I'm not buying that last part either SoonerDave. The Ford site has been under the same ownership for a long time and if the intent was to sell it to the city for a huge profit, that might not even happen. However, there is no doubt in my mind that members of CC committee wanted that site so bad they could taste it, and manipulated the process so that it was selected. Alas, I expect Devon to cover the cost difference in exchange for naming rights.

I can't stress enough that if the CC proceeds as planned it will be an utter failure and disappointment to OKC taxpayers. With site acquisition costs, and other undetermined costs will only allow the city to build a mediocre CC, and we will still be in the lower tier in the convention center business.

The best thing they can do is rehabilitate and expand the Cox Center. They already own the land so there is no site acquisition costs, its at a perfect location, and they already have a shell to work with. They just need to gut the The Cox Center and start over. By doing this our $250 million will go a lot further, and could actually have money left over to fund $50 million to lure CC Hotel.


It's been obvious for a very long time that this old Ford site could not be done within the established budget.

To not even consider this while proceeding down a long and expensive road is ridiculous.

Over in Steve's blog, Councilman Shadid posted:

In the last convention center subcommittee meeting Mike Carrier indicated that $250 million would not be sufficient to build a convention center which would allow us to reach the next tier of conventions; that shortfall is worsened with the current convention center location selection.
http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/2012/08/27/flashback-ii-rejected-site-added-back-into-consideration-to-have-three-choices/

As far as redoing the Cox center, the Mayor stated (and I don't have any reason to disbelieve him on the point) that it would cost more do so than to just build new. Add into the picture that you would essentially be without a convention center while it is being done or severely limiting it. I presume you are talking about taking out the Arena portion and that means a loss of the side-by-side set up that we have found to be useful. I don't know what gutting cost but am guessing that it might be a wash as far as land acquisition costs? So other than folks agreeing that it is a good site, there are too many other things working against it

Locating the CC at that location will have a more negative than positive impact on downtown development.

1) If proceeds as planned, with current budget, it will still be considered a Tier 3 CC.
2) It creates a major super block separating Myriad Gardens/Central Park
3) It takes up prime boulevard frontage that would have promoted major development.
4) It killed the potential of a major mixed-use development proposed by Howard/Hall

So... any takers for a Friends For A Better Convention Center Site?

:Smiley171

This is exactly what I was thinking, have they had a public meeting to gather input about the proposed location of the new CC? To hear our comments, and proposals? Unlike the new boulevard, WE are paying for this project, so the average OKC citizen should have some input, not just representatives from the CC Subcommittee.

So... any takers for a Friends For A Better Convention Center Site?

:Smiley171

You might be on to something here.

I think the east Bricktown location or south of the arena are the two best locations and have no problem with either one. After phase 1 is done they need to demolish the current Cox Center, reinstate the stree grid (which will create nearly one mile of new street frontage), sell the land to developers, and use the profits to builds phase II of the new convention center or payoff any debt from building phase II early.

Will they have one of these for the new CC design or location?

MAPS 3 Update: 8/20/2012
Public input sought on MAPS 3 Downtown Park design

Everyone is invited to a community meeting to provide information and solicit design and programming ideas for the 70-acre MAPS 3 Downtown Park.

The meeting will be held from 6 – 8:30 p.m. on September 13 in the fourth floor auditorium of the Downtown Library, 300 Park Avenue.

“We want to hear everyone’s ideas on how this iconic park should look and function,” Mayor Mick Cornett said. “Our goal is to design a unique gathering space that will be a frequent destination for residents and set Oklahoma City apart from other cities.”

The $132 million park is made up of a 40-acre upper section and a 30-acre lower section which is connected by Oklahoma City Skydance Bridge. The park is within the boundaries of Hudson to the west, Robinson to the east the Oklahoma City Boulevard to the north and the Oklahoma River on the south.

Land acquisition for the upper park is 95 percent complete and construction is expected to begin in 2013. The meeting will be facilitated by park consultant Hargreaves Associates.

So... any takers for a Friends For A Better Convention Center Site?

:Smiley171

I remain optimistic that ordinary citizens can impact the decisions our city government makes if we care enough to get involved.

