So it's pretty clear to me now that in addition to the Cox Center becoming a giant, better version of the Sony Center in Berlin, and that REHCO basically needs to just steal the blueprints for the Sony Center in Berlin and build it right on top of their super-block.

Literally I can't think of a better setup for OKC if those 2 superblocks + MBG East are developed correctly. It could be special on a world-wide scale in terms of Urban Development. And it would make a convention in OKC special, because 2 parks, an arena that hosts a professional franchise, and hotels/eateries/retail/entertainment galore would be right at their fingertips. And it would make the transportation hub perfect.

I know that *today* the site where the convention center sits is not necessarily a great site for a convention center. But it absolutely can become one if we do justice to the nearby important sites.

I just hope the city and the private developers here have the great good sense to open our pocket books and spend the money the area deserves.

Don't know plans for the present Cox Convention Center site (old Myriad); if it will become a part of a massive future convention center complex (2020-2022) or if they will redevelop the site for something else. The Chesapeake Energy Arena sits poised to be included in those plans as the CCC site and the new convention center sandwich the Peake.

Oklahoma City has the potential to really do something big in this area. Could there be plans post 2020 for more hotel developments in that area?

if it will become a part of a massive future convention center complex (2020-2022)

Well, hopefully not as that would make absolutely zero sense. We're already building a brand new convention center just slightly to the south, building an even newer one as a replacement for the Cox would be a titanic waste of money. It would be a pretty poor spot for a convention center annex, too, nobody wants to run a convention with a half-mile of separation in the middle.

After the site switcheroo it was reported that all the finalists were still interested so I don't think anything has changed.

600 rooms was just the base bid but remember OKC is going to be paying for a big chunk of this hotel so our cost would go up considerable for more rooms.

I agree that 600 is too low to be a game changer and not worth investing millions by the city. It is only a 50% bigger than the Sheraton and nothing is particularly unique about any of those flags. It just seems like a bad investment that really won't pay all that much in dividends.

On the flip side, many of the conventions/events that you mentioned were sporting related events. I'm sure there are others, but I would imagine those are some of the largest. Would a huge convention hotel really be that necessary when virtually all the attendants are making their own travel arrangements (ie they can stay wherever they want)?

I just returned from an event where we booked 1,400 rooms at the Gaylord Opryland (the largest hotel that is not a casino in the county). The fact that all the attendees were in the same hotel was rather important so they chose a venue that could handle it. Few in the country can handle us. For those magnitude of events OKC will continue to be overlooked because they just don't have the facilities. Prior to this event, it was generally held in Orlando (a hundred miles from corp HQ) and next year it will be in Vegas because it keeps growing. I don't think they necessarily wanted to but it became a necessity to have it Vegas because no where else could they handle the capacity. That's where I think OKC is missing the mark. Just building another hotel is not a game changing, public finance requiring event in my mind.

Aside from the fact that I generally don't agree with public financing of competition to pre-existing businesses, I just don't think this hotel is "enough" to warrant that level of support from the city.

I've posted this before, but once again want to point out that most people have an incorrect perception and/or general ignorance regarding what a convention center hotel's function is, how the required number of rooms is determined, and why the City wants to participate in the financing (it's not for the reasons you are thinking). And when I say ignorance, I don't mean that in an insulting way; only stating that they are generally unaware regarding how the industry works.

People get so caught up in this bigger/better/more argument or other issues like the aforementioned "public financing of competition to pre-existing businesses" and become so entrenched that they fail to legitimately look for and consider answers for the WHY questions that they are asking. I PROMISE YOU, if you speak with experienced hoteliers who are cooperatively involved with the CVB in the booking of conventions, there is ZERO chance they will complain about the building of a convention hotel, or for incentives being used. They VERY much want the CC, and beyond that, they want the CC hotel, which is second in importance only to location when it comes to the successful booking of the CC.

First of all, there is a "goldilocks principle" for convention hotels. They need to have enough rooms to accommodate as many bookings as a property like that would normally draw via its own flag/reservation system, PLUS enough rooms for negotiated convention blocks. Required convention room blocks are usually roughly determined as a percentage of attendees of course, but those blocks are MOSTLY for exhibitors, officials, etc.. Even for very large conventions, the required room blocks are often in the hundreds, not thousands. People think that they are largely for conference attendees, but they simply are not. Sure, some conference attendees choose to stay at the convention hotel, but most of them have reasons for staying elsewhere; loyalty programs, price considerations, etc., etc.. THAT is why other hotels LOVE the idea of a convention center and don't mind the attached hotel; they (especially other downtown properties) get TONS of bookings from the conferences and conventions that would otherwise not be here but for a properly-configured and properly-functioning CC and CC hotel arrangement.

Build TOO many rooms, however, and you have a problem. By too many I mean anything more than what the flag will bring naturally, combined with industry standard blocks required to book whatever simultaneous events the CC can hold. Anything over that is excess inventory that still requires resources, maintenance, housekeeping, utilities, etc. Excess inventory is also the enemy of other properties, because a CC hotel with excess inventory will drop rates in an attempt to sell. Plus, if the public is participating financially in the hotel it can cause serious ROI problems. Hence, "goldilocks principle."

