http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/conventionwiki1.jpg
Information & Latest News
October 13, 2015: Oklahoma City Council select the East Park 1 location for the Convention Center (http://www.okctalk.com/showwiki.php?title=Convention%20Center&page=36#post913522) - News Article (http://newsok.com/article/5453369) - Press Release (http://www.okc.gov/news/2015_10/Oklahoma_City_Council_selects_MAPS_3_Convention_Ce nter_site.html)
Links
Separate article on Convention Hotel (http://www.okctalk.com/showwiki.php?title=Convention+Hotel)
Convention Center Site Selection Study (http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/conventioncenter.pdf)
Gallery

yes we could get an Omni .. just depends on who pays for it.... but as for location .. if the current site remains then the CC hotel must be on the east end across from the okc arena

I agree, I think that would be a great location for hotel. I was wondering if it was possible for the city to work with Howard/Hall, to help franchise out an Omni, Sheraton, W at that location, then the city won't have to pay for it?

Is the budget really $50M as previously stated?


The new Omni Convention Hotel in Nashville is pegged at $250 million.

http://www.tennessean.com/article/20110619/OPINION03/306190046/Economic-growth-sends-sparks-throughout-Nashville

The $50 Million may just be the city's part.

The $50 Million may just be the city's part.

That is correct. Trying to find my notes on it but $50MM was the midrange number of possible public subsidy of the hotel that was in the $250MM ballpark. Will keep looking (think it was ULI related info, either from their presentation, final report or reporting on the same)

I believe the city of Dallas paid for the development of their 1000 room hotel (Operator is OMNI) by establishing a municipality owned corporation and issued bonds to acquire land and pay a developer. The city paid about $350 million to have the hotel as part of their master re-development of downtown, along with the cc itself. This isn't unusual for cc hotels these days.

We have to be careful about incentives as they aren't fair to the existing hotels and those to come.

Hopefully, there will be enough business for everyone.

Not saying it is fair, or even recomended, but it is the way most large downtown convention center hotels are getting built these days.

Most convention center hotels are subsidized because they are physically removed from other sources of revenue. However, the Ford Dealer site was specifically chosen (allegedly) because of its proximity to the existing hotel stock. With that in mind I don’t see why a hotel adjacent to the Oklahoma City Arena, Myriad Gardens, and some of the largest employers in the city - in addition to being attached to a new convention center - should receive any public funding.

To draw larger conventions you need a certain pool of rooms that can be blocked. I am sure the chamber of commerce has studied this and knows if we have enough rooms downtown to effectively compete. Also, none of the existing hotels have gathering and public areas of size or style to serve as a convention hotel. No one has the right mix of meeting rooms, etc. to complement a conference center. I don't care how many Hampton Inn's, Holiday Inn's etc. we have in Bricktown, they are not convention hotels.

What is to prevent a private developer from build such a hotel Rover? At best, OKC might land 3 or 4 additional major conventions than already visits OKC in any given year so the 'block of room' argument rings hollow. OKC will not be hosting a major national convention ever week of the year. All of the local, state, and regional conventions already make regular stops in OKC so they do not represent any new dollars into the local economy.

If this hotel was being built some distance away from other potential sources of revenue then the 'subsidy' argument would have a little more validity but this hotel would be built in one of the most desirable parts of Oklahoma City, if not the entire state. They will have revenue streams available from multiple sources including downtown companies, Bricktown, the Oklahoma City Arena, Myriad Gardens, AND the convention center. Most convention hotels only get business from conventions which is why they are subsidized to begin with.

You pay subsidies to encourage people to development where they would not normally develop. You don’t pay subsidies to build where they would naturally build all on their own.

What is to prevent a private developer from build such a hotel Rover? At best, OKC might land 3 or 4 additional major conventions than already visits OKC in any given year so the 'block of room' argument rings hollow. OKC will not be hosting a major national convention ever week of the year. All of the local, state, and regional conventions already make regular stops in OKC so they do not represent any new dollars into the local economy.

If this hotel was being built some distance away from other potential sources of revenue then the 'subsidy' argument would have a little more validity but this hotel would be built in one of the most desirable parts of Oklahoma City, if not the entire state. They will have revenue streams available from multiple sources including downtown companies, Bricktown, the Oklahoma City Arena, Myriad Gardens, AND the convention center. Most convention hotels only get business from conventions which is why they are subsidized to begin with.

