I'm wondering what the energy expenditure is for lighting a skyline. It's probably far greener to keep it dark. I'm in favor of green.

A dark downtown conveys a dead city.

Portland:

http://blog.barre3.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/portland-skyline-night2.jpg

Seattle:

http://www.roomstays.com/images/travelguide/seattle_night_skyline.jpg

San Francisco:

https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8031/8013365996_8710429b98_z.jpg

Of course these cities are so much larger and farther ahead than OKC there really is no comparison, but they are widely considered to be the green capitals and they have very well lit skylines. As I've said, a dark skyline creates the vibe of a dark, dead downtown.

They are perceived to be green, but is it really green to leave all those lights on? It's time to start thinking about this kind of thing as sea levels rise (San Francisco!). Our perception of what is "cool" changes continually and I think dark needs to be the new cool.

They are perceived to be green, but is it really green to leave all those lights on? It's time to start thinking about this kind of thing as sea levels rise (San Francisco!). Our perception of what is "cool" changes continually and I think dark needs to be the new cool.

Black power!

They are perceived to be green, but is it really green to leave all those lights on? It's time to start thinking about this kind of thing as sea levels rise (San Francisco!). Our perception of what is "cool" changes continually and I think dark needs to be the new cool.

Yikes! I would have to agree with BChris on this one. He is correct that a dark DT gives the perception of a a dead DT. Can you imagine Las Vegas or NYC going dark? I get the thought but lighting up a DT area which makes up a small area of most cities isn't going to help much in the green category. Now days, with LED's that use way less power, it is actually pretty economical compared to what it used to be. Not to mention the fact the buildings get more exposure and people looking at them and it's a form of advertising in a way. Someone really needs to send the Cotter Ranch Tower owner some emails and advise him of this. Back on task, I hope the CC Hotel really lights it up!

Las Vegas will go dark when they're out of water, most likely. Again, this isn't about what is pretty. I agree that a well-lit city is pretty. This is about looking beyond aesthetics and thinking about what we can do to conserve resources, IMO. A lot of electricity is wasted when you've got a city lit up like that. That electricity has to come from something and here it's usually coal. Coal isn't great for the environment, at all. My house is built of concrete and styrofoam. I have geothermal heat and I spend my time at my house making sure that when I am using things that require electricity I turn them off when they're not in use. My utility bills are 1/10 what they were when I lived in a wood frame house and didn't pay attention. Imagine if we do that on a city-wide scale.

And now, back to topic. Will the convention center subcommittee have anything to do with hotel selection or are we going to pretend it's completely outside MAPS? I do trust Larry Nichols to get the best hotel he can across from his building so I wouldn't mind his involvement in that project.

Las Vegas will not be running out of water anytime soon regardless of what these studies say. We will find a way to to ensure that doesn't happen.

Cities by their very nature are green. If leaving lights on at night attracts potential suburban-dwellers for no other reasons than they are attracted to light, then it is a net gain and worth it. Lighting Cotter Ranch tower is probably the carbon footprint equivalent of a single Edmond resident commuting to downtown every day. As for how well lit the cities appear in those photos - a 30 second camera exposure with a tripod can make anything look well lit.

Las Vegas will not be running out of water anytime soon regardless of what these studies say. We will find a way to to ensure that doesn't happen.

You might be surprised PP. I recently saw some hard core studies that predict a very dire situation for the desert southwest. Lake Meade's rate of water loss is worse than predictions of 5 years ago. Is it nearing a point of no return ? I don't know.

You might be surprised PP. I recently saw some hard core studies that predict a very dire situation for the desert southwest. Lake Meade's rate of water loss is worse than predictions of 5 years ago. Is it nearing a point of no return ? I don't know.You have to remember, there is the pacific ocean they can draw from using desalination. It might sound like a long shot, but with all the money we spend on oil pipelines, I'm sure we can find some spare change to transport drinking water.

The thing is, we shouldn't be drawing from lakes that are not easy to replenish. I have been looking at pictures from some of the lakes up there and they are beautiful. We should leave the rivers as natural as possible and create a pipeline system that draws from the oceans. It will probably be a little more expensive, but the long term environmental payoff is what counts. It's kind of the same thing with building nature bridges over highways for animals.

