That's quite an accusation, Kerry, Prove it. Prove it's more than just made up to advance your agenda. There is a second phase planned going forward but when did looking beyond the current plan become nefarious? It sure worked out well with the arena...

"Here is the little secret the Chamber didn't make public. Their own study says that a facility the size of what we are building is going to be a total failure."

I think you just made that up, Kerry. Prove you didn't...

Good point. There are some people who just don't like the Chamber and no matter what happens they are against it of chose to blame the Chamber. The truth is that the Chamber has a positive impact on our business and community. We have come a long way since the first MAPS and the Chamber is to get a lot of credit for that!

I will let you in on a little secret too. That only 100% failure position would be to NOT build it. It is very easy to speculate what May or May Not happen prior to building it. All things have an associated cost to build and operate and this is subject to that same principle.

As a city that has some economic momentum now...and a city that looks to continue this expansion, a city that doesn't have a major draw for the conventioneers ( Beach / Mountain / Vegas style gambling / Disney Land or Disney World ) then we need to be able to capture the largest % of available business we can. We can't tell them "no, we only have a small - medium hotel and can't handle the larger events". If you tell them no we don't have room, we won't get that group back. That is the true cost of what we are trying to accomplish.

OKC can't afford to miss or get passed by any of the larger events. Don't let budgeting conversations get confused w/ customer demand.

I will let you in on a little secret too. That only 100% failure position would be to NOT build it. It is very easy to speculate what May or May Not happen prior to building it. All things have an associated cost to build and operate and this is subject to that same principle.

As a city that has some economic momentum now...and a city that looks to continue this expansion, a city that doesn't have a major draw for the conventioneers ( Beach / Mountain / Vegas style gambling / Disney Land or Disney World ) then we need to be able to capture the largest % of available business we can. We can't tell them "no, we only have a small - medium hotel and can't handle the larger events". If you tell them no we don't have room, we won't get that group back. That is the true cost of what we are trying to accomplish.

OKC can't afford to miss or get passed by any of the larger events. Don't let budgeting conversations get confused w/ customer demand.

Well said. OKC has a lot of momentum that has come from taking this kind of chance. We certainly don't want to stop now. There was absolutely no bigger speculation than when the people here voted to build an arena with out a pro sports team and all the same arguments against it were presented then. Our city is lucky to have people with a vision.

That's quite an accusation, Kerry, Prove it. Prove it's more than just made up to advance your agenda. There is a second phase planned going forward but when did looking beyond the current plan become nefarious? It sure worked out well with the arena...

"Here is the little secret the Chamber didn't make public. Their own study says that a facility the size of what we are building is going to be a total failure."

I think you just made that up, Kerry. Prove you didn't...


So, you have no source yet you still cry wolf? If you can provide proof(which you can't) then why should we take your word for it?
The negativity from you is astounding........

I know you guys are new to this but all of this was reported by The Oklahoman years ago. It's not a secret and if telling the truth is 'being negative' then I don't know what to say about that.

Here is the executive summary released by the Chamber in 2009. They won't release the full study.

http://www.okcchamber.com/clientuploads/PDFs/execsummary_convention_center_study.pdf

By Lackmeyer nonetheless:

Plans move ahead for convention center, hotel despite collapse in national market | News OK (http://newsok.com/plans-move-ahead-for-convention-center-hotel-despite-collapse-in-national-market/article/3727526)

But we're going all in, so it doesn't much matter at this point.

The Chamber, the convention center project and especially the hotel often remind me of this quote my father had framed and hanging in his office:

Nothing is easier than spending the public money. It does not appear to belong to anybody. The temptation is overwhelming to bestow it on somebody.
-Calvin Coolidge

This is a nice piece of groundwork for what other cites are doing. I will say that this report was generated in 09', just a few months removed from the 08' Financial Crash. This report was most likely a very conservative estimate of our potential and they stated a room count of 650 as a minimum.

I would say that if they did the report in todays' climate, a minimum room rate would be 750. The one thing I read in that Market Demand Analysis was the statement of " Amenities needed to attract the desired level of conventioneers". You don't attract anyone with a 3 star hotel, you attract them with a 4 star hotel and plenty of rooms. Thus, 1,000 rooms of a 4 star ( Omni Hotel ) with lots of eye-candy will help persuade the conventioneers desire from Likely to -----> You Bet !!!!!.

Let's aim higher.

By Lackmeyer nonetheless:

Plans move ahead for convention center, hotel despite collapse in national market | News OK (http://newsok.com/plans-move-ahead-for-convention-center-hotel-despite-collapse-in-national-market/article/3727526)

But we're going all in, so it doesn't much matter at this point.

