This question and answer from Steve's chat today is probably why he thinks the Fairfield Inn won't happen.




‎2‎:‎40‎:‎38‎ ‎PM
Will the city buy all the land from Robinson to Shields for the CC.




Steve Lackmeyer
‎2‎:‎40‎:‎43‎ ‎PM
Yes.

So one more pesky old building is going away for good I see.

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)?

Loading docks should go up against Shields, not the park, and the middle of the block makes no sense.

So one more pesky old building is going away for good I see.

Old buildings go away all of the time in every city. What is most important is whether it is for a better use of the site and how important or significant that building is.

So one more pesky old building is going away for good I see.

It sucks, but it's higher and better use.

Irregardless of the reason why the final site was chosen, it is very clear that the city had been motivated to chose a site it couldn't afford which would have been detrimental to the city's development. Luckily, cooler heads prevailed and we can now start to think of OKC more in terms of sim city and less-so trying to adapt to someone's idea of a fortress amenity CBD (my opinion; wanting everything centered around Devon, underground conference halls? monster garages, office-only surrounding the world class MGB; YUK).

Now we can focus on integrating the CC with the Park; I agree an excellent idea is to make parcels fronting the park available for private development while having cutouts (which also front the park) as entrances to the CC - which would create an urban streetwall along Robinson. This could prove profitable to the city, if it sold to the right developers. Also, why not bury at least 'some' of the parking under the building (since we're so into having an underground cc)? If not then have the parking suspend above the loading docks.

Also, I think the Int'l Harvester building could be saved if we focused the entrance to the loading area from SW 5/Shields; the CC could build around the old building which itself could be retrofitted into a Conrad Hotel (giving the city two or more 'attached' hotels).

I think land swaps and carved out parcels like that is the best way to finance parking that the CC will need.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Agree

Loading docks should go up against Shields, not the park, and the middle of the block makes no sense.

I don't know much about how loading docks operate, but I can imagine it's possible a semi would have to stop in the street in front of the docks, then reverse to back the trailer into a bay. If that's the case, disruption to traffic on Shields might be a problem. What may be a bigger impediment than that, though, is that most of the length of Shields between 4th and 7th is elevated. Shields also starts to go below grade at some point heading into the intersection with the Boulevard, I believe. Seems like loading docks fronting Shields would be complicated.

I don't understand that because you just made the case for why it makes a lot of sense. You don't give loading docks your main frontage...

I'm not saying they would do that either, but given that nothing can be done on Shields, that seems like an opportunity to save some money with what is built on that side.

We've tried a CC with a "front door" on Robinson and loading docks on Shields.. The one we have now. The Cox is 1 million SF, twice the total size of our new facility. I don't understand the need to stretch from Robinson to Shields on a site that is twice as long with a facility that will be half as big.

There are opportunities to do this right and I just hope they're being considered first.

If they got creative and used air bearings they could cut the size of the loading docks in half and place them on 7th where no one would see them. If they got a little more creative they could remove them completely.

I don't know much about how loading docks operate, but I can imagine it's possible a semi would have to stop in the street in front of the docks, then reverse to back the trailer into a bay. If that's the case, disruption to traffic on Shields might be a problem. What may be a bigger impediment than that, though, is that most of the length of Shields between 4th and 7th is elevated. Shields also starts to go below grade at some point heading into the intersection with the Boulevard, I believe. Seems like loading docks fronting Shields would be complicated.

This is what I was getting at. I'm not standing there looking at it right now, but Shields is elevated south of 5th. That leaves just the block between 4th and 5th at grade (for now, not sure what the Boulevard plan does to Shields there) for docks, right?

I don't disagree with what you're saying Spartan, just questioning the logistics.

I don' think the docs will be accessible from Shields, they will just be facing Shields. Access would be from an at-grade road running down the Shields side of the CC. They will probably use 7th to access it.

I don' think the docs will be accessible from Shields, they will just be facing Shields. Access would be from an at-grade road running down the Shields side of the CC. They will probably use 7th to access it.

