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

Or we could cut the convention center down and extend the streetcar line or enhance the park. Both those would be more popular choices.

Gee, I wonder why that hasn't been proposed?

Or we could cut the convention center down and extend the streetcar line or enhance the park. Both those would be more popular choices.

Gee, I wonder why that hasn't been proposed?

Because people in those committees want citizens to get what they voted for?

Since this is a city council decision, we could ostensibly present a plan wherein we advocate for a smaller convention center project and move the money to the other projects, yes?

Or we could cut the convention center down and extend the streetcar line or enhance the park. Both those would be more popular choices.

Gee, I wonder why that hasn't been proposed?

Trying to think back, but Central Park is the only MAPS project I can think of that had its location selected BEFORE any vote and never went through any kind of public location analysis post vote. People complain about the cost of land acquisition in the CC fiasco but no one every questioned if we were over-paying for park land, or if the park was even be planned in the right location in the first place.

Because people in those committees want citizens to get what they voted for?

I have said all along that in terms of the subcommittee politics, if we want the balance of MAPS 3 to look like what was promised, you all will need to match fire with fire.

Trust me. If they try to pull that, I will fight with all the fire I have. It's Our MAPS. I too campaigned very hard for MAPS, giving many, many hours of my time. I put my heart into that vote BECAUSE of the park and streetcar. I would be fine with the park moving one block to the east because of the SkyDance bridge location, but if we're buying land to the east for the park, couldn't we just use it for the CC? Doesn't putting the CC in the middle of our park give lie to the argument that the SE location can't be used because it's too far from Bricktown?

Trying to think back, but Central Park is the only MAPS project I can think of that had its location selected BEFORE any vote and never went through any kind of public location analysis post vote. People complain about the cost of land acquisition in the CC fiasco but no one every questioned if we were over-paying for park land, or if the park was even be planned in the right location in the first place.

It was part of the Core 2 Shore analysis, so I think the assumption was that the MAPS fund would be to implement a previously planned project...

Trying to think back, but Central Park is the only MAPS project I can think of that had its location selected BEFORE any vote and never went through any kind of public location analysis post vote. People complain about the cost of land acquisition in the CC fiasco but no one every questioned if we were over-paying for park land, or if the park was even be planned in the right location in the first place.

The park and the streetcar are the only projects that have gone through a planning process that considered what is best for the surrounding city as a whole. For instance, the park planning process (Core 2 Shore) is more of a vision for that entire half of downtown, and not a plan for a park. Similarly, the streetcar serves the city as a whole, and its route is the route that is best for the city, not the route that is best for the streetcar.

There is no tail wagging the dog like there is with the convention center, where we seem to be building a downtown that should be so lucky to aspire to supporting this grandiose convention center.

Continuing down the path that you have opened up, have you noticed that the Oklahoma River improvements also didn't go through a comprehensive location vetting? Without doing studies, how do we know that's the right place for rowing sports? It is pretty far from Bricktown, after all.

I suspect that some of the folks who have floated this idea might not quite realize that there are folks who like the park because it is not an organized constituency. Plus, I think they might be thinking of this Convention Center problem strictly from a feduciary perspective, not a political one.

One sterling moment in a post-MAPS election was the presentation by the park's planners. The room was filled to capacity with fairly excited citizens. It was a very positive moment in public participation in this process.

One other thing... historically, there has been no bigger fan of the MAPS 3 park than our state's most popular politician, Mayor Cornett.

If the convention center committee successfully steals land from the park, I hope the city is prepared for never passing a MAPs vote again. That's all I can see happening if the least popular project pulls resources away from one of the most.

I am sure if the CC takes any land from the Park that budgets will be adjusted accordingly. I don't think anyone is suggesting the CC gets free land and park has to go buy more land. Also, Steve's comments about Core to Shore being outdated makes a lot more sense now.

Ii
The park and the streetcar are the only projects that have gone through a planning process that considered what is best for the surrounding city as a whole. For instance, the park planning process (Core 2 Shore) is more of a vision for that entire half of downtown, and not a plan for a park. Similarly, the streetcar serves the city as a whole, and its route is the route that is best for the city, not the route that is best for the streetcar.

