Except the Cox Center will certainly becoming down once the new convention center is complete.

Oh, really? I didn't realize that. The Cox offers a perfect second arena facility to accommodate hockey and basketball on the same nights, among other things. I was there on the Myriad's grand opening night, kind of sad to think about, just doesn't seem that long ago. Time is strange.

It is pretty much universally agreed that Cox is coming down. Mayor talks about it, committees have discussed it, architecture studios have done studies on the possibilities of this site, and so on...

Cox site is going to be the site that links the CBD core to the more vibrant entertainment districts. It's important to get the boulevard, the streetcar, and the intermodal hub all right for this to come together in a big way. We've already messed up on the new I-40 and OKC Boulevard..

Its interesting that the "bricktown towers" lumberyard location just sold, which will have great access to the convention center. Somebody knew something beforehand.

It is pretty much universally agreed that Cox is coming down. Mayor talks about it, committees have discussed it, architecture studios have done studies on the possibilities of this site, and so on...

Cox site is going to be the site that links the CBD core to the more vibrant entertainment districts. It's important to get the boulevard, the streetcar, and the intermodal hub all right for this to come together in a big way. We've already messed up on the new I-40 and OKC Boulevard..

Which makes sense. I obviously tuned out that discussion on nostalgia alone.

The City actually funded an entire study to determine how best to redevelop the Cox site.

I think it's a foregone conclusion it will be put out for RFP once the new convention center has a firm opening date.

I really hope the Cox Center gets redeveloped into something along the lines of Midtown Crossing in Omaha. Myriad Gardens is such a beautiful urban park and housing and retail fronting it would drastically increase usage and vibrancy of the park at times where there isn't scheduled programming. The Myriad Gardens is truly special and its something a lot of cities this size don't have. However, it needs to be surrounded by development that complements it and makes it come alive. Park interaction should be of highest priority when redeveloping the Cox block.

Okay, so if the plan is East Park 1, that means that the hotel site plan is going to have to handle the walkability at the Boulevard, and then only at Robinson and Broadway. The convention center will only be on on-level streets, and none that are quite the thoroughfare as the Boulevard will be.

Of course, it also means that the convention center itself is a full two blocks away from the streetcar line, as well as that much further down away from existing hotel and entertainment stock.

Hmm. So far, not a fan.

This site selection sure does render many, many posts in this and other threads over the past few years - denigrating the CC committee and others - pretty laughable. I'll spare everyone the reposts.

Which makes sense. I obviously tuned out that discussion on nostalgia alone.

Did the old cotton seed parcel sell recently? That area should be a prime spot for just about any type of development in the future. I know it already was but with the CC just to the west has to open up even more possibilities I would think. I think they picked the right spot for the CC. Now the RHECO prop can be developed and that area should be nothing but high rise along with the south OG&E parcel. Lots of possibilities are open now.

Okay, so if the plan is East Park 1, that means that the hotel site plan is going to have to handle the walkability at the Boulevard, and then only at Robinson and Broadway. The convention center will only be on on-level streets, and none that are quite the thoroughfare as the Boulevard will be.

Of course, it also means that the convention center itself is a full two blocks away from the streetcar line, as well as that much further down away from existing hotel and entertainment stock.

Hmm. So far, not a fan.

It's the perfect spot IMO. Maybe not today but the whole area around the CC can be developed and they can work a streetcar line in and deal with walkability issues. It's a much better area for a superblock than the rheco site IMO.

This site selection sure does render many, many posts in this and other threads over the past few years - denigrating the CC committee and others - pretty laughable. I'll spare everyone the reposts.

Maybe I'm missing something here. All three votes by the relevant bodies (CC Subcommitte, MAPS 3 Board, City Council) were in Executive Session, right? So how do you know all three bodies were aligned?

This must mean they already have a site for the sub-station!

Right, but the latest process was to secure general agreements for any site before it was selected.

This was after not doing that exact thing caused the other site to fall out without a backup plan.

Evidently, from this KFOR report, there may not have been prior agreement on all of the land. It mentions that eminent domain has been authorized by the council.

