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.

So everyone who cares about OKC and follows this as closely as possible should just sit quietly and trust our ruling-class overlords on a project that has just completely come off the rails after four years of work? What country are we living in?

What 'actual information' has been revealed and attacked? All I see is a bunch of condescending and vague references to "things in the works" that the great unwashed are clearly not entitled to know about.

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.

Did they admit that, heretofore, most of the work done on the convention center has been a mistake of a noteworthy scale? Did they admit that they vastly underestimated property values? Have they admitted that they have been anything but upfront and transparent with even the city freaking council?

There is a very wide spectrum of posters on this board, and an even wider array of opinion espoused by said posters. Posters are sometimes even going to go "too far" with a thought or opinion so as to make a claim of something they aren't that serious about. It's the nature of the internet. But to use the radical end of the opposite side of the spectrum to dismiss the valid points of that whole same side is ridiculous. There are too many people on this forum who are well informed and reasonably objective and rational, Pete being chief among them, who are trying to raise concerns in the most public and far-reaching forum (internet or otherwise) this City has and the response from those involved is "Go home, you're drunk"?

Honest questions:

If there was corruption or complete mismanagement in City dealings -- and I'm not saying that is at all the case with this project -- how would anyone know about it?

And why is the public and press so wiling and ready to investigate and judge the state government (those idiots on Lincoln!) and at the same time just assuming that people with similar responsibilities at the City level are somehow above reproach?


There were big front page headlines yesterday about a state senator spending $64,000 on an unknown project.

Today another $265,000 will be awarded Populous because of mistakes made in the convention center process, and few will question it. As I've documented, Project 180 has been dramatically over budget, under scope and way, way past the promised timelines. And millions of TIF dollars are dispensed without any formal guidelines or parameters whatsoever.


It's a crazy double-standard.

So everyone who cares about OKC and follows this as closely as possible should just sit quietly and trust our ruling-class overlords on a project that has just completely come off the rails after four years of work? What country are we living in?

What 'actual information' has been revealed and attacked? All I see is a bunch of condescending and vague references to "things in the works" that the great unwashed are clearly not entitled to know about.

Pete, you are above this response. No one is advocating underhanded behind the scenes dealings. At the same time, everything isn't underhanded and corrupt.

There are LOTS of frustrated people on this deal. There have clearly been big mistakes made and lots of good people just trying to figure out what to propose as a fix.

Honest questions:

If there was corruption or complete mismanagement in City dealings -- and I'm not saying that is at all the case with this project -- how would anyone know about it?

And why is the public and press so wiling and ready to investigate and judge the state government (those idiots on Lincoln!) and at the same time just assuming that people with similar responsibilities at the City level are somehow above reproach?


There were big front page headlines yesterday about a state senator spending $64,000 on an unknown project.

Today another $265,000 will be awarded Populous because of mistakes made in the convention center process, and few will question it. As I've documented, Project 180 has been dramatically over budget, under scope and way, way past the promised timelines. And millions of TIF dollars are dispensed without any formal guidelines or parameters whatsoever.


It's a crazy double-standard.

I doubt Malicious or nefarious thoughts are going on with the City, maybe ineptness, and/or short-sighted planning is my guess. Mistakes happen; but you need to OWN them when they do.
John Q. is forgiving until you lie to him late in the game. OWN it now with public relations because they are going to have to go back to the table for the monies.

Pete, you are above this response. No one is advocating underhanded behind the scenes dealings. At the same time, everything isn't underhanded and corrupt.

Strawman. I don't see anyone saying "everything is underhanded and corrupt".

Mismanaged, yes. That's been well established and that's generally what we've been talking about... And what exactly is wrong with that?


I also deeply resent the attempts to negatively characterize what has been informed (as informed as the process will allow), educated and constructive attempts to think through the options.

We have people going to the meetings and reading all the documents and talking to decisions makers. Again, if this discussion is as misguided as a few would like to suggest, that is a complete indictment of the process, not the people discussing it.

Strawman. I don't see anyone saying "everything is underhanded and corrupt".

Mismanaged, yes. That's been well established and that's generally what we've been talking about... And what exactly is wrong with that?


I also deeply resent the attempts to negatively characterize what has been informed (as informed as the process will allow), educated and constructive attempts to think through the options.

We have people going to the meetings and reading all the documents and talking to decisions makers. Again, if this discussion is as misguided as a few would like to suggest, that is a complete indictment of the process, not the people discussing it.

What public meetings? The convention center "public meetings" are a dog and pony show to reveal information that has already been decided upon.

I guess these meetings are a waste of time if the information presented is already irrelevant only one week after? And people wonder why voter turn out is so low.

Pete, you are above this response. No one is advocating underhanded behind the scenes dealings. At the same time, everything isn't underhanded and corrupt.

There are LOTS of frustrated people on this deal. There have clearly been big mistakes made and lots of good people just trying to figure out what to propose as a fix.