There is no tail wagging the dog like there is with the convention center, where we seem to be building a downtown that should be so lucky to aspire to supporting this grandiose convention center.

Continuing down the path that you have opened up, have you noticed that the Oklahoma River improvements also didn't go through a comprehensive location vetting? Without doing studies, how do we know that's the right place for rowing sports? It is pretty far from Bricktown, after all.

That is the whole thing right there though. Is this much parkland downtown good for the City? I don't think it is. Clearly the whole concept of Central Park was conceived before MBG existed in its current form, and who saw Sandridge Commons coming 12 years ago, or even a refurbished Bicentennial Park? As for river improvements, they kind if have to go in, or adjacent to, the river.

JTF, the new park will be vastly different from any other park in Oklahoma City of which I am aware, besides Will Rogers Park. The Myriad Gardens in no way resembles Central Park or Millenium Park, which are wonderful, compelling, memorable spaces. Large open spaces, un programmed or lightly programmed are a good thing, in my opinion. They act as the yard for those of us without one, as a gathering place for citizens, as an iconic space for visitors. There is nothing restful or relaxing about the Myriad Gardens, Sandridge Commons or Bicentennial Park. You can't stroll effectively or ride your bike. I think they are both good spaces and important, but no parkland downtown will have the impact that the MAPS park can. And we voted for it.

^

Also, Central Park will be the recreation bridge between the CBD and the River.

That is really needed, as the River has tons of offerings and potential but people need to be drawn there from the middle of downtown.


I've always liked the plans for the park and if I lived downtown, I could see using it a lot. In a completely different way than the MBG.

Yes the park is extremely necessary from am overcrowding perspective alone. The one open area in MBG is often completely overrun with people during lunch and after work, and that is without any residential or additional office space around it.

I am sure if the CC takes any land from the Park that budgets will be adjusted accordingly. I don't think anyone is suggesting the CC gets free land and park has to go buy more land. Also, Steve's comments about Core to Shore being outdated makes a lot more sense now.

My expectation is that if some or all of the CC is built on park land, we'll probably get a smaller park. This may be an inaccurate, overly pessimistic assessment, but if land acquisition is so difficult for the convention center, why would it be any easier for the park? It's not like the land in the area is going to get cheaper or even stay stagnant with all the other development in the area.

The park committee has had it's ducks in a row for a long time, they should not be forced back into land acquisition and redesign because the CC committee screwed up so badly.

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.

I completely agree rail between the airport and downtown/CC would be great. But tons of huge convention towns do not have this. Orlando and Las Vegas neither have rail to their airport. DFW just got it. Chicago has rail to their airports but not to McCormick. LGA also doesn't have direct rail service and JFK's requires use of two different systems. SAN, SAT, IAH, MIA and FLL all lack rail service as well. In cities that are more likely to compete with us KC, Cincinnati, STL, Tulsa, Little Rock, etc all lack rail service to their airports.

And it holds all of those cities back.

Ii

That is the whole thing right there though. Is this much parkland downtown good for the City? I don't think it is. Clearly the whole concept of Central Park was conceived before MBG existed in its current form, and who saw Sandridge Commons coming 12 years ago, or even a refurbished Bicentennial Park? As for river improvements, they kind if have to go in, or adjacent to, the river.

I don't think it resembles some dangerous level of park space. If we embrace REAL economic development around the park, and not superblock venues, having the large park could be a phenomenal urban asset. Downtown OKC could have an urban emerald necklace.

You have to think more about the bigger picture and developing a well-articulated city with landmark placemaking features, and not get caught up in sheer density levels. In order to create a landmark you have to think big.

The only way taking park land would be okay was if using their own budget they built it 100%underground and the park was on top of it. It would push the park timeline way back because they would have to wait for that part to be complete(say they use the Blumethal site or east park or even original location and went under the boulevard) but taking away park land would cause such an uproar from every side I don't think they are dumb enough to even attempt it.

And it holds all of those cities back.