The Chamber, the convention center project and especially the hotel often remind me of this quote my father had framed and hanging in his office:

Nothing is easier than spending the public money. It does not appear to belong to anybody. The temptation is overwhelming to bestow it on somebody.
-Calvin Coolidge

From Steve's article:

At issue not just with Shadid, but also officials in other cities including Boston and Philadelphia, is the veracity of reports compiled by Convention Sports & Leisure, which provided a similar report and projections to Tulsa civic leaders.

In Washington, D.C., a center that opened in 2003 was producing much less hotel business than Convention Sports & Leisure had predicted.

Sanders noted that after an expansion at one of the nation's largest convention centers, McCormack Place in Chicago, it is seeing attendance that is hundreds of thousands less than it was a decade ago before the expansion.

The problem with Steve's article and more importantly, Heywood Sander's assertions, in my opinion, is there are comparisons to Chicago (2.6 million sf), Philly (1 million sf) , DC (2.3 million sf) who all have at least twice what we will have with phase one. And they are Tier 1 cities. We are on a Tier 3 level, trying to get to Tier 2 and we can't host conventions we want to now, let alone in the future.

By Lackmeyer nonetheless:

Plans move ahead for convention center, hotel despite collapse in national market | News OK (http://newsok.com/plans-move-ahead-for-convention-center-hotel-despite-collapse-in-national-market/article/3727526)

But we're going all in, so it doesn't much matter at this point.

The Chamber, the convention center project and especially the hotel often remind me of this quote my father had framed and hanging in his office:

Nothing is easier than spending the public money. It does not appear to belong to anybody. The temptation is overwhelming to bestow it on somebody.
-Calvin Coolidge

From the story you linked to:


it will require the city to pay and build a conference hotel and acquire another $200 million for a second-phase expansion that consultants say is necessary for the city to achieve its goal of competing with bigger regional cities for business.

So there you have it. Phase I at $250 million, a Phase II estimated at $200 million and some untold amount of public support for a hotel. If the Chamber came out with that all at once in 2009 no one would have gone for it.

From Steve's article:

[I]At issue not just with Shadid, but also officials in other cities including Boston and Philadelphia, is the veracity of reports compiled by Convention Sports & Leisure, which provided a similar report and projections to Tulsa civic leaders.

You missed the point of that sentence. I've changed the highlight. Their history is they are in the business of churning out the same booyah-build-it-and-they-will-come reports to anyone willing to hire them, nationwide, any city of any size.

I would rather have the indian meusem.

This actually came up when we realize that we needed a six-month extension of the MAP 1 collections to finish the projects.



Oklahoma City - Metropolitan Area Projects (MAPS) (http://www.redevelopmentreuse.com/projects/Oklahoma-City/35)

Consideration was given to scratch the Indoor Sports Arena (The Peake). The logic was that we weren't filling the 13,909-seat Myriad to warrant building a 19,599-seat arena. If we hadn't built the Peake, Louisville would have had that trial run with the New Orleans Hornets because they would have used 18,900 seat Freedom Hall. The Sonics' relocation would have never become a reality for OKC.

This is exactly correct. We have to have vision and plan for big things to come here. We can't focus on the things JTF states, which is pretty depressing most of the time and a half glass empty guy. I was thinking the other day that OKC needs to make a major push to the the NFR back when they get the hotel built and convention center. They can use the Peake now and it would be great. Oklahoma has a rich rodeo history and it needs to be here again.

Phase I at $250 million, a Phase II estimated at $200 million and some untold amount of public support for a hotel. If the Chamber came out with that all at once in 2009 no one would have gone for it.

Well, it was the most opposed project of the MAPS3 bundle. I'm not so much opposed to it as I am disappointed that it has been given such a priority over more popular projects.

You missed the point of that sentence. I've changed the highlight. Their history is they are in the business of churning out the same booyah-build-it-and-they-will-come reports to anyone willing to hire them, nationwide, any city of any size.

And Heywood's history is no one should ever build on to a convention center ever because it won't contribute to any economy, ever. There has to be a middle ground somewhere. All you have to do is walk into the Cox and see it is not good enough. The Renaissance is not large enough to host larger groups of rooms. I don't know what the magic number for hotel rooms is, but with OKC's ressurgence, I am sure it is larger than 311 (Renaissance room count).

That is why this whole thing should have never been sold (or bought) on economic grounds. It should have been purely a quality of life issue. If OKC built a 1,000 room hotel and attracted one major convention every month capable of filling it for 3 days (which is more than what anyone is expecting) that is 36 days. What do we do about the other 329 days - deficit fund the hotel?

Did anyone else know that the City is already paying $10 million to subsidize the Cox Center. That should put to the rest the idea the Cox will stay open after the new center is open.

Taxpayer support, hotel a must for Oklahoma City convention center, study says « Watchdog.org (http://watchdog.org/125098/oklahoma-city-convention-analysis-subsides/)


The 2009 analysis prepared for the Greater Oklahoma City Chamber of Commerce assumed taxpayer subsidies would be required to operate convention facilities, more or less permanently, as is the widespread practice in the convention and visitor business across America.

