Nm

Both the San Antonio and Denver mayors took incredible heat for the investments they made for their cities. They were viewed as bankrupting the cities with their grandiose arenas and airports. However, by having someone with vision and making a rather large investment, seen as crazy by many, these cities are now major players. Other cities do it, so OKC has to risk a lot to be on par. San Diego is on the same ledge with the stadium. Do you spend $1.5B for a stadium or let it go to the bigger dude up the 5? Will it break San Diego not to have national football - no. Will it lower the city's status on the national stage - yes. After the stadium, we have to spend another $1B on the convention center or lose Comi-con to LA or Vegas. I hope the powers at OKC have the vision to take OKC to the next level, but it certainly won't be by lowering expectations on the Cox site or the new CC.

We need a new CC, for sure. But, we don't need to over-play our hand. No amount of pie in the sky dreaming to be huge will change the fundamentals. OKC is not, and will not be a major player in the large convention game. We need a modern, appropriately sized, well designed cc. That is all. We need to do that without destroying the urban fabric while increasing the amenities of the area. We don't need to make it bigger than planned now.

Agree 100% Rover. Just make a CC that will instill some civic pride, attract a few more conventions, enhance the experience for locals and visitors alike through better amenities, and contribute to the betterment of the public realm via established and well known urban design principles. That's it.

Both the San Antonio and Denver mayors took incredible heat for the investments they made for their cities. They were viewed as bankrupting the cities with their grandiose arenas and airports. However, by having someone with vision and making a rather large investment, seen as crazy by many, these cities are now major players. Other cities do it, so OKC has to risk a lot to be on par. San Diego is on the same ledge with the stadium. Do you spend $1.5B for a stadium or let it go to the bigger dude up the 5? Will it break San Diego not to have national football - no. Will it lower the city's status on the national stage - yes. After the stadium, we have to spend another $1B on the convention center or lose Comi-con to LA or Vegas. I hope the powers at OKC have the vision to take OKC to the next level, but it certainly won't be by lowering expectations on the Cox site or the new CC.

Good analogy,

We have to realize that Oklahoma City will need to invest some of its money along with what is provided by the various MAPS program initiatives to get to the next level. The city doesn't need to put its bond rating or credit in jeopardy; however just enough to finish out the projects of which many are over projection.


Oklahoma City (Metro - 1,336,767 City - 610,613 )
Omaha . . . . . . . (Metro - 904,421 City - 434,353)

Omaha, which is on the same par as Oklahoma City has built an arena and a ballpark (long term for College World Series) which is as close to the major leagues as any city (outside major leagues) in its category. They did it without any MAPS style programs:

https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=JN.MVVzmBD%2bfZMslXc4mF%2b5jw&pid=15.1&P=0 https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=JN.Pnqz3NxrlnMZiHeqV%2bh%2fRg&pid=15.1&P=0 https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=JN.X0EIbFV4R%2fCxuCVl1qTYMA&pid=15.1&P=0
CenturyLink Center- $291 million - opened 2003 (Basketball - 18,320 , Ice Hockey - 17,100 , Swimming - 12,000) minimum seating capacity)

Chesapeake Energy Arena - $189 million - opened 2002 (Basketball - 18,203, Ice Hockey - 18,036
.

https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=JN.Xt1rFvP4OJJdao1idjS9oA&pid=15.1&P=0 https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=JN.Vj1XJwZRkBX9Xb2Kxhc2Cw&pid=15.1&P=0 https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=JN.aAAHD7o5ckLzcAE1uGqMaA&pid=15.1&P=0

T.D. Ameritrade Park - Cost: $131 million - opened 2011 Baseball seating capacity 25,000

Chickasaw Bricktown Ballpark - Cost: $34 million - opened 1998 Baseball seating capacity 13,066, (9,000 current)

I think I really like the Blumenthall site.