But those involved have yet to come out with even a public admission of mistakes made, let alone an apology for the irresponsibility which is definitely warranted. They're trying to save face. It's not that they were corrupt, and I don't think most here are genuinely concerned that that is the issue, even if they hint at it…talk of corruption is a rhetorical game being run to garner more transparency and public accountability.

It's a very easy situation to address, even if the solutions to the problems are not easy to figure out, and that's what's frustrating:

"Dear public,

We included a convention center in the docket for MAPS 3 because our current facilities are quickly becoming obsolete and much interest has been expressed for our city as a destination by convention planners. Our hope with the new convention center is that we will be able to construct a new facility that serves both the OKC public and out of town conventions with a facility, and that we are able to incorporate the facility into downtown in such a way that it complements its surroundings and breeds success for both itself, and for the immediate area in which it is placed.

This vision has been met with some significant setbacks due to a variety of circumstances, some foreseeable and preventable, some not. We regret that the process we have taken has included the following setbacks [list of foreseeable setbacks]. We apologize to the public for making these mistakes.

Since MAPS 3 was passed, downtown has experienced an unprecedented and unforeseeable boom that requires that we take a different approach to the convention center project. We budgeted an amount for land acquisition that, at the time, was an amount that was expected to be competitive in the market. In the past 5 years since the vote, downtown real estate values have increased at an unpredictable rate and we no longer have adequate funding to build not only what we originally envisioned which was for a downtown and city that was expected to grow at a more modest rate, but for a facility that we must re-imagine as more competitive and complimentary to the downtown we are on pace to build over the next 30 years.

We are looking into a variety of funding mechanisms including [list of funding mechanisms] to build the competitive and complimentary facility this city needs. We will be selecting a final site for this project in July of this year and later in the year present a more comprehensive plan to the public that addresses all of the projects needs.

We ask that the public be understanding of the setbacks and we ask that the public understand our regret and accept our apology for the mistakes made so far. We will, as we always have, come together as a community to use this opportunity to make an even better city than we envisioned when we passed MAPS 3 in 2009.

Thank you for your understanding.

-The CC committee and City officials"

But those involved have yet to come out with even a public admission of mistakes made, let alone an apology for the irresponsibility which is definitely warranted. They're trying to save face. It's not that they were corrupt, and I don't think most here are genuinely concerned that that is the issue, even if they hint at it…talk of corruption is a rhetorical game being run to garner more transparency and public accountability.

It's a very easy situation to address, even if the solutions to the problems are not easy to figure out, and that's what's frustrating:

"Dear public,

We included a convention center in the docket for MAPS 3 because our current facilities are quickly becoming obsolete and much interest has been expressed for our city as a destination by convention planners. Our hope with the new convention center is that we will be able to construct a new facility that serves both the OKC public and out of town conventions with a facility, and that we are able to incorporate the facility into downtown in such a way that it complements its surroundings and breeds success for both itself, and for the immediate area in which it is placed.

This vision has been met with some significant setbacks due to a variety of circumstances, some foreseeable and preventable, some not. We regret that the process we have taken has included the following setbacks [list of foreseeable setbacks]. We apologize to the public for making these mistakes.

Since MAPS 3 was passed, downtown has experienced an unprecedented and unforeseeable boom that requires that we take a different approach to the convention center project. We budgeted an amount for land acquisition that, at the time, was an amount that was expected to be competitive in the market. In the past 5 years since the vote, downtown real estate values have increased at an unpredictable rate and we no longer have adequate funding to build not only what we originally envisioned which was for a downtown and city that was expected to grow at a more modest rate, but for a facility that we must re-imagine as more competitive and complimentary to the downtown we are on pace to build over the next 30 years.

We are looking into a variety of funding mechanisms including [list of funding mechanisms] to build the competitive and complimentary facility this city needs. We will be selecting a final site for this project in July of this year and later in the year present a more comprehensive plan to the public that addresses all of the projects needs.

We ask that the public be understanding of the setbacks and we ask that the public understand our regret and accept our apology for the mistakes made so far. We will, as we always have, come together as a community to use this opportunity to make an even better city than we envisioned when we passed MAPS 3 in 2009.

Thank you for your understanding.

-The CC committee and City officials"

Sounds reasonable to me.
Would sound better if the Mayor would say it.

Then get on with buying the land and worry about the designs and costs later.
Land owners are sticking up for sale signs the last two weeks, I guess they figure their property will be worth more if they put a price on it.

Did they admit that, heretofore, most of the work done on the convention center has been a mistake of a noteworthy scale? Did they admit that they vastly underestimated property values? Have they admitted that they have been anything but upfront and transparent with even the city freaking council?