You pay subsidies to encourage people to development where they would not normally develop. You don’t pay subsidies to build where they would naturally build all on their own.

If it is such a great and risk free opportunity the city won't have to pay anything. They aren't going to volunteer it, of course. However, to build a LARGE hotel suitable to do what is required will most likely increase the risk and decrease the developers who will be interested. I'm just telling you how most of the deals are being done today. While you and others here are proud of our city and think every business opportunity is a slam dunk, investors don't all agree. If we want a real convention hotel with real convention amenities, we likely will have to subsidize to some degree. That is reality.

its working in Nashville, why couldn't it work in OKC?

Im not arguing against or for, Im just saying and agreeing with others that we should just ASSUME that OKC needs to pay a subsidy for a 600+ room convention hotel to be built. After all, if Ford Site is the one then it is arguably the best most desirable location in the state. That is precisely why others are questioning the cc being built there in the first place, but if it is then the city should not need to subsidize it at all.

Can't have it both ways.

If you are correct then developers will compete for the opportunity and will quickly build it at the scale and with the amenities required. However, the city should begin to look at funding alternatives should that prove not to be true. My guess is that the private developers will want to build smaller and with less amenities than the city will want. If the convention center hotel is a dud, then it harms the CC. The city will want the best possible chance for the most possible business. That may or may not mean they share the risk. Dallas paid for the whole thing to get it right...you are saying Nashville didn't pay for anything. The truth is likely in-between. That is why $50 million of a $200 million is probably about the right target of expectation.

Whatever is decided, I bet it's watered down of what should be

Whatever is decided, I bet it's watered down of what should be

Yes, probably true because everything done with the previous MAPS programs and MAPS 3, public and private, have been huge watered down disappointments and have in no way benefitted downtown as much as they should have...

That kind of negativity is unfounded, unsupported, and adds nohing to the conversation. Just because things haven't been done exactly as you would like doesn't mean they were watered down...get over yourself.

PhiAlpha: I know you were being sarcastic but you largely spoke factually with the 1st part of your post. History indicates you were spot on.

The Canal is a perfect example (there has to be a "watered down" pun in there somewhere). As pitched to voters, it was to be a continuous waterway from the Convention Center, thru Bricktown connecting to the River.

Pre-vote cost estimate = $9MM.
Final cost to get only the Bricktown segment, $23MM

Estimated cost to get the connecting C.C. segment = $25MM (still conceptual, no commitment or funding source to date)
Estimated cost of River "extension" (funded through 2007 G.O. bond) = $3MM(?), actual cost undetermined as construction is still a few years away.

The Arena was another prime example, although told repeatedly by City leaders that it was designed/built as a state-of-the-art NBA/NHL facility, even Betts stated that it was an embarrassment. So much so, that more in upgrades/improvements than the original cost were required just 5 years later.

I'm not sure I said the arena was an embarrassment, although I remember saying the video screens and scoreboard were an embarrassment. But, it was certainly bare bones. It may actually be lucky that it was bare bones, though, because if we'd spent another $100,000 on it when it was built, we might have spent it in the wrong places to be adequate for an NBA team. Remember. when we built it, we were totally wet behind the ears as regards professional teams. I think the city has learned a lot about what it takes to be the host of a professional team since then, but all the statements that we were building an NBA or NHL ready arena was pie-in-the-sky. At that time, we'd had very little indication that any professional team would seriously consider us as an option for relocation or expansion and I'm not sure we knew that much about how to build an NBA ready arena. I personally thought it was our "Field of Dreams" even if it wasn't very dreamlike.

Gosh, it seems that as badly as we screwed up the arena we sure did "luck out" and end up with an NBA team. So, the Maps was mishandled, the city messed it up, we got a crappy arena, the power brokers ran over the citizens.....and yet....we got the NBA team. I hope we keep screwing it up.