Well, I think the convention business in Las Vegas and Orlando is doing just fine without it... Maybe someday they'll add rail service and will finally be able to compete with Cleveland's convention business, though :-P.

I think people tend to get lost in their wishlists and loose perspective. Will the lack of public transportation hurt OKC's convention business, yes probably. Will it make it impossible for OKC to get conventions, no. Is it the number one thing holding OKC back from getting major conventions? Definitely not, especially considering the number of massive conventions that go to cities without any rail and little PT. Would a large convention come here instead of Vegas just because we had better PT? I kind of doubt it.

Grounds for green space: Idea to use park project land for convention center faces opposition
By: Brian Brus The Journal Record May 4, 20150

OKLAHOMA CITY – One of the site options for a new convention center downtown needs to be taken off the table so it doesn’t cause extensive delays and greater costs in developing the city’s new central park, said Anthony McDermid, a member of the MAPS 3 parks advisory committee.

And the architect working on the 77-acre project said it would be impossible to simply rearrange all the design elements residents are expecting if city leaders decide to convert part of the land to convention center use instead of leaving the center across the street.

“Once this is sorted out, and if the park becomes the new convention center site, we need to make sure people understand the impact of that,” said Mary Margaret Jones, a senior principal of California-based Hargreaves Associates. “It isn’t merely a matter of moving things around, a squinch here and squish there; it really will be a completely different kind of park, a much smaller park.”

The proposal to take land from the park project and use it to build a convention center was made recently by Devon Energy Corp. Executive Chairman Larry Nichols, who is also a member of the MAPS 3 oversight committee. The committee had asked that several downtown sites be re-evaluated for their viability after an asking price for the preferred property just west of the Chesapeake Energy Arena proved too costly. The process produced a short list of four previously identified tracts and Nichols’ idea as a fifth option.

The park space is across the street from the sports arena and is already owned by the city, which would save money. But its greater distance from existing hotels and the Bricktown district were negative points for the committee to consider.

The full park, as it’s currently envisioned, consists of 40 acres north of Interstate 40 and 30 acres between Interstate 40 and the Oklahoma River, connected by the SkyDance pedestrian bridge. Jones said Monday that if city leaders reassigned land from the park for a 550,000-square-foot convention center and hotel with at least 600 rooms and parking, it would eliminate about half of the north side of the park, forcing the reconsideration of elements such as a small boat pond and performance event lawn that can support 10,000 to 20,000 people by itself.

“It’s supposed to be a park full of programming like the Myriad Gardens, but also with larger play areas and woodland areas you can lose yourself in as a respite from the city – provide things that a small park cannot do in an urban context,” she said.

Even if a designer could somehow collapse all the elements into tighter boundaries, it would force the elimination of landscaping and beauty, what she called “the lungs that parks create in a living city.”

Jones also said her firm was working under the assumption that the convention center would be directly across the street. Since negotiations fell through with the ownership group of the former Fred Jones dealership property, Jones said they’re waiting for more design direction from City Hall.

McDermid said he was not speaking for the entire subcommittee, but so far he hasn’t received any positive feedback on Nichols’ proposal. McDermid is the founder of Tap Architects in Oklahoma City.

“If we placed the convention center in the park, we would have to start all over,” he said. “There’s no way the design of the park and the convention center could coexist as they are now. The park design has taken several years to develop and is predicated on the footprint we showed the voters.”

The original $777 million MAPS 3 package of projects that voters supported at the end of 2009 left some room for design flexibility. The ballot itself didn’t provide specific dollar figures, and the MAPS 3 informational campaign material from City Hall at the time promised a new, approximately 70-acre park that would cost about $130 million. Other projects in the issue included $130 million for a rail-based transit system and a new downtown convention center for $280 million.

To date, about $2.39 million has been paid to the Hargreaves firm for developing the park plan, less than half of the total design contract, city officials said Monday.

Well, I think the convention business in Las Vegas and Orlando is doing just fine without it... Maybe someday they'll add rail service and will finally be able to compete with Cleveland's convention business, though :-P.

