While the park east site is to some "too far from Bricktown," what it does offer is an outstanding chance for Hubcap Alley to develop into something. I drive that stretch of Robinson everyday and I just think it's ripe for something great.

Isn't Hubcap Alley the space south of I-40? That's even further than Bricktown.

Isn't Hubcap Alley the space south of I-40? That's even further than Bricktown.

Yeah i know, probably a bad comparison, but the more non-park development south of the boulevard the better for that area. My fault

"too far from Bricktown,"

Anecdotally, I've been to a few conventions...Dallas, Kansas City, Detroit, Orlando, Seattle, Denver, Minneapolis among them. The only time we ever walked somewhere to eat outside the venue was in Seattle, from the Washington State Convention Center to Pike Place, about a half mile. We did that one time during the convention. Almost all of the conventions had buffets in the center, great food usually, usually part of the plan. Frequently eating over some convention related presentation and/or socializing with other convention goers. Sometimes there were planned activities away from the center, both us on our own or some as small groups, but they were usually not walking distance, like a business to visit and tour as part of the convention, Epcot, an art museum or something. FWIW.

~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.
I don't know about you, but when I am eating lunch in business attire, I prefer to eat at a table with chairs. Will there be enough for the crowd that would be served? Additionally in inclement weather, being tied to the choices of having to stand outside to order and eat is a non starter.

Anecdotally, I've been to a few conventions...Dallas, Kansas City, Detroit, Orlando, Seattle, Denver, Minneapolis among them. The only time we ever walked somewhere to eat outside the venue was in Seattle, from the Washington State Convention Center to Pike Place, about a half mile. We did that one time during the convention. Almost all of the conventions had buffets in the center, great food usually, usually part of the plan. Frequently eating over some convention related presentation and/or socializing with other convention goers. Sometimes there were planned activities away from the center, both us on our own or some as small groups, but they were usually not walking distance, like a business to visit and tour as part of the convention, Epcot, an art museum or something. FWIW.

I have the same perspective as this. Generally the out of town conferences that I have been to serve lunch buffet style on site.

I have the same perspective as this. Generally the out of town conferences that I have been to serve lunch buffet style on site.

I've experienced both. It depends if it's a business meeting type conference vs a more expo type. Steaming Media East and West, ComicCon, DefCon, Napte (tv advertising), DragonCon, Wizard World (which Tulsa got and not OKC) etc.... none of those offer a buffet. Attendees get their own lunch. That being said, in those type of conferences there's less of a rigid schedule, so closeness is less of a concern. So really, the times that timing matter, I agree, they tend to provide lunch.

I want to be careful saying this, because obviously a quality CC will be a major boon to Bricktown (and other parts of downtown), but honestly the CC needs Bricktown (and downtown hotels) more than downtown hotels and BT need the CC. Downtown hotels are packed nightly RIGHT NOW, even with inadequate CC facilities, and Bricktown gets more great news seemingly weekly in the form of residential, office, retail and hotel properties, all which stabilize and add to demand. The district's future is rosy, CC or no.

Walkable proximity to hotel rooms is equally or even more important than proximity to dining/entertainment. Being correctly proximate to existing hotels would also make the CC walkable to dining and entertainment options OUTSIDE of Bricktown (MBG, Park House, Mahogany, bars/restaurants in hotels and CBD). Bricktown would get conventioneers even if the CC weren't downtown. The trick is getting conventioneers to OKC in the first place, NOT getting them to Bricktown. The building has to be salable to planners.

To ensure CC viability OKC has to play to its strengths, and in the case of conventions believe it or not OKC's greatest asset is its walkable density downtown. Deviation from this formula is asking for trouble.

:wink:

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

So UP, how much will it cost in added track and additional ongoing operational budget to focus additional service at the CC to make up for poor connection to the rest of downtown? That number should absolutely be a part of the site selection formula, no matter whose budget it comes from. Those are real costs that could be avoided by making street car service incidental to the CC rather than a stop-gap measure to try and make the CC workable in a poor - but cheaper - location.

Urbanized, I'll gladly respond later after H&8th.