You have to remember, there is the pacific ocean they can draw from using desalination. It might sound like a long shot, but with all the money we spend on oil pipelines, I'm sure we can find some spare change to transport drinking water.

The thing is, we shouldn't be drawing from lakes that are not easy to replenish. I have been looking at pictures from some of the lakes up there and they are beautiful. We should leave the rivers as natural as possible and create a pipeline system that draws from the oceans. It will probably be a little more expensive, but the long term environmental payoff is what counts. It's kind of the same thing with building nature bridges over highways for animals.


This is off topic, but you should check out the books "Unquenchable" and "Running out of Water"...both great reads dealing with water supply problems of cities in America.

Back to hotel-talk. :)

You have to remember, there is the pacific ocean they can draw from using desalination. It might sound like a long shot, but with all the money we spend on oil pipelines, I'm sure we can find some spare change to transport drinking water.

The thing is, we shouldn't be drawing from lakes that are not easy to replenish. I have been looking at pictures from some of the lakes up there and they are beautiful. We should leave the rivers as natural as possible and create a pipeline system that draws from the oceans. It will probably be a little more expensive, but the long term environmental payoff is what counts. It's kind of the same thing with building nature bridges over highways for animals.

A “little”?

The new pipeline system between OKC and Sardis Lake in SEOK is going to cost $1.3 billion. This is for a pipeline that will be constructed across relatively flat landscape going up maybe 600 ft in elevation change.

Try extrapolating that over at least 2-300 miles, over mountain ranges, with elevation relief changing by several thousand feet. And this is assuming that large scale water desalination is economical (it is not). This would be something that would run in the 100’s of billions of dollars.

A “little”?

The new pipeline system between OKC and Sardis Lake in SEOK is going to cost $1.3 billion. This is for a pipeline that will be constructed across relatively flat landscape going up maybe 600 ft in elevation change.

Try extrapolating that over at least 2-300 miles, over mountain ranges, with elevation relief changing by several thousand feet. And this is assuming that large scale water desalination is economical (it is not). This would be something that would run in the 100’s of billions of dollars.go look at a map of all the oil pipelines in the US. All I'm going to say.

Not to mention the cost of desalination. If there was a cost effective way to do that no one would be worrying about water.

From what I understand, the cost of desalination is declining and there are newer techniques in store.

But hey, let's just keep spending billions on oil pipelines and then cry foul about the cost for a water pipeline. We sure have our priorities in check here.

My question is: how much energy does desalination require? If it is energy expensive and we use coal fired plants to perform it, we're just making the problem worse. In 100 years, unless Las Vegas becomes a rain forest, it's probably doomed regardless. People will be too worried about how they're going to get enough food to eat, and that level of gambling and entertainment will be a memory.

You can use renewable energy to power it. Solar energy plants in the desert right by the desalination plant.

Perhaps a new thread should be started about Vegas running out of water and desalination. :ot:

Wait....we are going to put a desal plant and solar array in the MG to power and supply water to the convention center hotel? Cool! When did that happen?

BTW...I've worked some projects on both solar and desal. The numbers aren't close to working out...even in the cheap energy countries. Wind has a better chance, but you are still talking about huge energy requirements. And there isn't any magic process out there just yet.

They are perceived to be green, but is it really green to leave all those lights on? It's time to start thinking about this kind of thing as sea levels rise (San Francisco!). Our perception of what is "cool" changes continually and I think dark needs to be the new cool.

I'm pretty sure new towers are only lit with LED lights which take less than 10% of the amount of energy of an incandescent light and can last over 50,000 hours. I've hooked up over 20 LED fixtures daisy-chained to one outlet for over 8 hours and never had a power issue. Turning outside lights at night when all the other lights are off is probably a negligible expense for these companies.

I wouldn't say Portland is far ahead of OKC, in fact I'd call then true peers. Portland just has a few more suburbs.