After phase 1 is done they need to demolish the current Cox Center

i don't recall there being an arena in the new CC. if this is the case then i am adamantly opposed to destroying the Cox Center at that time. Having two arenas so close together has been very useful, and dropping down to one (while not impossible) would make a scheduling nightmare for all the events that are being held in both of these facilities. Perhaps in MAPS 4, we will find out what to do with the cox center... perhaps building a small arena in a corner, and destroying everything else, and hopefully there will be enough room to return to street grid at that point

There is no need for a second arena. The BIG XII has basically dropped that requirement and the Peake can more than sufficiently handle all demands the city can throw at it. We have to start using our resources to their maximum potential and maintaining 2 arenas across from the street from each other isn't cost effective nor efficient. Plus, maintaining a second arena isn't free and there are tremendous lost opportunity costs by keeping it. The land Cox sits on is worth north of $100,000,000.00 That is 5 more miles of streetcar track.

There's a FB group created.

What is the link?

There is no need for a second arena. The BIG XII has basically dropped that requirement and the Peake can more than sufficiently handle all demands the city can throw at it. We have to start using our resources to their maximum potential and maintaining 2 arenas across from the street from each other isn't cost effective nor efficient. Plus, maintaining a second arena isn't free and there are tremendous lost opportunity costs by keeping it. The land Cox sits on is worth north of $100,000,000.00 That is 5 more miles of streetcar track.

How is the Big XII planning to do its mens and womens tournaments without 2 arenas?

If they resolve the sidewalk shortfall and fully fund the planned rail transit system/hub, they will be able to do anything they want with the Convention Center.

Yeah, the only reason the teams had games on the same nights more often than not this past season was because of the lockout. Look at this year, only 6 same dates. One arena could knock that down to zero and add more events.

People keep forgetting that the new convention center (without an arena in the middle of it) is going to have so much more room available in it compared to the Cox.

Also, regardless of whether it gets built on the current predetermined site or one of the other two sites I keep seeing mentioned, something will be built on the Ford Dealership site.
Im sorry to say this for an example but a Victory Park type development would work so much better here. Not sorry about the convention center going somewhere else but using a Dallas development as an example.

My choice for a CC spot is south of the boulevard and east of Robinson as well.

How is the Big XII planning to do its mens and womens tournaments without 2 arenas?

Because they aren't going to host them in the same city. From an economic point of view it is a no-brainer. The City would have to host 100 Big XII tournaments to reap the same benefit as selling the land the Cox Center is on.

Sometimes the only amenities you need for a park that attracts tourists is trees and a sidewalk. We're not that far off from trees and a sidewalk/trail. Programming is overrated, IMO.

I agree it will be used before any amenities, especially by locals. But before you draw crowds or outsiders, you at least need staging areas for activities. This could be as simple as sports fields and trails or as elaborate as amphitheaters.

As far as not being far off, I didn't think the city even owned all of it, yet. And then there will be a pretty serious environmental clean up, the size of which has yet to be determined. And before any of that starts, we have to get the money for it from the MAPS taxes, and I don't think collections have met the budget for the park yet. I don't see how it's going to be useable for at least 10 years unless they do it in very small stages.

We need to quit basing 100 million dollar decisions on a college basketball tournament that may come here every 5 years or so. We have the NBA - so there will inevitably be schedule conflicts. The twin Big 12 tournaments was a nice thing in its time, now let's move on. Go for hosting one of the tournaments certainly, but don't worry about getting both of them here to consider it successful.

If we are going to build a new convention center, we need to sell off the Cox CC site once it is done and let that site be developed into something that will generate tax revenue. Keeping an aging, inadequate facility around for a once every few years event is silly at best.

Link: https://www.facebook.com/groups/274840982632029/

thanks...

Crap - I might have to breakdown and get a facbook account.

How many teams play in the Staples Center in LA? I think OKC would be fine with one arena.

How many teams play in the Staples Center in LA? I think OKC would be fine with one arena.

2 NBA teams and 1 NHL team. And they play in the Staples Center on the same day. They host over 250 events per year.

2 NBA teams and 1 NHL team. And they play in the Staples Center on the same day. They host over 250 events per year.

Actually, according to what was said last year during the first round of the NBA playoffs, is that it is extremely rare that any of the three teams play on the same day at home.

how many other large venues are there for large events (large concerts, sports, monster truck rallies, etc) in LA? i'm actually just curious, cause i'm sure it's much more than just the Staples Center. Not saying that changes anything, just curious really.

