It could be that SMG does not maintain that much of a staff to make the quick change. I know that when the T-shirts are put out during the Thunder playoff games, that volunteers are asked to do the job, and if IIRC, it takes 70 or 80 people 4 hours to put the shirts out. Not saying they couldn't add temp staff for these type of multiple events during a day, but you never know.

Love all the hotel talk. Great hotel thread. Very to the point.

Site STILL not going to be available for a CC HOTEL until the new CC is built. The new CC Hotel will likely build to coincide with the opening of the CC. That would seem to rule out the site of the Cox center as the site for new hotel. Regardless of how amazing the Staples Center is and how great the AA staff is, unless they can clear the Cox site and build a new hotel in 60 minutes, or two hours, or overnight....sorry, it doesn't seem to be the site.

What do you think of the idea of building the CC Hotel on the Blvd south of the arena?

Love all the hotel talk. Great hotel thread. Very to the point.

Here's some more hotel talk. Steve, during todays chat, relayed that the hotel would be at least 20 stories tall and have several hundred rooms.

OK, now let's put that in perspective. That is purely based on information that is already in the public domain - it's a guess based on what the experts and consultants have told the city. I have no special info on this one.

Site STILL not going to be available for a CC HOTEL until the new CC is built. The new CC Hotel will likely build to coincide with the opening of the CC. That would seem to rule out the site of the Cox center as the site for new hotel.

My guess is they will build the convention hotel near the new convention center. That alone should rule out the Cox site.

What do you think of the idea of building the CC Hotel on the Blvd south of the arena?

That to me seems obvious, with the hotel being on Robinson/Boulevard, and depending on size the block just to the east as well, with the convention center being some combination of the blocks north of SW 7th, East of Robinson and out to Shields.

I'd really like if the convention center were some sort of L/T like shape. Lining Shields somewhere between 3rd and 7th, and extending to Robinson between 4th and 5th. And then have some dining and entertainment options on the other lots that have no convention center. It would be especially nice to have some patio oriented developments that look out toward the Park.

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

i bet the cox is the future site of our new arena .. (in 2030)

i bet the cox is the future site of our new arena .. (in 2030)

Id enjoy it much better if the mega block was returned to 4 city blocks.

Id enjoy it much better if the mega block was returned to 4 city blocks.

This is exactly what is going to happen. Multiple renditions of both the convention center and the downtown transit center show the COX returning to the street grid. The land is way too valuable to use it for a new arena. It will be just like the current issue with the new convention center where the land cost (in this case opportunity cost) is half the money available. OKC can fund the entire new arena by simply selling the land the Cox is on.

This is exactly what is going to happen. Multiple renditions of both the convention center and the downtown transit center show the COX returning to the street grid. The land is way too valuable to use it for a new arena. It will be just like the current issue with the new convention center where the land cost (in this case opportunity cost) is half the money available. OKC can fund the entire new arena by simply selling the land the Cox is on.

Since when has the land being 'too valuable' stopped the city from proposing a convention center at a site?

Since when has the land being 'too valuable' stopped the city from proposing a convention center at a site?

I love all the talk on this thread about the new hotel. The focus is amazing.

Since when has the land being 'too valuable' stopped the city from proposing a convention center at a site?

Touché

However, I get the sense that the Lone Ranger style is coming to an end now that more people than ever are focused on downtown and have an outlet to voice their concerns. It is a brave new world for OKC.

So the land is too valuable for a hotel, and the city doesn't care. I get it.

I thought I had heard there was a need to keep the underground parking for transit needs at the Santa Fe station and downtown parking in general. Can they scrape the top and re use?

I thought I had heard there was a need to keep the underground parking for transit needs at the Santa Fe station and downtown parking in general. Can they scrape the top and re use?

Re-use for a convention center hotel? I don't think it is happening. Won't be "scraped" prior to completion of new CC and the new hotel will most likely be built by then.

I don't think the pilings in the parking garage can support any more weight than what is already on them, plus, they wouldn't let you park down there while they were building above it. The best plan is to redevelope the whole site once the new convention center is done. If that includes making a new underground parking garage then that is fine.