Finally, regarding WHY the City would want to participate financially, it is - simply put - to be able to force the hotel to make deals on room blocks. If the City is helping finance the deal, they are a partner, they have leverage, and they can stipulate that the CVB can get set-aside blocks at below market rate. This is critically important in luring events. It is a basic part of the negotiation. Right now is a perfect example; the CVB is regularly losing conference business because OKC's hotel business is so strong, and so they can't get discounted blocks. The hotels are fully booked, and often at or near rack rate. Currently, organic demand allows them to charge premium rates and remain 90+% full. The demand is so strong right now that a hotelier would be crazy to tie up hundreds of rooms at a deeply discounted rate just to help the CVB. Sure you want to help, but not at that cost. However, if there is public participation in the financing of a hotel, the operator HAS to discount, and the city's conference/convention penetration increases greatly, and other hoteliers benefit because a high tide floats all boats.

Anyway, hope that makes sense to anyone who bothers to read it with an open mind.

Most of this is grossly inaccurate. The Cox Center hosts a pretty substantial number of statewide and even national conferences, and miss out on many, many more we would be a shoo-in for but for the limitations of the current facilities. Once this building is in place we will enjoy far more city-wides, which is an industry term for events that book large numbers and blocks of rooms in hotels throughout the metro.

Regarding NCAA tournaments such as gymnastics, wrestling and volleyball (as examples) we don't need an attached arena to host them, and absolutely WILL host those events. In fact, some of them are essentially in holding patterns and will formally book this building as soon as it starts to come out of the ground.

OKC is considered a prime host market for collegiate sports, and wildly successful events like the recent NCAA Wrestling Championship only reinforce that. The wrestling event, by the way, was booked only because they overlooked facilities requirements, specifically because the NCAA badly wanted the event to be held in OKC. When the new building is finished the NCAA plans to make OKC a regular stop for that event. We could book volleyball tomorrow, but for issues with the Cox, including not having the correct clearance below light fixtures and not enough clear span.

With the new cc and the existing Chesapeake arena we will ABSOLUTELY be a beyond-adequate host site for mat sports and other NCAA events, and we ABSOLUTELY will get them. This isn't speculation; I know this first-hand.

You are 100% correct. I could not have said it better myself.

I've posted this before, but once again want to point out that most people have an incorrect perception and/or general ignorance regarding what a convention center hotel's function is, how the required number of rooms is determined, and why the City wants to participate in the financing (it's not for the reasons you are thinking). And when I say ignorance, I don't mean that in an insulting way; only stating that they are generally unaware regarding how the industry works.

People get so caught up in this bigger/better/more argument or other issues like the aforementioned "public financing of competion to pre-existing businesses" and become so entrenched that they fail to legitimately look for and consider answers for the WHY questions that they are asking. I PROMISE YOU, if you speak with experienced hoteliers who are cooperatively involved with the CVB in the booking of conventions, there is ZERO chance they will complain about the building of a convention hotel, or for incentives being used. They VERY much want the CC, and beyond that, they want the CC hotel, which is second in importance only to location when it comes to the successful booking of the CC.

First of all, there is a "goldilocks principle" for convention hotels. They need to have enough rooms to accommodate as many bookings as a property like that would normally draw via its own flag/reservation system, PLUS enough rooms for negotiated convention blocks. Required convention room blocks are usually roughly determined as a percentage of attendees of course, but those blocks are MOSTLY for exhibitors, officials, etc.. Even for very large conventions, the required room blocks are often in the hundreds, not thousands. People think that they are largely for conference attendees, but they simply are not. Sure, some conference attendees choose to stay at the convention hotel, but most of them have reasons for staying elsewhere; loyalty programs, price considerations, etc., etc.. THAT is why other hotels LOVE the idea of a convention center and don't mind the attached hotel; they (especially other downtown properties) get TONS of bookings from the conferences and conventions that would otherwise not be here but for a properly-configured and properly-functioning CC and CC hotel arrangement.

Build TOO many rooms, however, and you have a problem. By too many I mean anything more than what the flag will bring naturally, combined with industry standard blocks required to book whatever simultaneous events the CC can hold. Anything over that is excess inventory that still requires resources, maintenance, housekeeping, utilities, etc. Excess inventory is also the enemy of other properties, because a CC hotel with excess inventory will drop rates in an attempt to sell. Plus, if the public is participating financially in the hotel it can cause serious ROI problems. Hence, "goldilocks principle."

Finally, regarding WHY the City would want to participate financially, it is - simply put - to be able to force the hotel to make deals on room blocks. If the City is helping finance the deal, they are a partner, they have leverage, and they can stipulate that the CVB can get set-aside blocks at below market rate. This is critically important in luring events. It is a basic part of the negotiation. Right now is a perfect example; the CVB is regularly losing conference business because OKC's hotel business is so strong, and so they can't get discounted blocks. The hotels are fully booked, and often at or near rack rate. Currently, organic demand allows them to charge premium rates and remain 90+% full. The demand is so strong right now that a hotelier would be crazy to tie up hundreds of rooms at a deeply discounted rate just to help the CVB. Sure you want to help, but not at that cost. However, if there is public participation in the financing of a hotel, the operator HAS to discount, and the city's conference/convention penetration increases greatly, and other hoteliers benefit because a high tide floats all boats.

Anyway, hope that makes sense to anyone who bothers to read it with an open mind.

Very interesting. Thanks for this post as I gleaned quite a bit.

Thanks for reading with an open mind. Hope it helps. I've tried to share this info here before, but sometimes feel like I'm just shouting into the wind.

I find it very interesting (and refreshing) that there are MORE than one potential Hotel sites identified. Great news and 'could' overcome the 600 room convention hotel discrepancy if we had more than one convention hotel onsite. If that is the case, Im not sure about the direct connection to the Ballrooms for one but not the other(s) - seems to be fair to have them all not connect or all connect.