Makes much more sense if they could squeeze that road in there.

That is why I suggested the air bearing system. They would just need a place to unhitch the trailer and then push them around inside the CC to almost any place they want. It would eliminate all the space required to manuver a truck and three people can push a fully loaded semi trailer just using one hand each. The loading doc could be the exhibit floor itself. Drop in a turn table for the cab and you don't even need a thru street. Railroads did it for nearly 80 years.

Yeah, if you look at the conceptual East Park 1 drawing posted earlier, Broadway is shoved east a bit from it's current location, and will form the eastern boundary of the Convention Center. The new CC won't go all the way to Shields. The loading docks will simply face that direction.

This has probably been discussed. Keep in mind that the exit ramp headed westbound on the I-40 exits onto Robinson. If that were used for westbound access, it would significantly reduce the distance by which large trucks would have to travel on city streets (Boulevard and Shields).

I figure the semis will use the new freeway-grade OKC Boulevard

The hotel is likely to front the boulevard, not the CC. And, BTW, the depressed boulevard will be 8-10 feet below the street level of the hotel and CC at that point.

The hotel is likely to front the boulevard, not the CC. And, BTW, the depressed boulevard will be 8-10 feet below the street level of the hotel and CC at that point.

What's it cost to build a cap/bridge over it for the entire block bridging the CC to the arena, with something like a park ground? (if this is a totally stupid unrealistic idea I'm prepared to take my medicine lol)

The hotel is likely to front the boulevard, not the CC. And, BTW, the depressed boulevard will be 8-10 feet below the street level of the hotel and CC at that point.

There is no reason for that side of the street to be "below grade". At all. With all the south of blvd development consisting of new construction. They would re grade the lots and build the hotel/cc at grade with the blvd on the frontage.

The boulevard is dipping below grade to go under the BNSF rail viaduct.

The boulevard is dipping below grade to go under the BNSF rail viaduct.

I'm not sure how deep they have to go for proper clearance, but it's over a full block before they come to the hotel location with the Blvd.

There is no reason for that side of the street to be "below grade". At all. With all the south of blvd development consisting of new construction. They would re grade the lots and build the hotel/cc at grade with the blvd on the frontage.

Except that the boulevard is in the process of returning to normal grade over that block. So if you made the eastern facade street level, by the time you got to the western side it would be below ground.

If they take the SW corner down even with the street it would be no different than building on hill. I wish they would do that.

What's it cost to build a cap/bridge over it for the entire block bridging the CC to the arena, with something like a park ground? (if this is a totally stupid unrealistic idea I'm prepared to take my medicine lol)

Yes! And lets put a bunch of park benches on there and make a moving sidewalk like a huge escalator so people can sit and enjoy the ride/view thus eliminating the need for the CC streetcar. Brilliant I say! Simply brilliant!

Does anything like this exsist any where?

What's it cost to build a cap/bridge over it for the entire block bridging the CC to the arena, with something like a park ground? (if this is a totally stupid unrealistic idea I'm prepared to take my medicine lol)

This would be the best idea because it would GREATLY increase walkability. Not having to cross the Boulevard on foot would be huge for Bricktown Connectivity. And as I always said, you could turn that area into a food truck park that could be super useful for both the Convention Center AND the CHK Arena.

The solution isn't to build a cap over a poorly designed boulevard - it is to have a properly designed boulevard. Alas, ODOT is incapable of that which is why the City should have put their foot down like many of us begged them to do. I'll bet they wish they had now. Instead of spending million to cover up the ODOT mistake we should just fix the mistake once ODOT is out of the way.

The solution isn't to build a cap over a poorly designed boulevard - it is to have a properly designed boulevard. Alas, ODOT is incapable of that which is why the City should have put their foot down like many of us begged them to do. I'll bet they wish they had now. Instead of spending million to cover up the ODOT mistake we should just fix the mistake once ODOT is out of the way.

