I don't understand our obsession with height on this forum. We should be obsessed with density , walkability, and street interaction, from which height often detracts. I'd much rather have thirty densely packed 6 story buildings than two 90 story buildings or even six30 story buildings because they're much more likely to invite street interaction, create places of gathering, and enable true mixed use. If you look at the liveliest parts of major cities, you'll often see they are in dense areas of buildings ranging from 3-12 stories. NYC and SFO are prime examples of this. Compare the bustling mixture of people and businesses emanating from hundreds of 4-6 story buildings in the lower east side to stale lifelessness of the the financial district's towering skyscrapers. In SFO, the liveliest parts of the city are the areas of dense 3 story converted townhouses and live-work spaces. Let's focus on dense development rather than jewels of the sky that contribute comparatively little to the city's liveliness.

I don't understand our obsession with height on this forum. We should be obsessed with density , walkability, and street interaction, from which height often detracts. I'd much rather have thirty densely packed 6 story buildings than two 90 story buildings or even six30 story buildings because they're much more likely to invite street interaction, create places of gathering, and enable true mixed use. If you look at the liveliest parts of major cities, you'll often see they are in dense areas of buildings ranging from 3-12 stories. NYC and SFO are prime examples of this. Compare the bustling mixture of people and businesses emanating from hundreds of 4-6 story buildings in the lower east side to stale lifelessness of the the financial district's towering skyscrapers. In SFO, the liveliest parts of the city are the areas of dense 3 story converted townhouses and live-work spaces. Let's focus on dense development rather than jewels of the sky that contribute comparatively little to the city's liveliness.
I agree with you 100%. I just returned from London, Normandy, and Paris. The life of the cities of London and Paris are not where the skyscrapers are at all, but where the 5-6, 8-10 story buildings are in those cities. But, you know as well as everybody else on here, OKC is not going to have an abundance of 3-12 story buildings densely built in any area anytime soon. Like maybe never. So while I agree with you, I think many people equate height with progressive direction in OKC. jmo

I don't understand our obsession with height on this forum. We should be obsessed with density , walkability, and street interaction, from which height often detracts. I'd much rather have thirty densely packed 6 story buildings than two 90 story buildings or even six30 story buildings because they're much more likely to invite street interaction, create places of gathering, and enable true mixed use. If you look at the liveliest parts of major cities, you'll often see they are in dense areas of buildings ranging from 3-12 stories. NYC and SFO are prime examples of this. Compare the bustling mixture of people and businesses emanating from hundreds of 4-6 story buildings in the lower east side to stale lifelessness of the the financial district's towering skyscrapers. In SFO, the liveliest parts of the city are the areas of dense 3 story converted townhouses and live-work spaces. Let's focus on dense development rather than jewels of the sky that contribute comparatively little to the city's liveliness.

+1millionbillion

People like me: we want more height

Others: we don’t care why are you so height obsessed

Rinse and repeat for the next mid rise

Height is great when you can get it. There are a ton of developers who can fund a low rise or mid-rise project. There aren't many at all who can build a skyscraper. As a result, it's disappointing when you have a project that could be tall and it ends up short. We only get so many chances on these.

I love a lot of the 4 to 12 story buildings that we're getting in the downtown area. I think they're really adding to the fabric of the city and are filling it in well. But I completely understand being underwhelmed by the height here.

Actually, it's not an obsession with height AGAINST density and walkability. It is this project is underwhelming because it uses 2/5 public funds for a "highrise convention hotel" yet doesn't and WONT make an impact to the skyline.

Furthermore, more of us are upset due to the size reduction in # of rooms, which was always pegged at 750 by the consultants AND even in associated MAPS III discussions regarding the CC itself - yet OMNI came in and reduced the rooms they would build to 600.

OKC has plenty of land for mid-rise development, considering this is an EXTENSION of the CBD - we expected the highrise convention hotel of 750+ rooms that the consultants and everybody not OMNI had promoted this to be. Since it's not and that many of us think the CC will be a huge success if there were more rooms - there is this feeling of bait and switch for lack of height.

Further point - this area wont be a dense, walkable area for a very long time if ever. This is the CBD expansion area so the 750+ room convention hotel we were promised should have been at least 300 feet tall (ala Regency Tower in North downtown) not barely 200s (ala the Sheraton).

We're getting a wide, modern 600 room "Sheraton" for $85M+ public investment dictated by Omni. Meh!

Actually, it's not an obsession with height AGAINST density and walkability. It is this project is underwhelming because it uses 2/5 public funds for a "highrise convention hotel" yet doesn't and WONT make an impact to the skyline.

