View Full Version : Convention Center




Just the facts
09-27-2012, 02:15 PM
no if the convention center is above ground or partially under ground ..

and if the CC is moved elsewhere .. it still might be closed .. but it would depend on what else would be built there

check - I think they also plan (maybe even already approved) closing SW2nd as well.

BoulderSooner
09-27-2012, 02:23 PM
check - I think they also plan (maybe even already approved) closing SW2nd as well.

it is not yet approved ... but i would bet sw 2nd closes in any case from robinson to hudson

Larry OKC
09-27-2012, 02:24 PM
We desperately need improvements in downtown attractions to even attract more people to OKC for conventions: I'd like to say more retail, but I almost have to say some retail at all, finish the Native American Cultural Center, create an Adventure Line so people can easily get to the Adventure District .....something! There's no way I'd come here for a convention if I lived elsewhere when I can go to cities that have things for me and my family to do.

I am not saying you are wrong, but this seems to be contradicting the Chamber's and City's line about OKC being a place people want to come to as Convention inquiries are on the increase and bookings too. Also contradicts the Chamber's paid for Convention Center study that said our "challenges" had little to nothing to do with having the things to attract conventioneers. The report stated some of the challenges to becoming a Tier II city were

1) lack of direct flights
2) insufficient hotel stock
3) insufficient C.C. facility that involved structural limitations.

betts
09-27-2012, 02:34 PM
I am not saying you are wrong, but this seems to be contradicting the Chamber's and City's line about OKC being a place people want to come to as Convention inquiries are on the increase and bookings too. Also contradicts the Chamber's paid for Convention Center study that said our "challenges" had little to nothing to do with having the things to attract conventioneers. The report stated some of the challenges to becoming a Tier II city were

1) lack of direct flights
2) insufficient hotel stock
3) insufficient C.C. facility that involved structural limitations.

Maybe we're getting inquiries from people in cities like Enid and Garden City Kansas....dunno. I don't think anyone outside of the Chamber has seen precisely who is inquiring about our facilities. But, I doubt we're getting inquiries from companies in cities of comparable size or even slightly smaller. Because those people want to go places where there are things to do. Again, perhaps once we have all the river activities planned, that will be a draw, but I go places where I can shop and do interesting things in my spare time. Anyone who believe that our challenges are only the three listed above is not being honest with themselves, in my opinion. I like Oklahoma City, I like living here, but I'd never spend money to a convention in a city like Oklahoma City.

betts
09-27-2012, 02:36 PM
Again, I'd just like to see the numbers. I'd like to see a lot of numbers, specifically any analyses done by consultants regarding the convention center. It wouldn't shock me if we end up disappointed in the response to a new convention center.

RodH
09-27-2012, 03:59 PM
People have different interest. I would never choose a convention city based on places to shop because that would not interest me. I do like historical things, geography, and museums. I like to go to places that I have never been to see how the people live. A city like OKC would have lots to interest me.

BoulderSooner
09-28-2012, 08:19 AM
a ton of conventions that okc competes for are going to have great attendance no matter what city they choose to location in ..

LakeEffect
09-28-2012, 08:39 AM
a ton of conventions that okc competes for are going to have great attendance no matter what city they choose to location in ..

The last two years I was on the education-speaker selection team for a national convention (American Public Works Association). We didn't have a huge number of attendees (1500 people or so?), but we required a big exhibit hall for all of the equipment showcasing. I wasn't part of venue selection (done many years in advance) but I at did get to hear from staff about attendance and cities. The bigger name the city, the better attendance we had... Columbus, Ohio had the worst attendance in 15 years, while I heard that this year's event in Anaheim had what appeared to be the highest in years. Denver was also well attended last year.

Conventions generally have a baseline attendance, but the city its in really does help add to the overall attendance number. Name recognition goes a long way - Columbus was our cheapest conference, and the convention center is in a great location with a ton to do, but people weren't sold on it as much as APWA tried.

betts
09-28-2012, 09:08 AM
I do think Oklahoma City, with as much attention to attractions as "we've" paid to the Convention Center, coupled with a huge marketing push, could get better name recognition. We will have the river activities, we will (hopefully) ultimately have the Native American Cultural Center. Those are the kinds of things that look great on brochures and may pique people's interest. And we do have the Adventure District, which too has a lot of appeal. We've got other hidden gems that would be appealing to a visitor, such as the Paseo and the Stockyards District. What we don't have is easy access to them for someone without a car.

Very few people who travel to a convention want to rent a car. It's not fun driving in a city where you don't know your way, even with GPS. What we, as a city need to do, if we're going to try to appeal to a broader range of people, is come up with a comprehensive transit plan that can be used to link all these attractions. It would be amazing if we could have a streetcar line to each of those places, but that's not going to happen in the near future unless the city wins a big federal lottery. Without fixed transit, we have to look at buses and/or rail. Which comes back to the fact that very few people in a position of influence in this city have recognized the importance of mass transit. Were I in the Chamber, I'd be as interested in the streetcar, the Adventure line and improving our bus system as I would be in getting a few big rooms in a new building. Again, once you're in a convention center, the carpet choice is about the only noticeable difference between them. I think that to attract more people and more groups we have to promote our city as a fun, interesting destination that is easy to navigate.