It makes sense in the big picture.. and resolves my EXTREME agitation about what are we doing with these parks, MAPS 3, the boulevard, any of this. I need to see a vision for how it all results in the most vibrant downtown possible, and I'm just not seeing that, but the Blumenthall site comes closest.

So naturally I am sure that the CC subcommittee hates the site. "Why go there when you can prevent another development from happening somewhere better???"

If the city is seriously considering either ponying up extra cash to pay for more expensive land or sacrificing significant revenue by shutting down the Cox for a couple of years, wouldn't it be a more responsible use of money to buy one of the cheaper, albeit less conveniently located sites and then spend extra money to extend track to provide streetcar service to the new location? If the concern is providing convention attendees convenient access to hotels and restaurants, wouldn't better streetcar access accomplish that as long as the CC remains reasonably close to Bricktown? At least you get more streetcar coverage out of the deal, which would make spending the extra money more palatable because you're getting some tangible extra benefit out of it.

If the city is seriously considering either ponying up extra cash to pay for more expensive land or sacrificing significant revenue by shutting down the Cox for a couple of years, wouldn't it be a more responsible use of money to buy one of the cheaper, albeit less conveniently located sites and then spend extra money to extend track to provide streetcar service to the new location? If the concern is providing convention attendees convenient access to hotels and restaurants, wouldn't better streetcar access accomplish that as long as the CC remains reasonably close to Bricktown? At least you get more streetcar coverage out of the deal, which would make spending the extra money more palatable because you're getting some tangible extra benefit out of it.

Completely agree with this. Would something like this even be considered?

I agree with that. The common argument (mostly from those who just won't ever be PRO co-locating the CC and streetcar) is that well a streetcar can only hold 120 people at a time and we will never have 30 sec frequencies required to move thousands of delegates quickly to their hotels.

The reality though about conventions is that a lot of the attendants, particularly if it's a good convention, tend to linger and come and go, skip a session or two to grab coffee and explore. Right after sessions end is usually go-time for hunting down that one person you need to catch and put a bug in their ear. You might need to slyly make some small talk for 10 minutes until said person is free.

Convention attendance is never entirely like-minded nor is it moving together as one massive block in single-file line like grade school. An attractive streetcar that comes every 5-8 minutes during peak hours and 10-15 otherwise is actually pretty ideal for moving huge event crowds that come and go of their own volition, on their own time. This is very different from the end of a Thunder game (the last of which was way too early this year!!) when 17,000 locals want to make a beeline for their car to go home, while the others may live downtown or nearby, and still wanna go home.

Even if the streetcar couldn't handle peak times, most big conventions use charter buses to facilitate morning start and afternoon ending times. The rest of the day it is pretty spread out and streetcar would handle just fine.

Right, it's the airport connection which is really the biggest obstacle for OKC. That is the biggest pro that a lot of cities have. The biggest pro the RNC cited about Cleveland was the Red Line light rail connecting the airport and Tower City. When you get to CLE you can walk right off the train and into baggage drop-off at the top of the escalator. The DNC passed on Columbus because it lacks a rail connection with the airport, and so that route has suddenly (and annoyingly) leapfrogged in consideration.

We just don't have the budget to build the convention center that Larry Nichols wants to build. The convention center committee wants the best land downtown, and seems unwilling to settle for anything less. They are envisioning a $750 million convention center, and they have 1/3 of that to spend.

We just don't have the budget to build the convention center that Larry Nichols wants to build. The convention center committee wants the best land downtown, and seems unwilling to settle for anything less. They are envisioning a $750 million convention center, and they have 1/3 of that to spend.

Then there needs to be a discussion, maybe on a member-by-member basis, about whether or not the convention center subcommittee has served the city in good faith and in accordance with voters. They serve at the pleasure of the Mayor.

I now understand the value of having streetcar skeptics on the streetcar committee. The CC subcommittee seems to be getting ahead of themselves. I honestly don't think this is my place to say, but I am just hoping that the Mayor and Council are considering it. It's one thing to have confidence in an important community stakeholder (or 4-5), but it's another thing to appoint them the unquestioned comptroller of the MAPS purse.