Also, i does anyone know how many events were in the Chesapeake Arena over the last year? and how many were in the COX Center? i think those would be interesting numbers to know

We need to quit basing 100 million dollar decisions on a college basketball tournament that may come here every 5 years or so. We have the NBA - so there will inevitably be schedule conflicts. The twin Big 12 tournaments was a nice thing in its time, now let's move on. Go for hosting one of the tournaments certainly, but don't worry about getting both of them here to consider it successful.

If we are going to build a new convention center, we need to sell off the Cox CC site once it is done and let that site be developed into something that will generate tax revenue. Keeping an aging, inadequate facility around for a once every few years event is silly at best.

Yep
Plus, what JTF said. Their not doing dual men and womens tournaments anymore. So the college basketball issue is irrelevant now.

Is this another Convention Center thread or Convention Center Hotel thread?

Is this another Convention Center thread or Convention Center Hotel thread?

I looked for the Convention Center thread the other day but couldn't find it :-/

LA Kings to LA Lakers to LA Clippers in one day.

SHwZ6qcaCY

Yep
Plus, what JTF said. Their not doing dual men and womens tournaments anymore. So the college basketball issue is irrelevant now.

Seems crazy stupid on the Big XII's part, but that's their problem. Given that reality, we can definitely do without the Myriad (oops I guess I should say Cox) arena.

LA Kings to LA Lakers to LA Clippers in one day.

SHwZ6qcaCY

not able to see the photo or link you posted there... now i know that they hosted 6 events in 4 days during the playoffs this year... and they were talking about how on that saturday you had the Clippers, then the Lakers.... then on sunday you had the Kings, and then the Clippers... and how that was unprecedented and extremely rare.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/17/sports/staples-center-gets-no-rest-with-lakers-clippers-and-kings-in-playoffs.html

so i'm not sure when the event you are trying to show of it happening all in one day occurred... but i can't find any news stories talking about there being all three on one day.

now if you are linking to the youtube video of the changes made to the arena in a time lapse video, that actually took place over 4 days not 1 day... cause i've seen that video before

Sorry about the link not working. One day, four days, it doesn't matter. The Peake can be changed over in a few hours and with only the Thunder and Barons as tenants it isn't like there is overwhelming demand for arena space. Besides, we are talking 6 to 10 years from now anyhow.

http://losangeles.sbnation.com/los-angeles-kings/2012/5/21/3034778/sportsageddon-los-angeles-staples-center


This, as it has come to be known by many Angelenos, is "Sportsageddon." Over the last four days, the Staples Center, which sits in downtown L.A., hosted a total of six playoff games - Game 3 of the Kings-Phoenix Coyotes series on Thursday night, Game 3 of the Lakers-Oklahoma City Thunder series on Friday night, Game 3 of the Clippers-San Antonio Spurs series and Game 4 of the Lakers-Thunder on Saturday, and lastly, Games 4 of the Kings-Coyotes and Clippers-Spurs on Sunday. That's five playoff games in 72 hours. Not to mention the final stage of the Amgen Tour of California, an annual eight-day cycling race, finished in front of Staples on Sunday morning.

I was once asked on another topic by JTF why I was trying to compare OKC and NYC. I think this begs the same question, why compare OKC to LA. The LA area has a huge number of large venues and lots more $$. I am not advocating keeping the Cox Center, but the considerations and capabilities are totally different. I still think the Cox will be redundant and agree the blocks need re-opened, and I would bet that is eventually what happens....in 10 years. However, I am pretty sure it will NOT be the site of the FIRST new CC Hotel, the subject of this thread.

How many teams play in the Staples Center in LA? I think OKC would be fine with one arena.

That's what I meant by my post near the end of the last page. In April, they had Game 3 against us, the next day the Clippers against the Grizzlies, the next day a Kings hockey game, the next day another game against us, the next day a Kings hockey match up earlier in the day followed by another Kings/Clippers matchup. If They can organize several events in a balls to walls type environment, I'm certainly positive SMG can do the same with the Chesapeake Arena.

Link: https://www.facebook.com/groups/274840982632029/

Hahahahahaha I love it

How is the Big XII planning to do its mens and womens tournaments without 2 arenas?

Well separating the two tourneys certainly indicates that's not as big of a deal any more.