GaryOKC6
09-28-2012, 11:13 AM
a ton of conventions that okc competes for are going to have great attendance no matter what city they choose to location in ..

I totally agree. as for things to do, it depends on what people are looking for and everyone is going to want something different. Most people think that thier own city has "nothing t do" but poeple form other cities see the thingsds that we take for granted. For example, The National cowby and Western Heritage musium. Most people that I talk to will say, "I went there in grade school and have not been there in years" whild others come from all over just to go there. It is like that is every city I think.

GaryOKC6
09-28-2012, 11:16 AM
I do think Oklahoma City, with as much attention to attractions as "we've" paid to the Convention Center, coupled with a huge marketing push, could get better name recognition. We will have the river activities, we will (hopefully) ultimately have the Native American Cultural Center. Those are the kinds of things that look great on brochures and may pique people's interest. And we do have the Adventure District, which too has a lot of appeal. We've got other hidden gems that would be appealing to a visitor, such as the Paseo and the Stockyards District. What we don't have is easy access to them for someone without a car.
Very few people who travel to a convention want to rent a car. It's not fun driving in a city where you don't know your way, even with GPS. What we, as a city need to do, if we're going to try to appeal to a broader range of people, is come up with a comprehensive transit plan that can be used to link all these attractions. It would be amazing if we could have a streetcar line to each of those places, but that's not going to happen in the near future unless the city wins a big federal lottery. Without fixed transit, we have to look at buses and/or rail. Which comes back to the fact that very few people in a position of influence in this city have recognized the importance of mass transit. Were I in the Chamber, I'd be as interested in the streetcar, the Adventure line and improving our bus system as I would be in getting a few big rooms in a new building. Again, once you're in a convention center, the carpet choice is about the only noticeable difference between them. I think that to attract more people and more groups we have to promote our city as a fun, interesting destination that is easy to navigate.

I agree. I used to do a lot of conventions ins Chicago. I would NEVER consider driving in that city. I always took a cab. The difference is that every 3rd car was a cab and that they were easy to get.

betts
09-28-2012, 11:24 AM
I totally agree. as for things to do, it depends on what people are looking for and everyone is going to want something different. Most people think that thier own city has "nothing t do" but poeple form other cities see the thingsds that we take for granted. For example, The National cowby and Western Heritage musium. Most people that I talk to will say, "I went there in grade school and have not been there in years" whild others come from all over just to go there. It is like that is every city I think.

And how do you get there from downtown if you're a visitor? While it's nice to visit, is it really enough of a destination to make renting a car worthwhile? There is perhaps enough, although barely, to do here, but things to do are scattered all over the city. If I'm at a convention, I want it to be easy to visit....preferably within walking distance or easy to visit by mass transit that stops close to my door and the destination.

I think we need to look at our city without rose-colored glasses. We need to look hard at what keeps us from being a desirable destination. We don't have a lot of interesting old buildings, we don't have a beach or mountains or even a lake (that isn't mostly mud in the summer these days), we don't have shopping of note downtown and we're on the cusp of having enough interesting restaurants.

We do have the potential, especially as more things are completed, to provide a lot of amenities for our visitors, but many are difficult to reach and most of them don't really stand alone as a significant destination. I think we need to be honest about what the shortcomings of our city as a destination are, so that we can work to correct them.

GaryOKC6
09-28-2012, 11:57 AM
And how do you get there from downtown if you're a visitor? While it's nice to visit, is it really enough of a destination to make renting a car worthwhile? There is perhaps enough, although barely, to do here, but things to do are scattered all over the city. If I'm at a convention, I want it to be easy to visit....preferably within walking distance or easy to visit by mass transit that stops close to my door and the destination.

I think we need to look at our city without rose-colored glasses. We need to look hard at what keeps us from being a desirable destination. We don't have a lot of interesting old buildings, we don't have a beach or mountains or even a lake (that isn't mostly mud in the summer these days), we don't have shopping of note downtown and we're on the cusp of having enough interesting restaurants.

We do have the potential, especially as more things are completed, to provide a lot of amenities for our visitors, but many are difficult to reach and most of them don't really stand alone as a significant destination. I think we need to be honest about what the shortcomings of our city as a destination are, so that we can work to correct them.

It depends on how long and why you are here. I talk to a lot of visitors that love the downtown area. The Art Museum, Botanical Gardens, Bombing Memorial and Bricktown are all within walking distance. If you are here for only a few days that is more than enough to do. Most people spend the bulk in the restaurants and bars in bricktown. There is also the Oklahoma River which is a great destination for rowing or juts walking. Because of the nature of my business Interact with hundreds of people that are visiting here every year. Their story is always very positive.

