I recall that the original cc hotel study said 735 hotel rooms as the benchmark; which interestingly has now decreased to 600 rooms. Also note, this was the rooms needed for the typical large convention OKC is hoping to get - so you'd usually have a room count higher than your benchmark for non-convention purposes and crush large bookings.

So here we go, OKC settling with the bare minimum benchmark ONLY (at 600 rooms) and not even using the original study of 735.

As for the hotel, I don't too much mind the design as it is modern and goes along with Devon and BOKPP. But what irks me most besides the relative lack of height is that the hotel tower is set back away from the boulevard. Is there a master plan for more towers in this area? Otherwise, this will look stranded and separated from downtown rather than 'somewhat' connected as Omni is desiring/stating.

Can we have a compromise here? A) can the hotel tower(s) rise from the boulevard or better yet, B) how about an L shaped 'tower" so that some rooms can have park side views if we can't go higher than 19 floors (15 hotel floors)? It seems as though the conceptual design is trying to create a resort with poolside facing the park and views of Devon yet this is supposed to be a HQ convention hotel.

Finally, can we reconsider the room count? While I like the idea of possibly another hotel being built, I think the likelihood of such happening is closer to zero especially given the cost of this lower end cc hotel proposed by Omni vs. the amount of public subsidy. The city already owns the land (right?) and there doesn't appear to be anything particular about this proposal that would warrant it to be double BOKPP in cost.

Anyway, I don't want to be a downer as I am excited about this all moving forward. But it appears to be the same 2nd rate thinking/design that starts out as being a 'conceptual' rendering but that very same concept ends up as the final with nobody questioning anything (except Shadid; who always argues about projects after they've already been approved RATHER than argue about the design and/or quality/capacity of the conceptual design that turns into final far too often).

Nothing is set into stone with the draft proposed by the Omni; we do know that the city's cost assistance will be about $85.2 with the Omni pitching in $150.1 million. It's substantially less than what Nashville & Louisville are paying for their headquarter's hotels.


Texas consultant Jeremy Stone, hired by The Alliance for the Economic Development of Oklahoma City, told the council his research shows the city can support a 735-room, $200 million conference hotel as part of development of a $250 million convention center south of the Myriad Gardens.

That wasn't a full feasibility study, it was a consultant hired to analyze the feasibility of a convention hotel back in 2013 that was not commissioned by the city.


While we opine that the market will inevitably perform at levels exceeding 64.2 percent in some years, it will also likely decline in some years,” Stone wrote in his report.

“The city council wanted to know if with the building of a new convention center, did we need a hotel,” O'Connor said. “And if so, what size? This tells them they need a convention center hotel. The next step is to look at financial feasibility.”

http://newsok.com/article/3914440

http://www.theallianceokc.org/sites/default/files/files/Economic%20Impact%20of%20CC_121313.pdf

I prefer the glass look of the Omni to the stucco of the Marriott. Just a couple of thoughts, and they really are just opinions more than anything.

I dont feel like either design really has much design interest to it. They're both your basic rectangle of a hotel. I really wish we could get something that had some design interest to it, but it's not exactly a big deal. It would be nice, but i'm not losing sleep over it or anything.

I dont feel like stucco should be accepted in any way/shape/form for something downtown. There needs to be a glass or stone curtain if you're downtown...end of story (i hate the Kerr McGee look).

Omni is still building their presence in terms of being a convention hotel. I feel like Marriott is still the big name in terms of conventions. I dont think it necessarily makes a decision for where people have their meetings, but it might affect who comes (do my points work there?). That being said, i have ZERO love for the Marriott corporation and their overpriced fees on everything in there. Next thing you know, they're going to charge you for toilet paper squares.

I wish it was 40 storeys tall too but...

New Omni Nashville is 21 storeys.

Omni Dallas is 23 storeys.

Ft. Worth Omni is 33 storeys but has a large housing component.

Louisville Omni is 30 storeys but has a large housing component.

Ours has no housing component. So... what am I missing here?

What makes us call this "low end" or feel that it's lacking?

I like height too but I don't get the reaction to this. Well, I get that we're disappointed that we aren't getting more height, but the notion that the development is lowball is a stretch. It's clearly the model that Omni follows when there is no dedicated housing involved in the development.

I like the choice of Omni and I like the renderings. Design doesn't blow my doors off but none of their designs do. Seems like our main complaint... if we should have one... should be that Omni didn't include housing. Even then, I don't know what kind of complaint that would be. :-)

Is there any chance the OKC hotel can get some housing added to it to make it taller?

Maybe we can add an additional floor for a sex shop up at the top, to get it a little further away from the park, but also further away from Heritage Hills. Only downside is it would detract from the one planned in Midtown. Most convention goers are a bit...rowdy, so I feel like this is a win/win.