Site selected for MAPS 3 Convention Center in Oklahoma City | KFOR.com (http://kfor.com/2015/10/13/site-selected-for-maps-3-convention-center-in-oklahoma-city/)


O'Connor said it was possible the city would have to use its power of eminent domain to obtain property from unwilling sellers.

As usual, Steve has an excellent analysis of what It means for this area.

http://newsok.com/winners-and-losers-in-new-okc-convention-center-site/article/5453354

It was an 8 - 0 vote so there was no controversy.

http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-council-selects-convention-center-location/article/5453369

...As usual, Steve has an excellent analysis of what It means for this area.

Winners and losers in new OKC convention center site | News OK (http://newsok.com/winners-and-losers-in-new-okc-convention-center-site/article/5453354)

...

Unfortunately that links to an incomplete version of that column.

What will this mean for the streetcar?

Almost certainly the route will now have to be changed and at a very late stage.


Also, I believe Steve is mistaken about the Fairfield Inn being a 'loser' in this site selection as it is outside the published East Park 1 boundaries and in fact would be right next to the convention center itself. However, it does look like the City may need to take the western part of their property to put in a new access road.

The Best Western would be within the boundaries but I'm sure they'll be paid handsomely for their property.


And finally, I don't see how this is going to come in under budget. They have to spend $30 million to relocate the substation and Bill Crum's article quoted Cathy O'Connor as saying they will not be within the $13 land acquisition budget. She said they will 'save' money but not building underground, but I don't think the numbers are going to add up here.

So, what happens if/when they go well over budget?

Maybe I'm missing something here. All three votes by the relevant bodies (CC Subcommitte, MAPS 3 Board, City Council) were in Executive Session, right? So how do you know all three bodies were aligned?

You don't (though likely they were), but even with they weren't aligned it would demonstrate that the Council had the ultimate power and flies in the face of dozens and dozens of nasty comments here suggesting "the fix is in" or that the CC subcommittee and/or a single individual were running roughshod and were going to get what they want at the expense of literally everybody, no matter what. Dig through the thread if you care to.

I wonder if for the streetcar it would be as simple (heh, simple) as pulling it down one additional block from the south side of the Myriad Gardens. As it comes back over from the Bricktown leg on Reno, swing it south past the Chesapeake on Robinson, west on the Boulevard, and then back up Hudson to rejoin the original route. If I'm understanding the plan right it would only be one additional block worth of track (the stretch down Robinson) since Hudson will already have track on it on account of the Maintenance Facility location.

This would have the advantage of including the new park in the initial streetcar route, which could be a bit of a win for that project all of its own.

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/eastpark1.jpg

You don't (though likely they were), but even with they weren't aligned it would demonstrate that the Council had the ultimate power and flies in the face of dozens and dozens of nasty comments here suggesting "the fix is in" or that the CC subcommittee and/or a single individual were running roughshod and were going to get what they want at the expense of literally everybody, no matter what. Dig through the thread if you care to.

I suspect that going to the North Park site was simply not a legitimate option due to expense, which is the only reason the original site was abandoned to begin with.

BTW, you can bet the OG&E Data Center site will become a massive parking garage.

OG&E said they would donate the site to the City when they announced plans to go to the Stage Center and this whole operation still needs a big parking garage to make this work.

The entire convention center budget will now need to be reworked.

Remember that originally $30 million was set aside to relocate the substation.

When they were focusing on the REHCO property, they returned that money to the original MAPS 3 contingency budget from whence it came, then decided to move $35 million out of that same line item to expand the convention center from 200,000 SF to 250,000 SF.

So, now everything has changed once again and all this needs to be revisted.

What will this mean for the streetcar?


It could mean nothing. It could mean changes. We have this politically created phantom "Phase 2" that was conceived by consultants to spread cash flow out over the program period to enable the contiguous construction of the Convention Center. That timeline is completely irrelevant at this point as sales tax collections have exceeded projections and many projects are behind schedule... especially the Convention Center.

I think the big questions for the streetcar are-

1. Should the Convention Center be on the Main Line?
2. Should the Convention Center be on a Special Event Track Switch with a adaptive schedule?
3. Should the connection be made via a loop around the park (down Robinson/up Hudson)? Is a OKC Boulevard stop close enough? Is the Reno stop close enough?
4. Will the streetcar Main Line come in within budget this coming late spring?

