for Western, so may as well do Reno as well to comprehensively eliminate any potential connectivity in and out of downtown. Connectivity is bad, Mmkay.

I think the fallout of the Ford site makes it clear that being a little hush about site selection is necessary to prevent price gouging on land.

I think the Reno & Dewey site will probably be selected, with the south part of the clayco site being used for the hotel. It's weird how they have colored over Reno though in the map graphic, I don't have any idea what that could possibly mean. Hopefully they don't intend to remove a portion of one of the busiest streets in the city (or maybe that would be a good thing?)

I imagine they would have an underground exhibit hall that could goes under Reno. I bet you they included the original convention site so they could look into having the convention center west of Hudson and maybe close Walker off? I'm still not sure how they would afford the land unless they do land swaps.

Having the CC facing north/ south along Hudson( or even walker) reduces walk times as opposed to having it west/ east along Reno.


It would be a good idea to go ahead and postpone the boulevard so they could leave up the possibility of placing some of the exhibit hall underneath the boulevard at the Reno and Dewey site.

I'll use this accidental double post to mention two CC articles in today's Plain Dealer:

Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati and others compete in convention-center 'arms race' | cleveland.com (http://www.cleveland.com/travel/index.ssf/2015/03/cleveland_columbus_cincinnati.html#incart_m-rpt-1)

How Cleveland's big bet on convention center is playing out: Success but room for improvement | cleveland.com (http://www.cleveland.com/travel/index.ssf/2015/03/how_clevelands_big_bet_on_conv.html)

They too quote Sanders, who has managed to make himself the media darling of convention center criticism. Although I think some of his assertions may be correct, his research and writing are shoddy and do not meet my criteria for "scientific research". I would love to see some good research on this subject with objective, comparable data.

How is his research shoddy?

His problem is that he's gotten entrenched in the issue he studies. His research, though, is the only credible body of work that exists on convention center economic development. Whether or not he has gotten jaded and cynical isn't really a discredit to his research.

Did you see this NewsOK article from today?

Cost set for new MAPS 3 convention center site analysis | News OK (http://newsok.com/cost-set-for-new-maps-3-convention-center-site-analysis/article/5403870)

The MAPS 3 convention center advisory committee is expected to sign off Tuesday afternoon on a contract with design firm Populous for a new analysis of potential convention center sites.

MAPS 3 program manager David Todd says the new study is expected to cost $265,000.

Work is to begin next week and be wrapped up in June, in time for the city council to vote July 7 on a recommendation.

The city scrapped efforts earlier this month to acquire its preferred site, a several-square-block area west of Chesapeake Energy Arena that for many years included a Ford auto dealership.

The MAPS 3 convention center advisory committee meets at 3:30 p.m. Tuesday at the city office building, 420 W Main St.

The MAPS 3 Citizens Advisory Board is expected to consider the contract on Thursday, and it would go to the city council on March 31.

$265,000 to analyze sites? THAT'S INSANE! They are seriously going to pay someone to re-do their original study and propose the exact same sites (minus 1)?
They can just read on here for potential sites. That is a lot of money..

That report is misleading.

Their entire contract is being increased $265,000 and that includes site evaluation, facility programming and concept design report services.

So, after the new site is selected, they'll still have to do new programming and a concept design. They did many revisions and possible layouts for the current site, so that's a pretty big job. And since the old plan was mainly underground, it's a good bet they'll have to start completely over.

I suspect they would like to charge us a lot more but we simply don't have the budget after flushing a ton of money on the other site.

Our total A&E budget is $31 million and we've already obligated $19.7 million (with the increase) to Populous. We still have to have someone actually design the building from the general concept Populous and the committees agree upon, then engineer the whole thing.

So, after the new site is selected, they'll still have to do new programming and a concept design.

Maybe this time they should wait until after the site is acquired before doing programming and concept design.

Maybe this time they should wait until after the site is acquired before doing programming and concept design.

Tell that to the MAPS 3 project managers (City staff).

They are the ones managing and paying them.


Would be interesting to see how much they've billed us for throw-away work on the old site.

Would be interesting to see how much they've billed us for throw-away work on the old site.

Sure would. I'd also love to know what Populus is thinking right now. I'm sure they're happy to get the extra money, but they got to be shaking their heads behind closed doors.

Populous gets paid $20 million regardless.

We also paid them a bunch of money to study the area around the convention center based on that old site, which is now pretty much useless.


It's the beauty of being a consultant... You get paid for your work regardless of what the client does or doesn't do with it. (And I say that as a consultant myself.)

Maybe this time they should wait until after the site is acquired before doing programming and concept design.