Thanks UP.

The challenge to placing the CC in a walkable area is that there is a very real chance the CC will destroy the very walkability it was attracted to. This is because CCs are built way outside the human scale that is a fundamental ingrediant to walkability. The Pennsylvania CC killed the part of Philadelphia it is located in.

1. "How much will it cost in added track and additional ongoing operational budget to focus additional service at the CC to make up for poor connection to the rest of downtown? "

A. I don't know yet but I suspect it will be all of the "Phase 2" money. B. If we are specifically talking about the "East Park" site, presumably their are cost efficiencies associated with the fact that the streets have not been built yet. C. It doesn't have to be a poor connection. I think streetcar can easily accommodate the "East Park" site. I think the opportunities are there to build a solid pedestrian connection into the area as well.

2. "That number should absolutely be a part of the site selection formula, no matter whose budget it comes from. Those are real costs... "

That would be nice. I would love it. However, I doubt it will happen in any type of actual report by the consultants. The Consultants always want to compartmentalize. Some members of the Convention Center Subcommittee (Gary Marrs, Ms. Hooper, Roy Williams, for what its worth, did publicly express a concern as to potential impacts not only to the streetcar, but all of the projects underway in the area... Park, OKC Boulevard, EK Gayord Project 180 segment, and Santa Fe Station Intermodal Hub.

3. "that could be avoided by making street car service incidental to the CC rather than a stop-gap measure to try and make the CC workable in a poor - but cheaper - location."

I guess that's where we disagree. On a personal level, I was bewildered when Russell Claus' (former Planning Director) plans were disregarded and we even went into a site selection process. I thought he and his department had put a great deal of thought into what they wanted Core 2 Shore to be. They readily admitted that they considered it a 25 - 50 year plan. But the Convention Center was always a considered a major "bookend" development to the east in that plan. Mayor Cornett also liked the site. I guess I don't consider "East Park" to be a poor location as you seem to. The OKC Boulevard is much wider than I would prefer. Way too much concrete. It can be and will probably be an unnecessary barrier by the sheer scale in width. But that can be remedied later. I want to stress that I am not publicly expressing a preference for the "East Park". As you eloquently expressed in you other post above, Bricktown is changing and it will continue to do well regardless of the selected site. Real estate broker Gary Gregory is really pushing for the "West Park" site on part of the Blumenthal Family and related consortium. I guess that site's scoring valuation largely depends on the decision maker's opinion on the importance of the proximity of that site and other western sites to Bricktown.

Regarding streetcar.... We (early streetcar supporters) always thought that wherever the Convention Center was downtown, it was important to connect to it. Originally there was no "Phase 1" or "Phase 2" proposed. Such concepts were created by Architectural Design Group to try to give the Oversight Board and City Council options on how to cash flow out all and build all of the MAPS projects. Several of us (on the transit Subcommittee) went those City Council meetings and raised hell. We wanted streetcar to be all one continuous project. It is a system. Segmenting a piece out simply for the cash flows of other projects seemed detrimental to the streetcar program to many of us. Well cash flows have been better than expected. Collections of sales tax have exceeded expectations. As with most Public Works Projects, MAPS is taking longer to design and build than expected. The relevance of a "Phase 2" to streetcar is decidedly irrelevant despite the City Staff's insistence that we acknowledge it's existence on paper and how we have been forced to approve contracting letting. Ironically however, the delays and minutia have positioned us well to help solve this problem of the Convention Center site and be relatively quickly and seamlessly integrated into the final designs for the overall plan. It is ironic. It was not planned this way. This situation is entirely circumstantial.

Based on feedback from reputable people, I think the City and consultants are seriously looking at the East Park site again. This is due to the good comps and relatively easy acquisition that they have had for the Park site. There doesn't seem to be broad support to actually take land away from the Park. I am not sure about how the other sites stand.

I have more details on streetcar route design concepts but would prefer to withhold those ideas until we have a better idea of whether these notions as to a scoring preference for "East Park" are true.