Larry OKC
09-28-2012, 12:18 PM
Betts: please don't misunderstand my comment as anything but pointing out the Chamber's study (take that for what it is worth) and subsequent articles have indicated for the type of business we currently draw and the kind they want in becoming a Tier II city, we already have the things that most are looking for (esp when compared to our peer cities in the report). Is it for everyone? No. Is it for you? No. Is it for me? No (I would tend toward the Las Vegas/Orlando as a destination). And I absolutely agree that we can do things better, get more retail, have accessable mass trans to get folks to those things that aren't in the CBD etc etc. But all of those things take time and money. Right?

HangryHippo
09-28-2012, 01:12 PM
Betts: please don't misunderstand my comment as anything but pointing out the Chamber's study (take that for what it is worth) and subsequent articles have indicated for the type of business we currently draw and the kind they want in becoming a Tier II city, we already have the things that most are looking for (esp when compared to our peer cities in the report). Is it for everyone? No. Is it for you? No. Is it for me? No (I would tend toward the Las Vegas/Orlando as a destination). And I absolutely agree that we can do things better, get more retail, have accessable mass trans to get folks to those things that aren't in the CBD etc etc. But all of those things take time and money. Right?

Nice post.

betts
09-28-2012, 02:54 PM
Betts: please don't misunderstand my comment as anything but pointing out the Chamber's study (take that for what it is worth) and subsequent articles have indicated for the type of business we currently draw and the kind they want in becoming a Tier II city, we already have the things that most are looking for (esp when compared to our peer cities in the report). Is it for everyone? No. Is it for you? No. Is it for me? No (I would tend toward the Las Vegas/Orlando as a destination). And I absolutely agree that we can do things better, get more retail, have accessable mass trans to get folks to those things that aren't in the CBD etc etc. But all of those things take time and money. Right?

I'm not disagreeing either. And I wouldn't live in OKC if I didn't like it and what it has to offer. My point is that it could be a lot better, could offer more, could be more. The trap is when we think everything's fine. It's not. National perception of our city is improving but we're not at the point that many people would seek us out as a tourist destination. Our mass transit system is horrific, and that inhibits visitation. There is almost no public acknowledgement of that fact, much less attempt to improve upon it. Had it not been for MTP, I doubt we'd be planning a streetcar right now. It should have been the Chamber pushing as hard or harder for it than they pushed for the convention center. The city should be looking for ways to subsidize retail downtown, not sitting back hoping it will happen. We should be looking for ways to link the attractions we do have, complete the ones under construction and plan more. In city planning, if you're not moving forward you're being passed. In addition to celebrating all the new hotels being built we need to ask ourselves how the people filling those hotels will travel and where they will go.

Yes these things cost money, but no more than Project 180, the Convention Center and Convention Center Hotel. The city manages to find money for what it considers important.

BDP
09-28-2012, 03:42 PM
Yes these things cost money, but no more than Project 180, the Convention Center and Convention Center Hotel. The city manages to find money for what it considers important.

Well I think the best point you're making, whether intentional or not, is that the city has a lot of great assets beyond the core and its immediate surroundings that could be leveraged a lot more with better access. Yes, transit costs a lot of money, but a properly planned transit system that gives visitors ready access to attractions like the Adventure District, the Paseo, Western Ave., historic districts, etc. is probably no more expensive or maybe even less expensive than spending 700 million dollars every ten years to develop new attractions catering to visitors to the core. You could bring them to the attractions instead of vice versa. It also has the reciprocal benefit of giving residents better access to and around the core as well.

I'm a huge proponent of downtown and may soon move my family there, but there are some very attractive and interesting districts that are uniquely Oklahoma City that remain largely hidden from the typical Oklahoma City tourist to which they simply need better access to discover.

An anecdotal example is when I visited the garden district when I was in New Orleans. No way I would have done that had it not been served by a street car. A ride through the historic districts to the Paseo would be very similar, imo. (although good luck on getting Heritage Hills residents on board with that : ) )

Teo9969
09-29-2012, 11:56 AM
For some reason I couldn't "like" this post. But I do.

I don't think you can like posts in the wiki portion of OKCTalk (which is the "Urban Development & Buildings" portion of the site)

Larry OKC
09-29-2012, 10:43 PM
...My point is that it could be a lot better, could offer more, could be more. The trap is when we think everything's fine. It's not. ...
That has been my position on many a topic. Glad we are in agreement.


National perception of our city is improving but we're not at the point that many people would seek us out as a tourist destination.
I am not saying you are wrong, but if the Mayor and Chamber are to be believed, folks ARE seeking us out as a tourist destination. IIRC it was something like $2 billion/yr of economic impact??? Not Vegas or Orlando type numbers but nothing to sneeze at either.

...The city manages to find money for what it considers important.
WOW. Again, that has been my position on many a topic we were formerly at odds on.

I will respectfully disagree that the City needs to subsidize DT retail. Not a government responsibility to subsidize private, for-profit businesses. How many millions did the ULI folks say it would require to get what they were wanting DT??? Even if they do, they have various economic development funds, the Alliance and other entities to do that sort of thing.

Pete
10-16-2012, 01:00 PM
Interesting article and perspective on convention centers across the U.S.