I think people tend to get lost in their wishlists and loose perspective. Will the lack of public transportation hurt OKC's convention business, yes probably. Will it make it impossible for OKC to get conventions, no. Is it the number one thing holding OKC back from getting major conventions? Definitely not, especially considering the number of massive conventions that go to cities without any rail and little PT. Would a large convention come here instead of Vegas just because we had better PT? I kind of doubt it.

Do you think there's a lot of good happening in Orlando or Vegas compared to other places?

Florida is a huge political swing state, too; and its probably a lot more inclined to go red. The only reason Orlando and Vegas have evolved as tourist traps is their reliably warm sunny weather.

A lot of cities have to use locality development strategies (where your pitching a more urbane environment) to overcome reliably bad weather, like Chicago, Boston, Seattle, Minneapolis, Denver, Cleveland, Toronto, etc.

I completely agree rail between the airport and downtown/CC would be great. But tons of huge convention towns do not have this. Orlando and Las Vegas neither have rail to their airport. DFW just got it. Chicago has rail to their airports but not to McCormick. LGA also doesn't have direct rail service and JFK's requires use of two different systems. SAN, SAT, IAH, MIA and FLL all lack rail service as well. In cities that are more likely to compete with us KC, Cincinnati, STL, Tulsa, Little Rock, etc all lack rail service to their airports.


Stl has rail service from airport to downtown(convention center) and many stops like the zoo in between. It's called the metro link. Stl has an excellent Metrolink service. You can ride that all over the metro area and across the Mississippi river to Ill. metro area. It's a great system and if OKC had something like this it would send us into another tier.

Btw, this whole park thing is a sideshow to divert attention while they do something else unsavory... I find it hard to believe that Larry Nichols really wants to absorb the park into the convention center.

Here's an idea.... doubt those consultant would come up with a creative solution like this though. I'd use both the Uhaul site and Lumberyard. You could put the expo column free space underground from Reno south that would go under the new boulevard. You'd then put meeting spaces, etc. above ground on both the Uhaul and Lumberyard site with ground floor retail that would front Reno, The new boulevard, and an extended Oklahoma Ave to connect into SW 4th & the new park.

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1024x768q90/661/cSlUE3.png (https://imageshack.com/i/idcSlUE3p)

Red is the ground floor retail
Purple is the meeting spaces above ground
Blue line is the column free space (330,000 sq. ft.)
Orange would be the new hotel

This would also act as a front door to people exiting I-40 into downtown.

*Edit* Also forgot to add that the new retail if put into a TIF would help pay for the convention center hotel. There could be around 130,000 - 160,000 sq. ft. of retail based of the areas highlighted. Depending on what the sales per sq. ft. are (my guess would be a moderate range of $300 psf) would net about $1.25 million a year in OKC sales tax only so a 25 year TIF would capture about $31.25 million

Do you think there's a lot of good happening in Orlando or Vegas compared to other places?

Your quote was that it was the biggest thing holding back OKC. I just don't really agree with it being the biggest thing. Although a lot of bigger things we can't really affect like awesome year round weather. I think having more/better non-stop air service would be a bigger deal than public transportation as well, which is a huge pro for Vegas. Really it doesn't matter, we can both agree good public transportation from the airport to the CC could help OKC edge out other cities and it is something we could directly affect.


Stl has rail service from airport to downtown(convention center) and many stops like the zoo in between. It's called the metro link. Stl has an excellent Metrolink service. You can ride that all over the metro area and across the Mississippi river to Ill. metro area. It's a great system and if OKC had something like this it would send us into another tier.

I didn't realize that the train went to the airport, I guess I never noticed it when I did trips to STL. All the other cities still stand.

Agreed ^


Here's an idea.... doubt those consultant would come up with a creative solution like this though. I'd use both the Uhaul site and Lumberyard. You could put the expo column free space underground from Reno south that would go under the new boulevard. You'd then put meeting spaces, etc. above ground on both the Uhaul and Lumberyard site with ground floor retail that would front Reno, The new boulevard, and an extended Oklahoma Ave to connect into SW 4th & the new park.