The biggest pro the RNC cited about Cleveland was the Red Line light rail connecting the airport and Tower City.

The irony - it burns....


On a related note - put me down as leaning towards the Blumenthal site; so long as we don't get a superblock out of the deal.

The Blumenthal site has brought the discussion & negotiations back to reevaluate several sites.

The $30 million proposed by Mayor Cornett to move the OG&E substation south of the Peake doesn't look so bad now that downtown parcels have skyrocketed since MAPS I.

OKC is now a victim of MAPS early success.

They did it without any MAPS style programs:

Well, they were mostly publicly funded with bond financing.

What's kind of interesting is that one of the things MAPS is always championed for is that the projects are debt free and nothing is built until the cash is there. This is kind of highlighting the down side to that. If this was bond funded, land acquisition and construction could have been started earlier, saving money on the cost of land and moving the return on investment closer. With OKC's AAA rating, we could have built this stuff for less than 3% interest and probably have it completed and generating revenue to service the debt by now.

Using one of your examples, CenturyLink Center was mostly paid for by bonds that were approved by voters in 2000. They started building the arena in 2001 and it opened in 2003. By contrast, OKC first passed MAPS in 1993, construction started on the arena in 1999, and opened in 2002. So, they approved funding for an arena 7 years after we did, but there's opened only 1 year after ours did.

Being debt free is nice and all, but I'm not always so sure if forgoing an additional 5-10 years of revenues is worth the 3% or so we save by not financing it, especially if it's gonna be the money maker the "experts" say it will be. It looks like we may have already lost more than that just by waiting until now to buy the land.

If the city is seriously considering either ponying up extra cash to pay for more expensive land or sacrificing significant revenue by shutting down the Cox for a couple of years, wouldn't it be a more responsible use of money to buy one of the cheaper, albeit less conveniently located sites and then spend extra money to extend track to provide streetcar service to the new location? If the concern is providing convention attendees convenient access to hotels and restaurants, wouldn't better streetcar access accomplish that as long as the CC remains reasonably close to Bricktown? At least you get more streetcar coverage out of the deal, which would make spending the extra money more palatable because you're getting some tangible extra benefit out of it.

To piggy back off of this and what others have said, the big elephant in the room is really transportation. This is a very difficult city to travel to. I talked about this in the "Made in Georgia" thread so I won't totally rehash it, but flying in and out of OKC is really annoying. I used to be a part of a national convention circuit and most people skipped the OKC years simply because tickets were either too expensive and/or had really inconvenient schedules. I think reaching Teir 1 Convention status is going to be extremely difficult for OKC, for reasons that are beyond its control.

That being said, I love the idea of a streetcar directly from the airport to downtown (stops at 21C, CBD, and Bricktown/Deep Deuce?), even without a CC being built.

Personally, I think the E Park location in Core 2 Shore is the best for the Convention Center. This was Mick's original site and the city owns most of the land already, this site wont create massive superblocks but will help spur development in C2S by acting as 'fill-in' for this part of town.

I also, and most especially like that a rail stop could be built here to run to run from WRWA, ferrying conventioneers directly using Commuter Rail type trains. I saw someone post this idea earlier and it got me even more excited about this location than ever before. Not to mention that the Streetcar would service this location either now or in future expansion - there is no need to tinker with the streetcar route. ..

I don't like the argument posed by the so-called powers to be that E Central Park is far away from existing hotels/Bricktown. Um, the NE point is only 1.5 block walk from Bricktown, and only 3 blocks from the core of the existing hotels (basically the same as the PREFERRED Ford site). Unlike the Ford site, this has tremendous opportunity for expansion while allowing the city itself to expand.