I was once asked on another topic by JTF why I was trying to compare OKC and NYC. I think this begs the same question, why compare OKC to LA. The LA area has a huge number of large venues and lots more $$. I am not advocating keeping the Cox Center, but the considerations and capabilities are totally different. I still think the Cox will be redundant and agree the blocks need re-opened, and I would bet that is eventually what happens....in 10 years. However, I am pretty sure it will NOT be the site of the FIRST new CC Hotel, the subject of this thread.

We aren't comparing LA and OKC - we are comparing Staple Center and Chesapeake Arena. There are some people who don't think Chespeake Arena can meet the scheduling demands of OKC (think about that for a minute), when arenas in other cities seem to have no problem doing it.

Seems like we have already been missing out on a number of high profile concerts that now go to Tulsa and Wichita because of scheduling conflicts. Guess we could afford to miss a few more. No big deal.

Seems like we have already been missing out on a number of high profile concerts that now go to Tulsa and Wichita because of scheduling conflicts. Guess we could afford to miss a few more. No big deal.

Assuming that was true. The Cox Center is in no way comparable to what they have in Tulsa and Wichita.

Scheduling conflict? Why couldn't the concerts just use the Cox arena? Is it not good enough or something?

However, I am pretty sure it will NOT be the site of the FIRST new CC Hotel, the subject of this thread.

I certainly hope you are correct on this one Rover. That would definitely not be the best use of that site.

Scheduling conflict? Why couldn't the concerts just use the Cox arena? Is it not good enough or something?

It isn't Large enough for major concerts and it too has dates with the hockey team. Tulsa has benefitted too by us having so many Thunder dates. But thats okay, let the smaller towns have the concerts, conventions and that kind of stuff. We don't need it anyway.

The bigger issue is that if they botch the CC, the least popular MAPS3 item that has curiously been prioritized, they may turn public opinion against future MAPS projects. I'm very worried that the hubris of a few leaders is going to end the public investment that has greatly assisted OKC's renaissance. ;(

I have it from an insider that the Convention Center polled 7% in my ward, which is Larry McAtee's ward. Amazing to think he's such a sock puppet for developers and the Convention Center mafia. Perhaps he just wants to stay on the cocktail party invite list. I compared the CC polling in my ward to the popularity of Mitt Romney with African-American voters (a recent NBC-Wall Street Journal poll showed Romney garnering 0% -- not a typo -- of the AA vote).

It isn't Large enough for major concerts and it too has dates with the hockey team. Tulsa has benefitted too by us having so many Thunder dates. But thats okay, let the smaller towns have the concerts, conventions and that kind of stuff. We don't need it anyway.

Say what? So OKC should shoehorn all of its entertainment options into NBA basketball? What an absurd statement. Certainly if we're a "major league" city we can walk and chew gum at the same time.

Seems like we have already been missing out on a number of high profile concerts that now go to Tulsa and Wichita because of scheduling conflicts. Guess we could afford to miss a few more. No big deal.

That's just the reality of having OKC's arena booked. OKC is not going to get a 2nd arena comparable to BOK in Tulsa or Intrust in Wichita... So, the Cox should be replaced once there is something worthwhile to replace it.

It isn't Large enough for major concerts and it too has dates with the hockey team. Tulsa has benefitted too by us having so many Thunder dates. But thats okay, let the smaller towns have the concerts, conventions and that kind of stuff. We don't need it anyway.

Blasphemy!

What other events besides the Barons does the Cox Center hold? And you can't count conventions besides the new convention center will hold these. I know this will get people riled up, but after the convention center gets built the Cox arena will sit empty 75% of the year and not even be half full when it does get used.

Actually, rent is why Barrons don't use the Cheaspeake Arena, not the Thunder or Concerts. Doesn't make economic sense for them to pay more for a mostly empty arena.

It isn't Large enough for major concerts and it too has dates with the hockey team. Tulsa has benefitted too by us having so many Thunder dates. But thats okay, let the smaller towns have the concerts, conventions and that kind of stuff. We don't need it anyway.

After reading posts like this, I'm beginning to think Rover is a plant, designed to create distracting side discussions. The focus of this thread is the Convention Center hotel; his musings about whether OKC "needs" concerts and ephemeral entertainment are obtuse and completely unrelated to the thread topic.

Im pretty sure I saw Page & Plant in concert at the Cox Center in 1998. What's changed since? Its fully functional as a concert venue...that is until its torn down one day.

It isn't Large enough for major concerts and it too has dates with the hockey team. Tulsa has benefitted too by us having so many Thunder dates. But thats okay, let the smaller towns have the concerts, conventions and that kind of stuff. We don't need it anyway.

sarcasm

sarcasm

Unfortunately, I don't think it is.