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1024x768q90/661/cSlUE3.png (https://imageshack.com/i/idcSlUE3p)

Red is the ground floor retail
Purple is the meeting spaces above ground
Blue line is the column free space (330,000 sq. ft.)
Orange would be the new hotel

This would also act as a front door to people exiting I-40 into downtown.

*Edit* Also forgot to add that the new retail if put into a TIF would help pay for the convention center hotel. There could be around 130,000 - 160,000 sq. ft. of retail based of the areas highlighted. Depending on what the sales per sq. ft. are (my guess would be a moderate range of $300 psf) would net about $1.25 million a year in OKC sales tax only so a 25 year TIF would capture about $31.25 million

What if they incorporated the Uhaul Building as well, as a meeting and amenity space component. Those can be stacked in a small tower. They could leverage substantial state and historic tax credits to bring in additional funding for the CC. It would take some legal restructuring and bringing in a private sector partner, but the committee is always looking desperate to bring additional funding sources.

This would get the CC more funding and ADD to the overall MAPS 3 budget, unlike the zero sum propositions they typically explore.

They already seem to have a private sector partner in Omni. What if they just threw the CC into the scope of the RFP for the CC hotel, and then added the MAPS 3 $280 *cough$250*cough*. They could even bond the whole deal, break ground tomorrow, without counting appreciation gained. I would be okay with that, because we need to use more of our bonding capacity. As long as they bring in more funding, and NOT go after funding for other projects.

For that matter, I would be fine if they just put the whole budget into Devon stock...

The whole idea of MAPS is to build debt-free, not as money to pay back debt. The growth model doesn't work. If it did every level of government in the country would be swimming in excess cash like Scrooge McDuck.

Here's an idea.... doubt those consultant would come up with a creative solution like this though. I'd use both the Uhaul site and Lumberyard. You could put the expo column free space underground from Reno south that would go under the new boulevard. You'd then put meeting spaces, etc. above ground on both the Uhaul and Lumberyard site with ground floor retail that would front Reno, The new boulevard, and an extended Oklahoma Ave to connect into SW 4th & the new park.

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1024x768q90/661/cSlUE3.png (https://imageshack.com/i/idcSlUE3p)

Red is the ground floor retail
Purple is the meeting spaces above ground
Blue line is the column free space (330,000 sq. ft.)
Orange would be the new hotel

This would also act as a front door to people exiting I-40 into downtown.

*Edit* Also forgot to add that the new retail if put into a TIF would help pay for the convention center hotel. There could be around 130,000 - 160,000 sq. ft. of retail based of the areas highlighted. Depending on what the sales per sq. ft. are (my guess would be a moderate range of $300 psf) would net about $1.25 million a year in OKC sales tax only so a 25 year TIF would capture about $31.25 million

The Boulevard is still below grade at this point, so I'm afraid that tanks the entire plan.

The whole idea of MAPS is to build debt-free, not as money to pay back debt. The growth model doesn't work. If it did every level of government in the country would be swimming in excess cash like Scrooge McDuck.

I'm not talking about growth, I'm talking about inflation and appreciation.

The whole idea of MAPS is to build debt-free, not as money to pay back debt. The growth model doesn't work. If it did every level of government in the country would be swimming in excess cash like Scrooge McDuck.

With the cost of money where it is. This is stupid, rising construction costs and rising land prices are costing far more money than the cost of bonding. It sounds good, but it's dumb policy and has been for years.

Swake is right on the money.

The whole idea of MAPS is to build debt-free, not as money to pay back debt. The growth model doesn't work. If it did every level of government in the country would be swimming in excess cash like Scrooge McDuck.

I know the Tea Party mantra is no debt, but there are responsible CONSERVATIVE proper uses of debt....especially when rates are low. Issuing bonds that could be retired by MAPS money would be a responsible way to accelerate construction and save the money of escalated costs. Again, absolutism is okay when it comes to morals, but is detrimental to fiscal policy and economic development.

I was the first person to recommend using a portion of the park land & I'm still the idea's #1 fan. It would create a useful synergy between the 2, & drive down costs for each. We'd have a better convention center, and a better park sq ft X sq ft then we would before. There will still plenty of park land to the South of I40.