Cities Clash in Battle to Land Conventions
Weak Economy Heightens Competition; Venues Splash Out Sweeteners, Freebies

Cities Vie for Conventions - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444657804578049103969814398.html?m od=ITP_pageone_1)

Mr. Sanders, the University of Texas professor, predicts the glut of convention space will only get worse, because a number of cities continue to push expansions. He blames cities' hired consultants, who he said predict "all these people are going to come and do wonderful things to your economy."

"But the problem is they aren't coming anymore, because there are lots of other convention centers ... that desperately want that business," he said. "So Atlanta steals from Boston, Orlando steals from Chicago and Las Vegas steals from everywhere."

http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/NA-BS966_CONVEN_NS_20121012190303.jpg

CaptDave
10-16-2012, 01:25 PM
Makes me think a $150 million CC south of the Chesapeake arena to give our present convention business a nicer facility AND a $100 million office tower (OR refurb of FNC) would be a better use of our $250 million MAPS fund..... I sincerely hope we are not throwing away $250 million to a dying business that won't have much impact on OKC. Only time will tell though.

Spartan
10-16-2012, 01:28 PM
Makes me think a $150 million CC south of the Chesapeake arena to give our present convention business a nicer facility AND a $100 million office tower (OR refurb of FNC) would be a better use of our $250 million MAPS fund..... I sincerely hope we are not throwing away $250 million to a dying business that won't have much impact on OKC. Only time will tell though.

We have no choice though. The Chamber junta wanted this and would not have allowed us to have streetcar and a park if we didn't also pay for a new convention palace. They are dead set on this being our highest priority and they are not willing to consider anything more current on the subject as relevant. It's almost hard to think this decision is being handed down from businessmen who are usually trend savvy, because the last few years have proven the convention trap to be a huge folly.

I just don't understand it. CCs were successful for a short period but their stock has fallen so dramatically, meanwhile streetcars have been a wild success, even long term, wherever they are built. Convention business is very finite and cannot be produced by a local economy in the same way that a local economy is built to respond to streetcar-related economic development. What happens for transit in Portland or Phoenix or KC won't compete with and reduce our economic development impact the way that new CCs in Nashville, FW, Omaha, Albuquerque, and so many other mid-sized cities will obliterate what we would otherwise hope to get out of $250 million. I am racking my brains over this..

It's an arms race, and we're about as well positioned as Iran to win this thing. It would be so much smarter to take a bow like South Africa or Japan before we do harm to ourselves competing for elusive convention market share. Not every city needs to be a big convention player..I'd say to let those cities hinder their own competitiveness by chasing this folly and instead keep maximizing our own potential by making smarter investments with such a huge chunk as $250M. Nashville and FW won't be as competitive and desirable places to live because they spent their resources on a CC and not smart QoL improvements...ESP once those QoL improvements become mandatory for growth.

Just the facts
10-16-2012, 02:05 PM
I want a new convention center so the current site can be redeveloped. The new site should go where it does the least harm (East Bricktown).

CaptDave
10-16-2012, 02:06 PM
I understand the consternation Spartan. I am trying to figure out WHY the supporters of the CC are so sure of its necessity. Can we expect some sort of huge domestic independent energy producers convention to held in it annually? What would something like that look like and is it something that would become a "signature" event in OKC? Often a city builds or expands a CC to keep one or two particular conventions (Mary Kay in Dallas is one I think) but we don't have anything close to that to justify the "need". There are some very smart people in the group that is pushing for it so there must be a compelling reason to spend a quarter billion dollars on it...... right?

Dubya61
10-16-2012, 02:31 PM
I understand the consternation Spartan. I am trying to figure out WHY the supporters of the CC are so sure of its necessity. Can we expect some sort of huge domestic independent energy producers convention to held in it annually? What would something like that look like and is it something that would become a "signature" event in OKC? Often a city builds or expands a CC to keep one or two particular conventions (Mary Kay in Dallas is one I think) but we don't have anything close to that to justify the "need". There are some very smart people in the group that is pushing for it so there must be a compelling reason to spend a quarter billion dollars on it...... right?

Suddenly, I was thinking about starting a band right here in River City! Trombones! to squelch out the Trouble!

BoulderSooner
10-16-2012, 02:35 PM
I understand the consternation Spartan. I am trying to figure out WHY the supporters of the CC are so sure of its necessity. Can we expect some sort of huge domestic independent energy producers convention to held in it annually? What would something like that look like and is it something that would become a "signature" event in OKC? Often a city builds or expands a CC to keep one or two particular conventions (Mary Kay in Dallas is one I think) but we don't have anything close to that to justify the "need". There are some very smart people in the group that is pushing for it so there must be a compelling reason to spend a quarter billion dollars on it...... right?

Our CC is a joke for a city our size and for us to be presented the way we want to visitors ..

CaptDave
10-16-2012, 02:42 PM
Our CC is a joke for a city our size and for us to be presented the way we want to visitors ..

