In the past you've repeatedly stated that the CC (and now a stadium) would be waste of money, won't have much economic impact, will ruin the pedestrian environment, should be tucked away in some corner away from everything else if built, won't drive ancillary development...then sometimes you say it will. Often your opinion changes from page to page. Let me know when you finally land on a position and I will let you know whether we agree or disagree. It won't be difficult to determine, since I've been nothing if not consistent in years of posting on the topic.

I like to think I have been the most consistent person on urban development in the OKCTalk community. I am often accused of living by rigid dogma I am so consistent and nearly every person on OKCTalk knows what I am going to say before I even say it - but anyhow, let me spell it out again so as to removed any confusion or misunderstanding.

1) I support a new convention center. I always have. Never once have I said I didn't.

2) I don't think a convention center will produce the revenue the Chamber told us it will - and it sure won't ever come close to recouping the $250 million price tag in either direct or indirect spending.

3) I don't like the REHCO location. A) Convention centers kill walkability. They are built at a scale that is not conducive to pedestrians. I don't mean from the front door to downtown hotels or Bricktown - I mean they will create a large separation between future Core to Shore residential development and downtown. Maybe even big enough to prevent future residential development. B) MBG would be better served being surround by midrise residential and sidewalk cafes.

4) Convention centers are a necessary evil, so they should be placed where they do the least harm to the community - and not so much where they maximize conventions. In my opinion, the full time permanent residents of a city should take priority over accommodating 3 and 4 day visitors and the business interest that cater to them.

5) I am not sold on a large public subsidy for a convention hotel that will still require an annual operating subsidy.

6) From an out of town visitor standpoint - it would make more economic sense to buy 700,000 random people a plane ticket to OKC under the condition they stay at a downtown hotel than it would be to build a convention center and hotel. That would be 200 out of town visitors every day for 10 years and if each stayed 5 days that would be 1000 out-of-towners downtown every single day - or in convention counting: 5,000 attendees every single week (how many conventions does OKC plan to have that big). Now I am not proposing we do that - I am just saying that it will produce more revenue than a convention center and hotel will.

7) I think the Chamber pulled the wool over the collective eyes of Oklahoma Citians but getting us to commit to a phase 1 convention center without telling anyone that a phase 2 and hotel were necessary to make it successful (something that is still being swept under the rug to this very day).

8) Fact - the vast majority of people currently using the Cox Center are people from Central Oklahoma. The numbers aren't even close. THAT is why I support a new convention center. It is a quality of life issue for me and not an economic one. If it was an economic decision I would just support item 6 above.

9) Convention centers are not a catalyst for new development. You cited Lucas Oil Stadium as a shining example of success - well go look at Google Earth and use the date slider and tell me if you see any adjacent development before and after. If there is any I sure can't see it. The very fact that Lucas Oil Stadium was build on a surface parking lot across the street from the RCA dome 30 years AFTER the RCA dome was built should be proof to anyone that convention centers and stadiums don't drive adjacent development. At best, they provide customers to existing businesses in the city - and that is it and more often than not, those customers are already area residents which doesn't supply new money to the local economy - it just redistributes who gets it. However, that doesn't stop the Chamber from counting them as convention center attendees and applying the revenue multiplier to them (see the Women's Conference).

10) I get it - you own a business that derives a lot of money from visitors, but good urbanism and community building should take a back-seat to private gain. I know that is a tough pill to swallow but that is the exact thing we collectively have been hammering Devon, Sandridge, the Public Works Department, OGE, and countless other developers/architects over for the last 7 or 8 years - and YOU were a part of that. Alas, when it comes down to your checkbook all of a sudden your emphasis on walkability is now limited to the tiny plot of ground between the front door of the convention center and Bricktown/Downtown. Some of us still care about walkability and good urban design for all of downtown and the downtown adjacent areas - even areas that haven't been developed yet. How can you ever promote walkability to anyone else when you opted out of it yourself when it came down to how it impacted you? It is disappointing.