Get rid of that stupid small boat pond and the issue is resolved. If you want to rent a small boat go less than a mile south & we have a river completely dedicated to that kind of thing.

It would be a very simple process with revenue-backed bonds. But if they wanted, they could find ways to partner with the private sector on some component in all of these projects. It would be complex but bring in a lot more funding.

I was the first person to recommend using a portion of the park land & I'm still the idea's #1 fan. It would create a useful synergy between the 2, & drive down costs for each. We'd have a better convention center, and a better park sq ft X sq ft then we would before. There will still plenty of park land to the South of I40.

Get rid of that stupid small boat pond and the issue is resolved. If you want to rent a small boat go less than a mile south & we have a river completely dedicated to that kind of thing.

We don't need a "better" park. The less programming and the more open land the better, IMO. We're not trying to create a cute little park like the Myriad Gardens, but rather something akin to the commons that were the center of American cities when they were being created. Again, look at Chicago, New York and Boston to see not only what such a park should look like, but also what it means to both citizens and visitors. I see no need for synergy between a convention center and a park. The convention center committee can operate within their budget like the other MAPS projects, or come up with a new idea, such as Spartan is suggesting.

The convention center committee can operate within their budget like the other MAPS projects, or come up with a new idea, such as Spartan is suggesting.

Or to use the usual argument against all sorts of public projects such as public transportation and passenger rail, if the convention center is such a necessity it should be profitable and therefore let a private developer / investor build and operate it.

To be clear, that isn't my position on the CC. The city needs a better CC than the Cox Center, but it does not need to be a Taj Mahal hogging up prime land for private development. Keep it within the budget the taxpayers provided unless the city specifically asks the voters for additional funds for the CC. Build a nice facility on the East Park site adjacent to the rail viaduct. If having a prominent address is so important, it can still have 123 Oklahoma City Blvd, OKC, OK because it will front the blvd across from the arena. (I agree with those saying the state / city should take advantage of low interest rates and judiciously use bonds to fund important projects - the CC Hotel, I44/235 interchange and Belle Isle Bridge immediately come to mind.)

The whole idea of MAPS is to build debt-free, not as money to pay back debt. The growth model doesn't work. If it did every level of government in the country would be swimming in excess cash like Scrooge McDuck.

Great statement & observation JTF (Kerry Decker).

Great statement & observation JTF (Kerry Decker).

So you are in favor of being taxed for years before seeing the benefits of those taxes and pointlessly spending more money in the process?

The convention center would have cost far less in land and construction cost in 2011/2012 than it will in 2017/2018. Not to mention that if Maps had been bonded the Convention Center would be open now, supplying new customers to the downtown area increasing tax revenues? Not bonding the project is a big net cost loser.

No one is stopping the City from selling bonds for the convention center - but that is not what MAPS is for.

I do find it courious that the people who work in industries that directly benefit from civic projects like this are quick to say, "just borrow the money".

No one is stopping the City from selling bonds for the convention center - but that is not what MAPS is for.

I do find it courious that the people who work in industries that directly benefit from civic projects like this are quick to say, "just borrow the money".

Who says it has to be an either/or proposition? The responsible way to use debt in this situation would be to have it work in conjunction with MAPS, not to replace it. MAPS funding could be used to retire the bond on the already completed project rather than to provide the money that finally starts construction on a project. That way you get the best of both worlds.

If the city deems a particular MAPS project especially important, it would make financial sense to borrow the money upfront to get ahead of rising construction costs, get the project built sooner than later, and then repay the bond with the MAPS revenue that is already being dedicated to the project. Thus the city likely saves significantly on construction costs (which would offset some or all of the interest ultimately paid on the debt), and the city may be able to avoid the need to "compromise" on a project just because the cost estimates come in higher than expected (often due to the rising constructions costs). Plus the city gets all of the other tangible and intangible advantages that come from having the project completed way ahead of schedule (i.e. extra revenues start sooner rather than later).