We didn't get a crappy arena, if you were paraphrasing me. We got an incomplete arena that probably met minimum NBA standards. Anyone who disagrees with that statement wasn't in the Ford Center when it was first constructed. We did have a crappy scoreboard, which was quickly replaced. But at the time, we only had what many of us thought was an unrealistic hope of getting an NBA team, with a slightly better chance of landing an NHL team. So, considering the fact that we didn't have a bird in the hand, I think what was done was very reasonable and very similar to what we're talking about doing with the park: Build an arena that meets minimum NBA standards for seating, etc, but leave the finishing details for later, when we would know what precisely was needed.....IF we got a team. It's a very realistic way of constructing when money arrives in increments, IMO. As I said, it will work for the park too: Acquire the land, demolish buildings and minimally landscape to create the bones of a park early on. Then, later, as more money comes in, additional features can be added if desired.

Sorry, I was trying to be sarcastic.

I think we got a bargain for the Ford Center. Even though it was basic, it included all the essentials and it was pretty inexpensive for what we got. And we seemed to have been able to navigate the improvements in stages in a way the citizens can handle. I don't think it an accident it has worked out as well as it has, though it did take some luck, and unfortunately at the expense of New Orleans.

I think we should identify the essential elements of the park and make sure we do those things well. Add in one or two impressive elements so we can get the citizens excited by what will happen in the future. Give us enough to keep the vision alive, but we don't have to have the full dream at once. Pay as you go has some advantage.

Betts, you did mention many times how crappy the arena was and you were embarrassed to take visitors to it. You went into some detail talking about how embarrassing it was to have stained concrete floors, folding tables set up to sell merchandise, unfinished, bare sheet rock in the restaurant....

I don't really expect you to remember saying it since you also said in one of our first exchanges a few years ago now that you didn't remember being told that the Ford was designed/built to at least NBA/NHL standards. That you didn't remember being told that it was a state-of-the-art arena etc. I then gave you something like 16 different quotes/articles/links where those statements were made (ranging from a former mayor to even the NBA). You conveniently dismissed it all as being unimportant. The NHL & NBA were consulted during the Arena design so that even though we didn't know "that much about how to build an NBA ready arena", it would meet their needs (not just seating capacity). It even met the specifications when we hosted the Hornets (did require relatively minor $2MM in improvements). Yes, it was built "builders white" (not bare bones). As repeatedly pointed out that due to MAPS cost over runs a list of 22 items were omitted from the final design. In doing so, it was the City's intent for the eventual tenant to pay for any "finishing out costs" that a specific team might want/need). And I agree, that was a smart move since we didn't have a tenant. To bad we didn't stick to that plan.

Were you living here already when we voted on the original MAPS? Did you read the ballot? It was relatively detailed (compared to the MAPS 3 ballot). To refresh everyone's memory, here is what was on the 1993 ballot:

(B)(7) An indoor sports/convention facility meeting not less than National Hockey League (NHL) or National Basketball Association (NBA) standards.

Yes the NHL was the emphasis at the time because we thought it was our best bet (we were a finalist for an NHL expansion team, which Bennet was also going to own). But according to numerous articles written at the time, the NBA was never left out of the loop and they were consulted during the design of the Arena. The "crappy" scoreboard was specifically purchased meeting NHL standards (not sure if it specifically met NBA standards or not, the NBA wasn't mentioned in that article).

Many will be quick to point out that we met the needs for a temporary team with the Hornets, yet forget Commish Stern stated that we didn't necessarily need any improvements to get a permanent team.

I contributed to the derail (but it was relevant to the discussion as it served as an exmple), but getting back to the topic of the thread....

Here is what City Councilman Shadid said about the Hotel in this weeks Gazette:

Ward 2 Councilman Ed Shadid also expressed concern about moving up the convention center, and that opportunities for economic development that could be spurred by other projects, such as the modern streetcar, were not taken into consideration.

Shadid also said the convention center, which prior to the 2009 MAPS 3 vote polled the lowest in project popularity, would have probably polled even lower if people had known there would be pressure to make an additional investment for an accompanying hotel.

“The popularity of convention center was only 27 percent because we kept from the people that we’re going to have to come up with an additional $50 million for a hotel,” Shadid said. “That wasn’t discussed before the MAPS 3 vote.”

Larry, no matter how many people you quote or how many times you say it was supposed to be state of the art, the fact remains that anyone who has visited a couple of other NBA arenas and who has been inside the Ford Center knows that while it was big enough and had the reqisite number of seats and suites, the finish details were not there. Anyone who thinks that an $89,000 arena can be state of the art when compared with $250,000 to $450,000 arenas has magical thinking, be it you or the mayor.