Seems like a 5th grader would have figured this one out.
:Smiley220

If this is all true, then that would mean lots of big, important things have been discussed outside the dozens of public meetings, which is troubling in itself.

In fact, I still haven't heard any official mention of the proposed land swap that was being considered for the old site and if not for the pressing of Ed Shadid at the last City Council meeting, no one would have known there was an issue with the eminent domain action in itself, particularly as it has to do with the cc hotel. And that *still* hasn't been reported or mentioned by anyone affiliated with this process; the only time it came up was when the City Attorney casually slipped into the council discussion. And nobody -- including the Council -- seems to understand the implications or even what happened.

So, if the public (such as people on this board) are engaging in "just a lot of noise" that is because what is supposed to be a very transparent and highly public process is in fact neither of those things.

Crickets.... No offense Urbanized. If developer-based political machinations were off the table, I'd say City Staff would very much want to go where they know they can get the land for free or for cheap. Also, Some of us have raised holy hell about the streetcar budget, so who knows how that plays into their overall decision making. Half of the sites are near or on the streetcar line. Half are definitely a stretch and would probably affect the southernmost part of the alignment. This is particularly true if you want an direct connection to Bricktown from the Convention Center that isn't four blocks away on Sheridan. Presumably, such changes in streetcar alignment will affect some of our A&E costs as well and require additional steel rail and electrification.... Potentially more cost.

It will be interesting to see the tug-of-war play out between land costs, developer offerings, politics, and our request to re-suspend the $30 million substation contingency until the streetcar project budget is fully understood barring route changes that this CC site change may present.

I guess I will go to the meeting tomorrow and record that one as well.

I guess I will go to the meeting tomorrow and record that one as well.

Please do!


At the last committee meeting City Staff told everyone that land the cost and ease of land acquisition would be a big factor.

But, if there are supposedly all these other dealings that the general public doesn't know about and aren't being discussed in these meetings, then how exactly does it get figured in?

Is that part of the rating process or does all that stuff just happen behind the scenes and take precedent over the ratings?

And again, how does possible issues with eminent domain fit into this?


It seems we are just doing the same things that led to this problem in the first place.

City Staff is typically risk-adverse. Obviously, the CC Subcommittee had a great deal of influence on even having a site selection process. Russell Claus didn't put up a fight and it simply happened. I doubt they have the same level of influence after this situation.

However, has anyone ever seen it in writing from OG+E as to what the costs actually would have been to move the substation for the original site? For all we know, that number was totally arbitrary and did have an affect on the process.

If these conversations are happening that Urbanized asserts, the only people who really have capability of actually meaningfully having them would be Cathy O' Connor and/or Jim Couch. I guess Mike Carrier might be a conduit. Everybody else is a volunteer or a City Staffer.

Crickets.... No offense Urbanized...
Oh, please. I didn't see Pete's post because apparently he was composing and posted it at about the same time that I was composing and posted my most recent one. I missed it. I certainly am not afraid of responding to different views, which anyone here should know about me at this point.

I haven't had much time to catch up in this thread because I was WORKING TODAY. And frankly, I mostly try to avoid this trainwreck of a thread when I'm on the board - and have for years - because it's a stacked deck, mostly just a bunch of circular reasoning, usually by people who have an axe to grind in some way with the CC. Pete was right in being concerned about it being an echo chamber. It is one indeed. It bums me out; I'm not going to change minds here, and there are many other places on the board where I would rather spend my time.

It's not my job to sell people on whether or not we should have a CC; there was a vote and the majority of voters chose to have one. As long as that is the case, I personally think we should have one that functions to the best benefit of the City and its taxpayers. I feel EXACTLY the same way about the streetcar and any other MAPS project that you or anyone else might bring up.

Regarding these assertions that just because City staff and officials might be privy to ideas/information that have/has not yet been made public its the same thing as a lack of transparency; they're wrong. I hate to break it to folks, but City staff, elected officials and consultants have meetings, the call each other, they do research, ALL OF THE DAMN DAY, EVERY DAY. It's WHAT WE PAY THEM TO DO. Where do people think staff reports and recommendations come from? Do they think committees and the Council just show up at public meetings and start from scratch in their decision-making?

City staff's jobs REQUIRE THEM to gather facts, make sure they are properly vetted, make recommendations, and execute as directed by appropriate governing bodies.

I'm not saying negotiations are happening; I'm saying they are looking at all of the different methods they can bring to bear to solve the issues at hand. That's it. In concert with the consultant and ultimately with the committee, MAPS board and City Council they will THEN make decisions. Every bit of this is entirely correct and appropriate, and it's disingenuous and reckless to suggest otherwise.