One, construction costs aren't rising all that fast (in fact, construction costs might be getting ready to tank). Two, what happens if MAPS revenue falls short (which also might be a real possibility soon)? National and global economic data isn't looking good - just as oil prices are recovering.

On second thought, never mind. We are discussing an idea that will never happen. I'll fly out of GPI before the City repays bonds with MAPS money.

There are good times to borrow money. Determining whether any particular point in time is good or not is the hard part.

My last comment on this aspect of the CC. There isn't enough money to build the convention center they want, let alone build a convention center AND pay interest. The idea that the convention center will increase MAPS revenue to off-set the interest IS the growth model and it doesn't work (how much more empirical evidence do we need).

The idea that the convention center will increase MAPS revenue to off-set the interest IS the growth model and it doesn't work (how much more empirical evidence do we need).

LOL. If the CC doesn't generate revenues equal to or greater than 3% of its cost, then it's a VERY bad idea.

The idea that the convention center will increase MAPS revenue to off-set the interest IS the growth model and it doesn't work (how much more empirical evidence do we need).

It isn't that borrowing to finish it quickly will increase MAPS revenue, it is that it would reduce cost. Construction costs are escalating. Land costs have already escalated.


One, construction costs aren't rising all that fast (in fact, construction costs might be getting ready to tank).

Don't know why you think construction costs aren't increasing very fast. Your ideas of how to build a building close to the sidewalk are much better than your sense of economics. First Quarter 2015 Turner Building Cost Index - which measures costs in the non-residential building construction market in the United States - has increased to a value of 927. This reflects a 1.09% increase from the Fourth Quarter 2014 and a 4.75% increase from the First Quarter 2014.
10769

Bill Crum's update after the advisory committee meeting today.

Panel to further study Oklahoma City convention center sites | Oklahoman.com (http://www.oklahoman.com/article/5422703&headline=Panel%20to%20further%20study%20Oklahoma%2 0City%20convention%20center%20sites)


All five sites being studied for the MAPS 3 convention center remained in play Tuesday after an advisory committee agreed with architects’ recommendations to toss out some proposed configurations and authorize further analysis of others.

Linking the $287 million convention center with its proposed 600-room headquarters hotel, and locating the complex near transit, central business district hotels and Bricktown entertainment venues emerged as issues for committee members.

Lead designer Todd Voth, of the Populous design and architecture firm, offered the committee 11 possible configurations for the five sites under consideration. The five include the north portion of the MAPS 3 downtown park.

Gee, wonder how that ended up on the list of finalists, when previously the consultants had never considered it.

The downtown park’s lead architect has said putting the convention center on land reserved for the park would require designers to start over. Amenities, such as a great lawn and stage that are expected to bring in revenue to support park operations, would be erased.

Don't bother the convention center committee with these minor details!

But since you will be cutting so much, let's talk about that big, juicy budget of yours, shall we?

:lol2::lol2::lol2:

So, what money was used to purchase the land for the park? If it came out of the park budget, then I would assume the CC subcommittee would have to reimburse the park subcommittee for land already purchased at a rate that would allow them to acquire new land, such as that south of the Chesapeake Arena. They should also have to pay to have the substation removed (there's that pesky $30million the CC already appropriated via subterfuge) and reimburse the park subcommittee for all planning/consulting/architectural renderings for which they have already paid.

In no way am I saying I'm OK with this. I'm outraged personally. But if the CC succeeds in doing this outrageous and disrespectful thing, the Park subcommittee better not just lay down. I would fight for every penny of my budget and to change the configuration of the park, but not the size.

So, what money was used to purchase the land for the park? If it came out of the park budget, then I would assume the CC subcommittee would have to reimburse the park subcommittee for land already purchased at a rate that would allow them to acquire new land, such as that south of the Chesapeake Arena. They should also have to pay to have the substation removed (there's that pesky $30million the CC already appropriated via subterfuge) and reimburse the park subcommittee for all planning/consulting/architectural renderings for which they have already paid.