So UP, how much will it cost in added track and additional ongoing operational budget to focus additional service at the CC to make up for poor connection to the rest of downtown? That number should absolutely be a part of the site selection formula, no matter whose budget it comes from. Those are real costs that could be avoided by making street car service incidental to the CC rather than a stop-gap measure to try and make the CC workable in a poor - but cheaper - location.

Thank you!! We are in total agreement about the convention center now. The streetcar can be a big part of a solution, although it isn't THE solution for getting to a CC.

Very comprehensive numbers are available on a monthly basis from the CVB, online. They can be found at Oklahoma City, OK Tourism | Oklahoma City Visitors Bureau (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)
It'd be entertaining to be in the board meeting when someone mentions OKC as a possibility for their annual convention.

It'd be entertaining to be in the board meeting when someone mentions OKC as a possibility for their annual convention.

Agreed. This convention center, if built in the right location, over time will help dispel some of the negative perceptions people have about OKC. Just look at what the convention industry has done for Indianapolis, another "middle America" city.

Agreed. This convention center, if built in the right location, over time will help dispel some of the negative perceptions people have about OKC. Just look at what the convention industry has done for Indianapolis, another "middle America" city.

To be fair, Indianapolis has had positive name recognition for 40 years. So did Milwaukee, Dallas, Denver, Atlanta, Seattle, Phoenix, San Diego, Boston, Miami, and Cincinnati. Now if OKC could get a #1 TV drama or sitcom for 10 years we could follow that route.

AUQaws4mveM

It didn't last 10 years and was never number one, but we did have this. :)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3PNrYS-MNU

Yea - but it came on cable and got nowhere close to #1, lasted only 2 seasons, and wasn't exactly good PR for OKC due to the subject matter. People loved Happy Days, Lavern & Shirley, Golden Girls, Dallas, Dynasty, etc... - they were cultural icons.

Yea - but it came on cable and got nowhere close to #1, lasted only 2 seasons, and wasn't exactly good PR for OKC due to the subject matter. People loved Happy Days, Lavern & Shirley, Golden Girls, Dallas, Dynasty, etc... - they were cultural icons.

Of course the shows you mention are all from many years ago and the norm for subject matter has changed considerably. The Golden Girls, Dallas, and Dynasty had some subject matter that wasn't exactly Happy Days material. But after this commercial, let's return to the Convention Center discussion.

To be fair, Indianapolis has had positive name recognition for 40 years. So did Milwaukee, Dallas, Denver, Atlanta, Seattle, Phoenix, San Diego, Boston, Miami, and Cincinnati. Now if OKC could get a #1 TV drama or sitcom for 10 years we could follow that route.


You make a good point here. I often blame OKC's national perception on the low quality of life here in the late 1980s and early 1990s, but it may be more rooted in the fact there was never a beloved TV show or movie that publicized OKC like most other major cities nor does the city have a cultural or musical legacy that people identify it with. There has been plenty of negative national press over the years though. The Thunder has been great for PR but perceptions don't change overnight. It will be nice when people on the coast or in big cities don't say things like "I'm sorry" or "do they have paved roads there?" when I tell them I live in OKC.

Tying this back to the convention center, this will be great for perception because it will get people here and most of them will be seeing the best the city has to offer. Too many people who claim they have "been here" probably have only driven through on I-40 or maybe haven't been here in many years so they remember a city that was a lot closer to the stereotype than today's OKC is.

When discussing perceptions of Oklahoma and Oklahomans... How can you not mention Grapes of Wrath? Perceptions go way deeper than sitcoms.

When discussing perceptions of Oklahoma and Oklahomans... How can you not mention Grapes of Wrath? Perceptions go way deeper than sitcoms.

I agree. I would say the Grapes of Wrath helped shape the national perception of Oklahoma and unfortunately it wasn't in a positive way. It's because of the Grapes of Wrath that people to this day think the entire state is a dusty, desolate prairie. Funny thing is, the Grapes of Wrath was very geographically inaccurate. The heart of the dust bowl was out in the panhandle where Oklahoma, Colorado, Texas, and New Mexico meet. It was NOT in Sallisaw, eastern Oklahoma, or even Oklahoma City.