There is no solution to the major walkability issue. It's not about grade, which humans can easily traverse…it's about having to yield to vehicular traffic. It's an extra 30 seconds to 2 minutes to cross the boulevard at every point along its length. This will create issues for convention goers who are frequently on tight schedules during main convention hours. Bricktown will likely not be a major destination for the Convention goers during lunch hours, but it's one of the only places nearby that can accommodate that issue. Even though I ultimately prefer this site to any other that was floated around, I do share the concerns that Urbanized has voiced…This site is underserved in terms of convention best practices, meaning that the city needs to make a concerted effort to mitigate those issues in the immediate area. Enhanced walkability is one avenue, but actually addressing the dining/hotel options in the immediate area will be necessary as well. Having something that does both just makes sense.

When I go to Conventions lunch is not a major dining decision. I either eat the food provided or I skip one meeting to have a nice lunch. Usually I'm focusing my meal planning on the evening meal. As has been suggested, with the park right there, the city can permit food trucks to offer a unique option. They can add a fastish food option at the Convention Center itself. And I would suggest a restaurant in the Union Station that is not "white tablecloth" as the other people to use it would likely be park goers. The other Convention Center site is literally only a minute or two closer because I walked it. The boulevard should already be a pain in the neck for drivers as there will be a stoplight where the streetcar line passes it. I would suggest another at Robinson with a walker actuated"walk signal". Speed limit will be 25 so I'm hoping it's not the "easy in" access ODOT was promising. The boulevard was a bad idea it becomes more and more obvious. It's ugly and a huge waste of taxpayer resources. There is also the streetcar for transit and let's not forget Uber.

When I go to Conventions lunch is not a major dining decision. I either eat the food provided or I skip one meeting to have a nice lunch. Usually I'm focusing my meal planning on the evening meal. As has been suggested, with the park right there, the city can permit food trucks to offer a unique option. They can add a fastish food option at the Convention Center itself. And I would suggest a restaurant in the Union Station that is not "white tablecloth" as the other people to use it would likely be park goers. The other Convention Center site is literally only a minute or two closer because I walked it. The boulevard should already be a pain in the neck for drivers as there will be a stoplight where the streetcar line passes it. I would suggest another at Robinson with a walker actuated"walk signal". Speed limit will be 25 so I'm hoping it's not the "easy in" access ODOT was promising. The boulevard was a bad idea it becomes more and more obvious. It's ugly and a huge waste of taxpayer resources. There is also the streetcar for transit and let's not forget Uber.

You walked it when there wasn't a boulevard with lights and crosswalks set up. That minute or two closer is going to end up being about 2 to 4 minutes closer depending on time of day etc. And both sites were already not ideal in terms of placement.

Jim Couch told me straight to my face when I asked him in person last week at a trade organization luncheon "do you think with this location decided on for the convention center that the city will work with ODOT to make the Boulevard as pedestrian friendly as possible for all the increased foot traffic?" His repsonse "well the Boulevard is already very walkable in that spot, believe it or not."

Take that for what's it worth.

You walked it when there wasn't a boulevard with lights and crosswalks set up. That minute or two closer is going to end up being about 2 to 4 minutes closer depending on time of day etc. And both sites were already not ideal in terms of placement.

No, the current convention center is ideal in terms of placement. On the other hand, the Chicago and New Orleans convention centers are even less ideal. I don't remember any conventions I've gone to having an optimal location. And I don't remember caring about it during or beforehand. The only time it has bothered me was when we had to get to my son's graduation at the Chicago convention center from where we were staying in Lakeview.

No, the current convention center is ideal in terms of placement. On the other hand, the Chicago and New Orleans convention centers are even less ideal. I don't remember any conventions I've gone to having an optimal location. And I don't remember caring about it during or beforehand. The only time it has bothered me was when we had to get to my son's graduation at the Chicago convention center from where we were staying in Lakeview.