Have we not all come to the agreement that the Ford Center was left intentionally unfinished? Did we not, in 2009 as a city, vote to have the unfinished Ford Center brought to a more "league-comparable" finish? And in the end, it will still be cheaper than some 400 million dollar arena.

Political riff-raff and opinions aside; old news. Let's get back to 2011.

The west side of the CC would make much more sence... Everthing must go West!!! I want to know what developer is buying the property at 500 block of SW 3rd I had a commercial realtor drop a hint of a buyer buy would not tell me . Any info.. he said it was going to be big..

Heh heh...

Have we not all come to the agreement that the Ford Center was left intentionally unfinished? Did we not, in 2009 as a city, vote to have the unfinished Ford Center brought to a more "league-comparable" finish? And in the end, it will still be cheaper than some 400 million dollar arena.

Political riff-raff and opinions aside; old news. Let's get back to 2011.
Architect, you're dead-on. Anyone who says otherwise is unintentionally, or intentionally, engaging in revisionist history. The arena was opened with relatively minimum amenities but designed to be upgraded for a major league tenant. That's fact. I was there. I was there when the instructions were given by the city council to Benham Group, which designed the arena. I was there for the surprisingly low construction bid by Flintco. I was there when it opened. So yes, back to 2011.

Larry, no matter how many people you quote or how many times you say it was supposed to be state of the art, the fact remains that anyone who has visited a couple of other NBA arenas and who has been inside the Ford Center knows that while it was big enough and had the reqisite number of seats and suites, the finish details were not there. Anyone who thinks that an $89,000 arena can be state of the art when compared with $250,000 to $450,000 arenas has magical thinking, be it you or the mayor.

What about the Ballot, NBA & Stern?

After the improvements, we have a $200MM arena. Below the low end of your price range. So how does it compare now? Must be more magic!

ON EDIT: You are wrong on so many of your contentions that you continue to assert even with presented with the evidence. Deny it all you want. Facts are the facts and can be looked up by anyone interested in doing so. But so we don't further derail this thread, lets take it elsewhere and we can go over it again, point by point.

Architect, you're dead-on. Anyone who says otherwise is unintentionally, or intentionally, engaging in revisionist history. The arena was opened with relatively minimum amenities but designed to be upgraded for a major league tenant. That's fact. I was there. I was there when the instructions were given by the city council to Benham Group, which designed the arena. I was there for the surprisingly low construction bid by Flintco. I was there when it opened. So yes, back to 2011.

Absolutely, that is true, but it if not mistaken, it was also reported in both the Oklahoman and the Journal Record, it was the City's intent for the eventual tenant to pay for those upgrades (if they decided they wanted them). For some reason, some (not you Steve), like to forget that part.

Steve is right when he mentions the bid (it came in $10MM under what the then budget was). But it was a mistake. Even though they claimed they would stand by the bid, they went some $20MM over the bid amount. I don't know what happened there. Would have been even higher but due to the cost over runs, an unspecified list of 22 items were deleted to keep the some control over the cost over run (still came in $8.8MM over what voters were told).

I don't know why some of you are surprised by how the MAPS projects are progressing. We've seen enough over the past 18 years to know how the city is going to handle MAPS 3. I'm not going to argue with Larry OKC about bids or cost overruns or what someone promised in a Journal Record article from 15 years ago. I don't care about any of that. Those are small details as far as I'm concerned.

Truth is, the MAPS projects are underfunded. $777 million is not enough to build a convention center, a hotel, install a downtown mass transit system, open a world-class park, and do everything else in the plan. It's just not enough. You can't do that anywhere. So what we're going to get is a bare-bones version. We're going to get a convention center that's not as big as we want, that's just kind of plain. We're going to get a hotel that's not as tall as we want, and it's going to require additional funding. We're going to get a park that's pretty good, but not Millennium Park or NYC's Central Park. And we're going to get a streetcar system that while kinda cool, will need a serious infusion of cash to become more than a nice little curiosity.