Personally, I have always thought it was important to directly serve the Convention Center wherever it was located. The CC Hotel I think gives that persuasion more weight as well. The Main Line stop on Reno is basically a super block away from the corner and involve crossing two very busy intersections.

Should there not be a direct connection, I think the real losers would be the business owners and institutions along the line that would benefit from visitors using the streetcar system to see our broader downtown. Plus, there is a opportunity to tap into yet constructed parking garages in these vacant areas to facilitate offsite parking from the core.

I think the streetcar system will be wildly successful either way. But we should pursue every opportunity to establish new precedents in urban design that can be facilitated through a efficiently connected greater downtown area via our new rail system.

What will this mean for the streetcar?

Almost certainly the route will now have to be changed and at a very late stage.


I think its for the best. A lot of track is wasted on the current route getting to the maintenance facility. I really hope they re-examine it in light of the new convention center site.

I am happy with this site. I am happy it won't create another dead wall alongside Myriad Gardens. Now that this site has been chosen, what will happen to the Clayco South site? Will it go back out for RFP? I am happy that the Best Western will not get built. The only real downside to this is having to tear down another historic building.

They are not going to move the maintenance facility.

They already own the land, have approved plans, etc.

It's very unlikely they will consider moving the maintenance facility.

They already own the land, have approved plans, etc.

Selecting East Park 1 over East Park 3 is going to necessitate lots and lots of planning.

I hope it was not made out of fear of the plans for the Fairfield Inn. That could have easily been addressed by purchasing one of the blocks to the south and swapping parcels.

I'm a bit concerned about the future of the blocks that are to the south and to the east. Access is terrible to most of them, and they are bordered by tons of elevated roadways and other such issues. I imagine the sight bordered by Robinson/I-40/Broadway/7th would be a reasonable place to move the substation if it needs to stay in the area.

Overall, this is a fascinating decision, but I agree, probably best for the city. The conversation between the Prefunction area and the Park is going to be pretty important to the success of this facility.

The garage that will likely be built on BLVD/Shields needs to be massive. If they could get 2,000 spaces out of it, that would be ideal. And we have a lot of TIF money left for parking garages.

It's very unlikely they will consider moving the maintenance facility.

They already own the land, have approved plans, etc.

You gotta admit, it would be a great use for all that land mentioned in my post above...

East Park is the best location. It will be interesting to see the designs especially the Robinson and 4th St frontages which will effectively be the front door to the convention center. When we analyzed this site in my OU Urban Design studio 7 years ago this was the site that we worked with, except with Blvd frontage next to the convention hotel and a larger program (a larger exhibit hall, a theatre and office space for the CVB were included). Having the loading dock side off Shields worked well in tucking that part of the operation away with trucks accessing it before the roads elevates south of the Blvd. Our thought at the time was that the park would eventually be lined with mixed-use development and we saved the parcels along Robinson for that, but the latest plan shows the center abutting Robinson. We also put all of the parking in a garage underneath the exhibit hall.

East Park is the best location. It will be interesting to see the designs especially the Robinson and 4th St frontages which will effectively be the front door to the convention center. When we analyzed this site in my OU Urban Design studio 7 years ago this was the site that we worked with, except with Blvd frontage next to the convention hotel and a larger program (a larger exhibit hall, a theatre and office space for the CVB were included). Having the loading dock side off Shields worked well in tucking that part of the operation away with trucks accessing it before the roads elevates south of the Blvd. Our thought at the time was that the park would eventually be lined with mixed-use development and we saved the parcels along Robinson for that, but the latest plan shows the center abutting Robinson. We also put all of the parking in a garage underneath the exhibit hall.

BG918 - do you have any links to your work on this parcel that you can share?

I think its for the best. A lot of track is wasted on the current route getting to the maintenance facility. I really hope they re-examine it in light of the new convention center site.

Couple things need to be clarified... the track to the maintenance facility is not part of the operating route. As for track being "wasted", the cost for the track is minimal compared to premium for land in other locations. Plus, there are Best Practices associated with locating and designing a streetcar maintenance facility. There will be service noise generated and potentially other environmental factors. The land was obtained essentially for free through a land swap with ODOT as part of their I-40 Crosstown project.