I hope there is a plan for the parking because I hope we are NOT making the mistake (again) of having a sea of parking. There surely has to be a master plan that includes where expansion would be and where it would not (hence build garage(s) where there will not be expansion). I'm ok if we had surface at the expansion area - with a plan for garage and/or underground once the expansion took place.

If we want to become a top convention destination then we will need facilities to attract the bigger conventions like being able to accommodate blocks of 300-400-500 attendees under one roof. We will need nothing less than 700 rooms.

There will be spell over and detractors where some attendees will want to book rooms in a different hotel brand that's their flavor.

It will take time to brand our city as a viable convention destination; however what's there to brand if you don't have the facilities to accommodate. If the city is going to make an investment; make one that will grow with our future; maintaining the status quo is not the way to go.

It's time for OKC to put some distance between itself and cities like Tulsa, Omaha, Memphis and Wichita. We need to compete with Tier II cities like Anaheim, Indianapolis, Cleveland, Pittsburgh & Salt Lake City.


Ray Hoyt, senior vice president of VisitTulsa and the Tulsa Sports Commission, said that despite the Tulsa center’s expansion, portions of it feel outdated.

“Our convention space is really old,” he said. “We’re trying to get the arena space remodeled.”

Hoyt said the Oklahoma City project will likely attract more hotels to that area, making the space even more attractive to potential events. He plans to advocate for an additional renovation package for the Cox Business Center to be a part of a proposed renewal of the Vision 2025 tax package.

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)

Convention Centers - Top 25 Sites and "Second-Tier" Convention Cities (http://www.meetingsource.com/convention_centers.htm)

Thanks for reading with an open mind. Hope it helps. I've tried to share this info here before, but sometimes feel like I'm just shouting into the wind.

Not to diminish the quality of your other posts, that one was particularly well articulated and informative.

Regardless of our intentions and what we know to be true, sometimes it just takes refining how we're communicating for someone to really understand. Couple that with the reality that sometimes it takes time for ideas that are presented for the first time to a person (or group of people) to marinate and then finally settle and when the idea is re-presented it is received with open arms.

I've posted this before, but once again want to point out that most people have an incorrect perception and/or general ignorance regarding what a convention center hotel's function is, how the required number of rooms is determined, and why the City wants to participate in the financing (it's not for the reasons you are thinking). And when I say ignorance, I don't mean that in an insulting way; only stating that they are generally unaware regarding how the industry works.

People get so caught up in this bigger/better/more argument or other issues like the aforementioned "public financing of competition to pre-existing businesses" and become so entrenched that they fail to legitimately look for and consider answers for the WHY questions that they are asking. I PROMISE YOU, if you speak with experienced hoteliers who are cooperatively involved with the CVB in the booking of conventions, there is ZERO chance they will complain about the building of a convention hotel, or for incentives being used. They VERY much want the CC, and beyond that, they want the CC hotel, which is second in importance only to location when it comes to the successful booking of the CC.

First of all, there is a "goldilocks principle" for convention hotels. They need to have enough rooms to accommodate as many bookings as a property like that would normally draw via its own flag/reservation system, PLUS enough rooms for negotiated convention blocks. Required convention room blocks are usually roughly determined as a percentage of attendees of course, but those blocks are MOSTLY for exhibitors, officials, etc.. Even for very large conventions, the required room blocks are often in the hundreds, not thousands. People think that they are largely for conference attendees, but they simply are not. Sure, some conference attendees choose to stay at the convention hotel, but most of them have reasons for staying elsewhere; loyalty programs, price considerations, etc., etc.. THAT is why other hotels LOVE the idea of a convention center and don't mind the attached hotel; they (especially other downtown properties) get TONS of bookings from the conferences and conventions that would otherwise not be here but for a properly-configured and properly-functioning CC and CC hotel arrangement.

Build TOO many rooms, however, and you have a problem. By too many I mean anything more than what the flag will bring naturally, combined with industry standard blocks required to book whatever simultaneous events the CC can hold. Anything over that is excess inventory that still requires resources, maintenance, housekeeping, utilities, etc. Excess inventory is also the enemy of other properties, because a CC hotel with excess inventory will drop rates in an attempt to sell. Plus, if the public is participating financially in the hotel it can cause serious ROI problems. Hence, "goldilocks principle."

Finally, regarding WHY the City would want to participate financially, it is - simply put - to be able to force the hotel to make deals on room blocks. If the City is helping finance the deal, they are a partner, they have leverage, and they can stipulate that the CVB can get set-aside blocks at below market rate. This is critically important in luring events. It is a basic part of the negotiation. Right now is a perfect example; the CVB is regularly losing conference business because OKC's hotel business is so strong, and so they can't get discounted blocks. The hotels are fully booked, and often at or near rack rate. Currently, organic demand allows them to charge premium rates and remain 90+% full. The demand is so strong right now that a hotelier would be crazy to tie up hundreds of rooms at a deeply discounted rate just to help the CVB. Sure you want to help, but not at that cost. However, if there is public participation in the financing of a hotel, the operator HAS to discount, and the city's conference/convention penetration increases greatly, and other hoteliers benefit because a high tide floats all boats.

Anyway, hope that makes sense to anyone who bothers to read it with an open mind.


Nicely summarized and spot on.

If we want to become a top convention destination then we will need facilities to attract the bigger conventions like being able to accommodate blocks of 300-400-500 attendees under one roof. We will need nothing less than 700 rooms.

There will be spell over and detractors where some attendees will want to book rooms in a different hotel brand that's their flavor.

It will take time to brand our city as a viable convention destination; however what's there to brand if you don't have the facilities to accommodate. If the city is going to make an investment; make one that will grow with our future; maintaining the status quo is not the way to go.

