^

The room to expand is a critical factor the consultants are using to select a site.

So, if there isn't enough room for that, a site won't be considered.


That's the way they've been handling this, right or wrong.

And I'm saying it's probably wrong...

And I'm saying it's probably wrong...

I have a hard time agreeing with that. How nice would it be if we could just expand Cox? Unless we build way over our needs now, then we'll need to expand in the future. Otherwise, why bother?

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.

The expansion has been in the plan from the very beginning. If I am not mistaken, the original chamber report said the convention center would be a failure without it. This is where the wool was pulled over the public's eye because we were sold a convention center that doesn't work without all the unadvertised add-ons (the CC Hotel and Phase II). There is a reason why the report was never made public. When this is all said and done it will make the AICCM look like child's play.

I'm just very concerned about an AICCM kind of life for that "expansion site" that is chosen, which looks like a nice West Blvd location...


I have a hard time agreeing with that. How nice would it be if we could just expand Cox? Unless we build way over our needs now, then we'll need to expand in the future. Otherwise, why bother?

I think we could easily expand the Cox by replacing the arena with more exhibition space. If you ask me it comes down to renovating a 60 year-old venue, which we understandably don't really want to do it seems.

I'm just very concerned about an AICCM kind of life for that "expansion site" that is chosen, which looks like a nice West Blvd location...



I think we could easily expand the Cox by replacing the arena with more exhibition space. If you ask me it comes down to renovating a 60 year-old venue, which we understandably don't really want to do it seems.

why wouldn't you want to get rid of that monolithic piece of crap? If you look down from the top of the Chase building it looks like a Wal Mart regional warehouse. Besides it was never built to the specs for future expansion. Some "Good Old Boy" pocketed the monies.

I saw this event on Facebook coming up on June 25 at noon:

"Brown Bag Lunch Speaker Series: “MAPS 3 Downtown Update”" at the Crystal Bridge 2nd Floor Conference Room

Description: Join us as David Todd, Program Manager for MAPS, walks us through the upcoming MAPS 3 changes that will impact the downtown area. The trolley system and new convention center are just some of the exciting things coming to Oklahoma City!

https://www.facebook.com/events/409652292551875/

There is a meeting this afternoon at 3:30PM of the Convention Center Subcommittee.

My understanding is the consultants have narrowed down the possible sites to 4, with the REHCO / Ford Dealership the leader.

However, the preferred plan at this time is to only acquire the two western blocks of the dealership and put the convention hotel on the south Clayco parcel (immediately south of Stage Center). REHCO would retain the eastern most lot (directly west of the Ford Center) for their own development purposes.

I also understand the City has discussed the possibility of off-setting the cost of the REHCO property with some aspect of the Cox Center site; either giving them some or all of it or awarding them development rights for some or all of it.

This would be Option B shown below:

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/cc0602315a.jpg

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/cc0602315b.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/cc0602315c.jpg

I hope they have all their backroom deals in order before they try to propose part of the REHCO/Ford site again. Would they start this process all over again if a deal can't be made...again?

Maybe they will make an informal announcement Friday or Saturday with an official vote after the holiday.

Some good things about this configuration:


It allows for private development on half of the property on the south end of the Myriad Gardens
It makes good use of the south Clayco parcel which probably was never going to be developed by them anyway
The City already owns most of the south Clayco parcel
The REHCO property is in control of one owner and easier to acquire
It moves the development more to the west and thus closer to Film Row and all the other great things happening in west downtown
Both the center and hotel will be on the proposed streetcar route



http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/cc0602315d.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/cc0602315e.jpg

I really don't like the idea of loading docks fronting the MBG.

I really don't like the idea of loading docks fronting the MBG.

They'd be underground

I hope they have all their backroom deals in order before they try to propose part of the REHCO/Ford site again. Would they start this process all over again if a deal can't be made...again?

I'm quite sure they have already settled on this site and have basically negotiated a deal with REHCO and I believe that's been the case for a while, despite what is being said publicly and in meetings.

I like this idea a lot more. But man do these guys have a one track mind.