I agree the Cox CC is nothing to brag about; adequate may be a high compliment. I am fairly sure I am missing something in this topic - but the data does show that conventions are becoming less numerous and several cities are miles ahead of us in that business. I do not see how the new CC will draw anything from those cities, so what would justify an expansion of the space we currently have? I think it is a good idea to relocate our CC so that location can be redeveloped, and make our CC a nicer place for the regional events currenty held at Cox CC. As I was thinking about it, I thought maybe with the colocation of four large independent domestic producers there may be a critical mass for some sort of domestic energy convention that could be rather large in scale.

Just the facts
10-16-2012, 02:46 PM
Civic buildings, be they City Hall, the convention center, or the airport should reflect the collective pride of the people they represent and inspire the citizens to think big, and dream bigger. They shouldn't be monuments to be marveled at by people from Grand Rapids, they should be marveled at by people who call OKC home. They should be a source of pride and inspiration and a crowning achievement of the City on display in the public realm.

OKC public buildings have almost none of that.

Spartan
10-16-2012, 02:59 PM
I disagree Kerry, where are you coming from with this charge? We have fine public facilities. We have a top-notch AA baseball stadium and NBA arena, the Civic Center Music Hall is among the nicest venues in the nation, and our downtown public parks (Myriad, MAPS3, river) will soon be a huge point of pride. The downtown library and arts museum (soon to be plural) aren't too shabby either. I think we could do better with polishing City Hall and perhaps a grand new City building should the 420 Bldg be renovated by private developers, but that's just as far as city offices go. At least we don't have a fugly City Hall like Dallas or FW.


Our CC is a joke for a city our size and for us to be presented the way we want to visitors ..

With what visitors? How is this tied to a tourism or visitor study that shows how/why people do or could come to OKC? We're probably going to get more out of the fairgrounds improvements, much cheaper, than the CC project in all honesty. The fairgrounds is a legitimate success that is existing we can reasonably assume is stable enough to build on and make even more competitive.

The business community downtown is booming. But is a convention center the only way in which we can facilitate business visitors??? What else, outside the box, could we do for business visitors with $250 MILLION??? What about a medical mart, or an energy mart, modeled after several of the new medical marts...or a huge, massive tech/research incubator, or something like that. I think there is a lot we could do with $250 million that would realistically improve our business climate, if that $250 million must be tied to something for business visitors.

CaptDave
10-16-2012, 03:01 PM
True, but I would differ that OKC is completely bereft of good civic buildings. The Civic Center/City Hall area fits that description - they look like significant, important structures. WRWA is a pretty nice small - medium size airport now and certainly not a source of embarassment as it was ten years ago.

The Cox CC? Not so much and that is why I think a new CC is justifiable. I am not so certain about the location selected and the size/projected cost. But a new CC is going to be built and if history is any indication, it will be just fine in the end.

Spartan
10-16-2012, 03:06 PM
True, but I would differ that OKC is completely bereft of good civic buildings. The Civic Center/City Hall area fits that description - they look like significant, important structures. WRWA is a pretty nice small - medium size airport now and certainly not a source of embarassment as it was ten years ago.

The Cox CC? Not so much and that is why I think a new CC is justifiable. I am not so certain about the location selected and the size/projected cost. But a new CC is going to be built and if history is any indication, it will be just fine in the end.

What history?? The recent history of new convention centers in the U.S. is actually quite depressing.

catch22
10-16-2012, 03:30 PM
I can speak for a lot of people, that our airport is very poorly designed (but aesthetically pleasing for the most part). Many people from out of town can not figure out how to use our airport. Even a lot of people from the area, can not figure out how to get around in the airport. Not to change the subject, but our airport is very poorly designed. It looks good but is very inefficient in many aspects, both from the passenger point of view, and logistical "behind the scenes" point of view.

HangryHippo
10-16-2012, 03:38 PM
I can speak for a lot of people, that our airport is very poorly designed (but aesthetically pleasing for the most part). Many people from out of town can not figure out how to use our airport. Even a lot of people from the area, can not figure out how to get around in the airport. Not to change the subject, but our airport is very poorly designed. It looks good but is very inefficient in many aspects, both from the passenger point of view, and logistical "behind the scenes" point of view.

THIS!! And Cafebouef, if you're reading this, my response to your airport question is forthcoming.

Spartan
10-16-2012, 03:38 PM
It's a weird layout, but it's such a layout that I have always kind of blindly stumbled along in the right direction and surprisingly turned up at a recognizable area and suddenly knew exactly how to navigate. I feel like that's how most people's WRWA experience goes. I feel as though the layout and design is intended to make you feel like there are a lot less people there than really are, which isn't many to begin with..lol

CaptDave
10-16-2012, 04:53 PM
I can speak for a lot of people, that our airport is very poorly designed (but aesthetically pleasing for the most part). Many people from out of town can not figure out how to use our airport. Even a lot of people from the area, can not figure out how to get around in the airport. Not to change the subject, but our airport is very poorly designed. It looks good but is very inefficient in many aspects, both from the passenger point of view, and logistical "behind the scenes" point of view.