In no way am I saying I'm OK with this. I'm outraged personally. But if the CC succeeds in doing this outrageous and disrespectful thing, the Park subcommittee better not just lay down. I would fight for every penny of my budget and to change the configuration of the park, but not the size.

The park committee would for sure be reimbursed for the land the convention center takes. That's not even a question. This would allow for a more quality park with more money to invest on a sq ft basis. The same could be said with more money to invest in the convention center due to lower land acquisition costs.

Also, how hard is it really to design a park? Its not like you have to spend time with structural load engineering like you would a building. Just remove that stupid pond & keep the great lawn. The great lawn could even work in synergy with the convention center allowing a huge open outdoor space for gatherings. The pond is unneeded with the river directly to the south where river sport allows for boat rentals.

Trust me, I was super stoke for the park as much as anybody else. Go back & read the park thread & I promise you'll see nothing but positive posts from me, but this is a golden opportunity to basically combine 2 Maps projects that actually will improve both of them.

Are you a Chamber plant, Jccougar? They would be taking the land for the great lawn. They would be decreasing the size of the park dramatically. It would no longer exist as a dramatic park but rather as some grass backyard to the CC.. We don't need more money for the park. It doesn't need to be heavily programmed. Look at what Hargreaves charged to plan the park. This is NOT a golden opportunity. It's a slap in the face of the voters, and it's behavior as usual from the CC subcommittee, to whom no one appears willing to say "no"!

I will be spending most of the summer in Chicago, where they understand the importance of an iconic park. Millenium Park conjures up wonderful images doesn't it, and the scale is impressive. It's pretty simple really - mostly just green. Can anyone immediately conjure up an image of the Chicago Convention Center? Which one of those two things is most important to citizens of Chicago and visitors?

"Our" understanding Is completely out of date and screwed up if we think a CC will make our city more impressive.

Are you a Chamber plant, Jccougar? They would be taking the land for the great lawn. They would be decreasing the size of the park dramatically. It would no longer exist as a dramatic park but rather as some grass backyard to the CC.. We don't need more money for the park. It doesn't need to be heavily programmed. Look at what Hargreaves charged to plan the park. This is NOT a golden opportunity. It's a slap in the face of the voters, and it's behavior as usual from the CC subcommittee, to whom no one appears willing to say "no"!

What exactly was promised to the voters? Was the size of the park ever disclosed prior to voting? The park as designed right now IS highly programmed. I see people say they "want to get lost in the trees" but don't remember we had that park, & it was called the Myriad Gardens & nobody used it until we took all the trees out because it was scary.

Hargreaves over charged us, he's honestly been just as big of a hindrance to Maps planning as the convention center committee has been. I recommend you go back & reread the parks thread. He's been a major pain the butt from the get go on this.

I will be spending most of the summer in Chicago, where they understand the importance of an iconic park. Millenium Park conjures up wonderful images doesn't it, and the scale is impressive. It's pretty simple really - mostly just green. Can anyone immediately conjure up an image of the Chicago Convention Center? Which one of those two things is most important to citizens of Chicago and visitors?

"Our" understanding Is completely out of date and screwed up if we think a CC will make our city more impressive.

I agree, big open spaces are the most important aspect of the park. That is why I think hargreaves making threats about taking the great lawn out is complete bull**** when there is a ridiculous pond that takes up half the land that nobody will ever use. We could still have the great lawn, trees, flowers & programming with the convention center.

I actually like the pond.

Whether or not you like Hargreaves is irrelevant. Is their design what I would create personally? Maybe not, but that's not an excuse to make the park smaller. What the voters were sold was an iconic Central Park. What they've been told they are getting for YEARS....until this article....is what they should get. The only excuse for making it smaller should be an inadequate budget to purchase the land for the park....which did not happen. What we should also get is a $250 million Convention Center somewhere reasonably close to other hotels. The land south of the Chesapeake Arena is as close to Bricktown as the parkland in question. The city already owns some of the land. The $30 million to move the substation already exists. The CC would not have to be built underground, saving money. There is room for expansion. I see no reason to take away the park when a perfectly acceptable site already exists - the one the mayor favored from the outset, and one Pete has shown us will work.