I know the current thinking is that the south Clayco development will never happen. But I wonder if the city could coordinate with them to make the Omni hotel (guessing they'll be the ones to get it) part of that development. It would seem that the city could finance part of it, Omni could finance part of it, the parking garage in the center could be covered with TIF funds, Clayco could finance part, and we might get 2 or 3 towers on that south block out of it.

Unacceptable. Lengthens the walk to Bricktown.

Still, I suppose we get the Harvey Spine back.

Unacceptable. Lengthens the walk to Bricktown.

Only from the hotel.

The convention center is exactly where it was originally proposed.

Unacceptable. Lengthens the walk to Bricktown.

Still, I suppose we get the Harvey Spine back.

If it's on the street car route, it shouldn't matter that much.

Luckily for you Urbanized hasn't seen your apostasy yet.

If it's on the street car route, it shouldn't matter that much.

The street car will be useless for Bricktown from this location or really any other potential location because of the route layout. By the time you get to the first East-Bound stop, you're 2 blocks away from Bricktown and you actually lose time by waiting 5 minutes for the Street Car to pass by and pick you up.

It will be super useful for Midtown though.

The meeting has started, and Steve (https://twitter.com/stevelackmeyer) and Ben (https://twitter.com/benfelder_okg) are live-tweeting it. No periscope stream that I can find, though.

The street car will be useless for Bricktown from this location or really any other potential location because of the route layout. By the time you get to the first East-Bound stop, you're 2 blocks away from Bricktown and you actually lose time by waiting 5 minutes for the Street Car to pass by and pick you up.

It will be super useful for Midtown though.

Yeah but to a tourist downtown I bet it's a cool enough novelty they take it anyway.

deleted

Yeah but to a tourist downtown I bet it's a cool enough novelty they take it anyway.

Depends on where there from. If they're from any city that is walkable and or has good public transit, they won't take it because they'll know it's a waste of time. Unless it's raining, and then they'll welcome the opportunity.

If they're from a city that has terrible public transit, they may not take it because they may not know how it functions or be able to read a transit map.

Depends on where there from. If they're from any city that is walkable and or has good public transit, they won't take it because they'll know it's a waste of time. Unless it's raining, and then they'll welcome the opportunity.

If they're from a city that has terrible public transit, they may not take it because they may not know how it functions or be able to read a transit map.

I took it NOLA for the novelty as well as SF.
Outside of the NE, NW, Chicago, and SF public transportation isn't really a way of life for Americans.

Reading a transit map isn't what I would call hard by any stretch. London has the most complex transit system in the world and I navigated home my first night at 3am using a tube map.

Luckily for you Urbanized hasn't seen your apostasy yet.

Shows how much attention you have paid to the actual WORDS that I have posted on this topic. If it happens the way Pete shows here, it will happen almost exactly the way I've said for months that it could/should happen. If we are truly limited to the remaining sites in the consultant's list, this is the best possible scenario to ensure the success of MAPS 3's most expensive project.

If it's on the street car route, it shouldn't matter that much.

Streetcar won't really help much as it relates to Bricktown, as has been pointed out, due to headway. The good news is that Bricktown remains marginally walkable from this location, and - as has also been pointed out - it CAN help convention visitors get to other areas such as Midtown, which will be good for all of downtown and will also help some with CC salability.

The best news is that this location is 10 minute walkable to all of the existing (and proposed) full service hotels in the CBD. This is HUGE for the CC's marketability; I can't stress this enough. Huge.

why wouldn't you want to get rid of that monolithic piece of crap? If you look down from the top of the Chase building it looks like a Wal Mart regional warehouse. Besides it was never built to the specs for future expansion. Some "Good Old Boy" pocketed the monies.

You're absolutely right that it looks like a Wal-Mart. My problem is that I have ZERO confidence that the new one won't either.

You're absolutely right that it looks like a Wal-Mart. My problem is that I have ZERO confidence that the new one won't either.