Our design is very similar to the recently built Omni Hotel in Nashville. I wish we could have something unique to OKC.

http://mechanicalresource.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/omni1.jpg

Here is more info and more images.

Most a quasi high-res if you right click then use "open in a new tab"

http://www.okctalk.com/content.php?r=328-A-detailed-look-at-the-proposed-Omni-convention-hotel

I like the Omni design, just wish it was turned 180 degrees and had same footprint as the Marriott

Here are a couple of interesting ones.

Note the retail in front of CHK and on the north side of the hotel, both facing the boulevard.

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/omni5.jpg

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/omni6.jpg

OKC should push to add 4 floors of residential at the top of the hotel, much as Onni Austin had.

Surprised that Omni themselves hasn't suggested or pushed the residential piece since that's the trend they have done with recent developments in major cities. Now that they have been selected; they could have more room to spice up this development

$10 million parking proposal stuns advisory group

By: Brian Brus The Journal Record September 23, 2016

OKLAHOMA CITY – The appearance of a $10 million agenda item in the construction of a downtown parking garage surprised members of a citizen advisory committee Thursday.

Rather than approve a request to commit a quarter of the contingency fund to close a funding gap in the $37 million garage adjacent to the planned Omni Hotel, the MAPS 3 Citizens Advisory Board moved the question to a subcommittee for further consideration. Councilman Ed Shadid said the item would have otherwise gone to the City Council on Tuesday on the same day the hotel developer is being named for the first time.

That timing did not sit well with Shadid, who has repeatedly questioned the legitimacy of paying for a garage out of the MAPS 3 temporary tax issue that voters approved nearly seven years ago. Shadid said it seemed as though other officials were trying to push through the $10 million question without drawing attention.

“Within one week, you would have minimized the public discussion and deliberation,” he said Friday. “And then when the council authorizes negotiation with the hotel developer on Tuesday, they can sit down and say, ‘Hey, we’ve got the parking garage settled. We got an extra $10 million from MAPS 3, so let’s talk about the $85 million you need to build a hotel.’”

Shadid said board chairman Tom McDaniel presented the proposal from Mayor Mick Cornett and City Manager Jim Couch’s offices. McDaniel said a parking garage was a logical consequence of developing downtown by building a convention center and nearby 77-acre park.

Preliminary plans call for 500 parking spaces in a surface lot south of the convention center, with 865 more spaces in a three-story garage across the street. That site is now occupied by an OG&E property, which will cost about $35 million to acquire. The Central Oklahoma Transportation and Parking Authority has the capacity to borrow only $27 million for the project, city Finance Director Craig Freeman said, leaving $10 million to cover.

The $288 million convention center will be built on the site bounded on the north by SW Fourth Street, south by SW Seventh Street, west by Robinson Avenue and east by Shields Boulevard. It will feature a 200,000-square-foot exhibit hall, 45,000-square-foot meeting space and 30,000-square-foot ballroom.

Three hotel developers had expressed interest in the project, but one dropped out recently and another advisory group chose Omni in the final stage. That issue is scheduled to be discussed in greater detail at Tuesday’s regularly scheduled council meeting.

So we're planning 500 parking spots for 600 hotel rooms, with another 865 across the street if we can have enough bake sales to make up that $10,000,000.

Which leads me to wonder where the hypothetical residents are supposed to park if housing floors are added.

Here is the timeline, designed to circumvent the public process as much as possible:

Wed: Committee led by Cathy O'Connor picks Omni; no public announcement
Thurs: MAPS3 Board asked to approve moving $10MM from MAPS contingency fund for new parking garage (details of this garage had not been previously mentioned anywhere, nor was it mentioned that leasing it to convention hotel is part of the prelimiary deal struck the day before)
Thur/Fri: O'Connor gives Omni story to the Oklahoman
Sun: Oklahoman puts pretty renderings on front page; briefly mentions required $85MM public subsidy without providing details on where exactly this money is to come from or that the Omni will likely be leased the proposed garage for next to nothing. Also no mention of ground lease amount or terms for Omni, also presumed to be another form of public subsidy.
Tues: Council to vote on approving Omni deal in principle; still no public sharing of incentive details or much info at all about ground lease and garage terms

This is pretty typical these days when the Powers That Be want to jam something through. And they have already garnered enough votes on the council to assure passage long before the public has any knowledge that hundreds of millions of incentives will be provided.

BTW, my understanding is that the City intends to borrow the $85MM to help pay for this project and thus there will likely be significant interest costs in addition to that base amount.

Borrowing money for MAPS is the first intelligent thing we have done since Maps 4 Kids. It's unfortunate that it's leveraging the convention hotel, which opens us up to some incredible risks. I hope that the city creates a separate authority to be on the hook for that, to shield the city's assets and especially the rest of the MAPS program.