Also, none of the skylines shown are incredibly lit and I can confirm that downtown Seattle has very few lit buildings. We just now got lighting on Columbia Center (our tallest) and only the second and third tallest are prominently lit on top, most others are just aviation beacons as was Columbia Center before this year's Seahawks run.

However, I can confirm that we do leave office lights on - to me that indicates an alive CBD much more so than the attic outlines. I'd be impressed if more OKC buildings left floor lights on and installed aviation beacons (ala Seattle) than crown/outlines but dark building otherwise.

I wouldn't say Portland is far ahead of OKC, in fact I'd call then true peers. Portland just has a few more suburbs.

I'm sorry but I have to correct this. Not counting the cultural and urban advantages Portland has, their metro is more than twice the size of OKC. A big example is Atlanta, which is smaller than OKC in terms of city size, but its metro area puts it on the level of DFW or Houston. I would put Portland's peers as Denver, Austin, Minneapolis/St. Paul, and arguably the Bay Area from a cultural perspective, though in terms of size and economic cloud they blow away Portland.

OKC doesn't really have any true west coast peers. The closest I can think of is Sacramento but even they are a long way ahead. Bakersfield and Spokane possibly but they are below OKC.



Also, none of the skylines shown are incredibly lit and I can confirm that downtown Seattle has very few lit buildings. We just now got lighting on Columbia Center (our tallest) and only the second and third tallest are prominently lit on top, most others are just aviation beacons as was Columbia Center before this year's Seahawks run.

However, I can confirm that we do leave office lights on - to me that indicates an alive CBD much more so than the attic outlines. I'd be impressed if more OKC buildings left floor lights on and installed aviation beacons (ala Seattle) than crown/outlines but dark building otherwise.

Sometimes leaving office lights on makes all the difference. Several months ago they left the lights on all night in the Chase tower because they were apparently doing some filming. It made such a difference in how vibrant downtown felt that night, at least to me.

double.

I thought OKC's metro area is near 1.4m now. Is Portland's more than 2.8m?

I suppose we'll have to disagree on the peer city idea, but I'd argue that Seattle metro is quite a bit larger than Portland and it is 150 miles or so away. Sound familiar?

I've been to Portland many times and aside from the no sales tax I don't really see the appeal of the city outside of the downtown (which isn't that much either imo). The food truck culture there is amazing however.

I wouldn't say Portland is far ahead of OKC, in fact I'd call then true peers. Portland just has a few more suburbs.

Also, none of the skylines shown are incredibly lit and I can confirm that downtown Seattle has very few lit buildings. We just now got lighting on Columbia Center (our tallest) and only the second and third tallest are prominently lit on top, most others are just aviation beacons as was Columbia Center before this year's Seahawks run.

However, I can confirm that we do leave office lights on - to me that indicates an alive CBD much more so than the attic outlines. I'd be impressed if more OKC buildings left floor lights on and installed aviation beacons (ala Seattle) than crown/outlines but dark building otherwise.

There's zero way OKC and Portland are peers. None.

I thought OKC's metro area is near 1.4m now. Is Portland's more than 2.8m?

I suppose we'll have to disagree on the peer city idea, but I'd argue that Seattle metro is quite a bit larger than Portland and it is 150 miles or so away. Sound familiar?

I've been to Portland many times and aside from the no sales tax I don't really see the appeal of the city outside of the downtown (which isn't that much either imo). The food truck culture there is amazing however.

OKC is closer to 1.3 million than it is 1.4 million and Portland MSA population is 2.3 million. So, metro Portland is bigger than metro OKC by 1 million.

There's zero way OKC and Portland are peers. None.


OKC is closer to 1.3 million than it is 1.4 million and Portland MSA population is 2.3 million. So, metro Portland is bigger than metro OKC by 1 million.

Agree.

OKC is closer to 1.3 million than it is 1.4 million and Portland MSA population is 2.3 million. So, metro Portland is bigger than metro OKC by 1 million.last time I saw the estimates, they were closer to 1.4 million. I'll have to double check on that however.

The OKC CSA which includes Shawnee is at 1.4 million. The MSA is currently at 1.3. Not a huge difference really. Regardless, Portland is almost a million people larger than OKC. The two cities are also about as different culturally as its possible to get within the United States.