Okay - that about sums it up for me. Since this was just 'off the top of my head' writing I am sure I left something off or wasn't clear on a specific item so if you or anyone else has any doubt about my position let me know and I will clear it up.

I hate to say it, but I agree with JTF on just about every point.

But on topic and we probably don't agree, we don't need another anything resembling a public financed convention center, stadium, museum, type project on this spot. I've voted for every maps. Would not vote for that no matter what it's log rolled with. It needs to be private financed development. Period.

I fail to see how the current C2S Site B site is anti-walkability (assuming it is still the plan to put the large hall underground). Stolen from the other thread.

http://www.okctalk.com/attachments/development-buildings/11049-convention-center-cc-north-c2s-b.jpg

This puts only the southwest corner of the gardens surrounded by convention center and amenities and half of that is the hotel, leaving the other half of the REHCO site and the eventual fate of the Cox site open for non-superblock development. Hudson running between two halves of a divided building feels to me like the the Moscone Center in downtown San Francisco, and if you think that site configuration is not walkable then you are simply wrong.

Of course, all of this is also dependent on a site configuration on our end that is walkable, and that is for the city to screw up or not.

Geez, that's a lot of typing, JTF. I think I'll pass on wasting my time with a point-by-point response.

I will say - as a way to demonstrate how flawed your criticism is as you attempt to impugn my motives - that I DON'T own a business that caters in large part to visitors...I WORK for one. I have very little personally at stake here. I could easily work somewhere else next year, or next week, in another part of town, and I would still feel EXACTLY the same way about the CC. What I have posted in the past has zero to do with Bricktown's self-interest, and everything to do with ensuring that we don't spend a quarter billion in taxpayer dollars to construct a failed building.

In years of posting on this topic I have never said that Bricktown proximity is the most important factor. In fact, if you look at the recent consultant's ranking matrix the favored location is far from the best possible location for Bricktown connectivity. It ranks far better for connectivity to Film Row, actually. I don't think that's a bad thing; in fact I think that it is a positive that a CC in this location would also feed business to (and itself benefit from) an emerging FR. Once the streetcar is in place, Automobile Alley (my first love) and Midtown would also benefit. This is good for the CC, and good for the community in general.

The important thing is that the location has industry-desired 10 minute walkable connectivity to hospitality AT ALL, and it is critical in this case that it is 10-minutes-walkable to existing hotel stock.

You're constantly harping about convention center subsidy...how do you not understand that a constantly-booked CC requires less operational subsidy (if any) than a CC that struggles to find business?

You claim that I'm compromising my walkability cred by supporting a public amenity that has an unwieldy scale. Guess what? The same is true of the Bricktown Ballpark and the Chesapeake Arena, both built on superblocks. Yet nobody is suggesting today that they should have been built in some out-of-the-way corner on the fringe of downtown. It's quite obvious to everyone how much vibrancy and economic impact they provide downtown when they are properly programmed. Could they have better designs from a walkability standpoint? Of course. And we should be pushing for this with the design of the CC.

But - in the case of the CC as it appears to be taking shape - it will certainly have far less negative impact on the environment than the Cox Center currently does. It will probably have less negative impact than 499 or some other projects taking shape, and by contrast will actually be routinely putting people onto downtown's sidewalks and into downtown businesses. As a bonus it will free up the Cox Center site for more walkable redevelopment and if utilizing the REHCO/Clayco option will also allow walkable mixed use development between the CC and Chesapeake.

Public buildings of this type have their place in a major city. They are hugely important, in fact. They just need to be thoughtfully located and executed. Instead of griping about the walkability lost you should be celebrating the opportunities gained for OTHER walkable development and the stabilizing economic impact a CC will have for ALL of downtown.

But anyway, nice job of calling my integrity into question in an attempt at winning a flawed Internet argument.

That is exactly why I prefer the east park or co-op site. It sacrafices a little bit of walkability for convention goers, but protects the rest of the surrounding area from the negative effects. Maybe the convention center supporters should take the Hippocratic oath - do no harm. The CC is not the big picture, all of central OKC is.