With COTPA involved, a loan default there could further gut/kill our efforts to develop transit service and plan actual transit infrastructure.

Not only are there few good options, but they also require us to make real choices about our priorities that hang in the balance. It is clear that OKC prioritizes the conventions and fairgrounds above transit and neighborhoods.

Despite some previous negative comments about the Oklahoman, this video interview of Larry McAtee by William Crum represents the only local media outlet doing this.

http://newsok.com/multimedia/video/5141604101001#gsc.tab=0

D, I'm calling it "low end" because of the price vs. what we're getting.

I know I'm exaggerating a little bit, but I'm trying to prove a point that 1) an OKC convention hotel should not cost the same as those in other cities due to the fact that this land is brownfield and/or already owned by the city, so 2) for the amount of dollars they're proposing/asking, we should get something twice as nice/tall as the most expensive existing hotel in downtown (the Renaissance OKC Convention Center soon to be renamed Marriott OKC Downtown) or akin to double the office tower u/c (BOKPP).

I know it isn't exact like-for-like but I feel that OKC is being fleeced AGAIN while other cities demand quality in their projects (OKC settles for the first conceptual rendering).

My opinion, I don't see why OKC's contribution of say $85M does not cover underground parking AND a 150 room addition (to Omni's 600 room block) and give us a 25-28 true highrise hotel tower with some luxury elements added to the glass curtain wall. I'm hoping that the CoC and CVB/Downtown OKC Inc are working on more than just controling the cost; I'd be fine if we got a quality hotel that took into account the purpose of TIF and other funding mechanisms instead of paying $85m for what will end up being a $114M hotel (once the city's contribution is added back to the developer's pocket). Let's get something for our contribution this time. ..

Interesting that there aren't any suites but I'd love to see two or three floors added that are suites; including presidential and a couple other premium dollar ones.


I wish it was 40 storeys tall too but...

New Omni Nashville is 21 storeys.

Omni Dallas is 23 storeys.

Ft. Worth Omni is 33 storeys but has a large housing component.

Louisville Omni is 30 storeys but has a large housing component.

Ours has no housing component. So... what am I missing here?

What makes us call this "low end" or feel that it's lacking?

I like height too but I don't get the reaction to this. Well, I get that we're disappointed that we aren't getting more height, but the notion that the development is lowball is a stretch. It's clearly the model that Omni follows when there is no dedicated housing involved in the development.

I like the choice of Omni and I like the renderings. Design doesn't blow my doors off but none of their designs do. Seems like our main complaint... if we should have one... should be that Omni didn't include housing. Even then, I don't know what kind of complaint that would be. :-)

Very nice OKC! Looks like it will be a great addition to the skyline!

Interesting that there aren't any suites but I'd love to see two or three floors added that are suites; including presidential and a couple other premium dollar ones.If you look at the floor plan, there are 15 floors of rooms with 645 rooms / 600 keys. This would indicate they don't have the exact placement of suites / size of suites planned yet. But they could go up to 45 suites if they were all double-room size. My guess is there are a few suites that are 3-4 rooms size, then many double size so they end up with exactly or slight over 600 rooms/keys. Something like 1 presidential suite quad-size, 1 triple-size suite, 35 double-size regular suites, and 568 standard rooms for a total of 603.

Omni may have already looked into adding a residential piece to this project and determined it to be too risky for the investment. Which I know all of us will be curious to hear about in detail if so.

Again, I'm not surprised this tower currently proposed (I understand it's preliminary) isn't any taller. There simply may not be any need. Look at Decious's comment about the other Omnis. This one is right in tune with their vision. It'll still be a decent addition to the core and will perhaps add some "bulk" to the skyline from various angles on I-40, but it'll probably be *just* too short to have any significant impact from other directions. Regardless, I think I'm more excited about the actual convention center and the future park than this hotel.

Edit: one last thing: will this hotel even break 250 feet? Knowing most hotels run with shorter ceiling heights, and this being at 19 stories, it seems to me a rough guess would put this at around 200 feet after the first couple floors are counted in.

Omni may have already looked into adding a residential piece to this project and determined it to be too risky for the investment. Which I know all of us will be curious to hear about in detail if so.

Again, I'm not surprised this tower currently proposed (I understand it's preliminary) isn't any taller. There simply may not be any need. Look at Decious's comment about the other Omnis. This one is right in tune with their vision. It'll still be a decent addition to the core and will perhaps add some "bulk" to the skyline from various angles on I-40, but it'll probably be *just* too short to have any significant impact from other directions. Regardless, I think I'm more excited about the actual convention center and the future park than this hotel.

Edit: one last thing: will this hotel even break 250 feet? Knowing most hotels run with shorter ceiling heights, and this being at 19 stories, it seems to me a rough guess would put this at around 200 feet after the first couple floors are counted in.