I suppose I don't think it is too bad because I remember the old WRWA and the construction years. To me it is comparable to Louisville and similarly sized airports - not perfect, but not too bad either. I kind of like the mix of trim materials - stone, stainless steel, and glass is sleek and rustic at the same time; kind of like OKC. I have no idea about the behind the scenes operations but I think they kept the old baggage handling areas and other support areas beneath the main terminal, correct?

CaptDave
10-16-2012, 05:00 PM
What history?? The recent history of new convention centers in the U.S. is actually quite depressing.

The MAPS projects in general. Certainly not perfect and a few missteps, but overall very positive for the city.

CC's are strange spaces simply because they are nothing more than huge open spaces with a roof and HVAC. The CC building itself is not valuable, only what it can be configured to do and contain has value - and that is very debatable at this time. Even if I have concerns about the details, I still give the people in charge of these programs benefit of the doubt based on a pretty good track record to date.

catch22
10-16-2012, 05:10 PM
I suppose I don't think it is too bad because I remember the old WRWA and the construction years. To me it is comparable to Louisville and similarly sized airports - not perfect, but not too bad either. I kind of like the mix of trim materials - stone, stainless steel, and glass is sleek and rustic at the same time; kind of like OKC. I have no idea about the behind the scenes operations but I think they kept the old baggage handling areas and other support areas beneath the main terminal, correct?

The baggage handling systems I believe were rebuilt, but they were so poorly designed that they are about to be rebuilt anyway at a very high cost. The upper level was also poorly designed, they are about to redesign and consolidate the two checkpoints into one. Between the United and Southwest counters. At a very high cost. The vertical transportation element is also poorly designed. You have escalators that dump people either right in the middle of either checkpoint and mixing them with people trying to exit the secure area. The other option for going up on escalators is the ones just at the end of the tunnel. If you are departing you must go to the right and it dumps you in a highly congested area by the American counter and a new stand. If you are going down you have to go all the way to the east checkpoint to use that down escalator. Or you can use the elevator plopped in the middle of the check-in area. Which, in itself, squeezes people together by the United counter (which is usually overflowing into the main lobby).

On the behind the scenes level, there is no way to go from the ramp level to the terminal level without going outside of the building itself. There is also no way to walk, for example, under the airport on the ramp side under the West Concourse. If you are working a flight for example, at Gate 5, if you need to go to Gate 8, you literally have to walk all the way around the West Concourse. Or go to one of the outside staircases, and enter the concourse, then exit the concourse, (which consumes more time than walking around the building itself). Other airports I have worked at have many tunnels and walkways connecting many common points. This airport has no convenient way to flow as an employee.

I digress....

CaptDave
10-16-2012, 09:23 PM
Gotcha - makes sense. Fix all that but keep the same look and mix of materials......that way people coming to our new CC and CC hotel will have an easier time. There, still on topic! :)

Larry OKC
10-16-2012, 10:54 PM
The info Pete posted isn't really "new", there were reports cited during the MAPS campaign. This just supports those earlier reports.

Fact is to get the 3-fold (300%) increase in business/revenue the Chamber promised is going to require a 9-fold (900%) increase in out-of-area business since they admitted that most of the convention business is for local events. This admission by the Chamber came conveniently after MAPS 3 barely passed and they were pushing to get the C.C. moved up in the project time line. Even going as far as to claim that by moving it up sooner, that increased business would help fund MAPS 3 tax collections so it would help the projects getting pushed back. Problem is, if it stays on schedule and opens when it is supposed to ("late 2018"), the MAPS 3 tax collection period will have ended several months earlier ("ending at 12:00 a.m. on January 1, 2018). Then there is the small matter of City projects routinely going well beyond the established time lines. The new C.C. won't generate a single extra dime for those MAPS 3 projects that are now at the end of the time line.

Just the facts
10-17-2012, 07:57 AM
Spot on Larry. Building a new convention center because it will increase attendance by a significant amount is the biggest lie being told today. I always love the "we can get conventions that are going to Austin" line. Really, go look at the Austin convention calendar and tell me which convention they have that OKC could host. The Texas Teachers Convention? Nope. Austin City Government Workshop? Nope. Society of South Texas Petroleum Engineers Regional Conference? Nope. It goes on and on. Go pick your favorite city and try it for yourself.

The fact is, the vast majority of all conventions/meetings are local, state, or regional. Very few are national, and that number is dropping everyday. Dallas, Denver, and KC are not our competitors for 99% of the conventions – Tulsa and other OKC meeting space is.

Spartan
10-17-2012, 09:58 AM
I'll just add to what Larry and Kerry have said, in that I really believe that the convention center project is going to be the one that ruins the MAPS legacy. We're in for a huge clusterf...

BDP
10-17-2012, 10:16 AM
I'll just add to what Larry and Kerry have said, in that I really believe that the convention center project is going to be the one that ruins the MAPS legacy. We're in for a huge clusterf...