When Houston's George R. Brown CC was built on the far east side of downtown backing up to an elevated freeway, there wasn't much over there. Now it's right in the center of a an MLS stadium, an MLB stadium, an NBA arena, a world class hotel and a park that our new MAPS park will be closely modeled after. I'm pretty excited for the future of this area.

The solution isn't to build a cap over a poorly designed boulevard - it is to have a properly designed boulevard. Alas, ODOT is incapable of that which is why the City should have put their foot down like many of us begged them to do. I'll bet they wish they had now. Instead of spending million to cover up the ODOT mistake we should just fix the mistake once ODOT is out of the way.

My thoughts exactly. Why does the Blvd need to go below grade???? Aren't we punching a hole in the RR viaduct for said Blvd? Why not punch it so the Blvd roadway can remain level, thereby increasing development prospects AND pedestrian accessibility. ...

i I really don't understand why the Blvd can't be a BLVD except where it interfaces at I-40. Is this something the city can get behind? Particularly with the cc site chosen, we wouldn't want an ODOT mini freeway cutting off the cc from the rest of downtown, including their idea to partially bury it in order to pass the RR. What are they thinking will be using this Blvd? Normal vehicles can get by with 10 feet clearance just fine.

OKC's plans for a new convention center creates worries of greater competition for Tulsa - Tulsa World: Real Estate (http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/realestate/okc-s-plans-for-a-new-convention-center-creates-worries/article_7f762e45-a0bc-5db1-aa5e-ee678a5c9970.html)

"Oh noes, our downtown is developing a real neighborhood and our convention center has always stunk, how can we kill two birds with one stone?!? OKC we must B!" -Tulsa

My thoughts exactly. Why does the Blvd need to go below grade???? Aren't we punching a hole in the RR viaduct for said Blvd? Why not punch it so the Blvd roadway can remain level, thereby increasing development prospects AND pedestrian accessibility. ...

i I really don't understand why the Blvd can't be a BLVD except where it interfaces at I-40. Is this something the city can get behind? Particularly with the cc site chosen, we wouldn't want an ODOT mini freeway cutting off the cc from the rest of downtown, including their idea to partially bury it in order to pass the RR. What are they thinking will be using this Blvd? Normal vehicles can get by with 10 feet clearance just fine.

It's because they are required by law to build the boulevard to modern (FWHA) highway standards. The clearance isn't negotiable. It makes a certain amount of sense actually, since trucks get stuck under every other bridge on that viaduct about once a month it seems, and since many, MANY semis will be accessing downtown via the boulevard after exiting I-40.

It's because they are required by law to build the boulevard to modern (FWHA) highway standards. The clearance isn't negotiable. It makes a certain amount of sense actually, since trucks get stuck under every other bridge on that viaduct about once a month it seems, and since many, MANY semis will be accessing downtown via the boulevard after exiting I-40.

I know this isn't the thread for it but why can't we just un designate a highway? Never understood why virtually no sector of planning can see the big picture and think outside their silo.

It's the same granular level thinking behind the CC so far.

Because planners aren't the ones making decisions here. This is ODOT engineers and City engineers. And these folks have very carefully eluded providing human scale type details to both the public and to elected officials.

I don't think the elevation change going under the BNSF railway alignment is a major concern. It is gradual and over a fair distance. If there are elements to be critical about in this block section from EK Gaylord to Hudson, it would be the overall width and lack a central landscaped median.

You're right but I just have to say these are planning related agencies conducting planning related activities.

Yes! And lets put a bunch of park benches on there and make a moving sidewalk like a huge escalator so people can sit and enjoy the ride/view thus eliminating the need for the CC streetcar. Brilliant I say! Simply brilliant!

Does anything like this exsist any where?

Yes, this is done in many large cities.


I know this isn't the thread for it but why can't we just un designate a highway? Never understood why virtually no sector of planning can see the big picture and think outside their silo.

It's the same granular level thinking behind the CC so far.

The clearance wouldn't meet the modern requirements for any bridge, regardless of highway or city street.