For the amount of subsidy, OKC should at least negotiate for more. Either A) Meet the minimum room target; B) Add residential floors (who really thinks this wouldn't work? Come on); or C) Both

If we ask for more, the cost will just go up and tax payers will have to foot the bill.

They can only finance so much, hence the $85MM gap that would only grow with more requirements.

The city struggled with getting housing on top of the Main Street garage. Now this is way better than a parking garage, but they probably have a full plate as it is.

The city struggled with getting housing on top of the Main Street garage. Now this is way better than a parking garage, but they probably have a full plate as it is.

This reminds me - was that garage built with the ability to add housing on top at a later date?

If we ask for more, the cost will just go up and tax payers will have to foot the bill...

Not to mention that overbuilding would not only create a need for construction subsidy but ALSO operational subsidy. This is where convention hotels in other cities have gone wrong. Everyone is so size obsessed and height obsessed that they are missing the most critical point; the CC hotel exists primarily to make the CC successful.

There is a formula to be followed in determining room number. They need to figure out how many people an Omni would draw on a regular basis if it was not connected to a CC. The flag itself is going to draw a certain number of people. In OKC for a full service hotel of that caliber it is probably 200 or so rooms on a regular basis. So, without any contiguous CC it would probably make sense for Omni to build a 200 room hotel. Anything over that needs to be driven by conference/convention business, and will usually be sold at a below-market room rate as an incentive for meeting planners to book. So there needs to be thought given to expected number of events based on the the CC facility itself, the expected room demand from those events, etc..

There is a repeated fundamental misunderstanding on this board of the purpose of a convention headquarters hotel like this one. It is NOT there to house all of the attendees. For various reasons (loyalty programs, price, desire to simply be elsewhere, or perhaps even not spending the night if local or regional), many, MANY conference and convention attendees won't even TRY to stay at the HQ hotel. It exists largely for the people who are facilitating the conferences; boards, association officials, presenters, vendors, etc.

If you build a hotel with a bunch of extra rooms just for the "blue sky" factor - that is, community ego, height on the skyline, or hoped-for growth that doesn't match the size/type of convention center that is attached - you are going to be building rooms that make no business sense. You are going to be building rooms that not only drive up the cost of the facility, they will have to be mothballed and won't make revenue. That will drive down the profitability of the hotel and put the city on track for ongoing OPERATIONAL subsidy. Those rooms still have to be maintained. They still have to be heated/cooled. They still have to be cleaned occasionally, even if not being used. They require more staff. They require more resources.

For all of the criticism on here regarding public subsidy in general, and of this project in particular, it amazes me that so many people are so bummed that the same building isn't bigger, taller, whatever. MUCH better for decisions regarding this hotel be based on sound business principles. Building it larger than required does nothing to help the CC's viability, and is actually HARMFUL to the viability of the hotel itself. If/when the CC itself requires expansion, there is a plan in place for more CC hotel rooms. That is wise and prudent, which is honestly what we should all be seeking here.

There is a repeated fundamental misunderstanding on this board of the purpose of a convention headquarters hotel like this one. It is NOT there to house all of the attendees. For various reasons (loyalty programs, price, desire to simply be elsewhere, or perhaps even not spending the night if local or regional), many, MANY conference and convention attendees won't even TRY to stay at the HQ hotel. It exists largely for the people who are facilitating the conferences; boards, association officials, presenters, vendors, etc.

Quoting this section because it bears repeating. My understanding is there's potential for a second hotel, if needed, is this no longer the case? IF suites are not part of the Omni but are needed, the second hotel could easily be an Embassy Suites or something similar, filling the need for suites (if one exists) as well as being the potential second option (and I know we all agree competition is good, we've discussed it at length in the Google Fiber thread and several grocery store threads).

Yes. Considering that we will have 2 adjacent blocks that are literally surface parking, the ease to add more hotel rooms if its need is apparent is well worth building this facility conservatively.

Additionally, while plans seem to be a ways off for the Ford site, it seems pretty obvious that the site is going to have a hotel incorporated into the design, further decreasing the potential needs given its proximity to the CC (block and a half). The beauty of the East Park site has always been the future growth component.

Quoting this section because it bears repeating. My understanding is there's potential for a second hotel, if needed, is this no longer the case? IF suites are not part of the Omni but are needed, the second hotel could easily be an Embassy Suites or something similar, filling the need for suites (if one exists) as well as being the potential second option (and I know we all agree competition is good, we've discussed it at length in the Google Fiber thread and several grocery store threads).See my post above (#1281 in this thread). I would be shocked if there aren't suites, and a few dozen of them, in the Omni when all is said and done.

See my post above (#1281 in this thread). I would be shocked if there aren't suites, and a few dozen of them, in the Omni when all is said and done.