Maybe that's why they want to do it first. We'll moan about the wasted resources for a couple of years. Meanwhile, all the stuff that we actually get to use, the stuff that will actually make being here more enjoyable, will get built and we'll all forgive and forget the massive half used facility that's dividing our downtown core from all the fun stuff.

soonerguru
10-17-2012, 11:08 AM
Maybe that's why they want to do it first. We'll moan about the wasted resources for a couple of years. Meanwhile, all the stuff that we actually get to use, the stuff that will actually make being here more enjoyable, will get built and we'll all forgive and forget the massive half used facility that's dividing our downtown core from all the fun stuff.

No, I think these otherwise sound business people actually believe a convention center will be a huge economic development catalyst. It's a joke. Forest, trees, etc.

Just the facts
10-17-2012, 12:10 PM
Maybe that's why they want to do it first. We'll moan about the wasted resources for a couple of years. Meanwhile, all the stuff that we actually get to use, the stuff that will actually make being here more enjoyable, will get built and we'll all forgive and forget the massive half used facility that's dividing our downtown core from all the fun stuff.

They wanted to be moved up because they didn't want to risk having the convention center be the only project on the "Let's Finish MAPS III Right" campaign. Let's not forget, this is just phase 1. The CC committee already said that 2 phases will be necessary to meet their growth projections. No funding has been identified for phase 2 but without it they said phase 1 would be a failure. That kind of puts someone on the hook to pay for it because not doing it is not an option.

http://www.myspace.com/video/vid/100711285

BoulderSooner
10-17-2012, 12:12 PM
They wanted to be moved up because they didn't want to risk having the convention center be the only project on the "Let's Finish MAPS III Right" campaign. Let's not forget, this is just phase 1. The CC committee already said that 2 phases will be necessary to meet their growth projections. No funding has been identified for phase 2.

maps 4

betts
10-17-2012, 12:35 PM
maps 4

Hopefully our civic leaders realize that they need to make their constituency happy about MAPS 3 before they can start thinking about MAPS 4. Very few voters even wanted a new convention center, and while an architectural wonder might make everyone proud, I don't think we're going to be able to afford an architectural wonder. It's the park, the streetcar and sidewalks that were the driving forces that passed MAPS 3, and they all need to satisfy voter expectations.

Spartan
10-17-2012, 02:35 PM
No, I think these otherwise sound business people actually believe a convention center will be a huge economic development catalyst. It's a joke. Forest, trees, etc.

But if a tree falls down in a forest that happens to be located inside a convention center...

Larry OKC
10-17-2012, 02:49 PM
betts: you are right but how many of the current Council will still be in place when/if a MAPS 4 comes up? Council members and Mayor's come and go. The only constant that seems to have run through all of the MAPS is Jim Couch and he is one that needs to go.

jn1780
10-17-2012, 03:08 PM
They wanted to be moved up because they didn't want to risk having the convention center be the only project on the "Let's Finish MAPS III Right" campaign. Let's not forget, this is just phase 1. The CC committee already said that 2 phases will be necessary to meet their growth projections. No funding has been identified for phase 2 but without it they said phase 1 would be a failure. That kind of puts someone on the hook to pay for it because not doing it is not an option.



Spot on Larry. Building a new convention center because it will increase attendance by a significant amount is the biggest lie being told today.


If your second quote becomes obvious after phase 1 is completed then there's never going to be a phase 2.

kevinpate
10-17-2012, 08:40 PM
If your second quote becomes obvious after phase 1 is completed then there's never going to be a phase 2.

Nah. It can be downright amazing just how short attention spans truly are in such matters. Find the right boogyman and folks will vote in favor of just about anything.

BoulderSooner
10-18-2012, 07:59 AM
betts: you are right but how many of the current Council will still be in place when/if a MAPS 4 comes up? Council members and Mayor's come and go. The only constant that seems to have run through all of the MAPS is Jim Couch and he is one that needs to go.

do you really think that lots of the council will be different in 5 years?? a maps 4 vote will come in 2017

Just the facts
10-18-2012, 08:12 AM
If your second quote becomes obvious after phase 1 is completed then there's never going to be a phase 2.

See, that is the 'mirrors', in the phrase 'smoke and mirrors'. We will have to build Phase 2 so we can save Phase 1. They didn't want the CC to be the only project on the "Finish MAPS III Right" campaign. They would rather have Phase 2 in MAPS IV.

GaryOKC6
10-18-2012, 10:19 AM
The great thing about this forum is that we are all entitled to our own opinion. I personally voted for all the MAPS projects and have never been disappointed. Depending on the content, I will probibly support MAPS4 if there is such a thing. This a great city that is willing to invest in itself. At the end of the day the fact is that the projects are now in motion and we can all work together to make them the best that they can be. If the past success is any indication of what is to come they I say bring them on. I feel that MAPS has been great for our city, great for our economy and will be great for our future.

jbrown84
10-18-2012, 07:23 PM
The anti-convention center contingent makes good points. I'd say I'm neutral at this juncture. It just seems like waving the white flag to not try to compete in something so prominent as conventions. And I disagree that there's nothing for people to do here.