I also think building underground is a pipe-dream. I seriously doubt that is going to happen, unless there is a finish MAPS 3 right vote to increase the funding.

That is exactly why I prefer the east park or co-op site. It sacrafices a little bit of walkability for convention goers, but protects the rest of the surrounding area from the negative effects...

...and ensures massive taxpayer operational and other subsidy and little positive economic impact for a generation. Ask Dallas how much it has cost them in unanticipated, after-the-fact rail and infrastructure improvements plus private business subsidy to fix a poorly-chosen and walkability-challenged CC site. Pick your poison. You've obviously chosen that particular brand, so now I can definitively state that I disagree with your position. Until the next time you change it, that is.

So 2 blocks are the difference between subsidy and no subsidy and you can guarantee the REHCO site won't require one anyhow (never mind that the City will have to swap some of the most expensive land in the state and pay rent on the COX just to acquire the site). The Co-Op owners said they could sell the necessary land at the approved budget. Future subsidies could be paid out of that funding gap.

I also think building underground is a pipe-dream. I seriously doubt that is going to happen, unless there is a finish MAPS 3 right vote to increase the funding.

For the location in question it's either underground or they rip out Hudson, and the latter seems pretty unlikely.

Is this our unicorn.

So 2 blocks are the difference between subsidy and no subsid..

The fact that you dismiss it as a two block difference shows how little you know or care to know about this issue. The difference in distances between the REHCO-to-hotels vs. COOP-to-hotels (meaning full-service hotels in the CBD) is closer to 1/4 mile.

And as long as we're talking additional expense, be sure to add extra, unanticipated streetcar track (paid for by whose budget?), extra streetcar operating costs (whose service is negatively impacted as a result?) and possibly additional hotel and private business subsidy in an attempt to make bookings more palatable to planners (see Dallas).

So, keep fantasizing about banishing the CC to the COOP site (or some other backwater). Fortunately this City's decision-makers have better sense than that.

Well, if the streetcar committee didn't waste a half of mile track with their location selection for the maintenance center it wouldn't be an issue. Heck, they could put the CC and the streetcar maintenance facility on the Co-Op property and do a 2 fer'. But that would make too much sense.

For the location in question it's either underground or they rip out Hudson, and the latter seems pretty unlikely.

Pretty sure they will end up elevating it over the road like Denver, Tampa, and Philadelphia. They just don't have the money to build what they envision. If they attempt it anyhow without all the funding in place we will end up with another AICCM.

You will have a great view of downtown from I-40 once they dispose of this clinking, clanking, clattering collection of caliginous junk (Producers Coop Mill)!

Cone on - have a heart. :)

Kerry (JTF):

Do you think there will be any opposition (can't keep from laughing) to the demolition of the Producers Coop Mill; it does have hysterical value.

Kerry (JTF):

Do you think there will be any opposition (can't keep from laughing) to the demolition of the Producers Coop Mill; it does have hysterical value.

I am sure somewhere someone will claim that it is a landmark for cross country travels and should be saved. I guess that is a good thing because it at least displays a fundamental understanding of place making and vernacular architecture.

I'm usually for preservation, and to be honest, PCOM's departure will be the end of an era. If I'm not mistaken, there's been a cotton compress or seed crushing operation on that land pretty much since statehood; I know PCOM's been there since the early-to-mid 40's. The distinctive silos used for storing the seed products will be missed. But honestly, they're not historic structures, and they're not built to the strength of historic buildings in Bricktown or elsewhere. It's a bit sad to see this operation come to an end, but I can't wait to see a higher and better use come to this spot. I do hope that whatever development goes in here, it pays homage to the site's history in some way.

I am sure somewhere someone will claim that it is a landmark for cross country travels and should be saved. I guess that is a good thing because it at least displays a fundamental understanding of place making and vernacular architecture.

I know there are local architects that would very much like to see the silos saved and repurposed.

I'd love to see that as well, as the structures are icon and unique and we have very little of either in OKC.

However, I'm also sure this is never going to happen.

I think the silos are very unique and would love to see someone work with the existing structures too.