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

Since it was asserted previously I did not know how to measure distance or estimate travel time, I went on a little walkabout this afternoon to see how long it takes to get from proposed C2S East / East Park North location to various locations in Bricktown.

I used the intersection of SW 3rd & Broadway as an imaginary CC entrance - south of Chesapeake Arena and the approximate point the CC and CC hotel will join in the drawings Pete and Spartan posted.

I stayed on sidewalks or along the street and did not cut across empty lots or parking lots. I stopped at all crosswalk lights and waited for to get the walk signal before crossing even if there was no traffic approaching. It was between 4:30 and 5:30 this afternoon with moderate traffic in the area. I walked at a normal pace (for a lame guy with a bum Achilles).

It took 9:30 to get from the fountain in front of Harkins Theater to the CC "entrance".
It took 10:25 to get from the "entrance" to the center of the bridge on Oklahoma Ave that crosses the Bricktown canal.
It took 11:49 to get to the intersection of Oklahoma Ave and Sheridan.

Pretty much exactly as I thought. Within the "standard" distance to restaurants desired by convention planners or at the very least, close enough for reasonable people. Even if the main entrance to the CC is on the west side, there is almost sure to be an entrance on the north side.

It will be interesting to see how and if this argument is used to influence the decision one way or the other. But the facts on this point are clear and easy to determine for oneself.

Oh, please. I didn't see Pete's post because apparently he was composing and posted it at about the same time that I was composing and posted my most recent one. I missed it. I certainly am not afraid of responding to different views, which anyone here should know about me at this point.

I haven't had much time to catch up in this thread because I was WORKING TODAY. And frankly, I mostly try to avoid this trainwreck of a thread when I'm on the board - and have for years - because it's a stacked deck, mostly just a bunch of circular reasoning, usually by people who have an axe to grind in some way with the CC. Pete was right in being concerned about it being an echo chamber. It is one indeed. It bums me out; I'm not going to change minds here, and there are many other places on the board where I would rather spend my time.

It's not my job to sell people on whether or not we should have a CC; there was a vote and the majority of voters chose to have one. As long as that is the case, I personally think we should have one that functions to the best benefit of the City and its taxpayers. I feel EXACTLY the same way about the streetcar and any other MAPS project that you or anyone else might bring up.

Regarding these assertions that just because City staff and officials might be privy to ideas/information that have/has not yet been made public its the same thing as a lack of transparency; they're wrong. I hate to break it to folks, but City staff, elected officials and consultants have meetings, the call each other, they do research, ALL OF THE DAMN DAY, EVERY DAY. It's WHAT WE PAY THEM TO DO. Where do people think staff reports and recommendations come from? Do they think committees and the Council just show up at public meetings and start from scratch in their decision-making?

City staff's jobs REQUIRE THEM to gather facts, make sure they are properly vetted, make recommendations, and execute as directed by appropriate governing bodies.

I'm not saying negotiations are happening; I'm saying they are looking at all of the different methods they can bring to bear to solve the issues at hand. That's it. In concert with the consultant and ultimately with the committee, MAPS board and City Council they will THEN make decisions. Every bit of this is entirely correct and appropriate, and it's disingenuous and reckless to suggest otherwise.


At at all sensitive are we? Lol I'll buy you a beer next time I see you. Well let's be clear though, you laid a little bit of innuendo out there and some folks are paranoid about the Convention Center. On a personal level, I could care less where it goes as long as we stay within budget and it doesn't affect the streetcar further. It needs to be something that we can be proud of though.

It's City staff's jobs REQUIRE THEM to gather facts, make sure they are properly vetted, make recommendations, and execute as directed by appropriate governing bodies.

Trouble is, there are many folks who are asking if this really happened on "Round 1". I suspect that IT WILL happen on "Round 2". But they have definitely reinforced some of the conspiratorial "echo chamber" walls by how this was handled. It's awkward to say the least.

I'm all for extending MAPS III tax for another 3+ years to make sure we do this right. Only way for this to happen would be a public vote right? With the economy back on track, I wonder if we would see as much resistance as we did last time. Make a billion of public enhancements, I don't see it hurting it anything. Let's go ahead and build the streetcar from 63rd to I240. Lets pay for the convention hotel. Let's raise money to make the Skydance smooth surfaced. Am I the only one who feels this way?

Oh, please. I didn't see Pete's post because apparently he was composing and posted it at about the same time that I was composing and posted my most recent one. I missed it. I certainly am not afraid of responding to different views, which anyone here should know about me at this point.