Spartan
10-19-2012, 10:30 AM
The great thing about this forum is that we are all entitled to our own opinion. I personally voted for all the MAPS projects and have never been disappointed. Depending on the content, I will probibly support MAPS4 if there is such a thing. This a great city that is willing to invest in itself. At the end of the day the fact is that the projects are now in motion and we can all work together to make them the best that they can be. If the past success is any indication of what is to come they I say bring them on. I feel that MAPS has been great for our city, great for our economy and will be great for our future.

YES to:
Investing in ourselves
Improving the business climate
Facilities for business visitors
Downtown improvement
Quality of life amenities
Transit upgrades
Facilities for events
Upgrading OKC's profile

NO to:
Wasting tons of money
Throwing $ behind a waning idea
Decimating downtown
Separating two parks
Eating up the best development site
Bungling prime boulevard frontage
Insisting on a 90s wet dream in 2012

My point is just that we could use that $250 million for a better use, and while obviously I would first say transit would be an infinitely better investment, if it absolutely can't go to transit then I would still say there is probably at least a much, much more innovative idea for a business visitor facility that would benefit OKC. A convention center will do absolutely nothing for us.

When I was living in Calgary I always loved the fact that they had a tiny, but very nice, convention center that wasn't in the way of anything, despite its central location. And nobody can disagree that Calgary is a major, major North American business hub, esp for the oil industry.

I have frequently brought up the idea of a medical mart, or turning the idea into an OKC-unique concept like an energy mart or aerospace mart or even just a massive $250 million tech incubator, but NOBODY ever responds to that idea. I wonder what that is.. why the dialog is so insistent on a convention center (as conceptualized in the 90s) and no other facility type.

We will absolutely fail if we don't get innovative and think outside the box.

Pete
10-19-2012, 10:35 AM
The anti-convention center contingent makes good points. I'd say I'm neutral at this juncture. It just seems like waving the white flag to not try to compete in something so prominent as conventions. And I disagree that there's nothing for people to do here.

I agree.

Also, the convention center is already approved so the discussion about building one or not is moot... It's more about making sure they stay on budget, don't make huge city planning mistakes, etc.

Just the facts
10-19-2012, 10:53 AM
I support a new convention center, but not for the reasons provided by the CC Committee. I support a new convention center so the Cox site can be redeveloped. I also don't like the location because it does more harm than good to the urban fabric we are trying to build. Like an atom attracting other atoms to build molecules, the building blocks of the urban fabric need to have a hook that adjacent development can cling to. An absence of hooks means no development takes and weak bonds will break under pressure.

Spartan
10-19-2012, 10:55 AM
I agree.

Also, the convention center is already approved so the discussion about building one or not is moot... It's more about making sure they stay on budget, don't make huge city planning mistakes, etc.

I would also throw in to not make a huge economic development mistake, as well. Because that committee doesn't care about city planning mistakes. They embody that unfortunately.

ethansisson
10-19-2012, 03:00 PM
NO to:
Wasting tons of money
Throwing $ behind a waning idea
Decimating downtown
Separating two parks
Eating up the best development site
Bungling prime boulevard frontage
Insisting on a 90s wet dream in 2012

Yep. I don't want to be melodramatic, but these things make the current plans for the CC pretty tragic to me. I'm extremely frustrated particularly by the site choice.

GaryOKC6
10-20-2012, 08:18 AM
YES to:
Investing in ourselves
Improving the business climate
Facilities for business visitors
Downtown improvement
Quality of life amenities
Transit upgrades
Facilities for events
Upgrading OKC's profile

NO to:
Wasting tons of money
Throwing $ behind a waning idea
Decimating downtown
Separating two parks
Eating up the best development site
Bungling prime boulevard frontage
Insisting on a 90s wet dream in 2012

My point is just that we could use that $250 million for a better use, and while obviously I would first say transit would be an infinitely better investment, if it absolutely can't go to transit then I would still say there is probably at least a much, much more innovative idea for a business visitor facility that would benefit OKC. A convention center will do absolutely nothing for us.

When I was living in Calgary I always loved the fact that they had a tiny, but very nice, convention center that wasn't in the way of anything, despite its central location. And nobody can disagree that Calgary is a major, major North American business hub, esp for the oil industry.

I have frequently brought up the idea of a medical mart, or turning the idea into an OKC-unique concept like an energy mart or aerospace mart or even just a massive $250 million tech incubator, but NOBODY ever responds to that idea. I wonder what that is.. why the dialog is so insistent on a convention center (as conceptualized in the 90s) and no other facility type.

We will absolutely fail if we don't get innovative and think outside the box.

Like I said, the great thing about this forum is that we all can share our different opinions. I am not bothered by seperating the parks if it is done rignt. I actually like the idea. As fas a s wasting tons of money I don't know that is the case. We won't find out until the project is finished. You could be right, the fact is we dont know that. The reason for my optimism is that the other MAPS projects have all turned our very well in my book. I use and enjopy most of them and would do it all again if the choice where there. Thanks.