The truly large conventions comes in sizes of 10000 attendees on up. Don't think in terms of building a convention hotel large enough to hold big conventions, that just isn't how this works.

^^^^^^^^^
Exactly. Trying to build a hotel to accommodate even a large percentage of the attendees to a large even would be a fool's errand. Even a convention of that size mentioned (10K+) would probably only require a block of 400-500 rooms in the HQ hotel. Which is all that matters, because once it is booked, the wealth (in the form of attendees and resultant room nights, meals, shopping, sales tax, etc) then spills out over the rest of the community. There would also be other, smaller blocks booked at other hotels for an event of that size.

A meeting of that size would be considered a city-wide, in that it would fill rooms throughout the metro. And of course, even if OKC meets or exceeds all expectations for city-wides, you would still have more weeks than not where you did NOT have one, leaving an overbuilt CC hotel with (expensive) excess inventory. It would be an amazingly bad idea to subsidize excess room inventory in the CC hotel. Not only would it be expensive, it would drop the rate (and resulting taxes) at hotels all over downtown and beyond. This would be the antithesis of what OKC hopes to accomplish.

By the way - and I haven't discussed this with anyone so not 100% sure - but I would guess that second hotel pad is there to allow construction if/when the second phase CC expansion is built. It would make sense to do it that way, and also perhaps to make that spot a part of the deal on the first hotel, i.e., first right of refusal to build a second property or maybe even a requirement to do so. It makes a lot of sense for both properties to be under the same management group.

^^^^^^^^^
Exactly. Trying to build a hotel to accommodate even a large percentage of the attendees to a large even would be a fool's errand. Even a convention of that size mentioned (10K+) would probably only require a block of 400-500 rooms in the HQ hotel.

And of course, even if OKC meets or exceeds all expectations for city-wides, you would still have more weeks than not where you did NOT have one, leaving an overbuilt CC hotel with (expensive) excess inventory. It would be an amazingly bad idea to subsidize excess room inventory in the CC hotel. Not only would it be expensive, it would drop the rate (and resulting taxes) at hotels all over downtown and beyond. This would be the antithesis of what OKC hopes to accomplish.

Snipped to address my largest points of agreement, but more along the lines of why I've been saying not to expect a tall or overly large hotel.
I think too many people are anticipating a 400-500 ft. + hotel, but I really don't see that happening in any form. It simply won't be economically feasible. Most likely we'll see something with a larger footprint overall and in the 100-300 ft. range. I doubt it will be anything more than 300-400 rooms max, whereas some expectations I think are well over 500. Source: read through the previous 74 pages of expectations.

Of course, I'm not an expert.

I doubt it will be anything more than 300-400 rooms max, whereas some expectations I think are well over 500. Source: read through the previous 74 pages of expectations.

Of course, I'm not an expert.

Really, if that's the case; why would we need a conference hotel?


Reminder we already have 4 finalists for the hotel:


# Entity Flag Rooms Total Cost Public Cost Notes
1 Omni Omni 600 $190.2 $70.5 $119.7 in equity; no debt. Remainder is public.
2 Marcus Hilton 600 $210.0 $63 to $84 Operates the Skirvin; private equity 10-15%; private financing 50-55%
3 Matthew Westin 600 $180.0 $50 to $90? $90 private debt; $40 private equity; $50 private financing
4 Mortenson Hyatt 600 $200.0 $80 to $120 Public investment of 40-60%



Convention Hotel - OKCTalk (http://www.okctalk.com/showwiki.php?title=Convention+Hotel)

The thing about the size of the hotel is that OKC really needs a big hotel regardless. Convention or not. We really need a 500 room hotel regardless because there are a lot of events that require several hundred rooms and small meeting spaces but that don't need a convention center at all, much less a hotel that's part of a convention center.

Now, that doesn't mean we should throw a the need for a 400-500 stand alone hotel on top of the need for a 600 room convention hotel and start looking to build an 1000+ room hotel, but, and I think the city is doing this, we should absolutely consider the possibility that we have hotel events coupled with small convention events that make the need to have 2 separate blocks in the same hotel while still having some room for rate rack, standard hotel guests.

650-800 seems perfect to me, depending on what the city can reasonably project in regards to growth and how they envision that 2nd hotel. I think there are something like less than 100 municipalities in the world that have Hotels with 1000+ rooms, and some of those 100 are repeats of the same MSA. I don't think OKC needs to be among that group.

By the way - and I haven't discussed this with anyone so not 100% sure - but I would guess that second hotel pad is there to allow construction if/when the second phase CC expansion is built. It would make sense to do it that way, and also perhaps to make that spot a part of the deal on the first hotel, i.e., first right of refusal to build a second property or maybe even a requirement to do so. It makes a lot of sense for both properties to be under the same management group.

The possibility of a second hotel there could also make sense 8-12 years from now when we know exactly what's going on with Lumberyard/Coop.

Snipped to address my largest points of agreement, but more along the lines of why I've been saying not to expect a tall or overly large hotel.
I think too many people are anticipating a 400-500 ft. + hotel, but I really don't see that happening in any form. It simply won't be economically feasible. Most likely we'll see something with a larger footprint overall and in the 100-300 ft. range. I doubt it will be anything more than 300-400 rooms max, whereas some expectations I think are well over 500. Source: read through the previous 74 pages of expectations.

Of course, I'm not an expert.