I agree. that's why I stressed 'IF', and said if the need exists after the Omni is built. Everyone is acting like this is something other than a preliminary proposal. I mean, the meeting to even officially give it to Omni is only just now happening today. Acting like the thing is already built and proven to be inadequate because some people want to get in some sort of measuring contest with other cities is just insane.

This reminds me - was that garage built with the ability to add housing on top at a later date?

My understanding is yes.

Not to mention that overbuilding would not only create a need for construction subsidy but ALSO operational subsidy. This is where convention hotels in other cities have gone wrong. Everyone is so size obsessed and height obsessed that they are missing the most critical point; the CC hotel exists primarily to make the CC successful.

There is a formula to be followed in determining room number. They need to figure out how many people an Omni would draw on a regular basis if it was not connected to a CC. The flag itself is going to draw a certain number of people. In OKC for a full service hotel of that caliber it is probably 200 or so rooms on a regular basis. So, without any contiguous CC it would probably make sense for Omni to build a 200 room hotel. Anything over that needs to be driven by conference/convention business, and will usually be sold at a below-market room rate as an incentive for meeting planners to book. So there needs to be thought given to expected number of events based on the the CC facility itself, the expected room demand from those events, etc..

There is a repeated fundamental misunderstanding on this board of the purpose of a convention headquarters hotel like this one. It is NOT there to house all of the attendees. For various reasons (loyalty programs, price, desire to simply be elsewhere, or perhaps even not spending the night if local or regional), many, MANY conference and convention attendees won't even TRY to stay at the HQ hotel. It exists largely for the people who are facilitating the conferences; boards, association officials, presenters, vendors, etc.

If you build a hotel with a bunch of extra rooms just for the "blue sky" factor - that is, community ego, height on the skyline, or hoped-for growth that doesn't match the size/type of convention center that is attached - you are going to be building rooms that make no business sense. You are going to be building rooms that not only drive up the cost of the facility, they will have to be mothballed and won't make revenue. That will drive down the profitability of the hotel and put the city on track for ongoing OPERATIONAL subsidy. Those rooms still have to be maintained. They still have to be heated/cooled. They still have to be cleaned occasionally, even if not being used. They require more staff. They require more resources.

For all of the criticism on here regarding public subsidy in general, and of this project in particular, it amazes me that so many people are so bummed that the same building isn't bigger, taller, whatever. MUCH better for decisions regarding this hotel be based on sound business principles. Building it larger than required does nothing to help the CC's viability, and is actually HARMFUL to the viability of the hotel itself. If/when the CC itself requires expansion, there is a plan in place for more CC hotel rooms. That is wise and prudent, which is honestly what we should all be seeking here.

Great post.

Urbanized, you need to write a book or something. You have so much knowledge and information on this type of stuff. Great post.

Omni may have already looked into adding a residential piece to this project and determined it to be too risky for the investment. Which I know all of us will be curious to hear about in detail if so.

Again, I'm not surprised this tower currently proposed (I understand it's preliminary) isn't any taller. There simply may not be any need. Look at Decious's comment about the other Omnis. This one is right in tune with their vision. It'll still be a decent addition to the core and will perhaps add some "bulk" to the skyline from various angles on I-40, but it'll probably be *just* too short to have any significant impact from other directions. Regardless, I think I'm more excited about the actual convention center and the future park than this hotel.

Edit: one last thing: will this hotel even break 250 feet? Knowing most hotels run with shorter ceiling heights, and this being at 19 stories, it seems to me a rough guess would put this at around 200 feet after the first couple floors are counted in.


It will prob. end up being about as tall as the Regency Tower Apartments. So we should be able to see it rise in the Skyline but not nearly enough IMO. If they build something about as tall as the Chase Tower or even the new BOOK tower it would stand out a little better.

Honestly, it's better for the tower to be a bit shorter, and be economically successful, than it is to be taller and be a money sink.

The Devon Tower could have been taller than the 850 feet that it was constructed at. But then we wouldn't be getting the BOK tower. As it was, Devon filled their tower, needed more space, and that led to more construction later. Now imagine if Devon had built a 1000 foot tower and then had been unable to fill it up. That could have killed development for quite a while.

A 250' tall convention center hotel isn't something that will wow anybody. But if it's successful and makes good money, that's very good for the city. It would suck if we pushed to make it a lot taller and then the city went broke trying to subsidize it. A 250 foot success story is better than a 400 foot failure.

If the city's economy stays strong, we're going to get more opportunities for taller towers. I think a lot of people are thinking of the high rise drought from the early 80s until Devon, and they're thinking that we better get some tall buildings while we can. As long as the city stays economically healthy, that won't happen again.

Agree with urbanized, but I thought we were seeking a minimum of 750 rooms. Is that out the window?