The analysis documented around $10 million in operating subsidies for the existing tax-supported Cox Convention Center during the three years examined

Well, it was the most opposed project of the MAPS3 bundle. I'm not so much opposed to it as I am disappointed that it has been given such a priority over more popular projects.

I think the issue is that OKC needed this convention center 15 years ago. A facility like the Cox Center is laughable for a city this size. It really should be a priority in my opinion. It's just a lot of people who haven't been to convention centers in other cities lack perspective on how bad the Cox Center really is. That makes it a more difficult sell.

I was thinking the other day that OKC needs to make a major push to the the NFR back when they get the hotel built and convention center. They can use the Peake now and it would be great. Oklahoma has a rich rodeo history and it needs to be here again.

As much as I would love to see it come back to OKC, I can tell you that it ain't gonna happen. If you've even been to the NFR in Vegas, you know there is no way that town will let it go. Our arena is better for sure, but there is no way we can match all of the related events that go on that week in Vegas. I don't have any hard numbers, but I am willing to bet that there are at least as many people that go to Vegas that week for everything else that goes on and never go to the NFR (which is a hard ticket to get). In addition to several marquee concerts that take place at several at venues of quality that OKC can not match, there are many smaller free events and parties at many major hotels. There's also Cowboy Christmas at the LVCC which uses over 300,000 sq. feet to host over 400 retailers and vendors and there are similar events in the largest ballrooms of the MGM and Mandalay Bay, as well as one at the Sands Convention Center. Even with a new convention center and a nicer arena, I can't imagine what it would take to out bid Vegas for the NFR and if they end up building a new arena, which I think will happen, OKC won't have anything to even put us in the conversation.

That being said, I do think there are some other major western events that would bring serious money into the city that are more within reach. The Quarter Horse Congress show in Ohio is one that I'd like to see us make a serious push for. They use us for leverage every now and then, but I'm not sure how serious our efforts have been to get it.

Well, it was the most opposed project of the MAPS3 bundle. I'm not so much opposed to it as I am disappointed that it has been given such a priority over more popular projects.

I guess that depends on which projects were most popular with you. My favorite was the whitewater rafting center and that is moving along nicely.

1. "We need a giant hotel, build a new CC as large as we can and expand it to compete, no holds barred."
2. "No we don't. There's nothing to support that need."
3. "But we need to replace the center we have now because it sucks."
4. Repeat.

So what are going to do? See item 1, build the CC, heavily subsidize a hotel, and expand everything at the first opportunity.

Nothing is easier than spending the public money. It does not appear to belong to anybody. The temptation is overwhelming to bestow it on somebody.
-Calvin Coolidge

I think the issue is that OKC needed this convention center 15 years ago. A facility like the Cox Center is laughable for a city this size. It really should be a priority in my opinion. It's just a lot of people who haven't been to convention centers in other cities lack perspective on how bad the Cox Center really is. That makes it a more difficult sell.

I don't know if anyone needs to go to another city to see how bad the Cox Center is. It's bad and any kind of renovation to bring it up to any level of quality would amount to a complete do over anyway. So, I understand the need, I just don't like how it's been prioritized or how it's been implemented.

For me personally, if the end result is the reclaiming of the four square blocks the cox center sits on to expand the CBD or create a mixed use development that integrates the CBD and convention district together, then I'll be satisfied. While I know there are grand ideas for that land I think there's just as much a possibility that it will simply expand the parking garage district going up on the west side of the park.

I guess that depends on which projects were most popular with you. My favorite was the whitewater rafting center and that is moving along nicely.

I'm not really speaking to my personal preference. I was referring to a News9/Gazette poll that showed opposition for the convention center before the MAPS3 vote at around 57 percent, which was more opposition than any other project. Given the results of that poll, I think JTF has a point that if people knew what it would really cost to be feasible, it would have had more opposition and could have sunk MAPS3 altogether. I'm pretty sure that those behind the CC were well aware of that.

For me personally, if the end result is the reclaiming of the four square blocks the cox center sits on to expand the CBD or create a mixed use development that integrates the CBD and convention district together, then I'll be satisfied. While I know there are grand ideas for that land I think there's just as much a possibility that it will simply expand the parking garage district going up on the west side of the park.

They already released the plan for the Cox site. It will be an expansion of the parking garage district.

Gaaah, people are arguing past one another. Here are the facts:

THE CURRENT SITUATION
Our current convention facilities are very inadequate for a city of our size. Some of our suburbs have better convention centers than the Cox.
The average voter doesn't quite realize how bad they are because they usually don't use them.
Convention upgrades were an unpopular spending item so soon after MAPS 1 upgrades to the Cox Center.
Before the MAPS 1 upgrades, the Cox Center was bad bad bad bad. After the upgrades it's merely bad.