It isn't Large enough for major concerts and it too has dates with the hockey team. Tulsa has benefitted too by us having so many Thunder dates. But thats okay, let the smaller towns have the concerts, conventions and that kind of stuff. We don't need it anyway.

So if it (Cox Arena) is too small then why not get rid of it? Are we really going to tie up that land for a minor league hockey team? Your 3rd sentence was pure over the top non-sense.

After reading posts like this, I'm beginning to think Rover is a plant, designed to create distracting side discussions. The focus of this thread is the Convention Center hotel; his musings about whether OKC "needs" concerts and ephemeral entertainment are obtuse and completely unrelated to the thread topic.

Personally, I kind of think 'You' are the plant.....lol

If you remember on the lack of concerts, it was due to the arena being shut down for renovations, so the concerts had to go to the BOK.

No plant. I've tried redirecting this discussion to the hotel several times, but everyone keeps wanting to talk about tearing down the Cox. I'm just playing along. And the third line was sarcasm. It's obviously not okay to not compete. It should be important to look and see whether we are making money on each arena. And will the extra outdated exposition area be a net asset to attract bigger conventions or small overlapping conventions post new cc. At any rate, it won't be available as a site for the hotel for 10 years. It doesn't seem to be a viable option for a FIRST. Cc hotel.

Now, once again, is this a cc hotel discussion?

So the Ford dealership was a long standing con job? Interesting accusation.

Hold the phone, there, Rover. I'm not accusing anyone of anything. I'm pointing out the amazing irony in that the site location just happens to be where I was told it would be years before all the selection process started. I don't know anything about any politics or dealings beyond that. It could well be that it was entirely a coincidence, lucky guess, or misinterpretation of other information. Don't know. Just relaying what I was told, which is obviously hearsay.

Im pretty sure I saw Page & Plant in concert at the Cox Center in 1998. What's changed since? Its fully functional as a concert venue...that is until its torn down one day.

Tulsa, Wichita and Little Rock building large, new arenas is what has happened. Major concerts aren't coming to the Cox. Minor ones now go to casinos.

The point is that we can trade Barron's games for concerts at the Peake if everyone wants. National concerts will book at regional arenas that are available when they need them to be. If the Peake isn't available, so be it. And comparing it to the Staples Center for changeovers, etc., I doubt the Barrons will pay what the Clippers and Kings do, or even the concerts, to make multiple changes in a day. Is it theoretically possible for us to utilize the Peake like LA does....yes. Is it financially the same.....not even close.

If the Barons can't afford to take up the Thunder court (the ice is always there) then take some of the proceeds from selling the Cox to off-set the cost.

And again I question, is this about the CC HOTEL? It seems impossible to keep this thread on the subject.

...As far as not being far off, I didn't think the city even owned all of it, yet. And then there will be a pretty serious environmental clean up, the size of which has yet to be determined. And before any of that starts, we have to get the money for it from the MAPS taxes, and I don't think collections have met the budget for the park yet. I don't see how it's going to be useable for at least 10 years unless they do it in very small stages.
MAPS 3 was projected to bring in an average of $100 million/yr or $8,333,333/month. They have been collecting the tax for 2 years and 4+ months (started April 1, 2010), and tax collections are multi-millions above the projections. If the Park had been built first as was the Mayor's stated preference, they had the entire $130 million in-hand no latter than 16 months or right at this time last year (if my fingers didn't fail me...LOL). Granted, this is if they used all the money for 1 project at a time instead of multiple projects in various stages. But you are correct, they are doing it in stages now with minimal landscaping with the completion of the Park more towards the end of the time line.

ON EDIT: my apologies to Rover and others wanting to stay on topic. I was just responding to the discussion and really didn't notice the thread topic. Again, my apologies, so you can now get back to the regularly scheduled thread topic (I hope).

MAPS 3 was projected to bring in an average of $100 million/yr or $8,333,333/month. They have been collecting the tax for 2 years and 4+ months (started April 1, 2010), and tax collections are multi-millions above the projections. If the Park had been built first as was the Mayor's stated preference, they had the entire $130 million in-hand no latter than 16 months or right at this time last year (if my fingers didn't fail me...LOL). Granted, this is if they used all the money for 1 project at a time instead of multiple projects in various stages. But you are correct, they are doing it in stages now with minimal landscaping with the completion of the Park more towards the end of the time line.