It's also an unfortunate stereotype that's rooted in the dehumanization of the poor. Because the Joads, the Okies, are actually hardworking, good people. That the stereotype was reinforced probably pissed Steinbeck off...

And how about that convention center? ;)

And how about that convention center? ;)

I think Steinbeck would like it. ;)

It's also an unfortunate stereotype that's rooted in the dehumanization of the poor. Because the Joads, the Okies, are actually hardworking, good people. That the stereotype was reinforced probably pissed Steinbeck off...

How ironic that many of our state's leading politicians choose to dehumanize our poor the same way as outsiders once did. They just kick our own.

To be fair, Indianapolis has had positive name recognition for 40 years. So did Milwaukee, Dallas, Denver, Atlanta, Seattle, Phoenix, San Diego, Boston, Miami, and Cincinnati. Now if OKC could get a #1 TV drama or sitcom for 10 years we could follow that route.

AUQaws4mveM

Having Kevin Durant and Russell Westbrook wearing our city's name on national and international TV can sure help though. It's no successful sitcom, but when Oklahoma City leads the NBA in national TV appearances it's a nice perception boost.

Can the CC change the national perception? Nope, and it shouldn't try to. Can it change local perceptions? Yes, and it should have Civic Pride as a primary objective. Civic pride will eventually change the national perception.

Back to the site selection process, the subcommittee is planning to make it's final recommendation by the end of the month with the goal of having the City Council vote and approve the first week of July.

Will be very interesting to see what they decide, and we should know very soon.

I am still interested in why the REHCO site was included the second time. Is it there just as a baseline to see how it stacks up to other locations today? Surely if it comes out as the top location again (which it won't) the City won't pursue it anyhow.

I am still interested in why the REHCO site was included the second time. Is it there just as a baseline to see how it stacks up to other locations today? Surely if it comes out as the top location again (which it won't) the City won't pursue it anyhow.

They are also working on a variation of that site; where they only acquire part of REHCO's property and then use the south Clayco parcel for the hotel.

Here are the two options for that REHCO site:

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/cc060115a.jpg

They are also working on a variation of that site; where they only acquire part of REHCO's property and then use the south Clayco parcel for the hotel.

They can't even afford half of it. Plus, that begs the question of why they were using MAPS money to acquire land for a non-MAPS project in the first place.

We don't know the amount REHCO is now asking for some or all their property.

We also don't know what the City may be offering (such as a property swap) in addition to cash budgeted for land acquisition.


The two sides have had on-going negotiations.

Seems odd to me that they would place the loading docks on the north side where it is in full view of the Myriad Gardens and either of the hotel location options. Why not put it on the south end so that it can eventually be obscured by whatever future development goes in fronting the boulevard?

The loading docks would be underground:

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/cc060115b.jpg

I think the plan is still to put the loading docs and exhibit space underground, which was strange considering one of the committee members said we need to scrap the whole underground thing since we can't afford it.

If you go underground make sure the sump pumps are working. LOL

They are also working on a variation of that site; where they only acquire part of REHCO's property and then use the south Clayco parcel for the hotel.


We don't know the amount REHCO is now asking for some or all their property.

We also don't know what the City may be offering (such as a property swap) in addition to cash budgeted for land acquisition.


The two sides have had on-going negotiations.

All essentially what I have alluded to on here since shortly after the initial court case fell apart. The REHCO site is still in the running because it is by far the best site, from a convention sales and service standpoint. The other sites, while perhaps cheaper on the surface, all have significant flaws that will negatively impact the performance of the building for its intended purpose. Those flaws all create hidden costs, which depending on which site is chosen can include:


Tens of millions for electrical substation relocation (if east park is chosen)
Millions (tens of millions?) in additional streetcar track construction and ongoing increased streetcar operating costs, which will only add partial relief to walkability issues, and will only benefit convention center users rather than regular streetcar users, and which could to some extent compromise streetcar potential and effectiveness
Addional transportation budget added to all conventions, which makes OKC a less attractive destination for planners
Need for City/CVB to subsidize transportation costs to incentivize sales
Fewer convention bookings owing to less attractive location, resulting in ongoing operations deficit for facility

Comparison of these sites is not simple apples-to-apples, despite how some here have made it out to be. All potential costs driven by the selected location itself MUST be factored when weighing each site. Just because the LAND might cost less in one place doesn't mean that it is necessarily cheaper or the correct move. Otherwise we'd be building on raw land by the airport.