There is a very wide spectrum of posters on this board, and an even wider array of opinion espoused by said posters. Posters are sometimes even going to go "too far" with a thought or opinion so as to make a claim of something they aren't that serious about. It's the nature of the internet. But to use the radical end of the opposite side of the spectrum to dismiss the valid points of that whole same side is ridiculous. There are too many people on this forum who are well informed and reasonably objective and rational, Pete being chief among them, who are trying to raise concerns in the most public and far-reaching forum (internet or otherwise) this City has and the response from those involved is "Go home, you're drunk"?

I think any dismissiveness of "posters on this site" is indicative of a problem we have in this city. It is paternalistic and allows the powers that be to justify any decision made. While there are people in decision-making capacities that are incredibly knowledgeable, there are also plenty who want what they want because it's what they want, and it would be interesting to hear how complex and educated their reasoning is, were we allowed to question them directly.

We have some very knowledgeable people posting here, and regardless, public opinion should have some part in the political process.

What is kind of interesting is to go back and read this thread from the very beginning and see who has been right all along,

I think any dismissiveness of "posters on this site" is indicative of a problem we have in this city. It is paternalistic and allows the powers that be to justify any decision made. While there are people in decision-making capacities that are incredibly knowledgeable, there are also plenty who want what they want because it's what they want, and it would be interesting to hear how complex and educated their reasoning is, were we allowed to question them directly.

We have some very knowledgeable people posting here, and regardless, public opinion should have some part in the political process.

100% agree.

The thing that frustrates me the most about online communication is that people are categorized in 2-dimensional, this-side or that-side positions. There seems to be no room for nuance, and anytime nuance is injected into the conversation it's either 1. Ignored or 2. Treated unfairly or outright dismissed.

What kills me is that the majority segment of this board has a common goal: To support and vouch for Oklahoma City as a whole, and especially the downtown area. Some are very well-educated, some very well-connected, and plenty of people who are both. Then there are a lot of posters like myself who are still learning, and interested and being active in the most viable ways we can find, who are asking questions, putting out ideas to be further refined, and generally sharing our passion and concern for our city. Most of us are invested in multiple ways, even if we don't have the same resources as the major movers and shakers in this city. I've seen some incredible ideas come from people outside of the well-educated/well-connected segment of this board and there's no reason not to listen to these ideas and use them to make a better city.

There is an immature segment of the board –that is the nature of the internet– but by and large, this is a pool full of good ideas and idea refinement. On the rare occasions that the immature segment's opinion has aligned with the majority of the board, I've noticed the most amount of pushback from the city, and that is the wrong approach. I've very rarely seen this board be completely off-base, mainly because it represents a fairly wide-swath of contributors and a more objective view ends up bubbling up to the surface, particularly when it comes to more public projects.

I know one thing for sure, if Reno is to be the primary walking route between the CC and Bricktown then Reno needs to go on a diet. That traffic is way to fast to be safely traversed by out of towners on a regular basis, not to mention completely uninviting. On a rainy day with no on-street parking too many people would be constantly getting splashed.

I know one thing for sure, if Reno is to be the primary walking route between the CC and Bricktown then Reno needs to go on a diet. That traffic is way to fast to be safely traversed by out of towners on a regular basis, not to mention completely uninviting. On a rainy day with no on-street parking too many people would be constantly getting splashed.

Agree. Not to mention it is an ugly street. When I told Jim Couch and Eric Wenger that I though it had no aesthetic merit, and was distinctly pedestrian unfriendly) they were shocked (or at least pretended to be).

Urban Pioneer is texting from the cc meeting just now...

Said that Roy Williams (Chamber) say it would kill the CVB business if the Cox site had to go dark for three years. Seems like the CVB and Chamber are still dead-set against the Cox site unless they can figure out a creative way to keep part of it open during construction, which seems highly unlikely.

The committee is still waiting for Populous to update the rating grid; not much can be done until then.

Couch mentioned the original site isn't necessarily off the table, which would explain why it was added back to the graphic / list of possible sites.

Interesting to note: Chris Fleming from REHCO (owner of original site) is at the meeting.

Steve tweeted that David blumenthal is at ( or being represented at the meeting) his family and company own large sums of land all throughout the core 2 shore area. If a site near th farmers market or west Central Park site is chosen I wouldn't be surprised to see it be some sort of agreement with lots of devolpment by him around it. Similar to what hall is doing with the 21 c but that's just a guess. It does show that there are land owners who want to try and make different areas work and would include private devolpment.

In case anyone else wants to follow along: https://twitter.com/stevelackmeyer

(Also, you should be following Steve anyway if you aren't already and are active on Twitter.)

So what we know so far

1) not going east of railroad
2) not going on Cox site
3) hotel has to be directly attached
4) nothing is going underground

My guess: a restored street grid and the south half of the Clayco site. Hopefully the hotel will face MBG.

On edit: all 5 proposed Clayco buildings can easily fit on the Stage Center site.

The way the rating grid is setup, there is a heavy emphasis on proximity to existing hotels and Bricktown.