I realize you want the CC south of the arena, your ideas were good also. Unfortunately the "the cat got out of the bag" in Tulsa and certain developers started buying properties in the area(hmmm). Of course there were other problems, grade, sub-station, possible EPA but all in all a good idea.
According to your post #136 you in know way, want any division from the new park, I believe LN wants low structures also. The elephant in the room is the new Blvd. and the lack of concern of proper integration or flow of downtown. I was told 4 years ago under no circumstances did ODOT want interruption of the Blvd. No round- a-bouts, and I'm not talking about the little ones on tenth street but maybe similar to St. Martins or in parts of Europe, or any dead end roads where the tourist would have to get off the Blvd and see downtown, imagine ODOT (government) thinking this way.
:noldus:
To have a large hotel just south of the new OGE tower would make me happy. Remember LN wanted the Hotel to run long ways North and South up close to the arena. Either way the CC will have to have an expansion in the near future.

Shows how much attention you have paid to the actual WORDS that I have posted on this topic. If it happens the way Pete shows here, it will happen almost exactly the way I've said for months that it could/should happen. If we are truly limited to the remaining sites in the consultant's list, this is the best possible scenario to ensure the success of MAPS 3's most expensive project.

However you define "success". We'll have a new building, it will be bigger, it will undoubtedly have ugly convention center carpet and be visually bland, and the problems with OKC that limit who might be interested in coming here for a convention remain.

I was at the McCormick Center two weeks ago for my son's graduation from the U of Chicago. It is big, bland and has ugly carpeting. It was nowhere near my hotel or anything I was interested in doing, but we used Uber. Uber has changed the landscape of travel, I believe. In addition, the city of Chicago is so beautiful, in summer, so easy to get to by air and has so much to do that I wouldn't really care where the McCormick Center was located if I were going to a convention there. You practically have to walk as far to get from one part of the building to the other as you would have to walk to get to Bricktown from the area south of the Chesapeake Arena as well. And if you said McCormick Center to the first 100 people you meet outside of Chicago, I bet no more than 5% would have any idea what you were talking about. Millennium Park and the Bean - I bet you'd find a lot more people would get a visual image. Convention Centers matter to very few people outside the Chamber of Commerce.

Betts-that's really funny. I was at the Booth graduation at McCormick Place also. My main thoughts were: First, Second and Third: how much I love Chicago. But fourth was that that convention center was a logistical nightmare. We took a standard taxi (from the Drake) but it was quite the ordeal.

Worked a convention in Boston a month ago. Things I remember about the CC... 1)Had to walk 7-8 mins to get to/from from my hotel. Didn't mind. 2) inside was ugly as sin 3) outside was okay, I guess. Didn't care. 4) There was one of the country's hottest craft breweries a 5 minute walk away (Trillium). Filled growlers, bought bottles on my lunch break.

#4 was the only thing I actually remember/cared about. I sure would love to own a bar/brewery/restaurant in the Film Row area...

My experience w conventions is that Pittsburgh's is the only CC that's actually "nice." Cleveland's new one is alright but still u/c. Realistically if you dot have thousands coming, you're so much better off going to a full service historic hotel. OKC needs more of this. Hotels like the Skirvin where you can hold 500-800 people. Columbus, Cleveland, Chicago, New Orleans, Indy, have these on nearly every street corner. In OKC I think the Sheraton is the only contender (which has the standard UDAG Hotel layout from the 70s). I know the top floor at the Skirvin has ballrooms that can maybe seat 120 if I remember right? More ideal for weddings.


I realize you want the CC south of the arena, your ideas were good also. Unfortunately the "the cat got out of the bag" in Tulsa and certain developers started buying properties in the area(hmmm). Of course there were other problems, grade, sub-station, possible EPA but all in all a good idea.
According to your post #136 you in know way, want any division from the new park, I believe LN wants low structures also. The elephant in the room is the new Blvd. and the lack of concern of proper integration or flow of downtown. I was told 4 years ago under no circumstances did ODOT want interruption of the Blvd. No round- a-bouts, and I'm not talking about the little ones on tenth street but maybe similar to St. Martins or in parts of Europe, or any dead end roads where the tourist would have to get off the Blvd and see downtown, imagine ODOT (government) thinking this way.
:noldus:
To have a large hotel just south of the new OGE tower would make me happy. Remember LN wanted the Hotel to run long ways North and South up close to the arena. Either way the CC will have to have an expansion in the near future.

Thanks for the response, I really appreciate it because I had resigned myself to little jabs when I realized nobody cares what I think on this. You're right that I had a vision, but that was just an example for how it could be done right on that site. You could do it right on a few sites, and that site was an easier one on which to do so, whereas this site is honestly a little tougher to do right.