Wonder how it would have turned out if instead of making the fairgrounds the Horse-a-rama they did it on this site. Then the fairgrounds could have stayed the fairgrounds.

I think one or more of the silos would make a pretty cool REI. Of course I have REI on the brain since I am planning my first backpacking trip and giving them plenty of my money this summer. But I am thinking of the Downtown Denver location that was an old train station. I know the silos aren't a train station but I think they could be repurposed into something pretty cool.

Those metal shed couldn't be used for anything accept recycling . At best they could be replicated in new construction.

Wonder how it would have turned out if instead of making the fairgrounds the Horse-a-rama they did it on this site. Then the fairgrounds could have stayed the fairgrounds.

Not sure if there is enough room. Either way, the horse-a-rama equals cash-a-rama, so it certainly wasn't a bad investment.

so now, they can start investing in themselves for a change perhaps?

Who is "they"? The fairgrounds? It has seen tens on millions of capital investment in the past 20 years. It's reasonable to criticize the disappearance of various elements that many associate with the charm of the fair, but you can't say that the fairgrounds hasn't seen investment. Quite the opposite is true, in fact.

so now, they can start investing in themselves for a change perhaps?

Yeah, who is "they"? The estimated economic impact of our horse show industry is over $100 million dollars a year*. That's more than the new CC is projected to get up by 2028 ( Around $80MM - $90MM, net of the impact of building it**). That's more than the impact the Thunder has been estimated to have ($50MM - $80MM***, though I kind of think that's low). These people come from all over the world for these events. The shows produce 175k room nights a year*, and the occupancy tax on those rooms pays for a lot of the improvements to facilities used for these events*. So, if by "they" you mean the horse show attendees, "they" actually do invest in themselves and OKC to the tune of millions of dollars a year.

I'm in no way making an argument against spending on sports facilities or convention centers, and these numbers often seem dubious, but if we were to just use the economic impact estimates available to do a simple return on investment analysis, we'd be spending more, not less, on the horse show facilities at the fair grounds.

* Equine facility makeover at Oklahoma City's State Fair Park is almost complete | News OK (http://newsok.com/equine-facility-makeover-at-oklahoma-citys-state-fair-park-is-almost-complete/article/3646093)
** http://www.theallianceokc.org/sites/default/files/files/Economic%20Impact%20of%20CC_121313.pdf
*** Oklahoma City?s Thunder BOOM! - Slice - September 2014 - Oklahoma City (http://www.sliceok.com/September-2014/Oklahoma-Citys-Thunder-BOOM/)

Just imagine the synergy of horse-a-rama (on the coop site), the Chesapeake arena (and maybe a new rodeo specific one on the coop site), and the convention center. THAT would be pretty cool. Of course, the Meridian hotels would have a fit.

I can personally attest to seeing massive impact by the horse-show industry in OKC. Whatever our investment was, there's no doubt that we're making bank on it, and getting a lot of people interested in our city as well.

Just imagine the synergy of horse-a-rama (on the coop site), the Chesapeake arena (and maybe a new rodeo specific one on the coop site), and the convention center. THAT would be pretty cool. Of course, the Meridian hotels would have a fit.

Just imagine all the people who would hate to tow a horse trailer into downtown. If it isn't broken, don't fix it.

Just imagine all the people who would hate to tow a horse trailer into downtown.

I don't see that as an actual problem.

I don't see that as an actual problem.

It'd probably be more of a problem than asking convention attendees to walk to this site from a hotel.

I don't see that as an actual problem.

I'm going to bet you've never seen the ocean of stock vehicles parked at the fairgrounds during an event.

There will be an exit ramp from I-40, I-35, and I-235 on to OKC Blvd, and then a left turn at Oklahoma Ave. How much easier can it possibly get.

There will be an exit ramp from I-40, I-35, and I-235 on to OKC Blvd, and then a left turn at Oklahoma Ave. How much easier can it possibly get.

Pave central park for a parking area for the large trucks, stock trailers and travel trailers and problem solved! There are reasons it is successful where it is. Location is one of them.