While I like the Bluementhol site as well for the catalyst a cc could give to that area, the same can be said about the original location at E Central Park. Add in the ability to have a CR stop dedicated to conventioneers and this should catapult back to the #1 spot. Even in our non-scientific survey, E Central Park won hands down over any other site.

Stop with the studies and shenanigans, build the darn thing already!

I think reaching Teir 1 Convention status is going to be extremely difficult for OKC, for reasons that are beyond its control.

I don't think we're striving to reach Tier 1, which honestly OKC will probably never be a part of that group of cities. Tier 2 is something much more attainable within our future.

A while back the City put in a new water and maybe a sewer line (not sure) starting around SW 3rd and following just north of the future crosstown blvd.
Does anybody no if it was for GP or for the convention center site?
My way of thinking is to follow the $

sorry D-post

William Crum is streaming another Convention Center meeting, should be accessible here (https://www.periscope.tv/w/VyO_vDE2NjMzNzB8ODIyOTUxMoz2xi4c3gVFn0P15YJqDSbUmG R6ja-Znvhcf69sk5_j) if anyone is interested.

The irony - it burns....


On a related note - put me down as leaning towards the Blumenthal site; so long as we don't get a superblock out of the deal.

With the RNC going to a 90% democratic city and 75% county, the irony is off the charts to begin with. Northern Ohio is deep blue, and those blue votes have built a relatively progressive transit system.

Yet Cleveland has a ton of old money that they want to court, and locating the convention in Cincinnati would just tap into donors that were already going to open up their wallets in 2016..

I was at a convention this week and everyone was making RNC jokes. Speakers would say "Cleveland has a wealth of placemaking examples that marry fine art and public art, hence we are welcoming the RNC in a few months."

Personally, I think the E Park location in Core 2 Shore is the best for the Convention Center. This was Mick's original site and the city owns most of the land already, this site wont create massive superblocks but will help spur development in C2S by acting as 'fill-in' for this part of town.

I also, and most especially like that a rail stop could be built here to run to run from WRWA, ferrying conventioneers directly using Commuter Rail type trains. I saw someone post this idea earlier and it got me even more excited about this location than ever before. Not to mention that the Streetcar would service this location either now or in future expansion - there is no need to tinker with the streetcar route. ..

I don't like the argument posed by the so-called powers to be that E Central Park is far away from existing hotels/Bricktown. Um, the NE point is only 1.5 block walk from Bricktown, and only 3 blocks from the core of the existing hotels (basically the same as the PREFERRED Ford site). Unlike the Ford site, this has tremendous opportunity for expansion while allowing the city itself to expand.

While I like the Bluementhol site as well for the catalyst a cc could give to that area, the same can be said about the original location at E Central Park. Add in the ability to have a CR stop dedicated to conventioneers and this should catapult back to the #1 spot. Even in our non-scientific survey, E Central Park won hands down over any other site.

Stop with the studies and shenanigans, build the darn thing already!

I'm confused, are we thinking of the same East Park site? You said that it would not create a new superblock and that it would spur infill on that side of the park. Where would this infill go? What would it be if it's not a superblock - a megasuperblock?

That site is far huger than any of you who favor putting the CC there realize. You could fit a whole new neighborhood there. It is 3.5 times bigger than the old convention center, which comparatively the new one we are building is half the size (no arena).

This is becoming insane.

I'm confused, are we thinking of the same East Park site? You said that it would not create a new superblock and that it would spur infill on that side of the park. Where would this infill go? What would it be if it's not a superblock - a megasuperblock?

That site is far huger than any of you who favor putting the CC there realize. You could fit a whole new neighborhood there. It is 3.5 times bigger than the old convention center, which comparatively the new one we are building is half the size (no arena).

This is becoming insane.

Was it you that came up with a conceptual site plan for the EastPark site? I really enjoyed that actually and there seemed to be plenty of room for infill. Not that I trust the city to execute the site plan well if they were to choose that location.

Following this on-line, the presentation identifies 4 "acceptable cities"; the Cox site was disqualified for all the reasons we've already discussed.