I haven't had much time to catch up in this thread because I was WORKING TODAY. And frankly, I mostly try to avoid this trainwreck of a thread when I'm on the board - and have for years - because it's a stacked deck, mostly just a bunch of circular reasoning, usually by people who have an axe to grind in some way with the CC. Pete was right in being concerned about it being an echo chamber. It is one indeed. It bums me out; I'm not going to change minds here, and there are many other places on the board where I would rather spend my time.

It's not my job to sell people on whether or not we should have a CC; there was a vote and the majority of voters chose to have one. As long as that is the case, I personally think we should have one that functions to the best benefit of the City and its taxpayers. I feel EXACTLY the same way about the streetcar and any other MAPS project that you or anyone else might bring up.

Regarding these assertions that just because City staff and officials might be privy to ideas/information that have/has not yet been made public its the same thing as a lack of transparency; they're wrong. I hate to break it to folks, but City staff, elected officials and consultants have meetings, the call each other, they do research, ALL OF THE DAMN DAY, EVERY DAY. It's WHAT WE PAY THEM TO DO. Where do people think staff reports and recommendations come from? Do they think committees and the Council just show up at public meetings and start from scratch in their decision-making?

City staff's jobs REQUIRE THEM to gather facts, make sure they are properly vetted, make recommendations, and execute as directed by appropriate governing bodies.

I'm not saying negotiations are happening; I'm saying they are looking at all of the different methods they can bring to bear to solve the issues at hand. That's it. In concert with the consultant and ultimately with the committee, MAPS board and City Council they will THEN make decisions. Every bit of this is entirely correct and appropriate, and it's disingenuous and reckless to suggest otherwise.

Who has an ax to grind in some way with the CC, and why might that be?

I'm all for extending MAPS III tax for another 3+ years to make sure we do this right. Only way for this to happen would be a public vote right? With the economy back on track, I wonder if we would see as much resistance as we did last time. Make a billion of public enhancements, I don't see it hurting it anything. Let's go ahead and build the streetcar from 63rd to I240. Lets pay for the convention hotel. Let's raise money to make the Skydance smooth surfaced. Am I the only one who feels this way?

If the price of oil is low at the time of the vote. It would fail by large margins.

Who has an ax to grind in some way with the CC, and why might that be?

OMG Spartan, read the thread with an open mind and ask yourself the same question.

Urbanized,

I'm not convinced that we've seen as much of an axe to grind in the most recent round of posts about the CC. People early on were worried it would take money from other projects, and that's proven to be unfounded thus far, but nearly nobody is talking about that at this point.

What most of us are worried about is:

1. That the CC conversation is happening in a vacuum of itself. It's not an axe to grind against the CC to have the opinion that the Cox block is too important in the long run to put a CC there. Therefore, if the only viable place to put a CC is on the Cox site, we'd be better off ditching the project altogether. That's not an axe to grind, that's just having an opinion that certain things should come before the CC.

2. There has been no public discussion about the elephant in the room: We don't have enough money and outside of the TIF that was being talked about but no longer possible, there has been no public discussion about how we will raise funds to do this right. We're getting too damn close to the end of the MAPS 3 tax to not be talking about this PUBLICLY. We need to start getting an idea of how the public is going to react to us asking for more money for the project.

These are the 2 issues that we're all looking for answers to, and the issues that are framing the discussion going on in this thread.

we don't have enough money

I was convinced from day one that the CC was moved up in the timeline specifically so the convention center wouldn't be the only project in a 'finish MAPS right' campaign. I think they have known all along they didn't have enough money.

If the price of oil is low at the time of the vote. It would fail by large margins.

I doubt there is any objective data to support this conclusion.

Every time I got in the cox I don't understand why we need a new convention center. Its not like the place is falling apart.

I'm sure this has been discussed plenty, but what exactly will the new convention center have that already isn't available in the cox or couldn't be available with a massive upgrade?

Who has an ax to grind in some way with the CC, and why might that be?

I spent part of the day with a number of people central to this issue and other issues downtown. They are amused at how wrong so many posters on this site have it. They even commented that when actual information IS revealed that it is often attacked..or better yet, the person saying it is attacked. I know that to be a fact. I have quit trying to provide actual insight base on knowledge as I am nearly always attacked for it. I am not sure who on this site is TRULY objective. There are some on here who are trying to give actual perspective and it doesn't fit certain paranoia and preconceived notions. People need to learn who gets it right and who just fantasizes and opines dogma.

Who has an ax to grind in some way with the CC, and why might that be?

The folks who are implying something sinister about staff and officials having more information at this moment than the public?