ON EDIT: my apologies to Rover and others wanting to stay on topic. I was just responding to the discussion and really didn't notice the thread topic. Again, my apologies, so you can now get back to the regularly scheduled thread topic (I hope).


Yeah. It's not what I would have done, but it is how it's going down. C2S park as a functioning urban destination is a ways away.


Seems like we have already been missing out on a number of high profile concerts that now go to Tulsa and Wichita because of scheduling conflicts. Guess we could afford to miss a few more. No big deal.


Why did people keep saying this? There is NOTHING about the Thunder being here that prevents the feasibility of hosting any concert that wants to come here. This is done all over the country. Look to the Staples center for the extreme example. THREE major league teams play there in a city that has no shortage of concert venues and they still have several concerts there a year, often sandwiched in between sporting events. A scheduling conflict only exists if there is only ONE available date and a basketball game is being played. If they want to have a show here, they will work around that, for sure.

In relation to Tulsa, MANY of the shows at BOK Center have already been through Oklahoma City and recently many have been making stops at both on opposite ends of the tour. And how many of those BOK shows actually took place on a night the Thunder played in OKC? Not many. The Thunder plays around 40 games a year at CEA. That leaves 325 other days for shows. That's not much of a conflict, if any. Concert tours are accustomed to working around the primary tenant of a venue and seeing as how we only have one and many cities have more than one, we're actually a very easy market to schedule.

If shows are booking BOK in place of CEA for a reason other than to avoid market saturation, arena management probably has more to do with it than anything. You see, SMG manages the two major arenas in Oklahoma. One of those arenas has a major tenant. The other one NEEDS touring events to generate revenue and, even with that, they're still 40 nights in the hole out the gate against their arena in OKC. So, which one would you try and influence tours to book? If you had competing management, I bet you would see a difference in scheduling.

In any event, just having just 40 nights a year pre-booked should not cause any major scheduling conflicts or operational hurdles to booking any major one-night event, such as a concert, in Oklahoma City. If a tour chooses to book BOK instead of CEA, more often than not it's going to be the result of a business and/or market decision and not one that was forced due to scheduling.

Why did people keep saying this? There is NOTHING about the Thunder being here that prevents the feasibility of hosting any concert that wants to come here.

They were overstating your point, and now you're overstating yours. There are times when OKC could miss out on a concert because the Thunder have booked dates, but it probably does not happen very often, and the positive impact of the Thunder using the arena on those dates makes it worth the few concerts that might be missed.

They were overstating your point, and now you're overstating yours. There are times when OKC could miss out on a concert because the Thunder have booked dates, but it probably does not happen very often, and the positive impact of the Thunder using the arena on those dates makes it worth the few concerts that might be missed.

Not really. They can turn around the arena in one day easily. A tour can shift a date one day if they really want to play in the market. Happens all the time. If they only have one date for the market, then it's just not a priority and that's more of a reflection of the market than it is a result of the NBA being here. The uncertainty of the playoffs could have an impact, but often the NBA is accommodating and that should not deter management from booking some dates during that time. I'm just saying if you follow the bookings of major arenas across the country, having major league sports tenants is not a hindrance to attracting. major tours, that is if the market is strong enough.

The arena can be changed over in about 2 hours. Some place just set a record a few weeks ago making the switch in something like 46 minutes. They can easily do a Thunder game on Saturday afternoon and do a major concert that night.

From the AA center page:

http://www.americanairlinescenter.com/about-aacenter/changeovers.php


Teamwork

It takes a team of 40 - 60 people just under two hours to convert the arena floor from a basketball court into an ice hockey rink or vice versa. The team is broken into five groups and each group is given four to five specific tasks that they work on during the conversion. Nicknamed the "Skittles Crew," each group is assigned a color coded shirt.


It is even faster if the change involves a concert and not two pro sports teams


American Airlines Center is a versatile facility, shifting from basketball to hockey to concerts in minutes, not hours, if need be. They are called changeovers, and they happen a few times every year. When two very different events are scheduled in the AACenter on the same day.

Please remember that Chesapeake Energy Arena has been under renovation since BOK opened. I believe that has had as much, if not more influence on what concerts could be scheduled. I expect that more concerts will be scheduled now that the construction is wrapping up.