Maybe the second convention center hotel can go there.

Maybe the second convention center hotel can go there.

Isn't the definition of a convention center hotel that it is attached to a convention center...otherwise it's just another hotel?

Isn't the definition of a convention center hotel that it is attached to a convention center...otherwise it's just another hotel?

Not really. they just have to be designated by the CVB as being the convention center hotel. And not to go Bill Clinton on anyone, but define 'connected'. The Renassiance Hotel is the current convention hotel and it is only connected by an elevated walkway. Here in JAX our official convention hotel is the Omni and it is 1/2 mile from the convention center, and is loosley connected by the skyway.

Not really. they just have to be designated by the CVB as being the convention center hotel. And not to go Bill Clinton on anyone, but define 'connected'. The Renassiance Hotel is the current convention hotel and it is only connected by an elevated walkway. Here in JAX our official convention hotel is the Omni and it is 1/2 mile from the convention center, and is loosley connected by the skyway.

1/2 mile?! That's ridiculous!

I mean, to be sure, I said attached rather than connected, which are definitely different. The Renassiance *is* attached, even if by just the skyway. The wider definition of attached I was going for was that there would be no unrelated developments dividing the two buildings...which I assume is not the case in Jacksonville.

However, I think you could easily say that any hotel is connected in non-physical via the contracts that happen for various conventions. I assume to be a convention center hotel that incoming conventions are required to reserve x rooms per night of the convention at that particular hotel. So I see what you're saying.

I love all the talk on this thread about the new hotel. The focus is amazing.

Lost in Transition...

Isn't the definition of a convention center hotel that it is attached to a convention center...otherwise it's just another hotel?

Case in point, again...The Omni in Fort Worth is their convention center hotel. It is across the street & no sky bridges...

I don't think the pilings in the parking garage can support any more weight than what is already on them, plus, they wouldn't let you park down there while they were building above it. The best plan is to redevelope the whole site once the new convention center is done. If that includes making a new underground parking garage then that is fine.

If they are getting rid of the Cox parking garage in the near future...several companies such as Continental will have to find a new place for their employees to park. It would have to be planned in advance big time to allow companies to make alternative arrangements

Nothing is happening in the near future. They still have to build the new convention center first.

Possibly even pick a better site for it.

Maybe the second convention center hotel can go there.

There will only be one facility, the only way of getting two hotels is for two brands from same family of hotels. There are very complicated negotiations for CC hotels...

The final convention center site report has been accepted and there is a resolution that will go before the planning commission on 9/13 authorizing the city to negotiate acquisition of the car dealership site, known as the Core to Shore North site.

I will clip and post the more important parts of that final report later.

Well, there goes the uninterrupted view from the Pedestrian Bridge of the MBG.

Here are the most important parts of the report, as 3 finalist had been chosen (see full report here (http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/conventioncenter.pdf)):



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


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


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


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/cc1.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/cc1x.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/cc2.jpg

What a load of crock. According to this the most expensive site cost 19x as much to build on.

I still think the optimum location is to push the C2S South location one block east where the truck docks would be along Shields and face only the BNSF viaduct. The issues are the same with the OG&E substation and light industry relocation - BUT - it is only slightly farther from existing hotels then the Ford site AND the CC hotel could be built at the corner of the Boulevard as depicted in the conceptual drawing. This would reserve the majority of the eastern boundary of the Central Park for retail/restaurants, and possibly even a little residential development.

What a load of crock. According to this the most expensive site cost 19x as much to build on.

No. That is not what this says.

The chart to which you are referring discusses site-derived cost premiums, not the total cost. This shows what the particulars of each site add to what construction costs would be at a mythical "ideal" site that causes no additional costs. For example, the south site adds a lot of costs because of having to move the substation. The north site (with basement) adds costs because they have to go below grade. The north site (above grade) adds costs presumably because of having to bridge the street.

i still think the optimum location is to push the c2s south location one block east where the truck docks would be along shields and face only the bnsf viaduct. The issues are the same with the og&e substation and light industry relocation - but - it is only slightly farther from existing hotels then the ford site and the cc hotel could be built at the corner of the boulevard as depicted in the conceptual drawing. This would reserve the majority of the eastern boundary of the central park for retail/restaurants, and possibly even a little residential development.

nm

The problem with their criteria and weighting system is they are only considering the best site for the Convention Center, not what would be best overall for the city and downtown in particular.