The 4 remaining are:

1. East Park (east of Central Park)
2. REHCO site
3. West Park
4. Reno & Dewey

Next step would be due diligence on the four sites to determine site acquisition, costs, any barriers (such as the substation relocation, having to go partially underground, etc.).

Here are the 4 "acceptable" sites (created this from earlier images; not what was presented today which wasn't available in the agenda packet):

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/cc043015.jpg

This is from today's meeting from https://twitter.com/DowntownOKCInc:.

Note that the entire Blumenthal property is now included in the West Park site.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CD3scAiVEAAWL9z.jpg:large

10713

Just saw that tweeted Pete. Interesting how on the west park, the Facebook page for it that was mentioned above was talking about how housing and retail, eating should help front the park. I wonder if they would have the foresight enough to build the CC back enough to allow for that with the conventional all behind it.

Still can't stop staring at how much better the OKC Boulevard "Grid" option would improve some of these sites.

It seems the plan is to research the four acceptable sites with the idea that they will commit to building on any of them if the circumstances (price, acquisition realities, etc.) allow.

The consultant still say the REHCO site is the best and I'm sure heaven and earth will be moved to make that site happen.

The continued inclusion of the Reno & Dewey site seems to indicate the skeptical view by the City that Clayco will be able to perform on the south parcel.

So is the Cox site officially out?

So is the Cox site officially out?

Yes.

The Reno/Dewey site is far from current hotels and restaurants, but if the cc is built there, isn't it likely a boutique hotel would go in the Clayco site, a convention hotel on the Reno/Dewey site, and another one in the REHCO site? There would likely be 1000+ rooms in close proximity. As for trips into Bricktown, there will be the streetcars and Uber to get people there. Maybe even bicycle hansoms like used all over downtown San Diego. Is it really that bad of a location, especially in light of its availability?

Wow. No mention of Larry Nichols proposing a "fifth option" that includes swiping land from the park? It's in Crum's story. Unbelievable.

I gotta hand it to folks here: for being accused of being conspiracists, your conspiracies often come to fruition.

Yes.

whew!!!! Dodged a bullet there.

The continued inclusion of the Reno & Dewey site seems to indicate the skeptical view by the City that Clayco will be able to perform on the south parcel.

Or, they are trying to force Clayco's hand to fully commit to an actual schedule.

Or, they are trying to force Clayco's hand to fully commit to an actual schedule.

Clayco already outlined an aggressive schedule in their RFP response which would be written into any redevelopment agreement once fully executed.

There is lots of concern about them actually being able to perform.

And of course now that we are building the anti-pedestrian Boulevard, we see two of the 4 options being south of it. Can you imagine crossing the intersections at Lee/Boulevard and Walker/Boulevard? What a joke.

Probably a lot of SMOKE AND MIRRORS

The Dewey site would involve eminent domain
The Blumenthal site is pretty far from hotels and who knows what lies beneath (EPA)
The South site is a little more palatable but has its problems
The best site is the original one
Don't know how they will get there. Maybe part trade/$$.

Would be nice if we could trade off Cox center, which will quickly become a White Elephant to the City as soon as the new convention center
is built. The City could make a condition that the Cox center stay open until the last window is Windex on the new center. Will be interesting.

These are from yesterday's presentation by Populous:



http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/cc0501153.jpg

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/cc0501151.jpg

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/cc050115.jpg

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/cc050115a.jpg

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/cc050115b.jpg

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/cc050115c.jpg

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/cc050115d.jpg

Pete, what do the concentric circles represent?

Pete, what do the concentric circles represent?

Not sure but obviously some sort of distance marker from the center of the proposed site; looks to be about a 1- and 2-block radius.