Besides, just because you heard a $100 million pricetag tossed around for REHCO doesn't mean that was the value, or even what REHCO hoped it would get. That was a pie-in-the-sky comp number thrown out in a court case in hopes of getting a high compromise number. And it also was for 3 blocks, when it could possibly be done instead in 2 (wouldn't that ostensibly make the new "high" number $66 million?). If a doable number can be found below, say, $50 million and a big part of that can be offset via land swap, why in the world shouldn't they be looking at the land that makes the most sense from a logistics, convention sales, and ongoing operational budgetary standpoint, both for the facility itself and for the streetcar? Answer: they SHOULD be looking at that land.

East park, with a $30 million (or whatever) utility relocation and who knows how much in extra (initial and ongoing) streetcar costs would probably be more costly at that point, with convention sales disadvantages to boot.

While I wouldn't be surprised at this point if it lands somewhere else (probably east of park if anywhere), you can guarantee that they won't stick a fork in the REHCO site until there absolutely, positively is ZERO chance of making it work.

All essentially what I have alluded to on here since shortly after the initial court case fell apart. The REHCO site is still in the running because it is by far the best site, from a convention sales and service standpoint. The other sites, while perhaps cheaper on the surface, all have significant flaws that will negatively impact the performance of the building for its intended purpose. Those flaws all create hidden costs, which depending on which site is chosen can include:


Tens of millions for electrical substation relocation
Millions (tens of millions?) in additional streetcar track construction and ongoing increased streetcar operating costs, which will only add partial relief to walkability issues, only benefit convention center rather than regular streetcar users, and which could to some extent compromise streetcar potential and effectiveness
Addional transportation budget added to all conventions, which makes OKC a less attractive destination for planners
Need for City/CVB to subsidize transportation costs to incentivize sales
Fewer convention bookings owing to less attractive location, resulting in ongoing operations deficit for facility



Just to be clear, only the first item on the list would be an expense of the MAPS 3 convention center budget.

The remainder would just affect the profitability of the CVB, which is also getting a brand new and debt-free facility. So, it would be a matter of them clearing less money than perhaps possible in a perfect world scenario, but would not represent any real loss. They would still make money off of conventions, as would the City.

Also, there are also hefty additional costs to this site as well, particularly the need to put most of the facility and all the loading docks underground.


Don't mean to be argumentative, just presenting the other side of the points you raised.

I understand what you are saying and agree, but a harder-to-sell location equals fewer conventions equals less revenue for the facility equals higher ongoing maintenance costs borne by...taxpayers.

A harder-to-sell-location equals fewer room nights equals less bed tax equals less sales tax equals hit to the general fund.

A more remote location equals higher transportation costs equals more transportation incentive given to conventions equals hit to taxpayers.

More streetcar track and more streetcar service dedicated to convention shuttles via streetcar equals more expense for streetcar OR more expense for CVB equals more expense for taxpayers.

And remember, these expenses go on...forever.

I do agree about the cost of building below ground.

The thing is, with the REHCO site the numbers are upfront. Does it cost more initially? In some areas maybe (probably) and in some areas definitely. But the others have more insidious, more long-running and more unknown costs. They also have an undetermined (but certain) negative impact on bookings, and yes, even though that is just unrealized revenue it is still revenue that WOULD HAVE added to the public coffers or offset operational costs. Those types of losses are far more dangerous, if you ask me. Better to just face things head on, do it right the first time, and not be chasing the perfect (or even just "acceptable") mix of things, a la Dallas (detailed in some of my previous posts).