So of course they are going to land on the best piece of development property downtown, but by doing so create all other types of issues that we've already discussed ad nauseum.

Also, by moving this project way up in terms of implementation timeline, the South site is greatly disadvantaged because as of now, there is no development in that area which counts against it.

And finally, I think they have greatly underestimated the site acquisition premium for the North site.


However, I've long been resigned to the way this is going to play out: On the North site and way, way over budget.

nm

?? Do you have another idea Oil Capital? This convention center discussion gets pretty contentious sometimes and I wasn't trying to go that direction.

No. Not at all. That just was intended to mean "never mind", as in , I started typing something and then realized I had opened the wrong window and had nothing to say... ;-)


but since you asked. I have always thought the south parkside location was the best possible. There should be enough room there to allow for some mixed-use in front of it fronting the park, which was actually the original concept.

The problem with their criteria and weighting system is they are only considering the best site for the Convention Center, not what would be best overall for the city and downtown in particular.

So of course they are going to land on the best piece of development property downtown, but by doing so create all other types of issues that we've already discussed ad nauseum.

Also, by moving this project way up in terms of implementation timeline, the South site is greatly disadvantaged because as of now, there is no development in that area which counts against it.



Good points.

No. Not at all. That just was intended to mean "never mind", as in , I started typing something and then realized I had opened the wrong window and had nothing to say... ;-)


but since you asked. I have always thought the south parkside location was the best possible. There should be enough room there to allow for some mixed-use in front of it fronting the park, which was actually the original concept.

Ok - got it. We share a nearly identical preference for the CC. I wonder how it is going to work out once it is done. I would like to hear the reasons the CC Subcommittee selected the Ford site - the real ones and not necessarily ones that have been publicly released. (Not thinking conspiracy stuff, but only hope for a more open process than it seems to have been.)

On second thought - I'm not worried about it. When we start talking real dollars the public **** is going to hit the fan and this process will be stopped dead in tracks and I feel sorry for any public figure that backed this plan.

The North side is such a stupid location... It's going to serve the same purpose the old I-40 crosstown served for so many years. A WALL!!!!!! We just got rid of that wall and it feels completely different/open down there now. The South site is clearly the best location, yeah there's not much development there right now.. By the time this thing breaks ground, the central park will be finished, correct? Which in return will bring development in itself, correct? Plus with the loading docks (which can't really be dressed up too much) facing the railroad tracks... It only makes sense. Just my 2 cents.

The problem with their criteria and weighting system is they are only considering the best site for the Convention Center, not what would be best overall for the city and downtown in particular.

So of course they are going to land on the best piece of development property downtown, but by doing so create all other types of issues that we've already discussed ad nauseum.

Also, by moving this project way up in terms of implementation timeline, the South site is greatly disadvantaged because as of now, there is no development in that area which counts against it.

And finally, I think they have greatly underestimated the site acquisition premium for the North site.


However, I've long been resigned to the way this is going to play out: On the North site and way, way over budget.

This. The CC has justified itself in some circles, the ones driving the show. The only recourse we have is to make an over budget convention center not an option.

This. The CC has justified itself in some circles, the ones driving the show. The only recourse we have is to make an over budget convention center not an option.

Can we somehow collude with the owners of the Ford Site to ask for more than the city can afford?

But in all seriousness, if the asking price is too high for the North site, is there any chance the city tries to Em. Dom. the owners, or will they move the site?

It doesn't really matter how much the land cost - the method of construction to put this undergound - and below the water table - is going to make it cost prohibitive. Plus they still have to figure out where the loading docks go - either facing the boulevard and central park, MBG, or the Arena. They can't do it on the west side because that is the expansion side and they can't close the loading bays for 2 years when they do a future expansion. Honestly, I am stunned at the effort put forth to force a square peg into a round hole but they just keep trying.