Here are a couple of more slides:



http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/cc0501154.jpg

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/cc0501155.jpg

I keep seeing this same argument about proximity to hotels, proximity to Bricktown, proximity to restaurants… I just think its a dumb argument. Anyone that is or has been in the convention/hotel industry knows that's a bunch of BS. Look at cities like Atlanta, Vegas, New Orleans, their convention centers are not directly across the street from all the hotels in town. Atlanta's convention center is on the west end of downtown and at least 5-6 big blocks from any really nice hotels. Vegas has the Las Vegas hotel which has several hundred rooms, next to their convention center but all the fancy hotels are blocks away. And in New Orleans the fancy hotels are closer the the French Quarter, then they are to the convention center, their convention center is along the Mississippi River on the east end of downtown again several blocks away from Canal St. where a majority of the hotels are located.

So I'm sorry but I don't buy the argument that the convention center is too far from hotels and Bricktown. As I stated long ago, the convention center hotel will likely get 80-90% of the convention center groups room nights. If big hotel chains want in on the action, i'm sure they will start building hotels closer to the convention center. Either that or update their existing hotels so that regardless of the distance people want to stay there. Building the convention center in the West Park or Reno & Dewey location would be great for that part of downtown and give it a boost in development…. (I'm Kelly Ogle, and that's My 2 Cents)

Remember that these are mostly superblocks that we are looking at. Those actually are at least twice the increments you describe. I suspect that they roughly represent walking times, which are critical to the success of the CC.

Another reason I don't see them going for any of the sites south of the BLVD is that the initial street car route doesn't stop anywhere in front of these sites. Especially the east park site.

I just want to point out here, as I have in the actual Convention Center meetings, that the streetcar committee is not necessarily opposed to modifying the streetcar route. However, we have expended a fair amount of money on engineering and surveying. Currently our project is supposedly within budget. Any modification to our plans might cause additional cost and may incur delaying the system being completed further.

My biggest fear with regards to the CC location is that we will be asked to stretch the route somewhere within the same budget. That might cause us to cut track from Midtown or Bricktown to compensate. There is also an operational legibility issue as well.

These decisions will need to involve broad planning discussions between committees and the oversight board that are held in tandem. The proposal for some leaders to suggest taking land from the park is a great example. For something like that to be considered, their ought to be a broader debate on the merits or negatives associated with such dramatic programming changes. So far, the streetcar program is plowing ahead without disruption and we are proceeding into more detailed drawings and will soon be ordering the cars.

If the CC process impacts other projects, those funds should come out of the CC budget. This is true if the CC takes park land as well.

If the CC takes our parkland, which I would consider beyond outrageous, then they need to move the park east or west. There is absolutely no excuse for ruining one of the key MAPS projects, not to mention, appropriating land the taxpayers purchased specifically for a park. Sine the bridge is east of the park, the only reasonable recompense would be to remove the substation (with that extra $30 million) and move the park one block east.

One of the challenges with the MAPS 3 Central Park is that it doesn't seem, nor ever has had, an organized grassroots contingency. It wouldn't be hard to organize one. But if the Convention Center site is chosen elsewhere, the program will be jn the "home stretch" anyway. As with all of the MAPS programs, being organized to see everything through in the best possible way, is key.

Having to fight for the park promised to the voters by city leadership, which is scheduled to be built on land paid for by the taxpayers, is an equally outrageous concept. But I would certainly be happy to do so.

I for one wouldn't shed a tear if they current Central Park location got dropped and the money switched to the Promenade Park location.

I for one wouldn't shed a tear if they current Central Park location got dropped and the money switched to the Promenade Park location.

Remind me where "Promenade Park" is.

Mere discussion of shorting the park is an outrage and an affront to voters. I don't care what Steve Lackmeyer and Ed Shadid say: the voters were informed that they would get a specific slate of projects. I know, because I walked door to door trying to convince people to support MAPS 3. Regardless of the technical language used, the park was a major part of the package of options voters went to the polls to support.

I seriously doubt the park will be shorted. For starters, would we lose the lake that is proposed? How much would we have to pay as a city to completely redesign the park? And how would "convention center takes park land" play with voters? It would be a disaster.