The fact Chris Fleming was in attendance tells me there is still a good chance it will go on the original site.

That is the site the entire committee and all the people of influence have wanted all the way along and I'm sure they will all try and move heaven and earth to make it happen.

I think any dismissiveness of "posters on this site" is indicative of a problem we have in this city. It is paternalistic and allows the powers that be to justify any decision made. While there are people in decision-making capacities that are incredibly knowledgeable, there are also plenty who want what they want because it's what they want, and it would be interesting to hear how complex and educated their reasoning is, were we allowed to question them directly.

We have some very knowledgeable people posting here, and regardless, public opinion should have some part in the political process.

Absolutely. By dismissing the majority of posters here -- who are offering opinions -- someone is being defensive. Easier to try to discredit the source than it is to confront valid questions. It's also interesting when long-time posters here join the chorus of "complaining insiders" by using condescending, arrogant, and even somewhat bullying language toward polite, rational and informed posters here.

At at all sensitive are we? Lol I'll buy you a beer next time I see you...
Is that why you said "no offense"? Generally "no offense" accompanies a statement that someone KNOWS will bring some offense. Suggesting that since someone hasn't responded it's the same thing as not having a response is a common message board tactic/cheapshot. You're better than that, UP.

Despite my high level of participation on OKCTalk I actually DO have a life (and job) outside of this board. Especially this time of year.

The way the rating grid is setup, there is a heavy emphasis on proximity to existing hotels and Bricktown.

The fact Chris Fleming was in attendance tells me there is still a good chance it will go on the original site.

That is the site the entire committee and all the people of influence have wanted all the way along and I'm sure they will all try and move heaven and earth to make it happen.

Maybe a someone will donate the money to buy the site and Populous will give back the quarter million to pick a new site. And pigs will fly. My concern is where they'll start looking for spare cash for their "crown jewel".

100% agree."Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it" and this whole situation is a great reminder of that axiom.

Back in the Fifties and Sixties, the Pei plan was first brought into prominence, then adopted and acted upon, in much the same way as the current problem has been and apparently still is being addressed. We all know the consequences of that -- but all too few folk realize that Pei's original plan, had it been implemented, would have created a far better result that the downtown desert that resulted. However it got modified many times between the proposal and the final actions bore little resemblance to his original vision. Would anyone care to wager that we're NOT repeating those 60-year-old mistakes?

Suggesting that since someone hasn't responded it's the same thing as not having a response is a common message board tactic/cheapshot. You're better than that, UP.

Well first of all, apologies. 2nd of all, I believe/trust you missed Pete's post. It has happened to me too. It was a unnecessary douchey cheapshot just to get under your skin a little bit. I thought you would take it with jest since we are friends.

And I was however sincere about the beer or I wouldn't have offered.

However, enough with the innuendo about backroom conversations from not only you, but multiple posters. I went to the meeting and spent time there afterward speaking to several people. There really isn't any reason for this to be a clouded process. This is a moment for everyone to work together to solve this location problem. The first process failed. Round 2. This is public money. It deserves a transparent process.

There really isn't any reason for this to be a clouded process. This is a moment for everyone to work together to solve this location problem. The first process failed. Round 2. This is public money. It deserves a transparent process.

I think this is what nearly everyone here is saying in one way or another - and throwing different ideas out along the way. There are only a couple people implying "those in the know" are working on it and will tell us what is going to be done regardless of any reasonable ideas from those of us outside the inner circle. Many of us still remember how the original ratings certainly appeared skewed to arrive at a predetermined conclusion - a conclusion that in light of recent events should have never taken precedence above other options. Maybe this entire mess would have been avoided had there been more transparency in the process.

And just to recap a few points from today's meeting based on memory-

1. All seats were taken.

2. Roy Williams made it a point to state that he had been told that putting the CC on the Cox site was a no go as we would lose the business that had been established.

3. The substation site has not been considered a "fatal flawed" location and remains on the map until it is ranked out.

4. Mike Adams, (MAPS 3 Oversight Board) specifically asked that the northernmost MAPS 3 Park (the grand lawn area fronting the Boulevard) be formally added as one of the alternative sites to be considered.

5. Gary Gregory, (a real estate broker who had represented the COOP site in the past), made a semi-formal pitch for the Blumenthal family land that fronts Walker and the new Boulevard one block west of the park.

6. Kimberly Lowe, (MAPS 3 Oversight Board), sent a text read via Meg Salyer, stating that she believes that eliminating the Ford Dealership site means that other site should be factored without basement expo halls to reduce building costs and keep the overall program within budget.

7. OkieDave, (David Glover), made a big pitch to reuse the Cox site by redeveloping from the inside (arena space) outward.

8. Chris Flemming with the Howard Group was present. I found that telling.

9. Larry Nichols asked if the streetcar route could be modified to accommodate whichever site was chosen.

10. There was discussion about the declination of the new OKC Boulevard under the railroad underpass and how that might affect the site fronting the Boulevard in Core 2 Shore south.