The savings allowed us to reinvest into the overall budget.

I think the major question orients around whether potentially incorporating the "tail track" into the Main Line is a good move. Whether it should be a "special event" extension as part of the Main Line that can be switched on and off as events and conventions necessitates and as development increases or whether it should be part of the 10 - 12 minute Main Line operational frequency from the get go.

And again, that assumes that the budget exists once bids are received for the Main Line that has already been committed.

I live across the street from the maintenance and storage yard in Gresham for the MAX Light Rail system. You don't want it anywhere else but tucked in a corner by the interstate. They chose the perfect location for the maintenance yard. The lights are extremely bright (think construction site lighting) and are on all night and tend to have lots of industrial noise and truck traffic.

All the more reason to want it tucked behind the convention center where no one is going to be at night.

BG918 - do you have any links to your work on this parcel that you can share?

http://i1152.photobucket.com/albums/p498/bg918/Convention%20Center_zpsplbcfe5n.jpg

Impressive image BG918, thanks for sharing; let's hope they have put the convention center/conference hotel site in the rearview mirror. Really blows the Cox Convention Center away; also like the proximity of the cc & hotel to the Chesapeake Energy Arena. Should help OKC bid for some really good tier II & III type conventions.

Now we should get more teeth into the bidding process for a reputable & viable 600-plus room conference hotel with some height.

Oklahoma City Council selects convention center location: http://newsok.com/article/5453369?slideout=1

Winners and losers in new OKC convention center site | News OK (http://newsok.com/article/5453354)

All the more reason to want it tucked behind the convention center where no one is going to be at night.

This! Move the maintenance facility to the lot between 7th, the interstate, and Sheilds. This will allow front door streetcar access AND get the streetcar a 1/2 mile closer to Capitol Hill. Then sell the land next to Union Station (or swap it).

I would bet moving the maintenance facility would be costly at this point. It's not like we are playing Sim City on Free Funds Mode. These are our real tax dollars at work. The ideal situation in the perfect would be to have it where you suggested. But, the plans are drawn. We own the land. By changing the location this far in, we only guarantee project cost overruns. And on a subject which is iffy to many Oklahomans (mass rail transit), cost overages would only feed the Tea Party mantra of rail transit being pure pork and wasteful of money.

Costly? How much does 1/2 mile of track cost? Plus the land has value. It can be sold.

Anyhow, we can debate it all day but moving it makes financial, operational, and future develoment sense. Pretty sure at the end of the day, figuratively speaking, it will get moved. Peace out.

Sometimes, the costly decision is the better decision. And sometimes what appeared to be costly ends up saving money.

I'd perhaps be singing a different tune if we were talking about East Park 3 layout…but the area around the convention center in East Park 1 layout has a chance to be even more costly if the city has to come in and eminent domain those properties AFTER the CC is built because the blocks remain blighted right in the backyard of a $250M civic project.

The access to those properties severely hampers their value to the average investor…but you know the current owners are going to want to sell at an obscene premium. I predict the properties will stay blighted well into the 2020s. Why not just property swap right now, move the sub-station and street car facility to what is essentially unusable land and actually move forward in this city with quality planning and good land use. I don't care if it costs an extra few million to make it all work, and I doubt it would be that much.

Like ^

dup

Pretty sure at the end of the day, figuratively speaking, it will get moved. Peace out.

Well considering I'm on the actual committee that makes those recommendations, its not going to happen. Peace out yourself.

The next step would be to finalize the purchase agreements.

Sounds like the terms have been generally outlined, as that was part of this last process and the whole idea was to know what the final deal would be before choosing the final site.


I have said all the way along I think that site is the best for all of Oklahoma City. Perhaps not the best for the convention center, but they will be fine there and have a much, much better facility than they have now.

The REHCO and south Clayco parcel can now be used for private development, which will surely come.

And the East Park location means the CC can help spur more development in Core 2 Shore instead of City having to plow even more public incentives into getting that property developed.