Wrong. I just found the population estimates and at 2014 the population was estimated right below 1.4 million and surely we are already over at 1.4 seeing as we're gaining around 40000/year.

I will post he graphic when I get into to work. I'm on my phone right now.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/10996487_10204983801947289_2146170758546551119_n.j pg?oh=978a4f6fb4e6a5f0ef2e19bc056c9960&oe=55744C0F&__gda__=1435548778_d395d4090d7792bc0c6fb438eee2a63 e
Pg. 19

- http://www.greateroklahomacity.com/clientuploads/pdf/economic%20forecast%202014.pdf

According to the 2013 census, the Portland CMSA is over 3million and the OKC CMSA is 1.39. The Portland CMSA covers all the way down to Corvallis (85miles). The OKC includes Shawnee (38 miles). Tulsa CMSA includes Talequah (66 miles). Out of these three CMSAs, I would say only Shawnee is a real bedroom community to its core city. Thus, I wonder if OKC's population is being shortchanged a little compared to many of the CMSAs? If Corvallis is in Portland's area, maybe Lawton should be in OKCs (87 miles).

I agree with that. I think Lawton and Chickasha could be included in CMSA.

^ Chickasha is already part of the MSA.

The revised census stats for MSA's will be out later this month for population as of 7/31/14.

We grew at 1.7% year-over-year in the last estimate. Will be interesting to compare.

^ Chickasha is already part of the MSA.really, I didn't know that. That's awesome.

BTW, the hotel RFP's are due tomorrow.

Will post details as soon as I get my grubby little hands on them.

I'm excited to see it!

Pete, will the RFP's include a design based on what the developer actually proposes with TIF or other public funding to assist in the costs? What I am wondering is if the designs will be conservative as if the investment is only from the developer/hotelier, or will they submit a design that will endear the public but that is economically feasible only due to public subsidies?

I for one, would vote to use public funds to have a great piece of architecture and pray the developers are going to wow us.

Wrong. I just found the population estimates and at 2014 the population was estimated right below 1.4 million and surely we are already over at 1.4 seeing as we're gaining around 40000/year.

I will post he graphic when I get into to work. I'm on my phone right now.

OKC does not gain 40,000 a year. It's closer to 20,000 a year actually.

This (http://recenter.tamu.edu/data/pop/popm/cbsa36420.asp) is a much better site to analyze OKC metro population stats.

I could not access the site on my phone. I am using iPhone Safari.

I could not access the site on my phone. I am using iPhone Safari.

Hmm, not sure why you can't. I'm using the same browser and I can see it. Try this link (http://recenter.tamu.edu/data/pop) and then go to OKC.

Just a note: the prospective hotel developers won't be submitting RFPs. An RFP is the REQUEST for proposal. It is the document that the City issues publicly outlining the desired parameters, in hopes that qualified respondents will make conforming proposals. Sometimes, if there is a concerns that they might get time-wasting responses from unqualified groups, they will first issue an RFQ, which is a request for QUALIFICATIONS. Once qualified respondents are identified, they will then be sent an RFP.

What respondents will be submitting this week will be RFP responses, or put more simply, proposals.

Sorry to be a stickler on something that seems minor, but if the site is going to mercilessly pick these things apart publicly it should probably fully understand the process and associated terminology.

Also, is there any chance we could move the Portland vs OKC MSA discussion to a more appropriate thread?

Sorry, I'll drink coffee now.

So no pictures for me to look at today at the office?

The opportunity to bid doesn't end until noon today, and it's not being done through OCURA but through the City's main bidding system, so I'm not sure how this is all going to work.

I'm on the ACOG CAC for Encompass 2040 and they quoted 3,000/month population increase for their 2000 sq mi service area. A bigger area than just OKC I realize, but FYI.

I'm on the ACOG CAC for Encompass 2040 and they quoted 3,000/month population increase for their 2000 sq mi service area. A bigger area than just OKC I realize, but FYI.

I have no idea what this means.