11. Susan Hooper, (MAPS 3 Oversight Board), asked about implications to sites via the Santa Fe Station expansion plan and relationship to the streetcar. They kindly gave me the light pointer and we got to go over all of the various implications to transit regarding the various sites. I'm really glad I got to go to the meeting as there was quite a bit of ambiguity about these issues. Also, I got to press the fact that changes to our streetcar plans may affect our budget and that we may need additional money to cover any gap that might be created by changing these site locations.

12. Gary Marrs, (CC subcommittee), asked whether scoring of sites could also include a factor as to their affect on costs and coordination of the other city-involved projects at hand.

13. Meg Salyer emphasized that this might be an opportunity to re-score affects to and positive results from external economic development projects.

14. Jim Couch was asked if the Howard/Ford site could be reconsidered. He said yes.

15. Mike Carrier expressed his desire for adequate expansion room.

16. Populous stated that they were looking at parking opportunities that could also enable development outside of the CC project.

17. Cathy O'Connor stated that all of the CC hotel contenders were fine with the site reevaluation process and only want assurances that the hotel site will be directly next to the CC.

Probably a few more thoughts will come. I suspect it will either end up back at the original site or the sites east or west of the park in Core 2 Shore South.

nm

Thanks so much UP.

Apology accepted; I wasn't NOT going to let you buy me a beer anyway... ;)

As far as people stopping things, you should stop saying I'm making "innuendos" or suggesting back room deals are afoot. I've never said anything like that, and in fact it's mostly people questioning the process who are suggesting it. Actually, I think you are completely misapplying the term. An "innuendo" is what is being made by the people here who continue to suggest the process is less than honest. An "innuendo" is disparaging. "Innuendo" is suggesting that one project is going to come after your favorite project's funding, despite no evidence to that effect. "Innuendo" is suggesting the process is "cloudy."

Here, check out the definition of the word for yourself: Innuendo - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/innuendo)

What I've said that there are creative and dedicated people working hard on this issue. I've said that I think there are reconfiguration and financing options that they are looking into that could make things work better. I've said that people on this board who are drawing up their Sim City site plans as if the C2SE has already been decided upon are missing the fact that there are other sites clearly in play, sites which are being ignored or dismissed here (I will say that I dig Spartan's creative layout). Some of these posters have said "there's clearly no other option that makes sense or that we can afford," and they are simply wrong about this.

This work by City officials isn't clandestine; it just means that staff are doing due diligence. It is correct for them to do so, it is COMPLETELY appropriate, and will ABSOLUTELY qualify as transparent when their findings are at some point in the near future included in consultants' reports or committee packets for discussion.

Fair enough. And I must confess that a conversation with you is way different than the tone I probably erroneously apply when reading many of your posts.

The City can't afford to jeopardize the MAPS brand with backroom deals that concern the convention center or conference hotel. It was the least popular; yet most expensive of those projects presented before the voters in MAPS III.

The new convention center & conference hotel if it is done right should provide a great venue to become a strong Tier III or potential Tier II convention destinations as we enter the 2020 decade. A conference hotel that provides a study recommend 735 rooms will be the key as we phase out the current Cox Convention Center.

And just to recap a few points from today's meeting based on memory-

1. All seats were taken.

2. Roy Williams made it a point to state that he had been told that putting the CC on the Cox site was a no go as we would lose the business that had been established.

3. The substation site has not been considered a "fatal flawed" location and remains on the map until it is ranked out.

4. Mike Adams, (MAPS 3 Oversight Board) specifically asked that the northernmost MAPS 3 Park (the grand lawn area fronting the Boulevard) be formally added as one of the alternative sites to be considered.

5. Gary Gregory, (a real estate broker who had represented the COOP site in the past), made a semi-formal pitch for the Blumenthal family land that fronts Walker and the new Boulevard one block west of the park.

6. Kimberly Lowe, (MAPS 3 Oversight Board), sent a text read via Meg Salyer, stating that she believes that eliminating the Ford Dealership site means that other site should be factored without basement expo halls to reduce building costs and keep the overall program within budget.

7. OkieDave, (David Glover), made a big pitch to reuse the Cox site by redeveloping from the inside (arena space) outward.

8. Chris Flemming with the Howard Group was present. I found that telling.

9. Larry Nichols asked if the streetcar route could be modified to accommodate whichever site was chosen.

10. There was discussion about the declination of the new OKC Boulevard under the railroad underpass and how that might affect the site fronting the Boulevard in Core 2 Shore south.

11. Susan Hooper, (MAPS 3 Oversight Board), asked about implications to sites via the Santa Fe Station expansion plan and relationship to the streetcar. They kindly gave me the light pointer and we got to go over all of the various implications to transit regarding the various sites. I'm really glad I got to go to the meeting as there was quite a bit of ambiguity about these issues. Also, I got to press the fact that changes to our streetcar plans may affect our budget and that we may need additional money to cover any gap that might be created by changing these site locations.