That said, I actually think the latest proposal is palatable. I just still don't see leveraging the expansion to make this work. Why can't the streetcar do that? The streetcar project has been stymied by politics despite carrying MAPS and has the pressure of needing a starter line that will be successful enough to warrant any expansion. This CC faces no such test.

These are huge superblocks on the SW side of downtown and I just see so many clustered together and don't see how we'll do it right. It's not just the CC but also the Myriad, old Cox for the next 20 years, CHK Arena, M3 Park, Clayco site which should've been broken up, and who knows what other superblocks we'll add bc we can't get enough.

Also why are we already resigning ourselves to failure w Clayco? This city hasn't even tried to get a TIF deal done from what I can tell. Stage Center (a historic world renowned ****ing landmark) could have been rehabbed by now for a fraction of the public cost that this TIF will (and should) come to. So why I bring this up is bc OKC is bungling macro-scale project mgmt again (remember P180 y'all?).

In a city that doesn't respect planning, you're doomed to fail at managing the big picture. This damn CC has held big downtown development in limbo since 2009. We would have more stuff come to fruition without this, so it's had the opposite intended effect. Why? Bc nobody knows "their place" in this "process" and the CC interests sensed an opportunity to pounce and take charge of the show.

Also why are limited service hotel flags coming in the way of acquiring a site? Again, tail wagging the dog. We bulldozed a ****ing cool landmark for some TIF towers that now I guess we don't want? Bc this was just decided by somebody I presume? Maybe we want grass there instead so we can frame CC expansion as a 2020 campaign to finally build on the grass?

I literally don't get OKC sometimes. When I connect the dots in the big picture with everything I know it makes my head explode. Sorry for the crazy rant everyone, I feel a little better now! Lol

I would feel better if we could COMPLETE A JOB AS PROMISED.

Betts-that's really funny. I was at the Booth graduation at McCormick Place also. My main thoughts were: First, Second and Third: how much I love Chicago. But fourth was that that convention center was a logistical nightmare. We took a standard taxi (from the Drake) but it was quite the ordeal.

That is quite the coincidence! I wonder if our graduates know one another. The logistical nightmare that is McCormick Place doesn't keep many people from going to conventions in Chicago, but logistics are not really why I pick a convention.

And Spartan, amen to your immediately preceding post.

Yep, McCormick is the world's largest convention center and the #1 busiest in the US.

Most of that prestigue is because it's Chicago, but that does tell one something about the thought of making a cc the 'showpiece' of your city rather than businesses/skyscrapers, cultural amenities, urban fabric, and QoL attractions (that Chicago excels in). People may come to Chicago because of the conventions but they stay enjoying the city and leave remembering what Chicago has to offer (with almost no recollection of McCormick other than its huge and out of the way).

Oklahoma City's central location could become a selling point if we get a good convention center & conference hotel available to service convention planners. Let's not forget that this could eventually impact 'flight service' in & out of WRWA for the future.

The more national & regional conventions OKC attract; the more potential for 'new money' to be circulated into our local economy.

Maximize OKC's potential to the fullest...

Oklahoma City's central location could become a selling point if we get a good convention center & conference hotel available to service convention planners. Let's not forget that this could eventually impact 'flight service' in & out of WRWA for the future.

The more national & regional conventions OKC attract; the more potential for 'new money' to be circulated into our local economy.

Spartan talks of limited service hotels, he is right, maybe the 1980's scarred developers. How come Givens and Records (ZaZa) for instance don't consider OKC?
We have come a long way but settling for too many small hotels.

I was in Phoenix 30 May during comicon and was impressed with their CC, though it may be that I'm just easily impressed.

I've visited San Jose's McEnery Convention Center, and I was impressed by it as well - both in design and amenities. Neatest of all, IMO: the convention center was designed with 3 or 4 pad sites in front for hotels; the hotels are built right up against and connected directly to the convention center.

But fourth was that that convention center was a logistical nightmare. We took a standard taxi (from the Drake) but it was quite the ordeal.