Lot's of wasted time on something that is NEVER going to happen. Why don't we just start discussing how moving the NYSE to the COOP site would be so cool and bring a real urban feel to downtown...not to mention how great that would be to mention on all Thunder telecasts. Or, while we are at it, why not move the Eiffel Tower there....now THAT would be cool.

About as much chance.

As for convention attendee access - there is walking, streetcar, and canal access already and moving everything here might direct more visitors to the river boats. Plus we could add something not many US cities have... urban gondolas.

The Gondola Project (http://gondolaproject.com/)

Pave central park for a parking area for the large trucks, stock trailers and travel trailers and problem solved! There are reasons it is successful where it is. Location is one of them.

The entire area is about 50 acres. That is way more than enough room so no need to pave the park.

Lot's of wasted time on something that is NEVER going to happen. Why don't we just start discussing how moving the NYSE to the COOP site would be so cool and bring a real urban feel to downtown...not to mention how great that would be to mention on all Thunder telecasts. Or, while we are at it, why not move the Eiffel Tower there....now THAT would be cool.

About as much chance.

Agreed, a lot of money has already been spent at the Fairgrounds and now the giant barn with a fancy name, Expo Center is rising out of the ground. Maybe if 15 years ago if the Co-op was actually interested in selling there would have been a slight chance of actually happening.

nm

The entire area is about 50 acres. That is way more than enough room so no need to pave the park.

If you paved all of it you might have room for the above mentioned large vehicle parking. The fairgrounds are 435 acres.

Yea, but they aren't using the whole fairgrounds.

Anyhow, that is my idea for the area,

I vote we move TAFB. Just as viable of an idea.

I vote we move TAFB. Just as viable of an idea.

This kind of non-sense isn't helpful.

Yea, but they aren't using the whole fairgrounds.

Anyhow, that is my idea for the area,

At least half is used for equestrian. The barns themselves would take up most of that 50 acres judging from Google Earth images.

This kind of non-sense isn't helpful.

Neither is attempting to seriously discuss ideas that have NO chance of Ever happening as if it is real. Reasonable people know that they aren't shutting down the horse activity at the fairgrounds to move it to the coop. To be taken seriously, the discussion should actually be about things that are at least remotely possible. Otherwise, it becomes cartoonish.

It's in private hands and needs to remain in private hands. No need for us to go looking for more tax and spend projects.

On the same note...does the Coop still own the Bridgestone site? I was just down by there and quite a bit of the old plant has been torn down. I don't remember anything in that last press release about them giving it up too, but I assume they either plan to or already have.

Yeah, I don't believe it's sold yet, but they put the old tire plant up for sale a few years back. They decided to tear town and recycle the building so that there was a clean slate for whomever purchased it.

If it doesn't sell first, I wonder if after a few years of better weather for agriculture their fortunes will change and they'll revisit that site.

It's in private hands and needs to remain in private hands. No need for us to go looking for more tax and spend projects.

On the same note...does the Coop still own the Bridgestone site? I was just down by there and quite a bit of the old plant has been torn down. I don't remember anything in that last press release about them giving it up too, but I assume they either plan to or already have.

They've sold part of it and have the rest for sale.

They've removed all the storage there and it no longer figures into any of their plans, other than to liquidate.

so, since the horse shows have brought in so much money for the fairgrounds - then THEY should not need to keep coming to MAPS for infrastructure, they already have a revenue source and apparently it is greater than anything in the city if the posts in this thread are true.

I don't see WRWA coming in asking for MAPS - they have their own revenue sources and pay for their own expansions and renos. But honestly I would approve any request if WRWA did ask for MAPS; but im sure they are seeing it like I do - we have our own revenue so we finance our own M&O. Fairgrounds needs to stop begging from the city/MAPS and instead use some of the 'the millions of dollars they bring annually' for their own M&O and PPE expansion.

To be fair to the fair..lol, the grounds were poorly managed for decades and ignored for any improvements. The buildings were all falling apart and were quite frankly, embarrassing. The city needed to step in to help fix things...much like downtown. When you fall that far, all you can do it go up.