12. Gary Marrs, (CC subcommittee), asked whether scoring of sites could also include a factor as to their affect on costs and coordination of the other city-involved projects at hand.

13. Meg Salyer emphasized that this might be an opportunity to re-score affects to and positive results from external economic development projects.

14. Jim Couch was asked if the Howard/Ford site could be reconsidered. He said yes.

15. Mike Carrier expressed his desire for adequate expansion room.

16. Populous stated that they were looking at parking opportunities that could also enable development outside of the CC project.

17. Cathy O'Connor stated that all of the CC hotel contenders were fine with the site reevaluation process and only want assurances that the hotel site will be directly next to the CC.

Probably a few more thoughts will come. I suspect it will either end up back at the original site or the sites east or west of the park in Core 2 Shore South.
All of this discussion occurred in a public meeting, yet people claim the project has no transparency. SMH.

I've lost interest in where this thing goes, as long as someone takes Mike Adams and shakes him. Any comments I've made about the CC being the crown jewel were facetious. I spent months convincing reluctant people to vote for MAPS 3, and the best argument was the "quality of life" one. The park is the crown jewel of MAPS 3, and it would be nothing short of stupid to reduce its scope, given the fact that most of us hope for a MAPS 4. Talk about playing into the hands of the opposition....

All of this discussion occurred in a public meeting, yet people claim the project has no transparency. SMH.

Having been at the first meeting where the original site was chosen, it certainly seemed as if Populous was given some sort of impetus to arrive at the desired location. The scoring system had some very odd numbers, and the rationale behind them was odder. I saw no evidence of transparency at that meeting. And now we're talking about a two hour public meeting at which no decision was made.....it's too early to say there was transparency there. We won't be able to say that until we know what site is chosen and why. Also, as a taxpayer, if they go back to the original site, I want my $250,000 back.

I agree with betts as to Mike Adams and that number 4 bullet in UP's post (3003)

I do not know Mike Adams, but suggesting the work done to date on the north aspect of the park be squandered, wasted and tossed aside merely so the cc could be considered going on that spot is just absolute horse turds, and smells far worse.

You don''t fix a honking big error by making another one.

4. Mike Adams, (MAPS 3 Oversight Board) specifically asked that the northernmost MAPS 3 Park (the grand lawn area fronting the Boulevard) be formally added as one of the alternative sites to be considered..

Are you freaking kidding me? There is clearly a group of people willing to discard or diminish any other MAPS 3 project to insure the least popular, according to polling, is built.

Someone needs to ask if the overall MAPS3 timeline will be adjusted to move other projects up since the CC is probably going to be delayed. After all, other projects were split into phases or pushed back just to get the CC moved up in the timeline.

Why not build the entire MAPS streetcar system in one phase?
Why not move some other projects up in the overall MAPS3 timeline?

I want a nice convention center to be built and have no problem with it being a MAPS3 project, but the way it is being handled is getting beyond tiresome. I've been to several subcommittee meetings of a few of the other MAPS3 projects and have no problems with the way those projects are progressing even though some of them have been cut back because of funding issues. But it has long been clear the CC is far more equal than the others and has the backing of the usual influential suspects to push it ahead of anything the voters might prefer.

Why is the CC seemingly untouchable?
Why is there no consideration of reducing the scale of the CC to what we can afford with the MAPS3 funding allocated for it?

I don't think any of those questions are unreasonable in light of recent events.

Apology accepted; I wasn't NOT going to let you buy me a beer anyway... ;)

As far as people stopping things, you should stop saying I'm making "innuendos" or suggesting back room deals are afoot. I've never said anything like that, and in fact it's mostly people questioning the process who are suggesting it. Actually, I think you are completely misapplying the term. An "innuendo" is what is being made by the people here who continue to suggest the process is less than honest. An "innuendo" is disparaging. "Innuendo" is suggesting that one project is going to come after your favorite project's funding, despite no evidence to that effect. "Innuendo" is suggesting the process is "cloudy."

Here, check out the definition of the word for yourself: Innuendo - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/innuendo)

What I've said that there are creative and dedicated people working hard on this issue. I've said that I think there are reconfiguration and financing options that they are looking into that could make things work better. I've said that people on this board who are drawing up their Sim City site plans as if the C2SE has already been decided upon are missing the fact that there are other sites clearly in play, sites which are being ignored or dismissed here (I will say that I dig Spartan's creative layout). Some of these posters have said "there's clearly no other option that makes sense or that we can afford," and they are simply wrong about this.

This work by City officials isn't clandestine; it just means that staff are doing due diligence. It is correct for them to do so, it is COMPLETELY appropriate, and will ABSOLUTELY qualify as transparent when their findings are at some point in the near future included in consultants' reports or committee packets for discussion.