And you know what? That's okay, because it's what we paid for. Other cities spend vast amounts of money on these projects, and they suffer from cost overruns as well. Look at Boston's Big Dig. $22 billion (original cost projection: $2.8 billion). Kansas City Power and Light District. $850 million. JerryWorld. $1.15 billion. We're trying to get everything for a very low price. You're not gonna get the new big sparkly when you're trying to get everything for a low price.

Fact is, we're building stuff now that other cities built back in the 60s and 70s. We're playing catch up. So don't expect a world-class anything. We're just trying to pull even with other cities our size. The MAPS projects shoot for "good enough". MAPS 3 would have needed twice as much money to do everything we dream about. Probably more. But the important thing is to get something functional established. Once we have a working streetcar system, even if it's small, we can expand it. Once we have the new park, we can spruce it up. We can always extend the canal. We improved the Ford Center. That's just how the MAPS projects work. We're not going to get perfect. We aren't spending enough money for that. But what we're getting is desperately needed, because right now we've got very little.

I don't know why some of you are surprised by how the MAPS projects are progressing. We've seen enough over the past 18 years to know how the city is going to handle MAPS 3. I'm not going to argue with Larry OKC about bids or cost overruns or what someone promised in a Journal Record article from 15 years ago. I don't care about any of that. Those are small details as far as I'm concerned.

Truth is, the MAPS projects are underfunded. $777 million is not enough to build a convention center, a hotel, install a downtown mass transit system, open a world-class park, and do everything else in the plan. It's just not enough. You can't do that anywhere. So what we're going to get is a bare-bones version. We're going to get a convention center that's not as big as we want, that's just kind of plain. We're going to get a hotel that's not as tall as we want, and it's going to require additional funding. We're going to get a park that's pretty good, but not Millennium Park or NYC's Central Park. And we're going to get a streetcar system that while kinda cool, will need a serious infusion of cash to become more than a nice little curiosity.

And you know what? That's okay, because it's what we paid for. Other cities spend vast amounts of money on these projects, and they suffer from cost overruns as well. Look at Boston's Big Dig. $22 billion (original cost projection: $2.8 billion). Kansas City Power and Light District. $850 million. JerryWorld. $1.15 billion. We're trying to get everything for a very low price. You're not gonna get the new big sparkly when you're trying to get everything for a low price.

Fact is, we're building stuff now that other cities built back in the 60s and 70s. We're playing catch up. So don't expect a world-class anything. We're just trying to pull even with other cities our size. The MAPS projects shoot for "good enough". MAPS 3 would have needed twice as much money to do everything we dream about. Probably more. But the important thing is to get something functional established. Once we have a working streetcar system, even if it's small, we can expand it. Once we have the new park, we can spruce it up. We can always extend the canal. We improved the Ford Center. That's just how the MAPS projects work. We're not going to get perfect. We aren't spending enough money for that. But what we're getting is desperately needed, because right now we've got very little.

Hold up. MAPS is not developing a hotel. A private developer is going to be selected for that project. The city just wants the hotel attached to the convention center. Steve, am I correct?

okcpulse, a hotel was not amongst the examples pitched pre-vote, and there is no proposal I am aware of to use M3 funds to facilitate a hotel for the cc ... not yet anyway. May well never be.

But, could they choose to do so? I think they could. if they did, I would hope it is only because they collect well above the original estimates.

In my opinion at least one of the projects will be world class and that is the river project. In fact, it is almost world class right now and once completed it will be the most outstanding venue for paddle sports on the planet. The quicker it is finished the better and I say this knowing I will never use any of it.

What's happened, and continues to happen at the river is amazing (the big taxi boats excluded. Those seem to be just a money sink.)

But the rest, very awesome. However, is any of the existing improvement from any of the various MAPs? The water rapids will be, but I thought the rest was from bond issues and from a significant amount of private funding?

Absolutely, that is true, but it if not mistaken, it was also reported in both the Oklahoman and the Journal Record, it was the City's intent for the eventual tenant to pay for those upgrades (if they decided they wanted them). For some reason, some (not you Steve), like to forget that part.

Steve is right when he mentions the bid (it came in $10MM under what the then budget was). But it was a mistake. Even though they claimed they would stand by the bid, they went some $20MM over the bid amount. I don't know what happened there. Would have been even higher but due to the cost over runs, an unspecified list of 22 items were deleted to keep the some control over the cost over run (still came in $8.8MM over what voters were told).