Again, I will reiterate the formula that I detailed above. The hotel requires as many rooms as a full-service property of the flag in question would bring WITHOUT an attached convention center, PLUS the number of rooms required to reserve in blocks for whatever size events the CC itself justifies. Also keeping in mind that there are very often simultaneous events and also overlapping load-in/load-out times. The CC will finally have a loading dock arrangement that allows this (Cox never has).

Your 300-400 room figure is off the mark, because that is probably very near what a full-service hotel like Omni (as an example) would draw naturally, were it not connected to a CC. Add in the room blocks required to fully and easily book the phase one CC, and you are left with the number of rooms required. It's not rocket surgery. The hotel will probably be somewhere between 600 and 800 rooms, and I think that the consultant's reports and the RFP have pretty clearly stated numbers in this range.

LA's new convention center hotel is going to only have about 1,100 rooms. I do wish OKC's was closer to 800 though.

Really, if that's the case; why would we need a conference hotel?

Convention Hotel - OKCTalk (http://www.okctalk.com/showwiki.php?title=Convention+Hotel)

I didn't say one wasn't required, I'm simply making my own observation and statement that I don't believe it will be as large as some say it will be or want it to be.
Back to Urbanized, we'll see. I could see the city wanting to build a large one that would have to be subsidized. However, if they don't want it subsidized, they'd be better off going small. Again, that goes back to your own words describing how often it won't be in use throughout the year.

How far are we out now from more concrete finalized plans and this thing breaking ground? I've lost track.

...Back to Urbanized, we'll see. I could see the city wanting to build a large one that would have to be subsidized. However, if they don't want it subsidized, they'd be better off going small. Again, that goes back to your own words describing how often it won't be in use throughout the year...

If you are representing I somehow said it won't be heavily used very, very often, you are either completely twisting my words or totally misunderstood what I said. I swear, it's like I am speaking Chinese here or something. Honestly, I'm trying really hard to make my points but feel like I'm failing. Is it really that difficult to follow? I was saying we would have more days than not when we did not have CITYWIDES. That is true for most convention centers.

Citywides (or lack thereof) have nothing to do with whether or not the room blocks will be used. The CC hotel does not by any means require citywides to remain fully booked. In fact, the CC will host many, many more meetings in the 500 to 2500 range. It can (and will) book these simultaneously, daily. All of them require room blocks. The CC will be heavily utilized, and the room blocks will be routinely sold out. But if we don't have the room blocks to begin with, we miss the meeting bookings altogether. The hotel will have a native number of bookings irrespective of CC business. A full-service flag like an Omni will draw perhaps 250 - 400 every night, on average. If you don't build it larger than that, there is absolutely ZERO reason to build it, at all, and CERTAINLY no reason for the City to participate or even give up the land. It MUST be built to accommodate (1) the organic traffic, PLUS (2) the expected room blocks required by regular bookings in the CC. These are not at risky in any way, shape or form. Anything OVER that formula is where the risk is.

Again, here is the basic formula:

Organic bookings + room blocks (dictated by CC hosting capacity) = optimal hotel size

Recipe for convention center failure (or drastic under-performance, at least:

Anything less than formula dictates

Recipe for hotel under-performance (and potential lost ROI for City):

Anything more than the formula dictates

And if you don't want to believe the reasons I stated that the City wants to participate in the financing - that is, to have some say in prices for room blocks - so be it. I can tell you that this information isn't speculation on my part; it is firsthand. You said yourself in an earlier post that you are no expert on the topic, so I will take you at your word.

I'm trying to understand the attitude you feel is necessary to evoke here. Too many people on this board are sensitive and touchy. We're having a conversation and I'm not trying to twist anyones words. This is a friggin thread about a convention center for crying out loud, no one's going to achieve anything by trying to out smart, out wit, and/or mince words together.
Perhaps it was just a misunderstanding on my part or perhaps I read something differently than was expected or was supposed to be. I think it's more to do with you taking my posts personally when I'm only trying to discuss this project that I'm interested in, as is everyone else who posts here.
Yes, I am no expert, thanks for throwing one last insult there at the end.

Most of us on here are average people with a higher interest level in civic development and activity than our counterparts, that's all.

Nonetheless, I'm not going to harp anymore on that and will thank you for replying once more with a detailed response. I do understand it a little more now. Although allow me to say that if the CC hotel ends up being 500 rooms or less for whatever reason - your formulas or not, I will make note of this page just for sh*ts. And another disclaimer, it's not that I want a CC hotel to my specs, I would love to see one sore into the skyline. I'm just speaking my opinion.

^^^^^^^
If you're going to try to use my own words to bolster a stance that is opposite of what I was saying, I am going to take issue with it. I feel I have been more than clear in this thread on why the size of the CC hotel has a "right" size. If it is too small, it will fail the convention center. If it is too big, the convention center will fail the hotel. There is an actual science involved here; it is not a guessing game, a "feels about right", or a dart that you throw on a board.

The city will select from the four flag finalists to build the convention center conference hotel (Omni, Hilton, Westin or Hyatt). You'll see nothing less than 600 rooms; preferably 600-750 range.

A study published in the Oklahoman in December 2013 suggests the city could handle 735 rooms:


Two reports being delivered Tuesday to the Oklahoma City Council advise that the city can support construction of a 735-room conference hotel as part of development of a new convention center.

Mike Carrier, president of the Oklahoma City Convention and Visitors Bureau, has previously told The Oklahoman that the hotels being built now — most with fewer than 200 rooms each — don't meet the needs of meeting planners.

They also report that construction of the hotel will create 2,455 local jobs and generate $300 million in economic activity. The hotel operation, meanwhile, is forecast to create and sustain 674 local jobs with an increase to local economic output by $669 million.