You aren't suggesting that back door deals are afoot, however most people aren't so naive enough to think that that there aren't machinations afoot (read: not necessarily dastardly) to solve this overall equation. There does not seem to be the political will to solve this equation with the amount of funding that is a known commodity. So the problem then is that these machinations which may or may not be afoot (we all know they are, just because we know we are serious about this CC), absolutely require getting more funding out of the public in ways and dollar amounts that are known only to a small handful. Because you had us at the CC vote, which wasn't really a CC vote, and because we don't seem to have a choice but to also fund whatever else the CC needs, there are real funding implications that only get discussed (strictly in a theoretical sense though) on OKC Talk.

Which brings me to your unwarranted criticisms of OKC Talk as this crazy echo chamber of anti-CC ax grinders. I don't appreciate that for the following reasons.
1. Empirically, the pro-CC contingent is far more extreme and unreasonable than the anti-CC contingent.
2. Either way, I feel totally boxed out of the debate by extremists on both sides, either calling to cancel the project or get it more money. Equally insane ideas.
3. There are legitimate reasons to be extremely concerned about this project. I just want for it to be completed the RIGHT way.
4. Regardless of how you (Urbanized) are a proponent for all of MAPS, the same good will is not mutually inclusive of all the pro-CC contingent. Understatement of the year?
5. Given that OUR planners (nvm consultants) were never and will never be given the opportunity to guide this project, there exists little reason for optimism that we will get this right.
6. It's pretty obvious that relegating anyone with CC concerns as an "ax grinder" is the strategy for ignoring such concerns. Oh ye of the group think..

And thanks to UP for the following recaps from the meeting:


And just to recap a few points from today's meeting based on memory-

1. All seats were taken.

2. Roy Williams made it a point to state that he had been told that putting the CC on the Cox site was a no go as we would lose the business that had been established.
This is valuable insight that anyone who challenges the Junta, regardless of pro or anti CC, should really value. Roy is first-class at what he does.

3. The substation site has not been considered a "fatal flawed" location and remains on the map until it is ranked out.
Then what kind of solutions, specifically, are being considered? This is important to get right, so naturally let's ask the consultants... or just Mike Carrier?

4. Mike Adams, (MAPS 3 Oversight Board) specifically asked that the northernmost MAPS 3 Park (the grand lawn area fronting the Boulevard) be formally added as one of the alternative sites to be considered.
Not surprising, this is about what you get from this group. The question though is which project can outbid which? (just kidding, that's not a question)

5. Gary Gregory, (a real estate broker who had represented the COOP site in the past), made a semi-formal pitch for the Blumenthal family land that fronts Walker and the new Boulevard one block west of the park.
A worthwhile alternative but farther from the hotel core that exists now, not being served by the streetcar route, and totally forsaken by ODOT's Blvd..if OKC cared about this site and/or area of downtown, it should have told ODOT so.

6. Kimberly Lowe, (MAPS 3 Oversight Board), sent a text read via Meg Salyer, stating that she believes that eliminating the Ford Dealership site means that other site should be factored without basement expo halls to reduce building costs and keep the overall program within budget.

7. OkieDave, (David Glover), made a big pitch to reuse the Cox site by redeveloping from the inside (arena space) outward.
This should be evaluated, considered, and priced-out, but I really don't think it would work. Nor do I think a CC is the highest and best use of that site.

8. Chris Flemming with the Howard Group was present. I found that telling.
Well they have to know that the assault on their site isn't quite over.

9. Larry Nichols asked if the streetcar route could be modified to accommodate whichever site was chosen.
Well now he wants it to serve his interests.

10. There was discussion about the declination of the new OKC Boulevard under the railroad underpass and how that might affect the site fronting the Boulevard in Core 2 Shore south.
Very important issue, definitely not getting enough attention either on here, other media, or seemingly in official proceedings.

11. Susan Hooper, (MAPS 3 Oversight Board), asked about implications to sites via the Santa Fe Station expansion plan and relationship to the streetcar. They kindly gave me the light pointer and we got to go over all of the various implications to transit regarding the various sites. I'm really glad I got to go to the meeting as there was quite a bit of ambiguity about these issues. Also, I got to press the fact that changes to our streetcar plans may affect our budget and that we may need additional money to cover any gap that might be created by changing these site locations.
Very good, glad that these two projects are being considered dually. At least a positive indication that the CC committee realizes they also need to sell conventions on OKC.

12. Gary Marrs, (CC subcommittee), asked whether scoring of sites could also include a factor as to their affect on costs and coordination of the other city-involved projects at hand.
"Victim of our own 'success';" success being defined as ability to hyper-concentrate MAPS superblock projects.

13. Meg Salyer emphasized that this might be an opportunity to re-score affects to and positive results from external economic development projects.
YES! Amen. We need to stop planning MAPS3's non-transit components based on a 2009 snapshot of where downtown was.