At some point you have to decide if the momentum has driven the place to go on its own. I don't think we'll see that at the fair until a few more projects are under its belt...and especially the expo hall has paid for itself. But before we start looking at that, downtown has long since had the momentum, but we continue to fork out money for it in every maps vote. It's just one of those, continue to improve things. So maybe the fair always gets something because we need to keep pushing?

so, since the horse shows have brought in so much money for the fairgrounds - then THEY should not need to keep coming to MAPS for infrastructure, they already have a revenue source and apparently it is greater than anything in the city if the posts in this thread are true.

I don't see WRWA coming in asking for MAPS - they have their own revenue sources and pay for their own expansions and renos. But honestly I would approve any request if WRWA did ask for MAPS; but im sure they are seeing it like I do - we have our own revenue so we finance our own M&O. Fairgrounds needs to stop begging from the city/MAPS and instead use some of the 'the millions of dollars they bring annually' for their own M&O and PPE expansion.

Uhh...I don't think you understand this fully. The millions of dollars the fairgrounds and horse shows bring in annually are not direct revenue for the fairgrounds. The shows probably roughly break even for the fairgrounds after expenses. The money they are talking about is the spending that these shows bring into the economy, including money spent at hotels, restaurants, stores and elsewhere. This represents profit for the owners of those places, sure, but also supports thousands of service industry and other jobs.

In turn OKC residents enjoy a higher standard of living than they would without these visitors, as those establishments don't have to rely solely on resident business to survive.

Ever wonder why there are horse trailer manufacturing and sales companies clustered sound the fairgrounds and around the I-40/Meridian hotel corridor? Because they sell tons of trailers, living quarters, accessories and service to people attending those shows More jobs.

Plus, every one of those purchases pays sales tax to the OKC general fund. That is millions and millions of dollars that allows a higher level of services for residents without obligating them to higher taxes.

Finally, the airport comparison is apples and oranges. First of all, the airport receives federal transportation grants. Second, when it does a project it incurs debt, which is then paid off with interest, and those payments are made with -among other things - hefty passenger surcharges on airline tickets. They charge it because they can. You think that it makes sense to put a big facilities surcharge on admissions to fairgrounds events?

The point of MAPS is to enable the City to build large capital projects that enhance quality of life and attract new business, that otherwise would not be easy to bond, and then pay cash walk away. You can debate whether or not it should be a priority, but the fairgrounds fits the bill.

My guess would be that the horse shows themselves probably lose money, especially after factoring in the cost of the facilities. They couldn't survive as a stand-alone private operation.

then if they lose money then they aren't bringing in the revenue that was posted earlier. So which one is it?

Are we making money because of the horse shows or losing money? If we're making money then that means the fairgrounds has a revenue stream that it could begin to use for its own capital development. If we're losing money on the horse shows then maybe its time to re-evaluate what we're doing because it appears we're subsidizing the fairgrounds with public money to benefit a small portion of the city's economy. Does OKC even capitalize on the moniker Horseshow Capital of the World?

I honestly don't know what the answer to these questions but I think such a cost-to-benefit analysis should be done because it appears to me the fairgrounds is always showing up for MAPS but I fail to see the benefit of the investment. (in all fairness, perhaps in due time there will be payoff but I think analysis should be done to indicate if this is true or not).

We invested money to build a downtown arena with full knowledge even before it was built that it would need to be retrofitted to the desire/specification of a major league tenant(s). Now that that has been completed the arena doesn't keep showing up on Maps but instead has its revenue source(s) and we all can witness the benefit of the initial investment and subsequent retrofit. I'd want to see the same approach (at least analysis and vote/expectation) done with the fairgrounds and not just their showing up at EVERY MAPS so to make it a city wide proposal when funds truly should be directed where it is most definitely needed [Transit, Beautification, Neighborhood infrastructure].

Wandering off subject. :)

My guess would be that the horse shows themselves probably lose money, especially after factoring in the cost of the facilities. They couldn't survive as a stand-alone private operation.