Well, I was the guy at The Oklahoman who did those reports in The Oklahoman. It's true that some hoped a tenant might pay for such improvements and said so for political expediency. But the truth is city leaders at the time ('98-'99) were always fully expecting that if a major league team there would be a tax money needed for the upgrade.
Now, to settle a debate that will likely happen in 2020-2025 ... yes, city leaders know at this point that there will be a push for a new arena when the current one hits 20 years old.

It is my understanding that in addition to the rapids, the grandstand, lighting, waterstage, jumbotron on the bridge, wind shield and the elevator down from the bridge is to be funded by maps. Perhaps LarryOKC can dig into his bag of facts and tell us for sure.

Hold up. MAPS is not developing a hotel. A private developer is going to be selected for that project. The city just wants the hotel attached to the convention center. Steve, am I correct?

I will be very, very surprised if there isn't an effort to use $50 million to $60 million in public funding to help build the hotel. It's fully expected, and multiple experts have advised the convention center won't be a success without the hotel, and the hotel won't be feasible without $50 million to $60 million in public subsidies. Will that amount come from the MAPS 3 sales tax? The use tax? Will it involve bond issues? I don't know. Council members Ed Shadid and Pete White have argued the city has been less than forthright with residents about this issue.

Well, I was the guy at The Oklahoman who did those reports in The Oklahoman. It's true that some hoped a tenant might pay for such improvements and said so for political expediency. But the truth is city leaders at the time ('98-'99) were always fully expecting that if a major league team there would be a tax money needed for the upgrade.
Now, to settle a debate that will likely happen in 2020-2025 ... yes, city leaders know at this point that there will be a push for a new arena when the current one hits 20 years old.

Steve, is there a plan in place for where a future arena will be built? It's great that it's downtown now, but if properties get bought up and developed that could push the arena further from the core. Is there a plan in place? Thanks.

Well, there's that BT space that wasn"t selected for the cc for one.

And that space with the OG&E thingy. Maybe they'll be able to move it with MAPS 4?

Steve, is there a plan in place for where a future arena will be built? It's great that it's downtown now, but if properties get bought up and developed that could push the arena further from the core. Is there a plan in place? Thanks.

Not publicly. There isn't even a public discussion of this possibility that I know of - at least not involving the decision makers.

It is my understanding that in addition to the rapids, the grandstand, lighting, waterstage, jumbotron on the bridge, wind shield and the elevator down from the bridge is to be funded by maps. Perhaps LarryOKC can dig into his bag of facts and tell us for sure.

LOL. Working strictly from memory, that all sounds correct.

Well, I was the guy at The Oklahoman who did those reports in The Oklahoman. It's true that some hoped a tenant might pay for such improvements and said so for political expediency. But the truth is city leaders at the time ('98-'99) were always fully expecting that if a major league team there would be a tax money needed for the upgrade.
Now, to settle a debate that will likely happen in 2020-2025 ... yes, city leaders know at this point that there will be a push for a new arena when the current one hits 20 years old.

So then, leadership at the time wasn't being exactly truthful?

Just curious, but why do you think it will be at the 20 year mark, when Mayor Cornett talked about replacing the Arena after about 5 years? Even if the improved Arena is "like a brand new building" (or whatever phrase the Mayor used), seems that is only going to buy us about another 5 years or so. About the same time as the teams first opt out clause. Stern stated that cities shouldn't expect arenas to last more than about 10 years or so. Based on all of that, I think there will be talk of a replacement arena sooner rather than later. Maybe as long as a year or so out from when MAPS 3 tax ends and MAPS 4 is in the works. Then there is the sticky problem with the lease itself, where the City is obligated to keep making upgrades or replacing the arena for the term of the lease (15 to 30 years). Yet with no significant funding source mechanism to do so.

I will be very, very surprised if there isn't an effort to use $50 million to $60 million in public funding to help build the hotel. It's fully expected, and multiple experts have advised the convention center won't be a success without the hotel, and the hotel won't be feasible without $50 million to $60 million in public subsidies. Will that amount come from the MAPS 3 sales tax? The use tax? Will it involve bond issues? I don't know. Council members Ed Shadid and Pete White have argued the city has been less than forthright with residents about this issue.