Which really doesn't matter at all in the grand scheme of things. And I don't see how it won't impact the skyline, when.... it will be a new building in the skyline?

Also, what makes you think this area won't have other buildings around it ever?

precedent.

NAME me where OKC build anything highrise (or even proposed) other than Devon and Devon's BOKPP that extended or will extend the CBD skyline in a meaningful way?

.... crickets, crickets. ...

As I said, Omni sets precedent that mid-rise is ok for Central Park CBD expansion. even when public funds is a significant contributor .. not to mention, the bait and switch model is what works in OKC.

You know, over promise with study after study that a 750+ room connected highrise hotel is needed for the CC to be successful yet deliver a 17 floor mid-rise of 600 rooms while begging for 40% to be paid with public funds .... precedent (and possible misuse of funds)

And it matters to those who post on here (like me) that are upset that continues to happen in OKC. Try reading our posts. ..

17 stories and over 200 feet is clearly a high rise. If you go down 235 and look to the east you can already see the Omni Hotel and it's got 8 floors to go. You can see it as you're going down Oklahoma City Boulevard as well. Exaggerating doesn't help make a point.

Didn't know what the official definition of "high-rise" was, if there was such a thing, so googled it and found out the Omni definitely qualifies as high-rise.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-rise_building#Definition

Various bodies have defined "high-rise":

Emporis Standards defines a high-rise as "A multi-story structure between 35–100 meters tall, or a building of unknown height from 12–39 floors."[3]

According to the building code of Hyderabad, India, a high-rise building is one with four floors or more, or 15 to 18 meters or more in height.[4]

The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines a high-rise as "a building having many storeys".

The International Conference on Fire Safety in High-Rise Buildings defined a high-rise as "any structure where the height can have a serious impact on evacuation"[citation needed]

In the U.S., the National Fire Protection Association defines a high-rise as being higher than 75 feet (23 meters), or about 7 stories.[5]

Most building engineers, inspectors, architects and similar professionals define a high-rise as a building that is at least 75 feet (23 m) tall.[citation needed]

Even half built the Omni is making an impression on the skyline.

17 stories and over 200 feet is clearly a high rise. If you go down 235 and look to the east you can already see the Omni Hotel and it's got 8 floors to go. You can see it as you're going down Oklahoma City Boulevard as well. Exaggerating doesn't help make a point.
17 stories a high rise LOL yeah I know by a f@cking technicality it is but I disagree in the modern era of skyscrapers.

17 stories a high rise LOL yeah I know by a f@cking technicality it is but I disagree in the modern era of skyscrapers.

like it or not.. it is a high rise… not a skyscraper.. and at this point the conversation is just getting silly.

17 stories a high rise LOL yeah I know by a f@cking technicality it is but I disagree in the modern era of skyscrapers.

A "skyscraper" is at least 150M high, a "high-rise" is at least 75M high. I figure the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitats knows what they're talking about.

From Wikipedia:

The Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat defines skyscrapers as those buildings which reach or exceed 150 m (490 ft) in height.[7] Others in the United States and Europe also draw the lower limit of a skyscraper at 150 m (490 ft).[8][2]

If you go by the building code a high rise is any building over 75 FEET. That is when you have to adhere to high rise codes like stair pressurization and additional fire sprinkler and structural requirements.

CBD expansion should be seeking skyscrapers or at least a highrise above 300 feet. That was my point.

And my other point was this is setting a precedent that likely other buildings here in the CBD expanion area wont be any taller, so we likely will only see mid-rises. This hardly qualifies as a proper CBD expansion IMO as we really need the mid-rises as in-fill in the existing CBD and built up areas.

Having Omni at 300 feet or higher would have set precedent so that we could see at least a few more above 250 feet, which would be a better CBD expansion. Which brings my final point, taxpayer dollars went into 40% of the Omni yet we were shortchanged from 750 rooms (which might have got us to 300 feet).

now I have laid out all three of my points. Nowhere am I upset with the Omni or not calling it a highrise since technically it is. What I am saying is we were promised as advised by consultants that this should have been a 750 room highrise hotel connected to the CC to assure its success (which likely would have meant a 22 floor/300 foot tower).

Taxpayers approved 40% of the cost with this in mind, yet Omni decided to downgrade it first to 19 floors then 18 then 17 per the Oklahoman articles which always had lower floors from the original that was as high as 24. The hotel was downgraded but the taxpayer burden was not and this sets a bad precedent for CBD expansion area AND any other public/private developments (bait and switch) - my point. ..