I also suspect that they could simply not come to terms with REHCO because I know the committee desperately wanted the North Park site. East Park was always a fall-back.

I also have ALWAYS championed this site as the best for the city. It helps to redevelop the new area of downtown while allowing the existing sections N of the boulevard to further densify organically. This is what we need, and not a cc in the core of new downtown adding yet another superblock. I understand a superblock will be created in E Park but at least that area is NOT yet defined and hopefully good judgement could go into its construction and the evolution of C2S. Plus, as has been mentioned, I always saw the CC as a catalyst for that area - not that people would want to live/work near a cc but that we'd have one side of the new park already fully developed which would 'force' development to the other sides. Also, as urbanized mentions - I think this will also FORCE walkability to be built into the blvd which is a huge win for not only the CC but also the new Central Park and their connectivity to Bricktown, the now available private development of the Ford site, OGE, MGB, and the CBD.

Finally. this allows the city to build in phases, which is the most reasonable way to do this given the price tag and eventual desire for space. We wouldn't want empty land sitting in the newly expanded CBD (if the north park site were chosen) waiting on new funds to expand/fully build out the 500 sq feet of space. Very smart of the city to go this route (not to rub it in) and the whole city wins with those spots in dispute NOW fully open and available for private development.

I can't wait to see what the proposals will be, Kudos.

Guys, the Streetcar will be a block or two away; you can still market that to cc patrons. Bricktown can still be accessed easily from the chosen site, it's the same distance as was the North Park location, just a little bit less walkable (which can be resolved).

Here's one point people are not considering, why have just ONE entertainment district? What if the REHCO lands gets properly developed into Highrise Hotel and Residential with premium retail and restaurants? Isn't that right across the boulevard from the cc and hotel? Couldn't OKC better market itself as a tier two city by listing more entertainment spots than just Bricktown? Saying the CC is in the center of town with easy access to Bricktown Entertainment District, REHCO (whatever name they come up with), Film Row, etc is much better than saying it's across the street from Bricktown, which is good enough for now but NOT for a Tier II growing city - think Denver here and the multiple districts they have to offer besides LoDo.

Again about the Streetcar, there is no law that says the Streetcar MUST interact with the CC right NOW. It could be built in for future expansion (say, running into Capital Hill for example). Also, wouldn't we want cc patrons to largely walk thoughout the city? Trains are a convenience but I actually want the foot traffic - which this location forces.

Here's a view of the site:


https://vimeo.com/142425150

Well considering I'm on the actual committee that makes those recommendations, its not going to happen. Peace out yourself.

And the CC Committee wanted a different location also. Just sayin.

That's not really a logical comparison. And it suggests that I am not being forthwright in conveying what is really going on.

There is no political, administrative, committee, mayoral, or consultant desire in any measurable amount to move the site of the maintenance facility that we already possess and designed for.

I'm really nervous about the area between the convention center & shields. I don't see how any developer will find this area appealing being between no access from Shields & the loading docks of the convention center.

I almost wish they pushed the convention center towards shields & left the area next to Robinson & the park for private development.

I'm really nervous about the area between the convention center & shields. I don't see how any developer will find this area appealing being between no access from Shields & the loading docks of the convention center.

I almost wish they pushed the convention center towards shields & left the area next to Robinson & the park for private development.

I had the same thought but the elevated nature of Shields would probably prevent the loading docks from being located there.

I had the same thought but the elevated nature of Shields would probably prevent the loading docks from being located there.

In our plan which had the CC between the Blvd and SW 5 the loading docks fronted Shields which will never have much in the way of pedestrian traffic. Access for trucks was off SW 4 which is at grade. The thought was that eventually SW 5 on the south side of the CC could be extended to the east under the tracks if and when the Cotton Seed Mill is redeveloped, since SW 4 would be removed between Robinson & Shields.

We also left the Robinson frontage open for future mixed use development keeping a half block open from SW 4 to SW 5, assuming the convention hotel was will be located at the SE corner of the Blvd and Robinson.

That didn't long for all the OKC talk experts to figure out what's wrong with it and quickly go negative.

That didn't long for all the OKC talk experts to figure out what's wrong with it and quickly go negative.