THE ARGUMENT
Oklahoma City has been seeing convention business go elsewhere for years because our facilities weren't good enough.
The Chamber of Commerce hired a consulting group that overpromises. They always recommend a city build as big a center as possible. Always.
The Chamber used that (quite biased) report as if it was the Word given to us by God to say that we'd reap huge financial benefits from building it.
The full report has not been made public, and nobody else has paid for a competing report.
The opponents pointed out that other cities that have built convention centers in recent years haven't seen the type of return that the convention gods promised.
In fact those cities have convention hotels that are deeply in the red, and convention business was definitely on the downswing when the OKC report was generated.

RESULT
It's likely that the report the Chamber paid for is overoptimistic and fanciful, but we haven't seen the full report.
This probably took place because the Chamber thought it wouldn't pass without a promised sky high economic return.
We probably won't see that type of economic return, however we still need a new convention center to host even our local events.
The most recent studies were made during a national economic recession, which might be the cause of the convention business decline in other cities.
It could also be that national convention business is simply decreasing, or that the market is oversaturated with convention centers.

WHAT SHOULD WE DO?
We should build a new convention center and hotel, because ours doesn't fill the needs we have right now.
When we build it, we should ensure that:
1) it fulfills our current needs and is suitable for the types of conventions that we've missed out on because of our current facilities, and
2) it is easily expandable at a reasonable cost for future convention growth.

If we do these things, the convention center will be a big success. We'll have a hotel that is nearly always full, we'll have a center that is always busy, and we'll get a good return on the money we invest.

WHAT WE SHOULD NOT DO
We should not scrap the convention center plans. Lack of appropriate space is a real problem for us today.
We should also not build a galactic megapalace without having some indications that we're going to be able to fill it.


Edit: Fixed spelling errors

1. "We need a giant hotel, build a new CC as large as we can and expand it to compete, no holds barred."
2. "No we don't. There's nothing to support that need."
3. "But we need to replace the center we have now because it sucks."
4. Repeat.

So what are going to do? See item 1, build the CC, heavily subsidize a hotel, and expand everything at the first opportunity.

Nothing is easier than spending the public money. It does not appear to belong to anybody. The temptation is overwhelming to bestow it on somebody.
-Calvin Coolidge

I think this is sensationalizing it a bit. I don't thing anyone is saying "build it as large as we can". Most people on this forum know we couldn't build a two million square foot convention center and expect business to be just flowing in. But, we know there have been groups who have turned down OKC due to its lack of contiguous space. We are going to be getting 230,000 square feet (I think that's the new number) of contiguous space. Right now, we have 80,000. That puts us on par with Portland, Austin, Charlotte, Seattle (according to Wikipedia) but the overall space will be much smaller. The hotel is a different story because I know that was not out in the open during the MAPS3 vote so I can understand people's fear of building that too big and over subsidizing it. That is only one I don't have a feeling about because I don't know much about it to begin with.

That is why this whole thing should have never been sold (or bought) on economic grounds. It should have been purely a quality of life issue. If OKC built a 1,000 room hotel and attracted one major convention every month capable of filling it for 3 days (which is more than what anyone is expecting) that is 36 days. What do we do about the other 329 days - deficit fund the hotel?

Did anyone else know that the City is already paying $10 million to subsidize the Cox Center. That should put to the rest the idea the Cox will stay open after the new center is open.

Taxpayer support, hotel a must for Oklahoma City convention center, study says « Watchdog.org (http://watchdog.org/125098/oklahoma-city-convention-analysis-subsides/)

Just because a hotel is built on the convention site doesn't mean it will be used exclusively by convention goers. There is still a lot of demand for hotels in OKC, otherwise they wouldn't keep building them in Bricktown.

..

Hoyasooner - you are on fire today with your last few posts.

Just because a hotel is built on the convention site doesn't mean it will be used exclusively by convention goers. There is still a lot of demand for hotels in OKC, otherwise they wouldn't keep building them in Bricktown.

Vastly different price points. If the convention center price point and expected occupancy rate made economic sense a public investment wouldn't be necessary at all. It is conceivable that every person who ever stays at this hotel will do so at a operating loss. The hope is that they will spend money else ware to make up for the loss-leader. So we are going to distribute the cost to all taxpayers but privatize the benefits. That just doesn't happen to be an economic philosophy I like. The public should benefit from public expenditures.

Vastly different price points. If the convention center price point and expected occupancy rate made economic sense a public investment wouldn't be necessary at all. It is conceivable that every person who ever stays at this hotel will do so at a operating loss. The hope is that they will spend money else ware to make up for the loss-leader. So we are going to distribute the cost to all taxpayers but privatize the benefits. That just doesn't happen to be an economic philosophy I like. The public should benefit from public expenditures.

You completely miss the difference between a conference hotel and other hotels.