It will prob. end up being about as tall as the Regency Tower Apartments. So we should be able to see it rise in the Skyline but not nearly enough IMO. If they build something about as tall as the Chase Tower or even the new BOOK tower it would stand out a little better.

As tall as the Chase Tower??? That's the 2nd tallest building in the city...

Given it's position downtown, it's going to stand out in the only views that *really* matter: I-40 and I-(2)35. From the NW view around Integris, you'll actually probably see it right between Devon the new BOK tower, though it won't rise up too high.

I'll take what we're given. Having stayed at Omni down in Fort Worth, minus the million dollar condos they built on top that ours won't have, it's still the best brand associated with convention centers IMHO.

We're looking at preliminary plans at this stage. Omni added the residential piece to its Louisville convention hotel. There's still need for downtown residential; therefore let's not rule out anything until we get the finals plans.

Not concerned about the height; because if we need more than 600 rooms, there's room to add an additional hotel on site with rooms needed for future growth; then you have the potential to bring in some real convention gems. The streetcar route will be another impressive novelty piece to showcase the central core.

OKC's geographical location could carry more weight with convention planners than we anticipate. One thing is for sure, our WRWA expansion might be a key component with major planners.

As tall as the Chase Tower??? That's the 2nd tallest building in the city....Yeah, and it isn't even that tall.

Yeah, and it isn't even that tall.

It's not, but this is not the project that we need to become the 2nd tallest. I understand the desire for more height, but given its location, it will actually appear favorably in the skyline from many different angles, so it's probably a bit overstated anyway.

Now the 3 lots surrounding MBG...that's where we should be hoping for the level of investment that beats out Cotter Ranch.

http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-council-members-authorize-convention-center-hotel-negotiations/article/5520036

Morsch said Omni also sees opportunities for retail and restaurant business beyond the hotel clientele, thanks to the hotel's location.

Let's hope this results in well-placed restaurants/retail that interact with the street and park. That can potentially avoid creating a dead zone when the convention center is not in use.

OKC to pursue Omni hotel proposal for convention center
By: Brian Brus The Journal Record September 27, 2016

OKLAHOMA CITY – By the end of the City Council’s discussion Tuesday, officials were raising the possibility of a fourth Metropolitan Area Projects tax to help pay for a hotel attached to the new MAPS 3 convention center.

Council members ultimately voted 7-2 to direct City Hall staff to open negotiations with developers of an Omni-brand hotel downtown. James Greiner and Ed Shadid voted against moving ahead with the project, questioning whether voters have been adequately informed about the process and costs.

However, Mayor Mick Cornett stressed that city officials should first work out a deal with developers before broaching the possibility of additional funds and financing.

In March last year, city officials identified four developers with the appropriate experience, approach and finances to bid on the project. The parties were told they needed to come up with designs for about 600 rooms, 50,000 square feet of ballroom and meeting space, upscale name branding and connectivity to the convention center itself.

The city received two proposals from Omni and a partnership of Marcus Hotels and Resorts and Mortenson under the Marriott brand. The latter team pitched a cost per square foot of $527 for a total development cost of $248 million while Omni landed on $413 per square foot for a total cost of $235.5 million.

City officials considered several other aspects as well, such as average revenue per room, food and beverage revenue and net operating income margins. Omni’s winning proposal concluded with the need for $85.4 million in public funding, or 36 percent of the total development cost, while Mortenson/Marcus asked for $105 million, or 42 percent of the total cost.

Tom Morsch, managing partner at Public Financial Management, said those figures compare favorably with projects in similar markets. The Kansas City Hyatt, for example, which is expected to be finished in 2019, will require $156 million in public participation, or 51 percent of the total. The Omni in Louisville, Kentucky, to be finished in 2018, will require $107 million from the public, or 47 percent of the final cost.

Cathy O’Connor, president of The Alliance for Economic Development of Oklahoma City, has led negotiation on City Hall’s behalf. She said interested parties were told parking would not be included in their proposals.

That bothered Shadid, who has repeatedly opposed the need for a city-developed hotel adjacent to the convention center. He said a proposal last week to dip into the MAPS 3 contingency fund to help pay for a related parking garage was an attempt to circumvent residents’ will. The MAPS 3 oversight committee referred that $10 million proposal to a subcommittee for further consideration before asking for council approval.

Greiner has also expressed reluctance to put taxpayer money behind a MAPS 3 convention center hotel. On Tuesday, for example, he questioned the need to build more than 400 rooms and conference rooms. Morsch said the larger space makes Oklahoma City more competitive with other cities.

“We probably want it, but I’m not sure we need it,” Greiner said.

Responding to questions about how to provide public assistance to complete the hotel, Assistant Finance Director Kenny Tsoodle told council members that it’s difficult to plan financing options at this stage without further negotiations with Omni representatives.