That's assuming the other locations, if chosen, are truly going to significantly impact numbers. In my experience, things are rarely as black and white as they're made out to be. Really, getting conventions to a place like Oklahoma City is all about the sales pitch. Even if every person at a convention couldn't simultaneously get on a streetcar, you promote riding to Bricktown and (horrors!) Midtown on the streetcar. You show them views of the park. You talk about walkability (and then make sure it's walkable). You show pictures of boat rides to the Native American Cultural center and the river adventures. Really, a difference of a tenth of a mile is not what I think about when deciding where to go. In fact, my favorite convention spot is New Orleans, and the walk from it to the French Quarter is a hike. I've yet to see any data showing distance, within reason, is the overriding determining factor in convention planners decision making process.

I think Urbanized is trying to bring rationalization with facts and not just personal opinion to this board. Thanks Urbanized.

I guess what I don't understand about these arguments is that is that tentatively not "more" track or "more" expense. It was always supposed to be a slightly longer route to the south or to the north. This is not an aberration.

And personally, I don't really care where they put the convention center, as long as its within budget and not in the park. I have no dog in the fight, with the exception of my long-time interest in the park. My comments are only regarding what seems like common sense to me. Additionally, I've always thought the idea of putting half the CC underground is a foolish one - even if price were no object I don't know why anyone would want a one story building in that location. But I also have no interest in ugly loading docks facing the park. The substation and boulevard will be eyesores enough.

Tens of millions for electrical substation relocation (if east park is chosen) Millions (tens of millions?) in additional streetcar track construction and ongoing increased streetcar operating costs, which will only add partial relief to walkability issues, and will only benefit convention center users rather than regular streetcar users, and which could to some extent compromise streetcar potential and effectiveness
Addional transportation budget added to all conventions, which makes OKC a less attractive destination for planners
Need for City/CVB to subsidize transportation costs to incentivize sales
Fewer convention bookings owing to less attractive location, resulting in ongoing operations deficit for facility


For the life of me I don't understand the 30 million dollar cost of relocating a substation. That just seems way overboard ?

I understand what you are saying and agree, but a harder-to-sell location equals fewer conventions equals less revenue for the facility equals higher ongoing maintenance costs borne by...taxpayers.

A harder-to-sell-location equals fewer room nights equals less bed tax equals less sales tax equals hit to the general fund.

A more remote location equals higher transportation costs equals more transportation incentive given to conventions equals hit to taxpayers.

More streetcar track and more streetcar service dedicated to convention shuttles via streetcar equals more expense for streetcar OR more expense for CVB equals more expense for taxpayers.

And remember, these expenses go on...forever.

I do agree about the cost of building below ground.

The thing is, with the REHCO site the numbers are upfront. Does it cost more initially? In some areas maybe (probably) and in some areas definitely. But the others have more insidious, more long-running and more unknown costs. They also have an undetermined (but certain) negative impact on bookings, and yes, even though that is just unrealized revenue it is still revenue that WOULD HAVE added to the public coffers or offset operational costs. Those types of losses are far more dangerous, if you ask me. Better to just face things head on, do it right the first time, and not be chasing the perfect (or even just "acceptable") mix of things, a la Dallas (detailed in some of my previous posts).

We are looking pretty ridiculous right now trying to hold together the vision Larry Nichols has of a huge generic convention center. It is proving difficult to bring to fruition. Normally in a project's life cycle when you encounter these structural issues, you embrace the chance to innovate and do something different. I'm not seeing any desire on the convention subcommittee's part to innovate and make a different site work with a real concept. What I am instead seeing is creative new pitches for why we need more money to obtain the same site to build the same convention center that Larry Nichols has been set on all along.

I am especially not seeing any renewed interest in the bigger picture and/or concern for the rest of the city/downtown, but rather just concern about the best site for the convention center. Basically more of the same that we have been getting all along, which hasn't worked. It would be beneficial to us to consider what is best for each of these sites, and it may (most likely) not be a convention center. Does that thought ever cross into anyone's mind?

The high cost of the REHCO site is either the free market or some higher power telling you that a convention center is probably not the best use for that site. I know that may be shocking that there could perhaps be a better use than a convention facility, but yes, at least that seems to be what the market is telling us.

