Don't even try to spin the CC committee raiding the park committee for land as a positive, it isn't even a particularly good joke.

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.

If they are required to start over, they better darned well incorporate the Film Exchange in a new design. No reason not to at that point.

Don't think it will happen. The park committee won't rollover like that.

As to the conversation above, I agree the pond is dumb regardless of the CC taking land of the park. I would much prefer more "great lawn" type of space.


Currently the only lawn/staging area at the Myriad Gardens is almost constantly used and is overcrowded.

So far, the only one on the Park subcommittee speaking out is Anthony McDermid. I haven't heard a word from Kimberly Lowe. Nor has she spoken up against the powers that be in the past.

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.

Also it would appear as though Couch/Kerr Park and Sandridge Commons will be the new place in town to get lost in the trees...

If I have time, I will try to go to the Park meeting. You are right. I haven't heard anyone else on the Park Subcommittee specifically and publicly speak out against this proposal.

Here is the proposal for the Central Park site.

The main exhibit hall would be underground, as was proposed for the original site, and the hotel would be on the other side of Robinson.

The gray above-ground box would be for future expansion.



http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/cc052615a.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/cc052615b.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/cc052615c.jpg

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"Our" understanding Is completely out of date and screwed up if we think a CC will make our city more impressive.

Millennium Park is very impressive, but I'd hardly categorize it as simple or mostly just green. The park is highly programmed: there's THE BEAN (or Cloud Gate, if you prefer - the large chrome sculpture; strangely neat and draws huge crowds), multiple plazas and fountains, including Crown Fountain, Boeing Gallery (outdoor art exhibition space), Pritzker Pavilion and Great Lawn (huge ampitheatre), Harris Theater (1525-seat performing arts theater) and Lurie Garden (2 and a half acres of very pretty flowers, grasses, shrubs, and trees). Millennium Park is only the NW corner of the huge Grant Park complex, but even looking at the wider view and taking all of Grant Park into account, it's still a highly programmed space. The rest of Grant Park includes Congress Plaza, the Art Institute of Chicago, Buckingham Fountain (very impressive, very large fountain in the center of the park; totally recommend visiting it), several monuments (including one for Abraham Lincoln), the Petrillo Music Shell (another outdoor ampitheatre), and the complex of incredibly impressive museums - Adler Planetarium, Field Museum of Natural History, and the Shedd Aquarium - just north of Soldier Field. There are, of course, some softball/baseball fields and tennis courts (16 and 12, respectively), part of the Lakefront Trail, and expansive gardens as well - but it's still probably the biggest, busiest park I've ever visited. And that was at Noon on a non-holiday-weekend Friday. The Central Park is going to be the closest thing we've got to Chicago's Grant Park, and we just can't afford to let it get cut in half by the convention center.

One other thing to note: Grant Park is bisected by multiple streets, including one of the busiest streets in downtown Chicago: Lake Shore Drive. However, appropriately placed and designed sidewalks and crosswalks did not impede foot traffic at all, in my experience, and were heavily used while I was visiting. Part of this is due to never needing to activate a crosswalk... Everywhere we went in downtown Chicago, walk cycles are automatic and programmed in to every street light. There are extremely few call boxes because in nearly all cases, they're simply not necessary. Assuming ODOT and the City coordinate and build appropriate crosswalks across the Boulevard (and I realize that is a pretty tall order, but still), I don't think it'll be the Great Wall impeding pedestrian movement to the extent that many seem to think it will be. Additional crosswalks can also be added where necessary, similar to the crosswalk between the Cox Convention Center and the 'Peake.

it's going to be a tad silly if we end up robbing from the park for this thing and then the original site ends up vacant for years (a la canal-mini golf site) because it's priced too high...

it's going to be a tad silly if we end up robbing from the park for this thing and then the original site ends up vacant for years (a la canal-mini golf site) because it's priced too high...

If I am not mistaking, the existing owners have intention of developing it. Somebody correct me if I am wrong.

Before it was chosen by the convention center committee, the owners (REHCO) had announced a large-mixed use project, although there were no specifics provided.

Right, but in my specific example of that canal spot, how many announcements had been made and now we get mini-golf after all these years...