14. Jim Couch was asked if the Howard/Ford site could be reconsidered. He said yes.
Seems like a planted question.

15. Mike Carrier expressed his desire for adequate expansion room.
This is most troubling. Someone needs to call this out as holding a chunk of downtown hostage for more funding. OKC just isn't going to come close to beating other cities on facility size, end of question. Carrier needs to consider the ramifications of having widespread undeveloped and undesirable frontage surrounding his convention center. Maybe he should hire a planner if he and/or the CVB are so stubbornly incapable of considering the built environment.

16. Populous stated that they were looking at parking opportunities that could also enable development outside of the CC project.
This is encouraging and smart. Serving private development as well is a great "kill two birds with one stone" use of TIF or other funds.

17. Cathy O'Connor stated that all of the CC hotel contenders were fine with the site reevaluation process and only want assurances that the hotel site will be directly next to the CC.
Well that IS a change.

Probably a few more thoughts will come. I suspect it will either end up back at the original site or the sites east or west of the park in Core 2 Shore South.

My "knee-jerk" reactions in bold.

I'm surprised that no one's commented on Bluementhal offering 7.6 acres for the CC adjacent to the REHCO site for 13 million ?

http://newsok.com/owner-offers-new-convention-center-site-in-oklahoma-city/article/5404336?earlyAccess=true

I support Mike Adams & the North Maps park site! A better convention center, a better (but smaller) maps park & better areas left for private development. Count me in!

I support Mike Adams & the North Maps park site! A better convention center, a better (but smaller) maps park & better areas left for private development. Count me in!

What makes a smaller park better? We already have a small park in the Myriad Gardens and I think the small size and heavy programming is a hindrance to utilization that promotes a healthy lifestyle. That's what I think an urban park should do, personally.

After all this, I've become convinced they are going to end up back on the original site.

What makes a smaller park better? We already have a small park in the Myriad Gardens and I think the small size and heavy programming is a hindrance to utilization that promotes a healthy lifestyle. That's what I think an urban park should do, personally.

More money to invest in to a smaller space. Quality over quantity, if you may.

There would still be plenty of space in this park, on the south side of I40 & even more south to the river trails.

After all this, I've become convinced they are going to end up back on the original site.

I've thought all along this is just political theater.

I'm sure there was an initial falling out between the two parties but it seems cooler heads have prevailed.

If eminent domain isn't used (and it probably won't) then the building of the convention hotel on this site will no longer be an issue.

After all this, I've become convinced they are going to end up back on the original site.

I've been thinking the same thing. What a bunch of drama and expense for nothing. The money will be interesting to watch though. Hopefully they don't spend so much on land that we get an ugly, cheap box right in the middle of everything. And hopefully they don't go looking for money in other MAPS project budgets. Not a good idea.

My understanding is that REHCO would have taken in the neighborhood of $25 million, so I suspect the City has found a way to bridge the gap between that number and their $13 million budget.

If that happens it will be interesting what populus new study say should be the site. But also what the price of land will be.

I'm surprised that no one's commented on Bluementhal offering 7.6 acres for the CC adjacent to the REHCO site for 13 million ?

Owner offers new convention center site in Oklahoma City | News OK (http://newsok.com/owner-offers-new-convention-center-site-in-oklahoma-city/article/5404336?earlyAccess=true)

Can we use this as a comparable to the ford dealership lot?

This is the Blumenthal site:

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/convention032015b.jpg

The park is the crown jewel of MAPS 3, and it would be nothing short of stupid to reduce its scope,

I agree. I think it's the thing that the most people are most excited about. I also think it's something that people will get behind spending more money on to improve it in the future, because, like the arena, more citizens will actually use it.

There's probably no better indicator of how apathetic the people are about a convention center than when you hear "but we already have one". The cox center is a piece of crap and I think a lot of people have no idea how bad it is because they never have to interact with it.

I like the Bluementhal thought but it's far-ish and would either muck up the boulevard plans and/or would be mucked up by the boulevard plans I suspect. Muck up as in delay one way or the other due to needed design changes.

I want to know more about the $200 million development adjacent to the park that Steve mentioned. Where did that come from?

If we were to go with the Reno&Dewey site, would it be worth considering a Convention Center/Public School hybrid? It would be a scheduling nightmare, and maybe so much so that it's totally impractical, but an interesting thought none the less.

If we were to go with the Reno&Dewey site, would it be worth considering a Convention Center/Public School hybrid? It would be a scheduling nightmare, and maybe so much so that it's totally impractical, but an interesting thought none the less.

Plus, it would mean demolishing a school that would only be a 3-5 years old at that point.

Plus, it would mean demolishing a school that would only be a 3-5 years old at that point.

Why?

I hope the new boulevard is far less massive and less of a chasm between upper and lower CBD than in the photo above. I take it that is the old I-40 route; will the boulevard be less than 1/2 of the old I-40 footprint?