The Cox Center is paid for. Has underground parking. The convention rooms are basically the northern 1/4 of the building. The rest is the arena and the large room for exhibits on the west side. I'd say build the new facility on everything except the norther 1/4, which could still be used for meetings. The Barons can make a temp move to the Fairgrounds arena or Peake. When completed, the north 1/4 could be the site for the new CC hotel.

This sounds crazy but could be done.

The Cox Center is paid for. Has underground parking. The convention rooms are basically the northern 1/4 of the building. The rest is the arena and the large room for exhibits on the west side. I'd say build the new facility on everything except the norther 1/4, which could still be used for meetings. The Barons can make a temp move to the Fairgrounds arena or Peake. When completed, the north 1/4 could be the site for the new CC hotel.

This sounds crazy but could be done.

It wouldn't be a temp move, it would be a permanent move. And regarding the underground parking, the major support piers wouldn't be able to support a hotel and probably not in the right place to support the orientation of a new convention center on top.

It can still be done, but its not as straight forward as it sounds.

It wouldn't be a temp move, it would be a permanent move. And regarding the underground parking, the major support piers wouldn't be able to support a hotel and probably not in the right place to support the orientation of a new convention center on top.

It can still be done, but its not as straight forward as it sounds.

It would be more difficult than starting from scratch, but millions would be saved from the site acquisition alone, which would be an attempt to bring the cost back in line. They could 're-pier' where needed.

This would allow what is considered the chosen prime location for better use.

In the initial round of evaluating 8 potential sites, the Cox Center was the clear #1.

When they reduced it to the four finalists, they eliminated the Cox site up front for the reasons shown below:



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

The funny thing is that a new expo hall is going to be built at the State Fair Park midway through the Maps 3 program that could handle some of these events during construction if needed.

Sounds like that if the Cox center is ever demolished, a new central plant would have to be built for the arena.

They just want to use the dealership site to hide the crackheads at the park from existing downtown

Since when does land cost infrastructure improvements and construction cost not considered in the design. Okc is going to end up with a 1 acre park 500 feet of trails and sidewalk 1 senior center 2 blocks of streetcar and a massivily overbudget CC that's stuck in limbo just like the Indian arts center. Then they'll want another 700 million to finish the convention center land short us on what the people actually want

They just want to use the dealership site to hide the crackheads at the park from existing downtown

t

They may have their own political reasons for building at the Ford site, but this isn't one of them. The whole point of the new central park and core to shore is to redevelop this area. Besides, the "bad area" you think of is south of the new I-40. North of I-40 is a run down industrial district which will see 40 acres bulldozed next year to make way for parkland.

So how far over budget on maps projects are we already. I know the sidewalks were scaled back by 2/3

So how far over budget on maps projects are we already. I know the sidewalks were scaled back by 2/3

I think things are a little premature to know exactly where the budget is on anything, including the sidewalks. The last word out was they were going to take a second look and revise priorities to obtain more sidewalks. I don't think a contract has been let on any CBD Maps3 projects yet, other than engineering and evaluations.

Interviews for the Convention Center A/E Team are occuring tomorrow...

Steve confirms what all of us knew - the convention center site is not a popular choice.

MAPS 3 convention center site is being questioned | NewsOK.com (http://newsok.com/maps-3-convention-center-site-is-being-questioned/article/3712898)



MAPS 3 convention center site is being questioned
A debate that has been ongoing mostly behind the scenes about the selected site for the MAPS 3 Oklahoma City convention center is starting to go public.


Read more: MAPS 3 convention center site is being questioned | NewsOK.com (http://newsok.com/maps-3-convention-center-site-is-being-questioned/article/3712898#ixzz27U4bcWLa)

There is a Convention Center Subcommittee meeting today but the group violated the open meeting law by not posting the agenda and notice until this morning.

I wonder if much will come out about the site acquisition progress.

I sure hope so, these people need to be exposed for the lack of openness to the public.

Are these interviews public?

No, they are not.

There is a Convention Center Subcommittee meeting today but the group violated the open meeting law by not posting the agenda and notice until this morning.

Really?