Does anyone seriously believe the Omni doesn’t want as many profitable revenue generating rooms as possible or that they made it shorter to cheat the city?

Subsidies most likely are justified by the amount of meeting and other space required to make it a good convention hotel and a complement to the CC, not just a room count or height requirement.

This will be a significant high end addition to the hotel inventory in OKC.

Does anyone seriously believe the Omni doesn’t want as many profitable revenue generating rooms as possible or that they made it shorter to cheat the city?

Subsidies most likely are justified by the amount of meeting and other space required to make it a good convention hotel and a complement to the CC, not just a room count or height requirement.

This will be a significant high end addition to the hotel inventory in OKC.

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/omni070519a.jpg

Also, don't forget that Omni wants a presence in our city; they secured 1st rights on the Cox Convention Center site (Old Myriad) if a hotel development is built. There's no restrictions on what their next OKC hotel may look like, who knows; across from The Peake, they may opt to construct another Omni slightly smaller or larger (hotel room count) than the first.

Don't forget that the Marriott Fairfield Inn & Suites could expand on their current site. Tulsa developer, Andy Patel also has options--don't know if there are any restriction on expansion of his hotel already on site.

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/fairfield012419.jpg
Patel's 133 room Marriott Fairfield Inn & Suites.

Hotel Study suggests 735 rooms: https://oklahoman.com/article/3915573/consultant-supports-oklahoma-city-convention-hotel-plan?

The two hotels will have a combined count of 738 rooms (605 Omni, 133 Fairfield) available on the Convention Center site

CBD expansion should be seeking skyscrapers or at least a highrise above 300 feet. That was my point.

And my other point was this is setting a precedent that likely other buildings here in the CBD expanion area wont be any taller, so we likely will only see mid-rises. This hardly qualifies as a proper CBD expansion IMO as we really need the mid-rises as in-fill in the existing CBD and built up areas.

Having Omni at 300 feet or higher would have set precedent so that we could see at least a few more above 250 feet, which would be a better CBD expansion. Which brings my final point, taxpayer dollars went into 40% of the Omni yet we were shortchanged from 750 rooms (which might have got us to 300 feet).

now I have laid out all three of my points. Nowhere am I upset with the Omni or not calling it a highrise since technically it is. What I am saying is we were promised as advised by consultants that this should have been a 750 room highrise hotel connected to the CC to assure its success (which likely would have meant a 22 floor/300 foot tower).

Taxpayers approved 40% of the cost with this in mind, yet Omni decided to downgrade it first to 19 floors then 18 then 17 per the Oklahoman articles which always had lower floors from the original that was as high as 24. The hotel was downgraded but the taxpayer burden was not and this sets a bad precedent for CBD expansion area AND any other public/private developments (bait and switch) - my point. ..

I agree with this message. Their study called for 750+ room hotel so the build 600 rooms. Just like many other projects,they came up short.

like it or not.. it is a high rise… not a skyscraper.. and at this point the conversation is just getting silly.
You’re not wrong.

To the Travellers: yes I know the consensus on what defines skyscrapers. I just like taller buildings so mine may differ. ;)

9 floors as of today.

Some of the siding is going up.

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/omni071219a.jpg

is there a rendering somewhere of how it's curb appeal is going to look?

This is from the boulevard but looking back to the east.

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/omni041918l.jpg

thanks pete... exactly the angle i was hoping to see!

I don't understand our obsession with height on this forum. We should be obsessed with density....

And the reality is that density forces height. Downtown still has a lot of undeveloped or underdeveloped properties. So, in general, If too much inventory is built on one site just for the sake of height, then there is less market capacity for building on the other empty sites and then it takes longer for density across all of downtown to be achieved.

But once that land is filled in (and if market demand grows), then height becomes necessary, as opposed to just vanity, in order to meet that demand.

Of course, there are specific projects that want everything under one roof and to do that, height is needed (Devon.. at the time). I guess this project could qualify, in that it doesn't itself meet what the projected market demand is on its own. However, the demand is met with the project next door. So, in a sense, some height was traded from this building, but the lot next to it also got developed.

Obviously, this doesn't happened all at once in a vacuum and there are always a ton of variables, but the reality is that if there wasn't all the underdeveloped land in downtown OKC to begin with, a lot of these projects would be taller by necessity. IMO, this one kind of does both. It has some vertical to it and it takes up some underdeveloped land. The idea that OKC will have a downtown with 10-13 square blocks of 300'+ towers soon, so we need to demand that of current projects, is hard to reconcile with our current assets and market demand.

