New Convention Center Study

[Richard at Remax]

http://newsok.com/study-up-to-400m-n...=breaking_news

Study reports up to $400 million needed for new convention center in Oklahoma City
BY STEVE LACKMEYER - Business Writer
Published: March 10, 2009Buzz up!

Oklahoma City is faring well as a conference destination, but its convention center is inadequate and must be replaced if the city is to remain competitive, according to a study commissioned by the Greater Oklahoma City Chamber.

The study by Conventions, Sports & Leisure International, released today, suggests that replacing the 28-year-old Cox Convention Center will cost between $250 million and $400 million.

Mayor Mick Cornett has suggested for the past two years that any MAPS 3 should include a new convention center as a priority project. That call is being joined by the Greater Oklahoma City Chamber.

“We believe the convention center plays a vital role in the development of the visitor industry and in the development of downtown,” said David Thompson, chamber chairman. “This study tells us clearly that our current center is not large enough, nor does it boast the amenities we need to be competitive. It is time for us to make an investment in this industry or recognize that we are slowly going out of business as far as conventions are concerned.”

Roy Williams, chamber president, said discussions began with the city and the Oklahoma State Fair Board about launching a marketing study on how to attract more visitors.

Williams said Conventions, Sports & Leisure was chosen because of reputation and prior experience looking at Oklahoma City’s convention market.

Williams said the study is ongoing. The first phase included a comparison to cities Oklahoma City competes with for conventions, and a destination market analysis that considers the likelihood the city can move up to the next tier with a new convention center.

“The destination market analysis looks at other amenities you should have to attract visitors and what amenities you should have to attract visitors,” Williams said. “It looks at the total component of visitor attractions.”

Williams quoted the consultants as advising Oklahoma City is assured increased business if it builds a new convention center.

“There is an element out there who questions should we really try to do something more,” Williams said. “Part of that is cultural — are we good enough, big enough, savvy enough to step out there on the edge? The best consultants in the U.S. say ‘You sure are. You have the product. When you did MAPS, you built a new city and created a new experience, a unique product.’ But it’s not something you can leave alone, you have to improve it.”

Williams said the consultants reported the city is exceeding visitors’ expectations, but is failing to attract many convention planners who won’t even consider the city due to its inadequate facilities.

John Kaatz, author of the study, reported the city’s convention center’s exhibit space is the smallest offered among more than a dozen competing cities including Tulsa, Fort Worth, Texas, and Austin, Texas. He said planners who had been to the city gave it a very favorable rating, but 41 percent of them added they will need more space for future meetings than what is offered at the Cox Convention Center.

Kaatz said improvements done in 1999 as part of MAPS simply aren’t sufficient.

“The expansion in 1999 created modern meeting space at the front of the building, but there is something of a time portal when you go into the exhibit space,” Kaatz said. “Meeting planners today expect the whole package.”

Good article Steve.

I think we all agree this needs to happen.

Thoughts?

[Steve]

More coverage coming on my blog and in the paper.

[BDP]

I don't doubt that a new one is needed. The Cox Convention center is pretty small time. I think the 1999 improvements made it so that it wasn't laughable and that it could be used at least for some smaller conventions, but I don't think it really made it competitive.

I think our convention business is living off the convenience we have created downtown for out of town visitors. It has little to do with our actual convention space as just about every city our size and even smaller can compete with the convention center.

I'll be interested to see if our current leaders can sell it, but it would be nice to see Oklahoma City rise to the top of its convention class. That being said, if we do decide to do it, I just hope it is free of any major compromises and that, when completed, it will be better than anything else available in our market size. We really either need to take it seriously or just accept being a great bargain market.

[Richard at Remax]

It def should be built along the river and incorporate some docks to bring people in and out.

[soonergolfer]

The river would be too far away from the restaurants, hotels and entertainment that are required for convention goers. I think the ideal place is directly south of the Ford center, possibly along the new blvd. That way all of the hotels in the downtown area can still be utilized fairly easily. There is not much chance of aquiring enought space downtown to build in that area. I also think the convention center would be a great jumpstart to the
C2S area and would help facilitate private investments.