Here is the proposal for the Central Park site...

I just threw up in my mouth a little.

Can anyone immediately conjure up an image of the Chicago Convention Center?

What's interesting about it is that the McCormick Place isn't really by that much at all, which is hard to do in Chicago, and it seems to do juuuuuuuuuuust fine down there.

Here is the proposal for the Central Park site.

The main exhibit hall would be underground, as was proposed for the original site, and the hotel would be on the other side of Robinson.

The gray above-ground box would be for future expansion.



http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/cc052615a.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/cc052615b.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/cc052615c.jpg


No, no, and no. It's amazing to me the same mistakes continue to be made.

There is no good justification for North Park, when East Park works better in every. single. way. It's a joke that they even considered it.

I'm guessing that the thinking is "Hey, look at all this land that has already been acquired by the city."

Others can view as they choose, but as for me:
Hey, Not this MAPs folks ... looks like you were right to be so danged skeptical after all.

I think going forward, I'll probably just keep my spending here in Norman. The city won't miss it at all, but I'll feel a little better about not being a part of this mess.

Even if you think the park is stupid or just going to be a place for homeless. It would set a bad precedent if bad planning is rewarded by taking resources away from a project that didn't have problems.

I would probably vote no on the next MAPS unless it only had one or two specific items on it.

I know its been raining everyday for the past month, but the sky is not falling. I promise.

If they choose the park site (they probably won't) its really won't be that bad. I think it will make both of the amenities more busy then they would alone. The park will draw foot traffic by convention attendees, and having the park connected to the convention center will only help differentiate ourselves in the convention industry. There would be really nothing quite like it in the entire region, especially for the level of conventions we are trying to attract. It makes us a very unique destination & will allow us to host conventions that would require a big open outdoor space nearby.

Seriously, just try to envision you are standing in the park with a beautiful convention center in the corner. Does that really disgust you? I think it would be beautiful.

It also leaves a ton more valuable land downtown for private development. A major benefit of the maps projects is spurring private projects, while also providing public amenities.

Some of you guys saying you won't vote for the next maps because of this are being ridiculous. A vote against maps is a vote against the greater good of OKC & if that is how you feel then we really can't be friends. Stop being the kid who picks up his ball & goes home when he doesn't get his way.

No, people are not being ridiculous -- dramatic, perhaps. But it would be an affront to the voters and residents of this city to take land away from the park, one of the major quality of life initiatives in MAPS 3, for a Convention Center that mainly caters to out-of-town guests (and is not always in use). Yes, that would be bad. No reason to sugar coat it.

Also, while some of us here may withhold our contempt against such an action and continue to support MAPS votes, there is no guarantee a majority of voters in OKC would.

It's a bad idea and they need to scrap it.

I know its been raining everyday for the past month, but the sky is not falling. I promise.

If they choose the park site (they probably won't) its really won't be that bad. I think it will make both of the amenities more busy then they would alone. The park will draw foot traffic by convention attendees, and having the park connected to the convention center will only help differentiate ourselves in the convention industry. There would be really nothing quite like it in the entire region, especially for the level of conventions we are trying to attract. It makes us a very unique destination & will allow us to host conventions that would require a big open outdoor space nearby.

Seriously, just try to envision you are standing in the park with a beautiful convention center in the corner. Does that really disgust you? I think it would be beautiful.

It also leaves a ton more valuable land downtown for private development. A major benefit of the maps projects is spurring private projects, while also providing public amenities.

Some of you guys saying you won't vote for the next maps because of this are being ridiculous. A vote against maps is a vote against the greater good of OKC & if that is how you feel then we really can't be friends. Stop being the kid who picks up his ball & goes home when he doesn't get his way.

I don't even know how to respond to this nonsense.

Others can view as they choose, but as for me:
Hey, Not this MAPs folks ... looks like you were right to be so danged skeptical after all.

I think going forward, I'll probably just keep my spending here in Norman. The city won't miss it at all, but I'll feel a little better about not being a part of this mess.

No offense Kevin, but that comment reveals a (rare for you) lack of context and historical perspective. It's something that's easy to do, because we are in the moment plus frustrated because things aren't going perfectly.