Study suggests Oklahoma City can support $200 million, 735-room conference hotel | News OK (http://newsok.com/article/3914440)


Stone's report concludes that a new conference hotel, if it opened with the new convention center in 2019, would hit 56 percent occupancy that first year, jump to 64 percent the next year, and average out at 66 percent occupancy in 2022.

OKC Council approves $8.5M in TIF funds for downtown projects

By: Brian Brus The Journal Record April 5, 2016

OKLAHOMA CITY – City Council members approved $8.5 million Tuesday to help fund two MAPS-related projects downtown.

The first is a $66 million development of 345 apartment units in four buildings and about 9,200 square feet of commercial space just east of S. Classen Boulevard between W. Main Street and W. Sheridan Avenue. The project by the Newmark Grubb Levy Strange Beffort agency will receive $4 million under City Hall’s economic development plan for downtown through a tax increment finance district, or TIF.

The second allocation, worth $4.5 million, will go toward the acquisition of land for the new MAPS 3 convention center. The area is bounded by S. Broadway Avenue and S. Shields Boulevard between SW Fourth and SW Seventh streets, including the area approaching the northern right of way of the Union Pacific Railroad.

In both cases, city officials highlighted the need for more parking downtown. Mark Beffort promised about 800 parking spaces in four new parking garages and another 67 parking spaces along Sheridan and Fred Jones avenues.

“We actually have 2.33 parking spaces for every unit,” Beffort said. “We’re building additional parking because this particular area is growing and we hope to meet the demand for music venues as well as the 21C Hotel and ancillary retail services.”

Council members were interested in whether convention center land acquired by the Oklahoma City Urban Renewal Authority on the city’s behalf could be used for parking or a hotel, as well as whether the city will be ready decades later for vehicle-sharing and driverless cars that may have different needs. Cathy O’Connor, president and CEO of the Alliance for Economic Development of Oklahoma City, said City Hall cannot use the acquired land for business use, but parking space might fall into the plan.

The owners of some of the targeted parcels on the east and south side of the planned convention center may not want to give them up at reasonable prices, O’Connor said. Although eminent
domain proceedings are the last option city officials want to use, the Downtown/MAPS Tax Increment District No. 2 Review Committee recommended a TIF budget allocation that afforded the city enough flexibility to complete the task if it came to that.

The justification for using TIF funds through OCURA for acquisition and development was established in 2010 when the Core to Shore area just north of the Oklahoma River was declared blighted by the City Council.

City Manager Jim Couch said land acquisition for the convention center is still within the budget set by the MAPS 3 sales tax issue. City Council members have already approved spending $5 million. Councilman Ed Shadid questioned to what degree MAPS funds and TIF funds were overlapping.

“Could you argue that we’re using TIF funds to augment the convention center land acquisition budget?” Shadid asked O’Connor.

“You could,” she said. “But at the end, the council will have to consider whether they want those TIF funds to continue to support the convention center project or whether they want MAPS 3 to pay back the TIF fund. All of that will be yet to come when we know the exact boundaries, the exact dimensions of the property involved.”

Beffort said Newmark Grubb is spending about $3 million on infrastructure improvements, carrying Project 180 streetscaping into the new apartment area. The site also had a few environmental remediation issues that are awaiting approval by the Department of Environmental Quality.

One of the apartment buildings will feature a rooftop wading pool available to all the residents; another will have a clubhouse. Beffort stressed the idea of forming a community with a lot of interaction among people passing through.

At $66 million overall, the investment comes to about $150,000 per apartment unit. Rents are projected at $1.48 to $1.77 per square foot, although Beffort said it’s too early to tell how those figures will work out in the market. Developers are applying for a loan through the U.S. Housing and Urban Development, he said.

The apartments will take two years to complete, beginning this fall, Beffort said, although residential occupation may begin as soon as 15 months.

In both cases, city officials highlighted the need for more parking downtown. Mark Beffort promised about 800 parking spaces in four new parking garages and another 67 parking spaces along Sheridan and Fred Jones avenues.


Can't wait to hear what some people have to say about that.
There will come a time, sooner than we think, when there are more people living within and around downtown/Bricktown that will prefer to walk, bike, take the light rail, a cab, etc.

I've been a cheerleader in the past and don't have an issue with the currently proposed garages and ones U/C, but... Four more? And that's not counting the now phantom one that was going to go in at the OGE site.

Dupe.

It is a lot of parking but will also serve the 21c hotel and the Jones Assembly, plus all the residences of these apartments and the employees/patrons of the office and retail space as well.

I agree, though, that the hunger for parking will never change as long as we keeping feeding it.

Yah more parking!

Keeping in mind that we are going to lose a ton of parking when the COX CC down, it's not the end of the world. There also needs to be parking to serve a few up and coming areas. We just need to not go overboard, and we need to not overserve specific areas (for instance, west downtown doesn't need 1000 spaces)

http://kwtv.images.worldnow.com/images/10470210_G.jpg


He added that more detailed design drawings are expected in the fall.

Architects pointed to other major conventions centers around the country and world as a guide to what will ultimately be on Robinson Avenue between SW 4 and SW 7.

Architects say so far, the $287 million project is under budget.

OKC City Council Passes Convention Center Conceptual Design: http://www.news9.com/story/31882375/okc-city-council-passes-convention-center-conceptual-design

one of those images that the CC is benchmarking is the magnificent Vancouver Convention Centre.