I think HOT ROD has some valid points in context of the public assistance this one is getting. But, at the same time, if the market can't support this project without that assistance, we kind of should be happy it's happening at all, right? (unless, of course, you're a laissez faire kind of person, lol)

BDP, you're very true as usual.

But I did want to note those points so hopefully we can learn from them going forward. I just don't want to keep seeing this kind of bait and switch, 2nd rate development when we have a chance for better/more. I just wish developers wouldn't promise/promote one grand thing then it gradually but surely gets reduced to near suburban in-fill types.

But your points are very valid and is likely why some of our development comes out the way it does. I honestly wish we'd implement expansion areas one district at a time instead of all over the place - BChris first mentioned this iirc. That way, we'd have some 'constraints' that would allow maximum use of a site allowing the district to get critical mass/density that we ALL want; rather than just horizontal in-fill since there's so much overall that the demand isn't there at any one site. Too bad we tore down so many old buildings that could have been saved and negated this.

Anyway - good points nonetheless!

BDP, you're very true as usual.

But I did want to note those points so hopefully we can learn from them going forward. I just don't want to keep seeing this kind of bait and switch, 2nd rate development when we have a chance for better/more. I just wish developers wouldn't promise/promote one grand thing then it gradually but surely gets reduced to near suburban in-fill types.

But your points are very valid and is likely why some of our development comes out the way it does. I honestly wish we'd implement expansion areas one district at a time instead of all over the place - BChris first mentioned this iirc. That way, we'd have some 'constraints' that would allow maximum use of a site allowing the district to get critical mass/density that we ALL want; rather than just horizontal in-fill since there's so much overall that the demand isn't there at any one site. Too bad we tore down so many old buildings that could have been saved and negated this.

Anyway - good points nonetheless!

i just don’t see a lawful way to implement this idea. You’d have folks who spent millions on land/architects/permitting/bribes/etc., but they aren’t allowed to build until The Density Police give them the green light?

BDP, you're very true as usual.

But I did want to note those points so hopefully we can learn from them going forward. I just don't want to keep seeing this kind of bait and switch, 2nd rate development when we have a chance for better/more. I just wish developers wouldn't promise/promote one grand thing then it gradually but surely gets reduced to near suburban in-fill types.

But your points are very valid and is likely why some of our development comes out the way it does. I honestly wish we'd implement expansion areas one district at a time instead of all over the place - BChris first mentioned this iirc. That way, we'd have some 'constraints' that would allow maximum use of a site allowing the district to get critical mass/density that we ALL want; rather than just horizontal in-fill since there's so much overall that the demand isn't there at any one site. Too bad we tore down so many old buildings that could have been saved and negated this.

Anyway - good points nonetheless!

Yes, the bait and switch tactics are annoying and should always be accounted for, especially when public assistance is involved. Whether it's height, capacity, or materials used, we still don't seem to have any good mechanism to force the quality promised when negotiating or, at least, we don't seem to use them.

i just don’t see a lawful way to implement this idea. You’d have folks who spent millions on land/architects/permitting/bribes/etc., but they aren’t allowed to build until The Density Police give them the green light?

You're probably right, but the same time we don't seem to mind giving advantage to one developer/business over another when it comes to public assistance and yet, somehow, that's lawful.

Too bad the Density Police doesn't have their own slush fund for bribing.

9 floors as of today.

Some of the siding is going up.

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/omni071219a.jpg

Amazingly they are building a floor per week, this should top out around the 1st of September; also nice infill for us height Kings--of course include me in that category.

I noticed this morning. the first floor of rooms have cladding installed on the north side

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/omni072119a.jpg

I noticed last week they raised the South side crane.

hope - pray, they also raise the other two. fingers crossed.

because then it will be more than just 17 floors.

hope - pray, they also raise the other two. fingers crossed.

because then it will be more than just 17 floors.

You are correct (Post #36 Downtown Hotel Summary) in that Omni will fall short...

Seriously doubt if Omni will raise the floor count or room count; IMO they may look back when they realize the missed opportunity an 800 room hotel would have benefited the partnership they have with the city.

They did leave the door open with interests in the future of the CC-old Myriad site If a hotel comes into play; hopefully the city won't have to subsidize if Omni execise those rights.

Pic above, starting on 11th floor?

Seriously doubt if Omni will raise the floor count or room count; IMO they may look back when they realize the missed opportunity an 800 room hotel would have benefited the partnership they have with the city.