Depending on the company’s own preferences and resources, construction funds could be raised in several ways, including a tax increment finance district, ground lease, general obligation limited tax bonds and rental car tax.

“It’s really hard to say until we put together the final funding plan,” Tsoodle said. “We don’t know what the (financial) structure looks like. We don’t know what the coverages will look like. We don’t know if there will be city backing on a bond deal or if it stands alone.”

“This gives us a chance to go back to the people and ask them what they think,” said Councilman Pete White, who also echoed some of Shadid’s concerns. “I think the idea that it could be partially funded through an increase in the hotel/motel tax or in a citywide car rental tax would give an opportunity for the public to weigh in on this.”

Greiner said that although the Omni proposal looks much better than he had expected, he would prefer to bring the hotel to the public as a MAPS 4 election issue.

“I’m just not seeing $85 million add up,” Greiner said of the projected funding gap.

Officials said they expect to return in November with a final development agreement and funding plan for the council to weigh.

This is definitely the brand we wanted. Omni has outstanding hotels. Hopefully any design concerns are mitigated through the process and there is at least thorough investigation into the feasibility of adding some residential to the project. It would be a hit, particularly along the park.

Yes, I do like that it's an Omni and convention hotels are pretty much their thing.

Great brand and something we wouldn't get otherwise.

They will also be investing $150MM directly, not borrowing the money.

And the design is starting to grow on me.

I'm actually looking forward to it myself. I've discussed my past bad experience with Omni, which as it turns out was at a Wyndham that had recently been rebranded as an Omni. I'm convinced that this was, if not the source of the problem, a large contributor to it and look forward to experiencing a 'real' Omni.

I typically stay in Omni hotels when I travel and have had great experiences. That being said, I'll probably now have a ****ty one. lol

They will also be investing $150MM directly, not borrowing the money.

And the design is starting to grow on me.

Feel the same way as the design falls in line with the surrounding structures. The hotel has already spurred a potential $150 million for a new hotel development that could attract conventions that will help all downtown hotels.

We need to come up with the $85.4 million in subsides to cash in on this investment.

Based on the percentage that Louisville, Denver, Dallas & Nashville are contributing in subsidies (47% - 51% range), OKC is getting a very good deal at 36% of the project cost.

hotel is crucial next step for okc
September 28, 2016
by Cathy O'Connor via The Journal Record: September 28, 2016

On Tuesday, the Oklahoma City Council made a crucial next step in securing Oklahoma City’s status as a visitor destination by approving a resolution to enter into final negotiations with Omni Hotels & Resorts to develop Oklahoma City’s convention center hotel.

Oklahoma City’s tourism economy has grown substantially over the last 15 years. When we set out with MAPS to create a more dynamic environment for our residents, we also created an ever more attractive place to visit. The economic impact of tourism in our market now exceeds $2 billion annually.

Rendering of Omni Hotel for OKCThe new convention center – and an associated hotel – will only multiply this potential for our market. Convention delegates come to our community (many for the first time, or the first time in many years) bringing money into the market and leaving with a better impression of our community.

Convention delegates expect – and meeting planners demand – high-quality blocks of at least 500 rooms in an adjacent headquarters hotel. To block that many rooms for one group, the hotel must also have additional inventory for other guests. Current hotel space simply cannot accommodate the demand.

Building a convention center hotel will have undeniable benefits. Increased tourism strengthens our existing investments in MAPS 3 and projects throughout the community. It is estimated that for every 10,000 convention attendee visitors, Oklahoma City will see an economic boost by as much as $2 million.

In addition to the long-term benefits, construction of the convention center hotel will bring a $235 million investment to our downtown. The project is estimated to create more than 3,000 local jobs, provide more than $370 million in economic activity and provide $128 million in labor income to local residents.

Finalizing a development agreement and determining funding options for the public participation in the project are the next steps. Our goal is to deliver the high-quality, upscale convention center hotel that Oklahoma City needs while minimizing the amount of public participation necessary, and maximizing any potential return on our investment.

We have worked together to make Oklahoma City the great city it is today. The investment in this hotel will make the most of our many other investments, generate job opportunities and new revenue in our city, and provide benefits to every citizen.

I think they should add more rooms, because it will be needed. With this hotel having close proximity to the streetcar & Chesapeake Energy Arena, I can see them booking out rooms for patrons attending Thunder games, concerts, or other events held at the Peake. I believe blocking out 500 rooms for conventions & leaving only 100 for regular business will not be enough.

I think they should add more rooms, because it will be needed. With this hotel having close proximity to the streetcar & Chesapeake Energy Arena, I can see them booking out rooms for patrons attending Thunder games, concerts, or other events held at the Peake. I believe blocking out 500 rooms for conventions & leaving only 100 for regular business will not be enough.