Could something like this be done between the Convention Center and The Peake, Over the new boulevard? http://denverinfill.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/2015-10-20_1601-wewatta-roof-view3.jpg

Could something like this be done between the Convention Center and The Peake, Over the new boulevard? http://denverinfill.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/2015-10-20_1601-wewatta-roof-view3.jpg

^^^ I like the idea of that. I don't necessarily like how the one in Denver turned out, but if done right it could look good. Wish everyone could just easily cross the boulevard.

You'd more or less need a full blown pedestrian bridge. If the lowered roadway was required for getting under the viaduct in the first place, you'd probably need something about as high up as the viaduct in order to meet the same requirements.

OKC's plans for a new convention center creates worries of greater competition for Tulsa - Tulsa World: Real Estate (http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/realestate/okc-s-plans-for-a-new-convention-center-creates-worries/article_7f762e45-a0bc-5db1-aa5e-ee678a5c9970.html)

Think you will see more hotel development centered near the proposed $287 million OKC convention center/conference hotel?

Tulsa has two conference hotels downtown (total room count - 872 rooms:


https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQHEYZtT0SmnpK1DaKdJ32uVo-BPlGCGXKJGsLxFPqe4nL1fasM

Hyatt Regency luxury: 455 state-of-the-art guest rooms (Walking distance to convention center)

https://sp.yimg.com/xj/th?id=OIP.M0ee2277524e486bdcec371a2fe5ea387o0&pid=15.1&P=0&w=291&h=164
Hilton Doubletree (3-Diamond): 417 rooms (Sky bridge connected to convention center)

Oklahoma City should focus on a large conference hotel (735 plus rooms) to complement the convention center; although it may be to our advantage to have an anchor 600-room conference hotel with several smaller 200-300 room hotels adjacent to the convention center. A significant number of smaller hotels have developed in the vicinity of OKC's Bricktown Ballpark. OKC's projected downtown hotel room count will be around 4,500 by 2020.

Generally what cities do is 1 CC hotel per available financing source. For instance Columbus already had a CC Hyatt. When parking revenues in an entertainment district became an available source, they then built a CC Hilton.

You would never split a financing source/model for two separate subsidized hotels.


Yes, this is done in many large cities.



The clearance wouldn't meet the modern requirements for any bridge, regardless of highway or city street.

I've never bitched about the BNSF clearance issues bc that is a tricky situation. We need to change grade only where it's needed and immediately return to grade ASAP and that's hardly what ODOT wants to do. No urbanist actually wants an at grade railroad crossing... That's a detrimental intersection, whereas Western would have supported neighborhood revitalization, placemaking, and traffic calming.

We really need to be better at isolating the issue and concentrating our advocacy.

Yeah, railroads are tricky and cause issues a lot of places for road, river and city planning. The problem with having infrastructure that was mostly built 80+ years ago, and is generally not easily redundant so you can't shut it down for a year while you move it all about. My best friend is a structural engineer designing bridges, it is crazy all the things they have to do to avoid railroad tracks.

There is a spot in the state where the were widening a highway, which then made it not fit under the existing RR bridge, but they couldn't move the RR bridge or replace it, so they had to build a car bridge over the RR bridge. Now you have two bridges, going over flat land.

After all of the hand wringing about the grade change of the Boulevard, I thought a video might help people understand that it is not a huge issue. From today, standing in the very center of the depressed intersection.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=U3eiOuLwTrk

Apologies for the vertical nature of the video. I have never uploaded directly from the phone. Usually I download it to a Mac and edit it before loading.

Studying it again, the grade really shouldn't be a concern. However, the lack of a central median drives me a bit crazy. And I mean on the Shields part. The Boulevard to the immediate west remains to be seen. While the grade is not an issue, the overall width of the street without pedestrian refuge mechanisms continues to be.

The lack of center median is rather ironic considering the early drawings we were shown, with essentially a center "park". I remember drawings showing cafe tables and chairs sitting on a wide landscaped center median. What we have now is a vast expanse of concrete. My husband's comment again seems to ring true: "Whose uncle is in the concrete business?" Considering all the foot traffic we can expect south of the "boulevard", it seems like another planning fail.