I'm not really speaking to my personal preference. I was referring to a News9/Gazette poll that showed opposition for the convention center before the MAPS3 vote at around 57 percent, which was more opposition than any other project. Given the results of that poll, I think JTF has a point that if people knew what it would really cost to be feasible, it would have had more opposition and could have sunk MAPS3 altogether. I'm pretty sure that those behind the CC were well aware of that.

Maybe or maybe not. The point is we do not know these facts are true. Especially the news9 / gazette poll. Wasn't this also the poll that showed Ed doing well in the mayor's race?

Oklahoma City has developed post 1990. Our diversified economy provides opportunities we didn't have in the past. Our population continues on a healthy projection in both the central city as well as the metropolitan area. MAPS 4 will be a critical game-changer as to how our city moves forward.


Mayor Mick Cornett: The first thing you have to do is change the perspective. The way I describe it is: We have built this city for cars. We have to start building this city for people.

When that message percolates inside City Hall, inside your public works department and inside your planning department, they start to look at things differently. And what I noticed was, it wasn’t a lack of enlightenment. It was a lack of direction. They were doing what they felt like they were supposed to be doing. And when we exposed this new direction, I was amazed how much creativity was inside those departments that I hadn’t seen before, that hadn’t been tapped. It was as if they’d been unleashed — all these new ideas.

Oklahoma City Mayor Mick Cornett: We Have to Build This City For People | Streetsblog USA (http://usa.streetsblog.org/2013/01/24/oklahoma-city-mayor-mick-cornett-we-have-built-this-city-for-cars/)

You completely miss the difference between a conference hotel and other hotels.

What did I miss?

Wasn't this also the poll that showed Ed doing well in the mayor's race?

No. It was the same one that showed Cornett's approval rating at over 77%.

http://www.dougloudenback.com/oklahomacity/GazetteNews9-Maps-3-Poll-Results.pdf

They already released the plan for the Cox site. It will be an expansion of the parking garage district.

All I have seen is this post by Pete:


As you may recall from the recent study the City commissioned, this is exactly what the consultants recommended.

It's just a massing proposal by a consulting firm, which isn't a plan, but even it shows it mostly being street level retail with offices and hotels. Also, no land is committed to just parking like much of what is going in on the west side. Is there another, more detailed, plan?

I am just going by what has all ready been acceptable practice by the City and those with the money.

I am just going by what has all ready been acceptable practice by the City and those with the money.

Well, there certainly is enough precedent to assume that, but I haven't seen any plans, so I can't say for sure. I think the consultant suggested a pedestrian only development on the four blocks. I'm not a huge fan of that, but how dumb would it be to do that and the make it mostly parking garages?

Well, there certainly is enough precedent to assume that, but I haven't seen any plans, so I can't say for sure. I think the consultant suggested a pedestrian only development on the four blocks. I'm not a huge fan of that, but how dumb would it be to do that and the make it mostly parking garages?

Well, if you make the parking garages accessible from the non pedestrian areas of the block, not too bad.

They already released the plan for the Cox site. It will be an expansion of the parking garage district.
Not true at all.

Vastly different price points. If the convention center price point and expected occupancy rate made economic sense a public investment wouldn't be necessary at all. It is conceivable that every person who ever stays at this hotel will do so at a operating loss. The hope is that they will spend money else ware to make up for the loss-leader. So we are going to distribute the cost to all taxpayers but privatize the benefits. That just doesn't happen to be an economic philosophy I like. The public should benefit from public expenditures.

You completely miss the difference between a conference hotel and other hotels.

What did I miss?
Let me answer that for Rover. The NUMBER ONE REASON there MUST be a percentage of public ownership/investment in the hotel is so that the City/CVB can confidently and easily quote discounted room blocks when booking conferences/conventions/events. It's the NUMBER ONE REASON. Right now, room blocks are extremely difficult for them to book, because the market rate for hotels downtown is on fire. ESPECIALLY during peak times like the NBA playoffs, etc. In fact, the CVB currently has a very difficult time booking rooms for the NBA, networks, etc. for later rounds of the playoffs, which are last-minute bookings. The hotels (rightfully) want to maximize their profits, so they take the market-rate bookings as they come in, and the CVB has to go through a tremendous amount of juggling, moving people to other hotels, etc. when we hit another round of playoffs.

Beyond that, when quoting conferences and conventions it is like pulling teeth to get fully-private, for-profit properties to come off of their market rates to help put together an event. If the hotel can book 100% of their rooms at rack rate, why in the world would they want to give those rooms up for a convention at sometimes half the amount? Just to take one for the team? That only goes so far.

The City/CVB NEEDS to be invested in the convention hotel, because a part of their agreement will dictate that they have control over a certain number of rooms and the price of those rooms, to put together convention business. That is seriously the main, driving reason.

A hotel flag/developer will be happy to do that, because the City's investment will essentially pay for the difference between the size/quality of property they might have built on their own without incentive and what a convention facility needs to operate properly. It's a fair deal for everybody. It is NOT a bribe or inducement for a developer to locate here. That would happen (and is happening seemingly every day) without any inducements from the City.