It is funny to juxtapose McCormick against our strategy. I think they just put it where they had land and where it wouldn't screw up their appreciated assets like the park. I definitely would not want to stay at that hotel. That being said, I actually look forward to the convention I go to every year because it's in Chicago. It's such an easy city to get around, doesn't really matter where they put it, imo.

Just FYI, you can get the green line at Cermak (about 6 block from CC) and then transfer at Roosevelt or in the Loop. I'd recommend that over any car service, especially if you're staying above the river. Probably take you half the time and cost a fraction of a cab or uber.

I took it NOLA for the novelty as well as SF.
Outside of the NE, NW, Chicago, and SF public transportation isn't really a way of life for Americans. ...

Actually, the St. Charles streetcar in NOLA is used by students and commuting workers pretty heavily, we've found out on our many trips there. The Lakefront streetcar in NOLA is strictly touristy, though.

They are about to make a site recommendation at the council meeting now

Seemed that they offered 2 sites.. Reno and Dewey or in the park

What I'm seeing in the stream is Reno and Dewey/North Park and East Park. It's low quality, but here is a picture I grabbed of their final presentation slide.

11046

Seemed that they offered 2 sites.. Reno and Dewey or in the park

North park or East park look like the 2 options. Not in the park.

I was watching from my phone and had a very hard time seeing the pictures... It was interesting that a representative from the producers Co op was there to make sure the city knew that they still wanted to do business with the city and would like to have the convention center on their site

Oklahoma City Council returns from executive session, votes 7-1 to authorize negotiations to acquire a MAPS 3 convention center site. #OKC- Bill Crum via twitter.

They will be negotiating on the four sites simultaneously but you can bet they will land on the the REHCO/Clayco South site.

Here are the four sites on which they will be negotiating.

I've now heard they hope to have a deal struck by the end of this month for the North Core to Shore B site (REHCO/Clayco South) which would involve swapping the western half of the Cox Center to REHCO and possibly even paying REHCO rent on that space until it can be redeveloped somewhere around 2021:

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/cc0707015a.jpg

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/cc070715b.jpg

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/cc070715c.jpg

From the council meeting notes (http://www.okc.gov/councilnotes/2015/cn070715.html) that just went up:


Council OK's new negotiations for MAPS 3 Convention Center site property acquisition
City staff will begin to negotiate property acquisitions for the MAPS 3 Convention Center after a Council vote on Tuesday. The MAPS 3 Citizens Advisory Board convention center subcommittee restarted the site selection process in March, and consultants prepared a new study of potential locations. The Council's vote authorizes staff to negotiate possible property acquisitions on more than one potential convention center site.

Read the agenda item (http://www.okc.gov/councilnotes/2015/070715files/cc%20site%20selection%20memo.pdf). (PDF)
Download the presentation (http://www.okc.gov/councilnotes/2015/070715files/OKC%20CC%20-%20Site%20Selection%20Presentation%20Council%20070 615.pdf). (PDF)
Watch the presentation (https://youtu.be/YVnLtGVcDcU?t=1h3m29s).

Interesting that the shortlist of hotel developers preferred the east park site.

Oklahoma City Council returns from executive session, votes 7-1 to authorize negotiations to acquire a MAPS 3 convention center site. #OKC- Bill Crum via twitter.

Gee I wonder who the 1 nay was :)

I know Urbanized banged the drum that the East Park site was too far to walk, but it seems that this west half of north park is just as far?

It makes sense because they will be able to more easily sell rooms in that location. That is not the same thing as selling convention bookings, which are also dependent upon proximity to other hotels.

This is a fairly interesting summary of the different sites:

http://www.okctalk.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=11048

And here is some more detailed analysis for C2S Site B:

http://www.okctalk.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=11049

This one amuses me a bit, looks like Kerry might just get the residential units overlooking the gardens that he wanted (assuming hotel rooms count that is).

Man I could have saved myself a lot of posts in this thread (and spared everyone else) if I could have just posted this graphic. This is a pretty detailed at-a-glance analysis, and shows that they have been considering many factors, including ones that some people here suggested that they were ignoring.


This is a fairly interesting summary of the different sites:

http://www.okctalk.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=11048

....

As someone looking to book at the CC hotel for an event (or not), they'll want to know it's proximity to public transit and the rail line will be a huge factor.
I'm sure most of us on here know this. Question is, do they?