But this round of MAPS has yet to approach the level of controversy or bumpiness of the original. It only SEEMS more messy because we now have social media and dedicated forums like this one for hyper-interested parties (like us) to mercilessly pick apart every step and misstep along the way, ad nauseam. We also live in the age of outrage. Everything moves from curiosity to OMG THIS IS AN ABOMINATION!!!!!!! very quickly, often (usually?) without even the benefit of complete information.

During the first MAPS, I was close to people intimately involved in the execution, and believe me, it got INCREDIBLY ugly. And had you taken a poll during the mid nineties of the general population of OKC, probably somewhere around half would have told you that it would never happen. This AFTER the vote had been passed, after taxes had begun being collected, and after sites had been identified and plans had been released. These days, while those of us here might be variously troubled by the progress or lack thereof, probably 90% of the city's populace is blissfully unaware that there is even significant controversy, OR at least assume that it will all work out. Big difference.

The period we are in right now (nothing yet built, lots of meetings and discussions, many of them disagreeable) was referred to as "the butchering of the steer" by my friend Devery Youngblood, who served as the Chamber's MAPS Private Investment Coordinator during the first MAPS, and later as President of Downtown OKC, Inc. The fact of the matter is, before you enjoy a steak dinner, there is a lot of ugly activity that nobody really wants to think about, and is frankly shocking if watched.

I don't even know how to respond to this nonsense.

Pete, can you do something about posts like this one and the "I'm going to puke" posts? They don't add anything to discussion, and they are unwarranted attacks just based on disagreements of opinion.

No, people are not being ridiculous -- dramatic, perhaps. But it would be an affront to the voters and residents of this city to take land away from the park, one of the major quality of life initiatives in MAPS 3, for a Convention Center that mainly caters to out-of-town guests (and is not always in use). Yes, that would be bad. No reason to sugar coat it.

Also, while some of us here may withhold our contempt against such an action and continue to support MAPS votes, there is no guarantee a majority of voters in OKC would.

It's a bad idea and they need to scrap it.

About 70% of attendees at the Cox center live in metro-OKC. The vast majority of the remaining 30% live in Oklahoma.

Where do you even get figures like this? Do you make them up as you go along? That's simply not true. You can't just spout off made-up information to support your position.

While I agree with you that ultimate economic impact numbers used to sell the CC might have been generous guesses, suggesting that conference numbers and attendee makeup will remain static even in the face of a new facility is even more disingenuous. It's like talking about how few NBA fans live in Oklahoma...in 2004.

Though I agree that we will never compete with cities like Vegas, San Antonio, Orlando, etc., anyone who doubts that a new facility will fundamentally change the industry here - resulting in a dramatic uptick in room nights, tax collections and other infusions to the local economy are simply put, "aginners". These changes will be especially dramatic if we continue to play to our current (and main) conference sales strength - an easily walkable destination - through wise facility location selection.

I routinely receive internal industry reports that show a pretty pretty impressive sales effort by the CVB despite a lousy facilities situation. I can't easily find it online, so don't feel right in sharing it here (though I have in the past shared links with certain posters). But here is a public document found online via Google search, which was recently shared with the Mayor and Council. There's lots of dry economic data within, but you can pretty quickly see what type of impact the industry already has on OKC, even with a terrible facilities situation: http://www.okc.gov/councilnotes/2015/050515files/CVB%20report.pdf

Interesting feedback from individuals who shall not be disclosed. Apparently the "Park East" site is finally going to be properly assessed. Some significant political support has oriented itself towards that site for many of the planning and urban form related reasons that have been outlined on this forum.

As always, the substation is the issue. A legitimate price tag and resolution will have to be placed on it this month to be able to score the site properly. It has always been arbitrarily evaluated in the past. I suspect that direct contact with OG+E is finally underway.

I would think that the city could come to some sort of reasonable deal with OG&E on relocating the substation, especially with development of the new OG&E headquarters being held up while TIF dollars are being sorted out. Sounds like a good opportunity for some quid pro quo.