Keep in mind that there's a large contingent (myself included) who are inclined to see the Convention Center as the worst thought out MAPS project to date. For me personally, while I think the East Park is infinitely better for the city as a whole than wasting the prime land @ the Bob Howard, south Clayco blocks, I'm not going to all of the sudden be super stoked about the project. There are still some major flaws in it, mainly that we didn't plan enough money for this project. It's that simple. So now we have to mitigate the effects of being frugal. They've chosen a layout that creates dead, undesirable space, and there's been no plan presented on how to address that. That doesn't mean that they don't have one, but until we hear otherwise, there is a serious problem with the lots south and east of this project.

I think that the streetcar should be moved to Robinson and that any additional costs incurred are part of the CC budget. I think it's very important for that CC to be directly served.

It is currently planned to go down a dead-end street. If the nearest good site for the maintenance garage is across I-40, then that becomes the new southern terminus. Then we have already tackled one of two barriers to Capitol Hill.

As for the Shields frontage, I'm also confused as to why that's the side they're putting the mixed-use component on. Remember, the planners pitching the CC during MAPS 3 said that the CC would be wrapped in mixed-use development so that it isn't a blank wall. It looks like they're giving the blank wall to the park, and the active side to Shields.

That didn't long for all the OKC talk experts to figure out what's wrong with it and quickly go negative.

Yeah. Unfortunately, it takes city leaders much longer.

Let's face it, no matter where you place the convention center & conference hotel there are going to be issues and obstacles. So many of us want to tie it in with Bricktown Entertainment and the streetcar--whether or not it compares to what they have in Cleveland, San Diego or Denver.

Let's just get the damn thing built...

^^^^^^
We want it to tie in with those places so it will work as intended, which includes maximizing bookings and driving new business (and tax revenue). We also need to make sure it is not a long-term black hole for City funds in the way of operating subsidy, which again goes back to bookings. Otherwise the CC is a waste of hundreds of millions of dollars - the biggest ticket in the history of MAPS. "Just getting it built" could amount to a colossal waste of taxpayer monies, it it is not thoughtfully planned and integrated. This is important stuff for the future of our city.

After talking to people involved with the decision making it is my understanding that the Alliance and OCURA recommended to the Convention Center Committee, the MAPS 3 Board and City Council that the East Park site was the best choice only because the North Park (REHCO) site was not workable within the budget.

A big part of the issue was not only the acquisition costs but the need to put the entire main ballroom underground. Not only would this have been expensive and open up the entire project to lots of potential unpredictable costs, they pretty much had to build the whole 275,000 SF space underground in the beginning because it would have been super expensive to have to tear up Hudson a second time to build the addition under that heavily-used street.

This is one of the primary reasons there was the big push to spend the additional $35 million to expand the space from 250,000 to 275,000. It would allow them to do all the building under Hudson at once, then add to the space on the west side of that street later.

But at the East Park site, they could build smaller in the beginning -- and thus spend less money -- and then add on any time they had the funds available.


The decision was purely economic and it's also my understanding they think they can now move the substation for $25 million instead of $30 million.

If you look at this image, you can see the East Park site is only programmed for 200,000 SF, whereas the North Park was going to be 275,000 and there was really no way to do it any smaller without costing a fortune to expand later.

So at the East Park site, they simply can build it smaller and save money that way; and of course everything will be above ground, including the loading docks.

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/eastpark1.jpg

They could grow their budget by selling more valuable sites facing the park, rather than Shields.

^^^^^^
We want it to tie in with those places so it will work as intended, which includes maximizing bookings and driving new business (and tax revenue). We also need to make sure it is not a long-term black hole for City funds in the way of operating subsidy, which again goes back to bookings. Otherwise the CC is a waste of hundreds of millions of dollars - the biggest ticket in the history of MAPS. "Just getting it built" could amount to a colossal waste of taxpayer monies, it it is not thoughtfully planned and integrated. This is important stuff for the future of our city.

This.

It's so important to get this right.

They could grow their budget by selling more valuable sites facing the park, rather than Shields.

I totally get this sentiment, but is the reason it is where it is because they need street access for the loading docks (whatever that street is between the IH building and the Fairfield Inn)?