I don't know that the market has told us anything yet. We haven't seen a transaction of the proposed property at anywhere near $100 million and most likely won't. We also haven't seen a credible private development plan that supports that value, either for the current owners or future ones. The market has not spoken, only a few people who are manipulating valuations based on self interests, whether it be the Maps people or the current owners.

As for higher power intervention, I think He has better things to do than to manipulate a dispute between new urbanists and business persons.

I understand what you are saying and agree, but a harder-to-sell location equals fewer conventions equals less revenue for the facility equals higher ongoing maintenance costs borne by...taxpayers.

A harder-to-sell-location equals fewer room nights equals less bed tax equals less sales tax equals hit to the general fund.

A more remote location equals higher transportation costs equals more transportation incentive given to conventions equals hit to taxpayers.

More streetcar track and more streetcar service dedicated to convention shuttles via streetcar equals more expense for streetcar OR more expense for CVB equals more expense for taxpayers.

And remember, these expenses go on...forever.

I do agree about the cost of building below ground.

The thing is, with the REHCO site the numbers are upfront. Does it cost more initially? In some areas maybe (probably) and in some areas definitely. But the others have more insidious, more long-running and more unknown costs. They also have an undetermined (but certain) negative impact on bookings, and yes, even though that is just unrealized revenue it is still revenue that WOULD HAVE added to the public coffers or offset operational costs. Those types of losses are far more dangerous, if you ask me. Better to just face things head on, do it right the first time, and not be chasing the perfect (or even just "acceptable") mix of things, a la Dallas (detailed in some of my previous posts).

These expenses go both ways:

1. Lost Property tax from a more substantial development on higher valued land (both South Stage Center and all of REHCO) because we're putting an exempt building on higher valued land.

2. Ensuring the relative inability to generate sales-tax revenue in a higher traffic (all modes) area of the city, and not having a good displacement of the lost opportunity (You're not fetching the same quality of development in East Park or West Park as you would at Bob Howard = less sales tax revenue).

3. The costs to expand. Expansion from the Bob Howard site will be considerably more expensive compared to anything south of the Boulevard.

There are certainly more issues such as having more parking in the CBD (whereas a Garage on either side of the park would actually be a welcome help to the area), etc.

The best convention center site long-term for the convention center is unequivocally the Cox Center, followed by Bob Howard.

The best convention center site long-term for Oklahoma City is literally any non-MBG-fronting site.

It really is that simple.

Here are the two options for that REHCO site:

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/cc060115a.jpg

which is EVEN further away from Bricktown than the original or E Central Park site and also further away from the existing hotel stock. ......

and again, why are they trying so hard to make the N Park location work? Where is this effort for the other sites?

and I totally agree with the logic posted by betts and teo, any argument against E Central Park (or wherever else) about it being farther from Bricktown or the existing hotels just got destroyed with these carefully crafted renderings for a now West North Park site. And what about the ferver about underground for parking garages - yet there's 'no issue' with building the CC underground and it's closer to the river than either of the previously argued for underground garages at Stage Center and 499?

Again, it appears just like TEO and Spartan is saying in that we're trying to FORCE a vision on a site that is better suited for other more practical and economical purposes. There are clear winners and it may not even be MY preferred site (E Central Park) but actually should be at the Bleumenthal area regardless of how far it is from Bricktown or the existing hotel stock just as Betts said - there's marketing of downtown as a whole and it would still be within .5 miles of Bricktown or the other hotels, not to mention a true convention district could be created with numerous convention hotels and new amenities at this location.

To be honest, I say it should either be the ORIGINAL location of E Central Park (move the darn substation already) or at the Bleumenthal site (lower/est cost, bigger land grab, easy to tie in the streetcar, and potential to develop a convention district without distracting from ANY other property/site/district). ... To me, those are #1 and #2 and actually, I'm not sure which is 1 or 2 anymore as Bleumenthal makes total sense to me the more I think about it.

Like I said, where are these carefully crafted renderings for the other sites?

First off, it is NOT further away than east park, considering the fact that the hotel in east park configuration would be on the north end of the site and the CC entrance in the east park config would be on Robinson. Do the comparison yourself using Google Maps' walking measurement. Be sure to measure to the geographic center of BT, not just to the edge. Remember that only things within the 10 minute bubble matter. At the average human walking pace of 3.1 mph that equals .52 miles.