About 70% of attendees at the Cox center live in metro-OKC. The vast majority of the remaining 30% live in Oklahoma.


Where do you even get figures like this?

Looking at the list of what's booked this year, most appear to be local draw type events to me.

Cox Convention Center :: Events (http://www.coxconventioncenter.com/events/all)

Sure seems like we would have a really good idea of those numbers but they don't appear to be spelled out in the various consultants' reports, or anywhere else. Why is that?

Interesting feedback from individuals who shall not be disclosed. Apparently the "Park East" site is finally going to be properly assessed. Some significant political support has oriented itself towards that site for many of the planning and urban form related reasons that have been outlined on this forum.

As always, the substation is the issue. A legitimate price tag and resolution will have to be placed on it this month to be able to score the site properly. It has always been arbitrarily evaluated in the past. I suspect that direct contact with OG+E is finally underway.

Substation is not the only issue. East park also places most amenities and hotel rooms outside of the desired industry-standard walkability radius, behind major barriers to walking, in the form of the below grade and highway-like boulevard, Reno Avenue and Shields/Gaylord. The other matter, as you discuss, is saddling the CC with the cost of relocating OG+E, which should absolutely be lumped into the site acquisition cost when doing apples-to-apples comparison. But I agree that it is apparently gaining traction.

Where do you even get figures like this? Do you make them up as you go along? That's simply not true. You can't just spout off made-up information to support your position.

I went through all the attendance figures for events at the Cox Center, Something like half of all Cox Center users were Barons fans (and half of them were no-shows). Look at the event calendar, who do you think is attending high school graduations and the Oklahoma Bridal Show?

Looking at the list of what's booked this year, most appear to be local draw type events to me.

Cox Convention Center :: Events (http://www.coxconventioncenter.com/events/all)

Sure seems like we would have a really good idea of those numbers but they don't appear to be spelled out in the various consultants' reports, or anywhere else. Why is that?

Very comprehensive numbers are available on a monthly basis from the CVB, online. They can be found at http://www.visitokc.com/about-the-okccvb/convention-calendar/

Again, judging the performance of the convention business with completely inadequate facilities in place is like griping about how few major league sports events we held prior to the construction of the Chesapeake Arena (previously Ford Center), or how few rowing events we held before the damming of the North Canadian and construction of boathouses, or complaining about lousy shopping before there were decent retail centers in OKC, or a bad music scene when we had no decent music venues. It may seem corny and naive to say "if we build it they will come," but this has repeatedly worked for OKC.

Right now the CVB is performing admirably considering no adequate building to sell. They are blowing people away in the sports category, because we have venues. They would perform even better JUST in the sports category with an improved CC situation and better ability to block rooms. But we are also missing convention sales opportunities, local, regional AND national. This happens every month. If you would like to look at a fuller and more comprehensive breakdown of our upcoming meetings (and see how heavily we are relying on venues other than Cox), I would suggest you click here: ISSUU - Convention Calendar - May 2015 by Oklahoma City Convention & Visitors Bureau (http://issuu.com/visitokc/docs/5_-_may_2015_convention_calendar/1?e=1692470/12603995)

Again, judging the performance of the convention business with completely inadequate facilities in place is like

So you do or do not dispute the vast majority of people who attend the COX center activities are local? That's what I addressed.

Interesting feedback from individuals who shall not be disclosed. Apparently the "Park East" site is finally going to be properly assessed. Some significant political support has oriented itself towards that site for many of the planning and urban form related reasons that have been outlined on this forum.

As always, the substation is the issue. A legitimate price tag and resolution will have to be placed on it this month to be able to score the site properly. It has always been arbitrarily evaluated in the past. I suspect that direct contact with OG+E is finally underway.
Another number that should be considered when taking on a site outside of the industry-standard walkability bubble is any additional streetcar construction and/or operational expenses driven by a more remote location. These should absolutely be added to the "land acquisition" equation. If a location is fully walkable, that number is zero. If it is not, and it drives more streetcar expense, the number is in the millions.

So you do or do not dispute the vast majority of people who attend the COX center activities are local? That's what I addressed.