I know this isn't the thread for it but why can't we just un designate a highway? Never understood why virtually no sector of planning can see the big picture and think outside their silo.

It's the same granular level thinking behind the CC so far.

Localities hesitate at removing highway designations from roadways because maintenance of said roadway and rights-of-way would then fall upon the responsibilities of the localities.

The lack of center median is rather ironic considering the early drawings we were shown, with essentially a center "park". I remember drawings showing cafe tables and chairs sitting on a wide landscaped center median. What we have now is a vast expanse of concrete. My husband's comment again seems to ring true: "Whose uncle is in the concrete business?" Considering all the foot traffic we can expect south of the "boulevard", it seems like another planning fail.

The result of the lack of a median is because of Hargreaves. ODOT didn't want to put a median anyways but the city needed a reason to fight for one. Hargreaves argued that it was an ideal place to relocate the Arts Festival. Never mind you that the Boulevard is a major vehicular roadway. Closing Robinson or Hudson makes more sense to me. I doubt it will ever be closed.

Anyways, the Park consultants gave ODOT and City Engineers a perfect argument for making it a continuous road of concrete without the center landscaped median... the very element that makes a boulevard a boulevard...

With that said, the public has yet to see the final, final plans. So, I will throw that disclaimer out there in case something has happened internally that we simply don't know about.

Yes, I can't wait to see the Arts Festival encompassing that entire block of boulevard for over a week (set up and dismantle time, you know) just as planned and the perfect reason we shouldn't have a median.

The result of the lack of a median is because of Hargreaves. ODOT didn't want to put a median anyways but the city needed a reason to fight for one. Hargreaves argued that it was an ideal place to relocate the Arts Festival. Never mind you that the Boulevard is a major vehicular roadway. Closing Robinson or Hudson makes more sense to me. I doubt it will ever be closed.

Anyways, the Park consultants gave ODOT and City Engineers a perfect argument for making it a continuous road of concrete without the center landscaped median... the very element that makes a boulevard a boulevard...

With that said, the public has yet to see the final, final plans. So, I will throw that disclaimer out there in case something has happened internally that we simply don't know about.

Major vehicular roadway or not, what it is right now is nonexistent and not needed. I'd close it as many times as possible, if not 365/year.

I think the point is that it is doubtful that it will be closed for events.

I think the point is that it is doubtful that it will be closed for events.

Yes I was being sarcastic. So no reason not to put a big old median in on that block at least.

Below is an Omni that will be attached to Jerry Jones' "The Star" multi-use mega project in Frisco.
It's a 300 room Omni Hotel, very sleek and designed to age well over time. 17 floors:

11734

Source: Omni reveals details of new Frisco hotel at Cowboys? new HQ | | Dallas Morning News (http://bizbeatblog.dallasnews.com/2015/11/omni-reveals-details-of-its-new-frisco-hotel.html/)

Just wanted to apply this to this thread as we've discussed potential hotel hosts and Omni always pops up in the conversation. I suspect if they were to win a bid for the hotel on the site, it would probably be about this size, but if Omni has any honesty in their character, I highly doubt they'd mirror that design right up the turnpike. Meaning, we'd probably see a different design to distinguish this hotel from their others. But, who knows?

I'm one of the few on this board that takes alot to disappoint. This would disappoint me. If we can't get at least a 600 room hotel. Then this is all for nothing. Louisville just lost the FFA convention over something similar. 600 rooms or better is what I'm thinking. Looks nice though.

I'm one of the few on this board that takes alot to disappoint. This would disappoint me. If we can't get at least a 600 room hotel. Then this is all for nothing. Louisville just lost the FFA convention over something similar. 600 rooms or better is what I'm thinking. Looks nice though.

More like 700 - 750 rooms and 35 stories would be ideal. Now that would be something to get excited about. It would add to the skyline and give the city enough rooms to compete with other mid market cities.