By the way, there is a lot of talk on here about where the City can possibly find funding like they are going to have raid the general fund or pass another sales tax referendum or something. I will promise you that the source for public participation in this project was long ago figured out, and that it probably won't even be controversial in the grand scheme of things when it is revealed. Does anyone think there is really going to be some mad scramble for funds, like this hasn't been already thoroughly considered by officials for the past half-decade?

I'm not too familiar with OKC's downtown boundaries but from the little research I did on this forum, you guys consider OKC's downtown to be a network of districts in the central area of OKC? The business district, arts district, bricktown, etc.

The area called "downtown" in San Antonio is what I guess you would call the business district in OKC. In SA, downtown is so called the Central Business District.

So in essence, I guess what I'm saying is SA has a much larger CBD which has a wide gap of high rises clusters.

Outside of downtown are the "fringe districts" of Southtown, River North, SoFlo, Midtown, Pearl, LoBro, Near East and Cattleman Sqaure. They, along with downtown/cbd, make up the urban core of San Antonio.

Those districts would be like the Bricktown, Arts, Midtown districts in OKC that combined to make the downtown of OKC.

sure. I figured you probably didn't realize OKC's downtown was a bit bigger than just the very compact CBD and immediate districts but actually goes from Western to Lincoln and more or less 13th to (now) the River. It is hardly built up in a contiguous manner like SA and other major cities but the size of the area is more or less comparable. :)

and yes, it does appear that SA has a larger CBD area and I did not realize this was the case. ..

Sorry to backtrack everyone, I've been away from the forum for a few days and didn't read through all of the posts yet. But I did want to reach out to Josh so there's no offense taken nor given re his post. I think it can be great to have some outside prospective as well. ... :)

Beyond that, when quoting conferences and conventions it is like pulling teeth to get fully-private, for-profit properties to come off of their market rates to help put together an event

So in this business model why can't the CVB just pay the different between the rate quote to lure the convention and rate charged by the hotel? Why do they have to own part of the hotel instead? Considering the list of troubled convention hotels is a mile long why is OKC going to follow the same model and expect a different result?

Heck, they could just put it out for bid to downtown hotels. For example, we need 400 rooms for 3 nights and the quote is $129 per night. The downtown hotels bid on the rooms and the CVB goes with the best bid (considering amenities, location, funding gap, etc...). Then the CVB covers the funding gap.

Heck, they could just put it out for bid to downtown hotels. For example, we need 400 rooms for 3 nights and the quote is $129 per night. The downtown hotels bid on the rooms and the CVB goes with the best bid (considering amenities, location, funding gap, etc...). Then the CVB covers the funding gap.

This is the reason why we will need a 750-1,000 room conference hotel with the new convention center:

A convention that needs 400 rooms don't want their constitutes scattered in 4-6 hotels all over the CBD at variable room rates. A preliminary study suggested a 735 room conference hotel with a 50% occupancy could supply a max of 368 rooms.OKC's major downtown hotels operate at around 65-70% occupancy; that doesn't leave much room availability.

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

Six downtown hotels exceed 200+ rooms include:


1. Sheraton Hotel - 395 rooms
2. Renaissance Hotel - 311 rooms
3. Hilton Garden Inn - 255 rooms
4. Hilton Skirvin Hotel - 225 rooms
5. Marriott Courtyard - 225 rooms
6. Hampton Inn - 200 rooms


“We have a very diverse market here,” said Michael Carrier, president of the city’s convention and visitor bureau. “Obviously the business travel market is strong with a number of oil- and gas-related corporate headquarters here. We have a large stake in the aviation industry with Tinker Air Force Base, which is the primary maintenance and repair facility for the U.S. Air Force.”

Oklahoma City?s diversity drives demand (http://www.hotelnewsnow.com/Article/10711/Oklahoma-Citys-diversity-drives-demand)

Maybe or maybe not. The point is we do not know these facts are true. Especially the news9 / gazette poll. Wasn't this also the poll that showed Ed doing well in the mayor's race?

No. That News 9 / Gazette poll was conducted by Sooner Poll. It is the best polling outfit in the state. And Sooner Poll never once showed Ed Shadid getting more than 35%.

Remember, a poll is a snapshot in time. Just prior to the MAPS 3 vote, the convention center was the second least popular option, behind the State Fair improvements. I imagine it will improve in popularity.

At the time, the sidewalks and trails, senior centers, streetcar, and park were the items that pulled MAPS over the finish line. No need to revise history. People weren't interested in voting for a new convention center, which doesn't mean it's a bad project.