I don't dispute that the majority currently are, in large part thanks to the fact that we don't have a salable facility and adjacent controllable room blocks. When convention planners look at OKC they have to book for reasons other than facilities, and in fact in spite of them. You can't sell out of an empty basket. Where I was taking issue with JTF is that the numbers in his original statement left almost no room for out-of-state attendees, and that is simply not true at all.

But even after the new CC is built there will be a large number of local and statewide events, and that is no different than any other CC around the country and certainly not a bad thing.

I don't dispute that the majority currently are, in large part thanks to the fact that we don't have a salable facility and adjacent controllable room blocks. When convention planners look at OKC they have to book for reasons other than facilities, and in fact in spite of them. You can't sell out of an empty basket. Where I was taking issue with JTF is that the numbers in his original statement left almost no room for out-of-state attendees, and that is simply not true at all.

My only add on to the agreed upon facts, the reports being fed to the council, the Stone report in particular about the need for a hotel, are based on number of attendees at the COX center, without regard that almost all of them are locals.

I went through all the attendance figures for events at the Cox Center, Something like half of all Cox Center users were Barons fans (and half of them were no-shows). Look at the event calendar, who do you think is attending high school graduations and the Oklahoma Bridal Show?

Cox Center =/= Convention Center. The Baron's most assuredly do not belong in a conversation about Convention attendance, because the Baron's are a sports team and not a convention.

That's just insanely dishonest intellectually…Unless we're putting an Arena into the new facility that we haven't been made aware of.

Cox Center =/= Convention Center. The Baron's most assuredly do not belong in a conversation about Convention attendance, because the Baron's are a sports team and not a convention.

That's just insanely dishonest intellectually…Unless we're putting an Arena into the new facility that we haven't been made aware of.

That is industry standard, everywhere in the country. All uses of a building are reported. If you look at the links I posted, they also include attendance at sporting venues throughout the metro, plus many other uses that aren't strictly "convention".

Cox Center =/= Convention Center. The Baron's most assuredly do not belong in a conversation about Convention attendance, because the Baron's are a sports team and not a convention.

That's just insanely dishonest intellectually…Unless we're putting an Arena into the new facility that we haven't been made aware of.

Agreed. Those historical Cox attendance numbers appear to have been used by the consultants to determine X expansion in convention center space would generate Y times existing attendance and the need for Z many more hotel rooms, while most in attendance were locals.

Cox Center =/= Convention Center. The Baron's most assuredly do not belong in a conversation about Convention attendance, because the Baron's are a sports team and not a convention.

That's just insanely dishonest intellectually…Unless we're putting an Arena into the new facility that we haven't been made aware of.

Don't tell me, tell the CVB and the Chamber. They are the ones that lumped them together. And you are right about the arena. The new convention center will struggle to match the current attendance. Of course, then we will hear how the Barons attendance inflated the 'old' numbers.

Oh the web we weave when at first we try to deceive.

I run a convention that has decent attendance and was evaluated to have an economic impact in OKC of over 500k. We moved from OKC to Midwest City in 2013 due to issues with the Cox Center and the availability of rooms downtown. Our draw was about 50/50 local vs out of town/state.

I'm sure I'm not alone in that choice.

Substation is not the only issue. East park also places most amenities and hotel rooms outside of the desired industry-standard walkability radius, behind major barriers to walking, in the form of the below grade and highway-like boulevard, Reno Avenue and Shields/Gaylord. The other matter, as you discuss, is saddling the CC with the cost of relocating OG+E, which should absolutely be lumped into the site acquisition cost when doing apples-to-apples comparison. But I agree that it is apparently gaining traction.

Honestly, what site is better? Unless they can work something out with the Howard site I don't see anything that is more appealing.

:treadmill

I run a convention that has decent attendance and was evaluated to have an economic impact in OKC of over 500k. We moved from OKC to Midwest City in 2013 due to issues with the Cox Center and the availability of rooms downtown. Our draw was about 50/50 local vs out of town/state.

I'm sure I'm not alone in that choice.

Just curious, was your economic impact calculated using your entire group or just the 50% from outside the area? I only ask because with things like the AICCM, they simply multiply the number of visitors by the spending of a represenative visitor to the area, add in a multiplier, and announce that as the economic impact, never even taking into accout that many of the 'visitors' are local school children on a class fieldtrip.