They did leave the door open with interests in the future of the CC-old Myriad site If a hotel comes into play; hopefully the city won't have to subsidize if Omni execise those rights.

You mean hopefully they don't ask for a subsidy? Which we all know they would.

i hope others see the success of this cc and OKC, and our potential if we had more rooms and more hotels are built. Speaking to you JW Marriott, Hyatt, and Westin!!! We need more full service flags.

And I'm all for subsidy if they include underground or under-building parking. ..

Subsidy and we still had to build THEM a garage on another lot???? Just more of my gripes with this Omni deal :)

And I'm all for subsidy if they include underground or under-building parking. ..

Subsidy and we still had to build THEM a garage on another lot???? Just more of my gripes with this Omni deal :)

Correct me if I'm wrong but i think they ended up building a couple of parking levels under the Omni.

You can see this on page 79.

Hotel companies do a market analysis and estimate the number of rooms they should build in a hotel, if they build one at all. Like it or not, they're in the business of turning a profit. They aren't in the business of turning people on with tall buildings. Don't get me wrong, I'd love for our Omni to be 20-30 stories. That would be an impressive mark on the skyline. But even at 17 stories, it will expand the skyline and be seen from 40 and 235.

Correct me if I'm wrong but i think they ended up building a couple of parking levels under the Omni.

You can see this on page 79.

It's just one basement floor for mechanical and service operations.

And I'm all for subsidy if they include underground or under-building parking. ..

Subsidy and we still had to build THEM a garage on another lot???? Just more of my gripes with this Omni deal :)

It's expensive building underground especially a multilevel parking garage.

There will be 178 spaces in the basement; I'm sure it will be used primarily for valet parking:

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

It's expensive building underground especially a multilevel parking garage.

So true.

The original plans with the Myriad Convention Center in the 70s was to have a multi-level underground parking. When they excavated dirt at the 4 block site they discovered the hidden Chinese underground tunnel and hit the water tables--only allowed them to build 1 level of parking underground. The downtown was initially built over a dry riverbed.

Historians recall hidden "Chinese underground" under OKC streets: https://okcfox.com/archive/historians-recall-hidden-chinese-underground-under-okc-streets

Hotel companies do a market analysis and estimate the number of rooms they should build in a hotel, if they build one at all. Like it or not, they're in the business of turning a profit.

Of course they are, but the analysis was done and they asked for public assistance to build something that didn't even meet the conclusions of that analysis. I think the crux of HOT ROD's position is that concessions were granted by the city without any condition to fulfill the capacity claimed in the analysis, let alone exceed it.

The thing is that, theoretically, they should be able to turn that profit for which they are in business simply by meeting capacity and managing demand and cash flow through rate structures. It actually makes more sense to give concessions to go above and beyond the market analysis as a way to mitigate the increased risk. But what happened is they took the analysis and felt it significantly overstated the strength of the market and that it would need public assistance to be profitable even at a capacity below the recommendation.

So, effectively, their profit analysis concluded that they should build this hotel only if it is a public works project with public assistance and that assistance was justified by the reasoning that they deserve to make a profit in the market and we need to use (or forgo) public resources to help assure them that they will. Basically, we mitigated their risk unconditionally.

I get it. This is just filed under "that's just how it's done, now", but we shouldn't forget what's actually happening. Yes, they are in the business of making a profit, but part of that business model is squeezing local markets to finance that profit.

the Chinese underground stories are always so interesting to me. thanks for the reminder

So true about the water table. There is a natural spring in one of the sumps in the underground that has to be pumped out 24/7

Of course they are, but the analysis was done and they asked for public assistance to build something that didn't even meet the conclusions of that analysis. I think the crux of HOT ROD's position is that concessions were granted by the city without any condition to fulfill the capacity claimed in the analysis, let alone exceed it.

The thing is that, theoretically, they should be able to turn that profit for which they are in business simply by meeting capacity and managing demand and cash flow through rate structures. It actually makes more sense to give concessions to go above and beyond the market analysis as a way to mitigate the increased risk. But what happened is they took the analysis and felt it significantly overstated the strength of the market and that it would need public assistance to be profitable even at a capacity below the recommendation.

So, effectively, their profit analysis concluded that they should build this hotel only if it is a public works project with public assistance and that assistance was justified by the reasoning that they deserve to make a profit in the market and we need to use (or forgo) public resources to help assure them that they will. Basically, we mitigated their risk unconditionally.