Of course Mr. Shadid wasn't complicit since he wasn't on the Council yet, but where was Mr. White during the campaign? If he was one of the ones running around pushing MAPS 3, did he happen to mention this? Sounds like the Use Tax promises, where after the fact the Council loudly protest that they didn't make any such commitment (yet were largely silent on the subject when it was happening). I think the C.C. was mentioned in passing but like maintenance of projects and the like, was given scant attention. Shrugged off & dismissed. That would be something they would deal with later.

Larry, I can't imagine the Oklahoma City Arena being replaced within five years after completion of the renovations. That would be a HUGE waste of money. I don't see why it couldn't last at least twenty years, preferably longer. I don't understand why so many people push for things to constantly be torn down and replaced. As long as the building is upgraded and remodeled every five to ten years at least, I see no reason to tear it down.

So then, leadership at the time wasn't being exactly truthful?

Just curious, but why do you think it will be at the 20 year mark, when Mayor Cornett talked about replacing the Arena after about 5 years? Even if the improved Arena is "like a brand new building" (or whatever phrase the Mayor used), seems that is only going to buy us about another 5 years or so. About the same time as the teams first opt out clause. Stern stated that cities shouldn't expect arenas to last more than about 10 years or so. Based on all of that, I think there will be talk of a replacement arena sooner rather than later. Maybe as long as a year or so out from when MAPS 3 tax ends and MAPS 4 is in the works. Then there is the sticky problem with the lease itself, where the City is obligated to keep making upgrades or replacing the arena for the term of the lease (15 to 30 years). Yet with no significant funding source mechanism to do so.

I wouldn't be completely shocked if MAPS 4 had funding either for a new arena or an arena upgrade. But, I also don't expect MAPS 4 to be voted on until we're done with all the MAPS 3 projects. That will be ten years from now. Then, it could easily be the very last project, which would give it a completion date of about 2030. That would be 28 years after it originally opened. As far as upgrades go, let's wait and see if any are requested. What's the saying?: 90% of the things we worry about never happen. Let's give the worrying a rest and deal with it if it ever happens.

Please show me where someone said an arena should only last 10 years or where the Mayor said it would last only 5 years after renovations. There is no way Stern or Cornett said those things. Might want to check you facts, LarryOKC. Arenas should last about 25 years or so. MAPs 4 might be a good time to build a world class arena with the goal of it being completed by around 2030.

I think at least 15-20 years, with periodic updates.

also, I would think we'd start talking about MAPS IV not when all of the current projects are finished, but instead when the tax is about to expire. The idea is basically to keep the tax going, because once you stop it - it may be hard to turn it back on.

Hold up. MAPS is not developing a hotel. A private developer is going to be selected for that project. The city just wants the hotel attached to the convention center. Steve, am I correct?

I know that. But a hotel is supposed to be built alongside the convention center. The city will have to chip in. And there's zero funding for that.

I know that. But a hotel is supposed to be built alongside the convention center. The city will have to chip in. And there's zero funding for that.

Securing a major convention center hotel for Oklahoma City, is really not that hard. Major hotel management groups love it when cities build new convention centers, because that is securing legitimate business for the convention center hotel, and the hotel will have constant bookings, not to mention, if the hotel is located right next to the Oklahoma City Arena, the hotel management group will cleanup during the NBA season.

The key for the city to securing a major convention center hotel, is not focusing on securing a convention center hotel. The key is for the city to focus on building a prime, state of the art convention center, if the city does that, then the city will have major hotel groups knocking at their door to build a hotel next to the CC, with no or very little money from the city. The city would just have to give them the land to develop hotel, and offer them incentives.

... The city will have to chip in. And there's zero funding for that.

Not really. There are ways to make a hotel happen and still stay out of the primary M3 collections. The city intends to, or perhaps the process is already underway, reimburse the use tax for what was spent on PS in the FY now ending. Best as I recall, the M3 use tax is not specifically dedicated to anything, at this time. If I do recall correctly, the use tax would generate enough to cover a 50-60 million incentive for a hotel, with money left over. Or, perhaps the city could borrow the funds, if needed sooner than can be raised via the use tax, and repay the lender from the use tax. Not suggesting that's the game plan, but it is a possibility.