Just curious, was your economic impact calculated using your entire group or just the 50% from outside the area? I only ask because with things like the AICCM, they simply multiply the number of visitors by the spending of a represenative visitor to the area, add in a multiplier, and announce that as the economic impact, never even taking into accout that many of the 'visitors' are local school children on a class fieldtrip.

I'm sure its the total visitors, but the overwhelming majority of our attendees stay in the (or a) hotel, and eat near the convention center. That's also not counting all the exhibitors that set up and stay at the hotel, and the speakers (typically around 150 of them) who also all stay in the hotel and eat at the local restaurants.

And honestly, even if the dollar amount is off, that wasn't really the point (since honestly, any impact we had was just a drop in the bucket - especially compared with the cost of a new center). The point was that if I was making decisions to locate outside of OKC due to the facilities, then I'm sure others have been as well.

Honestly, what site is better? Unless they can work something out with the Howard site I don't see anything that is more appealing.
Of the sites currently being evaluated only the dealership site is better. I think you and I are in agreement on that.

:wink:
Another number that should be considered when taking on a site outside of the industry-standard walkability bubble is any additional streetcar construction and/or operational expenses driven by a more remote location. These should absolutely be added to the "land acquisition" equation. If a location is fully walkable, that number is zero. If it is not, and it drives more streetcar expense, the number is in the millions.

I kinda thought of that a long time ago. Where do you think our remaing "Phase 2" money is going?

Substation is not the only issue. East park also places most amenities and hotel rooms outside of the desired industry-standard walkability radius, behind major barriers to walking, in the form of the below grade and highway-like boulevard, Reno Avenue and Shields/Gaylord. The other matter, as you discuss, is saddling the CC with the cost of relocating OG+E, which should absolutely be lumped into the site acquisition cost when doing apples-to-apples comparison. But I agree that it is apparently gaining traction.

This is getting to be a silly argument. When looking at the CC that uses parkland and the site south of the Ford Center, they are both at precisely the same latitude. You have to cross the boulevard regardless. It's probably going to be such an impediment to pedestrians that they might as well build an underground or a bridge so elevation is moot. The center of the CC within the park is farther from Bricktown by a block and it's not significantly closer to any hotels either. There shouldn't even be a boulevard, and this problem illustrates the ridiculousness of it's creation, but be that as it may, we're absolutely splitting hairs to the point of ridiculousness to imply that there is enough difference between the two locations that a convention goer would walk to Bricktown from one and not from the other. I'm sorry, but if that is the best argument for using the park instead of the east park site, it will be almost virtually impossible to justify. I saw Populous use some specious number assignment the last time they gave a presentation on the sites, so I'm fully expecting to be outraged, but any difference between these two sites is so small as to be insignificant. OG&E needs to give as well as get, and were I the city, I'd try to do a land swap and pay for the labor to move the substation only. If that's $30 million, then I am again in the wrong business, but regardless, they'll probably save that much by not having to put half of the CC underground.

This is getting to be a silly argument. When looking at the CC that uses parkland and the site south of the Ford Center, they are both at precisely the same latitude. You have to cross the boulevard regardless. It's probably going to be such an impediment to pedestrians that they might as well build an underground or a bridge so elevation is moot. The center of the CC within the park is farther from Bricktown by a block and it's not significantly closer to any hotels either. There shouldn't even be a boulevard, and this problem illustrates the ridiculousness of it's creation, but be that as it may, we're absolutely splitting hairs to the point of ridiculousness to imply that there is enough difference between the two locations that a convention goer would walk to Bricktown from one and not from the other. I'm sorry, but if that is the best argument for using the park instead of the east park site, it will be almost virtually impossible to justify. I saw Populous use some specious number assignment the last time they gave a presentation on the sites, so I'm fully expecting to be outraged, but any difference between these two sites is so small as to be insignificant. OG&E needs to give as well as get, and were I the city, I'd try to do a land swap and pay for the labor to move the substation only. If that's $30 million, then I am again in the wrong business, but regardless, they'll probably save that much by not having to put half of the CC underground.