I agree 100% with this conclusion. They should build a minimum of 650 rooms, although 700 would be better.

I agree 100% with this conclusion. They should build a minimum of 650 rooms, although 700 would be better.

Agree!

600 rooms may not be adequate; this will eventually lead to overflow bookings spilling into the surrounding hotels. Once they (surrounding hotels) start to benefit; then we can look at adding another conference hotel on the convention center site like another 200 - 400 room hotel.

I think they should add more rooms, because it will be needed. With this hotel having close proximity to the streetcar & Chesapeake Energy Arena, I can see them booking out rooms for patrons attending Thunder games, concerts, or other events held at the Peake. I believe blocking out 500 rooms for conventions & leaving only 100 for regular business will not be enough.

Yea I don't really understand how this is so difficult to understand. Anytime I am visiting another city for a specific event, I try to book the closest legit hotel as possible - especially if it is in a downtown vicinity and could allow easy walking and cab accessibility.

So basically if a huge convention that blocks 500 rooms comes in for a weekend, and there happens to be a (even local, not even regional) draw to another downtown event. There will be a measly 100 rooms?

What does the study say for potential 500 room-blocking sized conventions?

If everything is approved in some fashion and this gets the green light, when would this project commence building?

Agree!

600 rooms may not be adequate; this will eventually lead to overflow bookings spilling into the surrounding hotels. Once they (surrounding hotels) start to benefit; then we can look at adding another conference hotel on the convention center site like another 200 - 400 room hotel.

No sizable conference or convention expects to book everyone into a single hotel, and certainly not the bigger events the city has its eyes on with the new facilities.

Reread this:


Not to mention that overbuilding would not only create a need for construction subsidy but ALSO operational subsidy. This is where convention hotels in other cities have gone wrong. Everyone is so size obsessed and height obsessed that they are missing the most critical point; the CC hotel exists primarily to make the CC successful.

There is a formula to be followed in determining room number. They need to figure out how many people an Omni would draw on a regular basis if it was not connected to a CC. The flag itself is going to draw a certain number of people. In OKC for a full service hotel of that caliber it is probably 200 or so rooms on a regular basis. So, without any contiguous CC it would probably make sense for Omni to build a 200 room hotel. Anything over that needs to be driven by conference/convention business, and will usually be sold at a below-market room rate as an incentive for meeting planners to book. So there needs to be thought given to expected number of events based on the the CC facility itself, the expected room demand from those events, etc..

There is a repeated fundamental misunderstanding on this board of the purpose of a convention headquarters hotel like this one. It is NOT there to house all of the attendees. For various reasons (loyalty programs, price, desire to simply be elsewhere, or perhaps even not spending the night if local or regional), many, MANY conference and convention attendees won't even TRY to stay at the HQ hotel. It exists largely for the people who are facilitating the conferences; boards, association officials, presenters, vendors, etc.

If you build a hotel with a bunch of extra rooms just for the "blue sky" factor - that is, community ego, height on the skyline, or hoped-for growth that doesn't match the size/type of convention center that is attached - you are going to be building rooms that make no business sense. You are going to be building rooms that not only drive up the cost of the facility, they will have to be mothballed and won't make revenue. That will drive down the profitability of the hotel and put the city on track for ongoing OPERATIONAL subsidy. Those rooms still have to be maintained. They still have to be heated/cooled. They still have to be cleaned occasionally, even if not being used. They require more staff. They require more resources.

For all of the criticism on here regarding public subsidy in general, and of this project in particular, it amazes me that so many people are so bummed that the same building isn't bigger, taller, whatever. MUCH better for decisions regarding this hotel be based on sound business principles. Building it larger than required does nothing to help the CC's viability, and is actually HARMFUL to the viability of the hotel itself. If/when the CC itself requires expansion, there is a plan in place for more CC hotel rooms. That is wise and prudent, which is honestly what we should all be seeking here.

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/omni7.jpg

I think they should add more rooms, because it will be needed. With this hotel having close proximity to the streetcar & Chesapeake Energy Arena, I can see them booking out rooms for patrons attending Thunder games, concerts, or other events held at the Peake. I believe blocking out 500 rooms for conventions & leaving only 100 for regular business will not be enough.
Completely agree. Very small room count. Would be nicer to see it taller, yes community ego or whatever you want to call it, but I would like to see it taller. But more rooms would be much welcomed. Hopefully by the time there are shovels on the ground, we will see a higher room count and maybe more floors.

Urbanized, you need to write a book or something. You have so much knowledge and information on this type of stuff. Great post.

Appreciate the kind words. I don't know 100% of the industry info, but I've been around it for many years and as a result I've been fortunate enough to be around lots of people who DO know all about it.