This is the reason why we will need a 750-1,000 room conference hotel with the new convention center:

A convention that needs 400 rooms don't want their constitutes scattered in 4-6 hotels all over the CBD at variable room rates. A preliminary study suggested a 735 room conference hotel with a 50% occupancy could supply a max of 368 rooms.OKC's major downtown hotels operate at around 65-70% occupancy; that doesn't leave much room availability.

I am not opposed to a convention hotel, what I don't want to do is follow the same model that put every other convention hotel in the red. Why follow failure? They need to come up with another way or stop with all the pie in the sky economic projections and just admit the convention hotel will be a money loser and call it done.

Also, these room blocks are made far in advance, sometimes over a year, so its not like the hotels are being caught off guard.

This all sounds familiar. Since we did not have the internet and sites like this one in 1993 it is harder to go back and re-post the exact same comments that were pouring out in opposition to the arena that we "did not need" because we had the cos center. I am y beable to dig some of the up and am going to try just for amusement purposes..

Maybe I am not seeing the stuff everyone else is. Is there a "no build" movement out there for the convention hotel? I see lots of posts indicating there is but none actually advocating that. Is the desire for a profitable hotel being interpreted as opposition to a convention hotel?

I think there is just a difference of opinions on how it serves the city and what the role should be. Hotels designed as conference hotels generally haves spaces and services not necessarily built into all hotels, including full service hotels. On top of that, as Urbanized pointed out well, the CB needs a certain amount of flexibility. To mitigate a certain amount of risk, many cities help subsidize...but none plan to lose continuously. Like private business though, if the city only took the sure bet and left everything the city needs to private business, they wouldn't take on the public side risk ether. Somehow current uber-conservatives have come to believe that their is no way to share risks and costs. But, there are times when a public/private partnership is good.

You may well be right in that the convention center and everything about it is a flop. You are convinced of doom. Who knows, maybe you are right. But if everyone believed that, very little would be done to build a city. You hate pure capitalism, but you seem to hate public private partnerships, as well. I am not sure of risks you ever seem appropriate for the city to take. To make an urbanista point, you point out every failure, but ignore successes that occur elsewhere every day.

You may well be right in that the convention center and everything about it is a flop. You are convinced of doom. Who knows, maybe you are right.

So first things first. I don't think the convention center is going to be a flop, because I have no expectation that it will actually make money. It is a quality of life issue for me. The vast majority of people who will attend events at the new convention center are going to be people who live in metro-OKC. The next biggest group will be people that live in Oklahoma. A very tiny percentage will be people from out-of-state. That is just reality. It is okay to have nice civic buildings and an economic case doesn't have to be made for it - Civic Pride is a good enough reason for me (see my position on the WRWA). What I get tired of is these ridiculous economic projections where they take the attendance at the Cox Center and say the average visitor spends $125 a day in OKC so it is economic impact of $X billion, but they don't say that 75% of Cox attendees were announced crowds at Barons games. That is NOT new money coming into OKC (the same goes for the claim that the AICCM will generate $3.8 BILLION in tax revenue in just 20 years). Who the hell believes that ****?

Now as for the convention center and hotel being a flop - those are the words of the Populous Report prepared for the Chamber of Commerce and to my knowledge that characterization was used two times - the first was to describe the outcome of not building the second phase and the second time was to characterize the outcome of not building a convention hotel. I think the Convention Center and Hotel will be a success the first time someone from OKC walks in the door and says, "Hey this is nice." For those of you who think this facility is somehow going to transform OKC into a world class city with tax revenues flowing in the streets like rainwater runoff - you are going to be sadly disappointed. However, at the end of the day this place is going to cost real money that the OKC taxpayers are going to have to cover - so all I am asking is for people to think about because the bill is going to arrive in the mail and someone is going to have to pay it and that money is going to come from other nice things the city wants. We can't deficit fund everything - at some point something has to make a profit.

Another complete mischaracterization of opposing arguments. Nicely done.

Kerry, can you do me a big favor? Say one thing nice about OKC. That would make me and probably several others on here feel a little bit better.

Kerry, can you do me a big favor? Say one thing nice about OKC. That would make me and probably several others on here feel a little bit better.

The new downtown boulevard is going to be awesome and help get 94,000 cars a day in and out of downtown as fast possible
The new parking garages are going to enhance the city - especially on Thunder commercial cutaways (they could be taller though)
Fronting office buildings on MBG will really enhance the pedestrian experience
Getting rid of functionally obsolete buildings will improve the bottom line of local companies
Our local elected officials are totally supportive of walkability
AICCM will generate more tax revenue than Tinker AFB

Are those positive enough?

Can I also add one more - couplets are the greatest idea since sliced bread.

Heck, I am feeling so good now I might as well add another: Lower Bricktown is fine just the way it is.

The new downtown boulevard is going to be awesome and help get 94,000 cars a day in and out of downtown as fast possible
The new parking garages are going to enhance the city - especially on Thunder commercial cutaways (they could be taller though)
Fronting office buildings on MBG will really enhance the pedestrian experience
Getting rid of functionally obsolete buildings will improve the bottom line of local companies
Our local elected officials are totally supportive of walkability
AICCM will generate more tax revenue than Tinker AFB

Are those positive enough?