Its just more "STUFF" that is off topic.. carry on

ACOG: Association of Central Oklahoma Governments
CAC: Citizens' Advisory Committee
And shame on me for not knowing for certain, but I'm guessing that Encompass 2040 refers to regional transit/transportation planning, which is part of ACOG's mission.

Edit: yup. http://www.acogok.org/2040

I'm so excited for my 50th birthday when we'll have a fully functioning transit system!!!!!!

OKC metro when you go out to Shawnee is right at 1.5 mil today. Portland if you go out the same 35 mile distance would be about 1.8. This is why many people consider(mayors and such) Portland and OKC peer cities. Portland takes their pop numbers out close to 100 miles from downtown. If OKC did that we could add Tulsa and scew our numbers also. BTW,if Tulsa was a little closer we could call them a suburb of OKC.

Also look at Seattle. Look how far they go out to get their metro area pop numbers.

OKC metro when you go out to Shawnee is right at 1.5 mil today. Portland if you go out the same 35 mile distance would be about 1.8. This is why many people consider(mayors and such) Portland and OKC peer cities. Portland takes their pop numbers out close to 100 miles from downtown. If OKC did that we could add Tulsa and scew our numbers also. BTW,if Tulsa was a little closer we could call them a suburb of OKC.

Also look at Seattle. Look how far they go out to get their metro area pop numbers.

If Tulsa were closer we would have twin cities; like it or not, Tulsa & OKC's demographics aren't that far apart; both cities have upped the ante in the competitive arena. Tulsa holds her own for a city of her size.

Tulsa is currently in much better shape than OKC to host conventions in the downtown area.

If Tulsa were closer we would have twin cities; like it or not, Tulsa & OKC's demographics aren't that far apart; both cities have upped the ante in the competitive arena. Tulsa holds her own for a city of her size.

I would say Tulsa pulls above its weight for a metro of under 1 million in population.

MSA is calculated by commute patterns. If a large enough percentage of the population in places like Shawnee, Stillwater, Lawton, heck even Tulsa commuted to OKC, they would be added to the MSA.

I would say Tulsa pulls above its weight for a metro of under 1 million in population.

MSA is calculated by commute patterns. If a large enough percentage of the population in places like Shawnee, Stillwater, Lawton, heck even Tulsa commuted to OKC, they would be added to the MSA.There has to be more to it than commute patterns. I doubt that many people commute 80 miles to Portland one way ever day.

That's actually exactly how it is, PluPan. And it's not that "that many" people are commuting into Portland from there, but rather that a certain proportion (I think 30-40%?) commute to that city.


OKC does not gain 40,000 a year. It's closer to 20,000 a year actually.

This (http://recenter.tamu.edu/data/pop/popm/cbsa36420.asp) is a much better site to analyze OKC metro population stats.

Right. That is still 200,000 per decade (or more if we're having a boom period). That's significant, and most cities would kill for that kind of growth.

Steve's article about the convention center lists 7 bidders for the convention hotel. I haven't seen this posted yet. People done got distracted.

Omni Hotels
Marcus Hotels and Resorts
Hilton Worldwide
Matthews Southwest
Altera Development and 5G Architects
Mortenson
Merriman Associates/Architects

Oklahoma City scraps site for MAPS convention center | News OK (http://newsok.com/article/5398172#comment_thread)

Interesting list.

Marcus is the group out of Milwaukee behind the Skirvin.

Altera was the group that took a strong run at FNC.

I feel as though Merriman is local? It's just a design firm out of Dallas, so it's unknown who is behind it. I feel as though they've designed stuff around OKC before.

I would say Tulsa pulls above its weight for a metro of under 1 million in population.

MSA is calculated by commute patterns. If a large enough percentage of the population in places like Shawnee, Stillwater, Lawton, heck even Tulsa commuted to OKC, they would be added to the MSA.

If we only had our RTA up and running, imagine what OKC's MSA would be.

Surprised no Hyatt but glad to see Omni in there (who would be my #1 choice).

I asked Cathy O'Connor about the responses just before they were due and there was no easy answer for accessing them because they actually went through the goliath City bidding system.

I still don't know how to get them and frankly, after the cc debacle I haven't had the heart to bug her about it.