I'm just disappointed at the arrogance of some city leaders to even suggest this. It undermines the integrity of MAPS with voters. And, to take this a step further, if a proposal is moved to advance taking land for the convention center that has been set aside for the park, I will raise holy hell and organize others to do so.

I for one wouldn't shed a tear if they current Central Park location got dropped and the money switched to the Promenade Park location.Remind me where "Promenade Park" is.

it is basically the same strip of land but south of I-40.

I for one wouldn't shed a tear if they current Central Park location got dropped and the money switched to the Promenade Park location.

I have always appreciated your understanding of the benefits of density. That said, you often miss the forest for the trees. City planning is about how you arrange the elements of the built environment to symbiotically play off of each other. Planning doesn't create value, but rather should seek to add value to what you already have. The biggest reason that suburban sprawl fails isn't for lack of density, but because the different elements or "building blocks" are all vacuum-locked and separated. Euclidian zoning at its finest. Civilization exists where people converge, and there is no convergence in the 'burbs. Similarly, as you can't control the different elements of the built environment you get (but only how they are arranged), a park is one building block that needs to be incorporated into downtown. A convention center is another such element, and I would argue that both a destination park and a convention center are huge bonuses for a destination downtown. However, like it or not, those two building blocks are happening, and gotta go somewhere.

All that said, how would you rather the convention center take the place of the park, and the park go elsewhere? You need to find the best place for these building blocks. The city has come together behind a vision for a green spine that connects Core 2 Shore. That is why the voters wanted MAPS to become a reality; that strong vision was so persuasive that you literally got the most conservative major U.S. city to tax itself for urban revitalization. Think about that. You always do this thing where it's like "Bah I don't care about that because I want OKC to do A, B, and C.." but your ABC options aren't what Jim Couch thinks the ABC options are. I don't think you realize that Larry Nichols thinks of the park as a nice moat for the convention center, and that the park having already acquired the land means that land acquisition is done.

Perhaps that specific vision of urban revitalization, and in this case a green spine connecting Core 2 Shore, is worth shedding a tear for if not preserving.

Mere discussion of shorting the park is an outrage and an affront to voters. I don't care what Steve Lackmeyer and Ed Shadid say: the voters were informed that they would get a specific slate of projects. I know, because I walked door to door trying to convince people to support MAPS 3. Regardless of the technical language used, the park was a major part of the package of options voters went to the polls to support.

I seriously doubt the park will be shorted. For starters, would we lose the lake that is proposed? How much would we have to pay as a city to completely redesign the park? And how would "convention center takes park land" play with voters? It would be a disaster.

I'm just disappointed at the arrogance of some city leaders to even suggest this. It undermines the integrity of MAPS with voters. And, to take this a step further, if a proposal is moved to advance taking land for the convention center that has been set aside for the park, I will raise holy hell and organize others to do so.

I would be right behind you. I'm all for building the convention center, but not at the expense of the park.

Mere discussion of shorting the park is an outrage and an affront to voters. I don't care what Steve Lackmeyer and Ed Shadid say: the voters were informed that they would get a specific slate of projects. I know, because I walked door to door trying to convince people to support MAPS 3. Regardless of the technical language used, the park was a major part of the package of options voters went to the polls to support.

I seriously doubt the park will be shorted. For starters, would we lose the lake that is proposed? How much would we have to pay as a city to completely redesign the park? And how would "convention center takes park land" play with voters? It would be a disaster.

I'm just disappointed at the arrogance of some city leaders to even suggest this. It undermines the integrity of MAPS with voters. And, to take this a step further, if a proposal is moved to advance taking land for the convention center that has been set aside for the park, I will raise holy hell and organize others to do so.

Love the passion. Like PhiAlpha, I would be right there with you. Just the realization that they would even think about it is outrageous.

The Central Park would still be built, just south of the current location and would still be in Core to Shore.