Can I also add one more - couplets are the greatest idea since sliced bread.

Heck, I am feeling so good now I might as well add another: Lower Bricktown is fine just the way it is.

Why do you bother with OKCTalk? First, you don't live here and have said several times that you don't plan on moving back. I am not the most positive poster on this site myself but I live here and will for the foreseeable future, and genuinely care about the direction the city is headed. There are things that are extremely frustrating (i.e. Lower Bricktown) but there are other things to be very optimistic about. Second, being that you can't find a single positive thing to say about this city and when asked you respond with sarcasm, I really question what your intentions are.

^Wow. Absolutely incredible post.

The new downtown boulevard is going to be awesome and help get 94,000 cars a day in and out of downtown as fast possible
The new parking garages are going to enhance the city - especially on Thunder commercial cutaways (they could be taller though)
Fronting office buildings on MBG will really enhance the pedestrian experience
Getting rid of functionally obsolete buildings will improve the bottom line of local companies
Our local elected officials are totally supportive of walkability
AICCM will generate more tax revenue than Tinker AFB

Are those positive enough?

Can I also add one more - couplets are the greatest idea since sliced bread.

Heck, I am feeling so good now I might as well add another: Lower Bricktown is fine just the way it is.

Good Lord. You must be a blast at parties...

Everything you have listed has been highly scrutinized on this site over and over. What about Midtown, the Plaza District or Auto Alley?

I am not opposed to a convention hotel, what I don't want to do is follow the same model that put every other convention hotel in the red. Why follow failure? They need to come up with another way or stop with all the pie in the sky economic projections and just admit the convention hotel will be a money loser and call it done.

Also, these room blocks are made far in advance, sometimes over a year, so its not like the hotels are being caught off guard.

Ok JTF, we get it that you are not on board with this. Can you please stop now? It has gotten to the point of being depressing reading your posts. I took some heat for posting that I would prefer more heigt in our buildings, but geesh this needs to end. I can agree that perhaps some places under perform and maybe even lose money. That does not mean that will be the case in OKC. You don't under build something in fear of that. You build what you think the demand will be and perhaps allow some extra for future growth.

You act like all this business for the hotel will come solely from conventions which is pure nonsense. OKC has a need for rooms DT which is why more are being built. We do not have a nice full service hotel and we desperately need one. This new CC and CC Hotel will be reflection of our city and it is very, very much needed. We have had such and out dated and inadequate CC for way to many years and have lost money because of it. This is the time to step it up and try to beat our piers and perhaps even a few tier 2 cities. This is not the time to cheap out and I think it needs to be spectacular, not just Ok. It needs to be a reason people come and have a great time and go back telling people that OKC is more than just OK, it's becoming pretty darn cool and they want to return.

That is attitude we need to have, not yours JTF. Please quit comparing OKC to other cities because the demand here is greater here for more hotel rooms. Like I mentioned, we don't even have a full service hotel in DT. Do you not think that it just might be a place many others would want to stay other than convention folks? I can think of many groups ranging from NBA, concerts, events, and tourist type people who would be staying there as well. With that said, just stop the negativity JTF. One, two, or three is tolerable and we get it. You just never seem to stop so I am asking nicely to just put an end to it. OKC needs this and I hope it makes a statement and wildly successful and brings in money to the local economy.

Good Lord. You must be a blast at parties...

Everything you have listed has been highly scrutinized on this site over and over. What about Midtown, the Plaza District or Auto Alley?

Then go read those threads and you will see 10 years worth of positive comments from me. You can start with this one:
http://www.okctalk.com/showwiki.php?title=Steelyard

Why do you bother with OKCTalk? First, you don't live here and have said several times that you don't plan on moving back. I am not the most positive poster on this site myself but I live here and will for the foreseeable future, and genuinely care about the direction the city is headed. There are things that are extremely frustrating (i.e. Lower Bricktown) but there are other things to be very optimistic about. Second, being that you can't find a single positive thing to say about this city and when asked you respond with sarcasm, I really question what your intentions are.+1000

Well, if you make the parking garages accessible from the non pedestrian areas of the block, not too bad.

There should be no "non pedestrian" parts of downtown. That's kind of the whole point.

I get tired of constant negative posts as well. but i just mark it up to the poster If it really gets to me I can search out that ignore feature.. I believe its out there somewhere.

amen!

Unless OKC has something to offer that can't be found in Austin or Boston, and it isn't direct flights, JTF is right on- the CC and hotel will be a $ loser as in those towns or any other you want to chose that was taken in by the industry. The chamber and mayors office have been spinning yarns about the project all along. Pretty much the same people who use the Cox now will have nicer digs. That's all.