Second, putting it on east park places a massive barrier between the CC and everything else in the form of the grade-separated, highway-like boulevard. That goes away with the REHCO site.

Third - and I don't know why this is so difficult for people to understand - this isn't JUST about proximity to Bricktown. In fact, walkable proximity to existing downtown hotels (especially the full-service ones) is probably MORE critical in helping secure bookings. Simply put, REHCO is walkably proximate to all of them, east park is walkably proximate to none if them.

The options above can allow for less land requirements, can allow REHCO the ability to participate as a co-developer or to develop part of the site independently, and show some creative approaches to securing the best of the remaining sites as cost-effectively as possible.

Urbanized,

Is it your belief that a convention center is the best development we could have on the REHCO site? I think that's why we're spinning wheels in this conversation. You see a future for the convention center that no one here sees, probably because you have relationships with people heavily involved with the convention bureau in OKC. I think many of us fail to see the the vision of a convention center that will be successful enough to merit MBG frontage.

Perhaps you can detail just how drastically different the future of the CC is given the East Park and North Park which seem to be the 2 clear-cut best choices. Do we really have a chance at grabbing at least 10 major conventions a year? With my admittedly limited vantage point, I'd rather have an underperforming to bad convention center in East Park, because I don't see an over-performing to all-star convention center @ REHCO, which is what it would have to be to justify the space, if even that could justify it.

I have yet to see a convention center that excites my imagination. I can't remember giving two seconds of my time appreciating the design of one. Given our poor plane connections, uninspiring weather and lack of attractions, natural or man made, I think it's unrealistic to think this CC should be anything but serviceable. I understand we need one bigger and more modern than what we have now, but I see no reason to give it more importance to city and citizens than it deserves.

I have yet to see a convention center that excites my imagination. I can't remember giving two seconds of my time appreciating the design of one. Given our poor plane connections, uninspiring weather and lack of attractions, natural or man made, I think it's unrealistic to think this CC should be anything but serviceable. I understand we need one bigger and more modern than what we have now, but I see no reason to give it more importance to city and citizens than it deserves.

Best post on this thread.

Here are the two options for that REHCO site:

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/cc060115a.jpg

So those loading docks are underground .... what exactly does this type of park frontage look like? No matter what, with loading docks, you're going to have truck-accessible curb cuts that you can't hide no matter what.

This kind of messes up the intersection of Robinson and OKC Blvd. The City spent a lot of MAPS money to mass the arena at an intersection that won't exist.

This kind of messes up the intersection of Robinson and OKC Blvd. The City spent a lot of MAPS money to mass the arena at an intersection that won't exist.

I've said this all along. It made no sense to put the "Grand Entry" toward an intersection that will never be used that heavily. Most visitors come from Bricktown or areas north.

We have elected officials who can make decisions necessary using information of which many of us posters aren't privy.

Mayor Cornett has led this charge, now the $30 million he wanted to replace the OG&E substation doesn't look as costly as the options we have encountered.

The City will eventually have to cover the cost overruns to fund many of the MAPS III projects. We will not get a Dallas, Nashville or Charlotte style convention center & conference hotel. OKC has always taken the safe and conservative approach toward development. In essence, we'll get what we paid for and hopefully when all is said and done it will be debt free.

Let's build a convention center with room for expansion that serviceable with what money we have available.

Why are we so obsessed over building something with room for expansion? I am very uneasy about that. We need to build a CC that stands on its own in the beginning, because the voters may not be willing to support more CC monies no matter how much transit it's logrolled with.

I dislike the expansion obsession for two important reasons: 1, it holds hostage a chunk of downtown for a later-specified date when funding will surely become available; and 2, it also holds the voters hostage to approve future CC funding or else we're stuck with what will at best be an unfinished superblock facility, at worst probably an eyesore...

Nobody has questioned this expansion. Nobody knows anything about it. Once it's included in the plans, we will be forced to eventually do it.