I know OKC can't build theirs jutting into the Pacific Ocean like Vancouver has, but I cincerely hope that OKC strongly considers building a green roof and the use of large glass floor to ceiling windows as takeaways to adopt from Vancouver. Both would be firsts in OKC and would likely make the cc a candidate for LEED level recognition AND allow the cc to be more sustainable (like water recovery/use and perhaps gardening) like Vancouver CC.

It would be cool to have some vegetation on the roof. With the size of this facility and all to break up a giant roof. Just think of how pleasant a view from anything a few stories up is looking down at the Cox CC'a roof is...

Convention center on track, parking to be considered

By: Brian Brus The Journal Record May 3, 2016

OKLAHOMA CITY – The new downtown convention center will be a balanced model of hospitality and functionality with plenty of natural lighting and easy traffic access, Populous GSB Inc. representatives said Tuesday.

The conceptual design plan unanimously approved by the City Council is a unique opportunity to shape how visitors remember Oklahoma City, company principal Todd Voth said.

“We’re very excited about the opportunity to create a facility that distinguishes you in the marketplace and also delivers what you really want for the community,” Voth said.

The project at 500 S. Robinson Ave. is still under its $288 million budget, architect Adam Paulitsch told City Council members. However, that assessment was questioned by Councilman Ed Shadid, who focused on parking at the center. If a building designed to hold thousands of people – it’s larger than the Chesapeake Energy Arena – will require additional parking space later, then it’s not a fully realized plan, Shadid said.

Populous’ responsibility as the architecture firm is to provide a design in accordance with City Hall’s contract, Paulitsch said. The report presented Tuesday was developed to confirm that the selected site can accommodate the MAPS 3 project, identify any insurmountable limitations and determine the ideal site configuration including incorporation of a potential hotel. The plan also identifies the potential for eventual expansions and provides floor plans.

“Although parking is not in our scope of work, we have been tasked with citing specific locations where vehicles can fit on the site,” he said. “As it stands right now, we think we can fit approximately 750 vehicles in surface parking lots directly to the south and east, and we’re now in the middle of a parking study … about how we can incorporate parking within the footprint of the convention center.”

In April, the MAPS 3 subcommittee requested more studies on meeting room locations and sun protections on the west side of the building. Subcommittee member Larry Nichols, executive chairman of Devon Energy, expressed concern about the traffic flow around the building.

Paulitsch said Populous has conducted case studies to provide some guidance on the Oklahoma City project and help shape it into a showcase of modern convention center design. Those sites include the Henry B. Gonzalez Convention Center in San Antonio, Texas, noted for its unique design elements; the Vancouver Convention Center in Canada for its scale; and the Anaheim Convention Center in California for its adaptability.

“We see the industry going more toward a hospitality-focused design,” Paulitsch said.

The building’s front door will be about 800 feet from the nearest streetcar stop and 90 feet to a planned convention center hotel.

I've got all the images from the last presentation that I will post later, but here is a taste (almost all the surface parking would eventually be taken by future expansion of the center):

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/cc050216a.jpg

I can't wait to see some actual design images. Overall this should have a great presence with the park nearby and definitely help push development southward. Lots of options and opportunities can be sprouted from a proper implementation of the convention center.

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/cc050516a.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/cc050516b.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/cc050516c.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/cc050516d.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/cc050516e.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/cc050516f.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/cc050516g.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/cc050516h.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/cc050516i.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/cc050516j.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/cc050516k.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/cc050516l.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/cc050516m.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/cc050516n.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/cc050516o.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/cc050516p.jpg

In these renderings the future expansion is to the south. They could opt to build a long (or multiple) garage(s) along shields? 3-4 stories. Eventually could have mixed use first level. Could have a parking level below grade? Why do we let parking dictate.

In the last presentation on this project, they said they are looking at many parking options, including below grade.

Parking is not pat of the convention center budget but I suspect they are planning to use TIF funds for this purpose.

In these renderings the future expansion is to the south. They could opt to build a long (or multiple) garage(s) along shields? 3-4 stories. Eventually could have mixed use first level. Could have a parking level below grade? Why do we let parking dictate.

I'm not understanding your concern?

I'm not understanding your concern?

I think they need to do a garage. I was commenting regarding the opinion of Ed Shadid, and the need for parking, especially if the convention center was to expand.


Pete, do you know if the future hotel will have parking as well?

I don't really think there's much doubt that a garage will go in eventually. Is it necessary to have that planned right at this moment? Probably not. The thing won't be finished until the end of the decade anyway.

To me, the writing is on the wall that the SE block of Broadway/OKCBlvd will be a substantial garage.

Pete, do you know if the future hotel will have parking as well?

In the preliminary proposals, most hotels showed some parking incorporated but also stated that they would need access to nearby parking to be provided by the city.

An by the Oklahoman with a very interesting video presentation showing the thought process into the design.

http://m.newsok.com/article/5502919

I took photos of this building a few years back because I knew this would eventually happen. Can't find the thread for it anymore.

http://www.oklahoman.com/article/5503496?access=be91953a70bf8ca747a38bcdc9937799

https://flickr.com/photos/59136137@N05/sets/72157634784488953

It will be of interest to see all the construction in the downtown core once they break ground on the convention center complex with the conference hotel.

Just maybe, OG&E will be ready break ground on something around 2020 since their temporary solution to OG&E Springs is to build a park. The demand for 1st class downtown office space should be ready to see a new spike around 2018.

International Harvestor building is being torn down </3 :(((

I would like to collect a few bricks from this building. I got some from the Film Exchange building.

In these renderings the future expansion is to the south. They could opt to build a long (or multiple) garage(s) along shields? 3-4 stories. Eventually could have mixed use first level. Could have a parking level below grade? Why do we let parking dictate.