What do you base that on?

then if they lose money then they aren't bringing in the revenue that was posted earlier. So which one is it?

Are we making money because of the horse shows or losing money? If we're making money then that means the fairgrounds has a revenue stream that it could begin to use for its own capital development. If we're losing money on the horse shows then maybe its time to re-evaluate what we're doing because it appears we're subsidizing the fairgrounds with public money to benefit a small portion of the city's economy...


Where has ANYBODY suggested that the fairgrounds receives a massive infusion of direct revenue from these shows?
Visitors actually benefit a remarkably LARGE portion of the economy, and in fact benefit ALL taxpayers and locals as detailed in my above post
Did you even bother to READ my previous posts?

Urbanized is spot on in this thread.

It would be silly to not invest more into the fairgrounds, let alone move it altogether to another location. We have an area in our city that would otherwise be completely dead and worthless that is now thriving and an economic boon because of the investment we made in the area. And it's thriving with an industry that brings lots of wealthy people into our city from all over the world to spend their money. I can't link you to a study, but I imagine it's our #1 "tourist" draw. I put it in quotes because there are many of these horse show people that have established favorite restaurants, stores, hotels, and every year these people go to these places and spend good amounts of money while they're in town.

then if they lose money then they aren't bringing in the revenue that was posted earlier. So which one is it?

Are we making money because of the horse shows or losing money? If we're making money then that means the fairgrounds has a revenue stream that it could begin to use for its own capital development. If we're losing money on the horse shows then maybe its time to re-evaluate what we're doing because it appears we're subsidizing the fairgrounds with public money to benefit a small portion of the city's economy. Does OKC even capitalize on the moniker Horseshow Capital of the World?


Absolutely. And I can tell you, Ft Worth, Louisville, Albuquerque, Denver, and other cities with large numbers of equestrian hobbyists look to OKC almost enviously when planning their meeting spaces and would love for nothing more that to pick a couple of shows off of us.

Will Rogers Expansion Could Attract New Horse Shows « CBS Dallas / Fort Worth (http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2013/02/04/will-rogers-expansion-could-attract-new-horse-shows/)


Fort Worth has been in a building race with other cities vying for lucrative horse shows....“The big thing for us is it keeps those horse shows happy,” Slaughter said. “It keeps them in Fort Worth as opposed to going to Oklahoma City or Tulsa or Las Vegas wherever it may be. It keeps them in Fort Worth because we’re giving them the experience they need.”

I am probably the last person you'd see at a horse show, but it's silly to not recognize the economic benefit of these. These folks bring in BIG money; I've seen it myself. The restaurants and hotels on the west side are highly dependent on these people's activities. Go to any hotel along Meridian Avenue on a weekend in the spring and look at the parking lots. Full of duallies towing horse trailers, many with out of state tags.

Here is an example of a recent success: Arabian horse show to leave ABQ for Oklahoma City - Albuquerque Business First (http://www.bizjournals.com/albuquerque/blog/morning-edition/2015/03/arabian-horse-show-to-leave-abq-for-oklahoma-city.html)


Oklahoma City recently spent over $100 million on improvements to its State Fair Park, and Expo New Mexico officials said they simply couldn't compete against that kind of money being spent on improving the Oklahoma facility.

People love to complain about how much money Fair Park gets, but the economic benefits have been almost immediate from spending there.

then if they lose money then they aren't bringing in the revenue that was posted earlier. So which one is it?

Are we making money because of the horse shows or losing money? If we're making money then that means the fairgrounds has a revenue stream that it could begin to use for its own capital development. If we're losing money on the horse shows then maybe its time to re-evaluate what we're doing because it appears we're subsidizing the fairgrounds with public money to benefit a small portion of the city's economy. Does OKC even capitalize on the moniker Horseshow Capital of the World?


The horse shows themselves aren't necessarily making money. I'm guessing that entry fees or whatever are just enough to cover costs of operation. But it draws people here, and when they get here they spend money on lots of other crap. And so the city makes money on it.