I get it. This is just filed under "that's just how it's done, now", but we shouldn't forget what's actually happening. Yes, they are in the business of making a profit, but part of that business model is squeezing local markets to finance that profit.
You are ONLY focused on guest room counts and ignore a huge part of the facility which is designed specifically to augment and complement the cc. They could have just built a hotel at lower risk. We’ve a lot of people already doing that... limited service and budget hotels in the area just providing a bed and room to sleep for the night. We needed a full service high end convention focused building. That’s what we are getting. This “how many pounds per dollar” analysis is maddening. Planning is a lot more than number of rooms and floors. Cheap, tall but lack of quality and functionality does not trump what we are getting for our money.

i hope you're right Rover and it's a huge success that spurs add'l flag hotels. I suspect this to be the case as for some reason OKC is always a wait-and-see type of city when it comes to investment/speculation.

BTW, the convention and amenities spaces at Omni you speak of above are a no-brainer, as all modern "convention hotels" have this. I seriously doubt that OKC was subsidizing that part. Therefore, you also can't ignore that Omni isn't building the recommended 750 rooms for the cc to be successful. I still maintain that with public funding at 40%, we should be getting that many rooms. Even if conventions aren't consuming all the rooms, the city could have some supply to sell on the market to business visitors or tourists who'd love to have the Omni experience.

Again, I'm not against the Omni or their receiving subsidy from OKC. I'm against their short changing OKC in room count and perhaps not taking the plunge on OKC as a growth market. I suspect the 600 rooms will always be oversold - proven with OKC's existing full-service (yet outdated) "convention" supply (395+311=716 rooms) if we even marginally increased the number/size of conventions.

Why did OKC do all of those consulting (which also had a dollar subsidy recommendation of our $85M) which we're paying in TIF if we aren't getting what the consultants recommended?? And if so, the hotel would be taller.

Omni pitched 750 rooms and won the bid against Marriott et al, yet THEY decided to go with less, uncontested, while the TIF remained the same.



That's my point. ..

You are ONLY focused on guest room counts and ignore a huge part of the facility which is designed specifically to augment and complement the cc. They could have just built a hotel at lower risk. We’ve a lot of people already doing that... limited service and budget hotels in the area just providing a bed and room to sleep for the night. We needed a full service high end convention focused building. That’s what we are getting. This “how many pounds per dollar” analysis is maddening. Planning is a lot more than number of rooms and floors. Cheap, tall but lack of quality and functionality does not trump what we are getting for our money.

That's fair.

But, it's still just us mitigating their risk. Basically they said "we can't do what you think you want to have in your market and make money", and the city said "well then here's some assistance, so you can make money." That at least suggests the claim that the market "needs" it may be dubious.

I mean, you claim we needed "a full service high end convention focused building", but they who are actually in the business told us there isn't enough market demand for it at a level where we can make money without public assistance.

Honestly, I'm not sure what you mean by "pounds per dollar". Was that literal? I was speaking to the issue of capacity, because it illustrates the dynamic of the public / private relationship. I think the issues of type of hotel, services offered, on site meeting space, etc. are all relevant, but it doesn't really change the mechanics at work here. Those are just things in addition to the capacity, for which we are using public resources to bridge the gap between the city's wants (or, I guess needs if you want to put it that way) and market realities. It's only prudent at that point to try and quantify what those public resources are getting per dollar.

Once the dust clears from the upper park, cc/hotel building & street construction; predict you'll witness increases in streetcar & bus ridership in the core, an Omni (one year after opening) booked needing more rooms, where OKC could have capitalized had 750-800 rooms been available. HotRod, JMO you nailed it.

Realize Omni has its market analysis in play, we'll see how this develops.

And I'm all for subsidy if they include underground or under-building parking. ..

Subsidy and we still had to build THEM a garage on another lot???? Just more of my gripes with this Omni deal :)

I'm not an engineer but l believe there are problems going underground very far because of the water table being in close proximity to the river.

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/omni072819a.jpg

Setting the foundation for the 12th Floor.

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/convention072819c.jpg

Anyone who hasn't seen the final renderings is going g to think this is going to be an ugly concrete block until the glass starts going in. I like the mix of solid panels and glass

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/convention072819c.jpg

looking at this picture, the lowest crane is a good indication on about how tall it will be...

looking at this picture, the lowest crane is a good indication on about how tall it will be...
I believe you are correct.

From a few days ago:

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/omni080419a.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/omni080419b.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/omni080419c.jpg

I hope it looks bigger once the glass goes in; as of now it looks rink-a-dink even in person next to the CC.