Actually, Convention Attendees would not need to cross the Boulevard if we capped the tunnel that will split the CHK and block between Broadway/EKGaylord.

I said this earlier in the year, but if you capped that area, you could also have place for a food-truck park which would DEFINITELY address the lunch-time issue for attendees.

The boulevard isn't going to be deep enough to cap it.

~850 feet between Harvey and EK Gaylord.

If you allotted 150ft to the capping, then the grade would still be less than 3°.

The area would be between 65% and 75% of the area of Bleu Garten and it would give pedestrians an unobstructed path to Reno.

How far are they taking the Boulevard down?

8'

What's another 17 feet???!!!!

So the railroad bridge is about 13.5' elevated at that location. They are aiming for around a total 17.5' entry depression. There are 20' wide sidewalks planned for at least one side of the underpass to allow mass pedestrian movement into Bricktown. Declination begins approximately 350' west of the EK Gaylord intersection and just west of the Oklahoma Ave intersection.

There is an opportunity to design substantial pedestrian infrastructure not unlike the sidewalks near the Cox to feed into these 20' wide sidewalks at the underpass. Maybe it might help alleviate some of the concerns that Urbanized and other Bricktown stakeholders have regarding accommodation the mass exodus that happens with conventions at the East Park site and adjacent Thunder games.

This is getting to be a silly argument. When looking at the CC that uses parkland and the site south of the Ford Center, they are both at precisely the same latitude. You have to cross the boulevard regardless. It's probably going to be such an impediment to pedestrians that they might as well build an underground or a bridge so elevation is moot. The center of the CC within the park is farther from Bricktown by a block and it's not significantly closer to any hotels either. There shouldn't even be a boulevard, and this problem illustrates the ridiculousness of it's creation, but be that as it may, we're absolutely splitting hairs to the point of ridiculousness to imply that there is enough difference between the two locations that a convention goer would walk to Bricktown from one and not from the other. I'm sorry, but if that is the best argument for using the park instead of the east park site, it will be almost virtually impossible to justify. I saw Populous use some specious number assignment the last time they gave a presentation on the sites, so I'm fully expecting to be outraged, but any difference between these two sites is so small as to be insignificant. OG&E needs to give as well as get, and were I the city, I'd try to do a land swap and pay for the labor to move the substation only. If that's $30 million, then I am again in the wrong business, but regardless, they'll probably save that much by not having to put half of the CC underground.

I have never, EVER promoted the north park idea. In fact I'm decidedly against it. You're arguing against a straw man. Not surprising.

The fact that the idea of creating a cap for pedestrians to cross the boulevard is coming up is a sign that everyone already knows how big of a mistake the boulevard is

We forced major changes to the Boulevard. But the only way it will truly be pedestrian friendly and be of proper scale is if once the city takes the keys, spends the money to tear out significant portions of it and fix it to what it should be.

Actually, Convention Attendees would not need to cross the Boulevard if we capped the tunnel that will split the CHK and block between Broadway/EKGaylord.

I said this earlier in the year, but if you capped that area, you could also have place for a food-truck park which would DEFINITELY address the lunch-time issue for attendees.

Agree with the capped area which would be better suited for a monument; however, the idea (only on suggestion on your part) of the Lunch-time issue for attendees eating from a food truck? Hopefully Bricktown or the Conference Hotel could better address this issue providing lunch for attendees.

Agree with the capped area which would be better suited for a monument; however, the idea (only on suggestion on your part) of the Lunch-time issue for attendees eating from a food truck? Hopefully Bricktown or the Conference Hotel could better address this issue providing lunch for attendees.

Bricktown is too far away from all potential locations with too few quick-service concepts to be a comprehensive solution for lunch. I'm sure certain places could mitigate the service aspect, but if Abuelo's or In The Raw or other sit-down concepts are going to make a push for convention lunch business, they might as well deliver to the C.C.

A hotel restaurant is also not a significant solution.

Anyway, Food Trucks will be down in this area during conventions regardless of whether they have a dedicated area, because there is money to be made. So it needs to be considered in this whole situation anyway.