Parking has to dictate; furthermore if it doesn't, parking concerns near the convention center will factor into its success. If you want to kill a convention center; make it difficult to park for the conventioneers who use the car rental services--they will get the bad word out.

We will build a convention center; so let's construct something that will attract several smaller 150-250 room hotels with parking nearby in addition to the larger anchor 600-plus conference hotel.

We have many tourist options:


Riversports Rapids
Oklahoma City National Memorial & Museum
Oklahoma City Zoo
Science Museum Oklahoma
Oklahoma City Museum of Art
National Cowboy & Western Heritage Museum
Centennial Land Run Monument
Bricktown Entertainment & Canal District
Myriad Botanical Gardens

Our metropolitan area population should eclipse 1.450 million with 680,000 in the city come 2020; beyond the 20s will be OKC's true 'boom town' period.

OKC will hit those numbers well before 2020. Isn't the metro area already at 1.4m for 2015?

I think it might be reasonable for OKC to have north of 1.5m by 2015 and 700K in the city (unless there's some land divestiture of populated areas, which while I want land divestiture I don't want the city to axe significant population), considering the current 'downturn' but expected upswing by 2018.

As for attractions, dont forget to add the the larger Boathouse District along with Oklahoma Contemporary, not to mention the American Indian Museum and Cultural Center itself which should be done by then. Isn't there supposed to be an Oklahoma African American Museum/Cultural Center in the works as well?

If we can get all of this by 2020 (and maybe also MLS team/stadium along with OKC Thunder having at least one NBA championship- hehe), then OKC could really shine brightly against peer 1.5m - 3m metros.

The ACOG population projection for its service area by 2040 is 1.6M.

OKC will hit those numbers well before 2020. Isn't the metro area already at 1.4m for 2015?

I think it might be reasonable for OKC to have north of 1.5m by 2015 and 700K in the city (unless there's some land divestiture of populated areas, which while I want land divestiture I don't want the city to axe significant population), considering the current 'downturn' but expected upswing by 2018.

As for attractions, dont forget to add the the larger Boathouse District along with Oklahoma Contemporary, not to mention the American Indian Museum and Cultural Center itself which should be done by then. Isn't there supposed to be an Oklahoma African American Museum/Cultural Center in the works as well?

If we can get all of this by 2020 (and maybe also MLS team/stadium along with OKC Thunder having at least one NBA championship- hehe), then OKC could really shine brightly against peer 1.5m - 3m metros.

Metro OKC has a population of 1,358,452 as of 2015. With an average yearly growth of about 20,000. The OKC metro will have about 1,460,000 in 2020.

Here is a link (https://www.recenter.tamu.edu/data/population/#!/msa/Oklahoma_City%2C_OK) to those Census numbers.

Metro OKC has a population of 1,358,452 as of 2015. With an average yearly growth of about 20,000. The OKC metro will have about 1,460,000 in 2020.

Here is a link (https://www.recenter.tamu.edu/data/population/#!/msa/Oklahoma_City%2C_OK) to those Census numbers.

IMO, OKC could experience even greater growth If, changes occur on the political level, employment diversification, and continued investment in lifestyle improvements to attract and retain millennials. OKC's growth appears bright with potential to be historically good. We are on the right track.

The ACOG population projection for its service area by 2040 is 1.6M.

It's really difficult to project the growth of a metropolitan area that many years ahead because there a so many factors that affect growth.

HotRod's predictions about population growth could turn out to be correct; we could see 1.5-1.6 million come 2020.

It's really difficult to project the growth of a metropolitan area that many years ahead because there a so many factors that affect growth.

HotRod's predictions about population growth could turn out to be correct; we could see 1.5-1.6 million come 2020.

Perhaps, but the ACOG guys are professionals that crunch these numbers everyday so I'm going to trust what they've got going on, no offense to anybody else or anything.

It's really difficult to project the growth of a metropolitan area that many years ahead because there a so many factors that affect growth.

HotRod's predictions about population growth could turn out to be correct; we could see 1.5-1.6 million come 2020.

That is very unlikely just going by the data I linked to earlier. To get to 1.5 million, It would take an average yearly growth of 30,000 a year for the next 5 years. To achieve 1.6 million, the average yearly growth for the next five years would need to be nearly 50,000. Or basically over twice as much as it is currently growing.

In the last twenty years, the largest yearly population change the OKC metro ever saw was 24,000.

To say the OKC will out of nowhere see average yearly changes of 30,000 or 50,000 seems very unlikely. The latter seeming unattainable.

well I think what folks are saying is OKC is more well known now given what it has accomplished prior to 2015 AND that we're all 'expecting' another jolt in growth as the economy picks up from the oil slump. This growth should be much more 'mature' and likely to be larger growth than what has been experienced (just due to OKC being more 'acceptable' to move to than the prior boom when people were still getting exposed to the new OKC).

I think Josh is correct that OKC will see at LEAST 1.46m metro by 2020; but I suspect it could be larger than that to maybe 1.5+m with a year or two of 30,000+ net in migration as the economy continues to diversify and OKC continues to be an attractive place to move to. ... But one thing to remember is USUALLY estimates and projections are conservative; actual census usually proves to always beat projections/estiamtes.

If OKC could land a few corporate locations and/or consolidations and new back office ops; 1.6m+ could become much more feasible.

Hot rod, you are a real optimist. This state is being driven into the ground by bad governance. Smart people notice things like that. What economic diversity?

Hot rod, you are a real optimist. This state is being driven into the ground by bad governance. Smart people notice things like that. What economic diversity?