I keep asking myself how you can start a convention center without the hotel being ready to start at the same time. In an ideal situation doesn't the two interface and connect? With the committee wanting to move the start date up on the CC, I cannot help but think something must be in the works with a hotel group. The committee does not consist of stupid people. They are not niave as some in this forum appear to be if they think a group will come in and build a hotel without city participation. With the city having limited appeal to the average convention attendee I would not be surprised if the required participation is not more than the norm.

You aren't going to go 'conspiracy theory' on us are you Popsy. If the Convention Center group has inside info on a convention hotel group and they are using that info to push it to the front on the line then they need to share that info with everyone. I would laugh my back side off if someone on the CC group was a potential investor in a new convention hotel or proposed an existing hotel become the convention hotel.

No conspiracy, just what I like to think is common sense. One does not start a convention center without the commitment of a hotel being in place. I disagree that the public has to be told until the documents are ready to be signed.

To think that the city has not been in talks with major hotel groups is absurd. And I wouldn't be surprised if they are talking with someone who has already established a hotel in Oklahoma City.

As for construction, if the cc subcommittee get their way, construction for the new CC will probably start mid 2013, and I would suspect the CC hotel would take 2 years to complete, so I would but the cc hotel starting mid 2014.

No conspiracy, just what I like to think is common sense. One does not start a convention center without the commitment of a hotel being in place. I disagree that the public has to be told until the documents are ready to be signed.

I doubt they will have to wait til the hotel is arranged for. It doesn't always happen that way but would be nice if it could be. The hotel developer and operator will most likely want to see the level of the CC and the city's commitment.

The public may not know about all the behind the scenes negotiations. I doubt the city wants all the potential operators to have open knowledge of how negotiations with other companies are going. It is a practical thing. Whatever is "leaked" will be done so in a strategic way, most likely. If there are multiples wanting to negotiate on the rights for the hotel the city would be wise to make a limited amount of info available while creating the pressure on individual developers to get a deal done. If there is just one, or just a few, we may not hear anything until ratification is required.

Austin doesn't stop, they have plans for new 1,035 room CC hotel, next to their convention center...this is called competition...ouch...

http://www.hospitalitybusinessnews.com/article/10810/manchester-texas-financial-group-llc-announces-plans-build-1035-room-convention-center

Key qoute from article:

"We have looked carefully at many hotel sites in the Austin market and concluded this site is by far the very best with its immediate location adjacent to the Convention Center." Manchester stated, "With our many years of developing world-class hotels, we concluded our patrons would find it unpleasant during the summer heat and winter cold to walk several blocks to access important exhibits and meetings at the Convention Center.”

Austin doesn't stop, they have plans for new 1,035 room CC hotel, next to their convention center...this is called competition...ouch... [/I]

This is what we are saying... We are either in the game or left behind. And I don't think OKC is ready to cede its position as an emerging important American city.

Here is a list of all the convention at the Austin Convention Center for the month of July. If OKC puts together a class A facility with a kick-butt hotel, how many of these conventions do you think we can lure to OKC? Answer - none (well maybe the Soroity meeting).

City of Austin - Planning & Development Review Department
Imagine Austin Comprehensive Plan Prioritization Meeting

Texas PTA
Texas PTA Summer Convention


Four On The Floor, LLC
TXRD Lonestar Rollergirls - July

Police Activities League of Austin
PAL Summer Boxing Clinic


University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston
2011 Texas Early Childhood Leadership Summit

Austin Texas Rollergirls, Inc.
Texas Rollergirls Bout 6

Vintage Market and Event Company
City-Wide Garage Sale

City of Austin - Planning & Development Review Department
Imagine Austin Comprehensive Plan Prioritization Meeting

Department of State Health Services
Texas Behavioral Health Institute

Association of Texas Professional Educators
ATPE Summit

Delta Sigma Theta Sorority
SW Regional Conference

City of Austin - Planning & Development Review Department
Imagine Austin Comprehensive Plan Prioritization Meeting -

Four On The Floor, LLC
TXRD Lonestar Rollergirls

Body Mind Spirit Expos
Body Mind Spirit Expo

Texas Board of Law Examiners
2011 Texas Bar Examination

Texas Affiliation of Affordable Housing Providers
2011 Texas Housing Conference Luncheon

National Instruments
NIWeek 2011

Just for giggles - do you want me to post the August conventions as well, because it is more of the same.