[Richard at Remax]

so you are saying the area between 3rd and 7th and between robinson and shields? I could live with that. It would be even better to incorporate a rail station right around there as well or room for one. but thats a whole other story

[venture]

I look at it this way. We are going to fork out around a half billion on a new convention center...do it right and make it count. Start getting C2S really working. I would put it along the waterfront, maybe find ways to expand the amount of water down there. Have an extension to the canal go there as well. With an investment like that, you'll see other secondary development fill in around. I would also consider running a smaller people mover (not specifically a monorail) from the shore to the core. Imagine riding it back and going through the new central park, by the land run monument, or near the gardens, etc. If you do it right, you can definitely increase the value of it as a tourist attraction of sorts (or one feature to pull the whole thing together).

[metro]

More coverage coming on my blog and in the paper.

Steve, thanks for the update on the survey. My hope is that the update will include David Thompson's relationship to the Oklahoman.

To the others, I SERIOUSLY doubt you'll see the location change, other than the speculated location directly south of the Ford Center along the new Boulevard. There are computer renderings and a video of the concept, although that obviously could change tremendously before things are said and done. I imagine it to go somewhat as already highlighted though.

[sgt. pepper]

it will be better than anything else available in our market size.

yes we need to build it so tulsa can build a bigger and better one.

[warreng88]

yes we need to build it so tulsa can build a bigger and better one.

No, we need to build it so Tulsa can build a better one, then we can make ours a little nicer and get all the big conventions, but Tulsa will get all the cool ones. Wait... I'm an idiot.

[BDP]

I understand the motivations for wanting it on the waterfront and the aesthetic would be very cool. However, I think from a marketing position, having the convention center near the services currently available in the core is crucial. This way we don't have to create another hospitality infrastructure to support it and/or spread it out farther than it has to be. I think it goes a long way for making up for our market size and amenities to point out how convenient the set up is in that you have a convention center, decent sized hotels, an entertainment district, and an arts district all within a 5 block radius. While we can rarely boast the biggest and the best, we really are getting to a point where we can say visitors have access to a little bit of everything without ever having to get on a bus or hail a cab.

I also think keeping it in the core increases the chances of parlaying a new convention center into attracting a full blown convention hotel, as the hotel's projected feasibility would be boosted by its ability to directly serve all major events in the city, be they at the convention center itself or at the arena, the ballpark, or in some other downtown venue. I also think attracting such a property is key to truly maintaining and elevating the city's position as a convention destination. IMO, a new center without a new large scale convention hotel would be a bust. Placing the center outside the core only increases the possibility that we'll just see more limited service extended stay type hotels move in next to the center as they simply try to supplement the supply in the core.

And if we really want a monorail or some kind of elevated train service, I think we should think of doing it from the airport, up Meridian, through the fairgrounds and on to downtown's core. Then I think instead of building one to create assets, we would be building one to maximize the assets we already have, generating a much better ROI.

Just some thoughts.

yes we need to build it so tulsa can build a bigger and better one.

Actually it sounds like this is an effort to compete with their current facilities, but I don't think anyone is served by approaching this as Tulsa being the primary competition.

[Karried]

I can't even fathom the scope of this in this current economic climate.

[ronronnie1]

^^^Yeah, but eventually the economy will rebound. This convention center will take years to materialize. By the time this convention center is planned, the location selected, and then build (not to mention funded,) the economy should (could?) have rebounded.

Sometimes you have to make investments without totally knowing the outcome. Anything worth having is worth taking a risk for.

[jbrown84]

We HAVE to do this. Not doing it is pretty much waving the white flag.

[progressiveboy]

Quote:
yes we need to build it so tulsa can build a bigger and better one

I saw in the Tulsa World where this story appeared today, Tulsans are already complaining that OKC are whiners and that Tulsa is still better. Read some of the comments on this story in the TW.

[jbrown84]

It def should be built along the river and incorporate some docks to bring people in and out.

def not.

[Richard at Remax]

well why not jbrown? If it's going to be part of core to shore I think it would be a great idea. Especially if they are promoting using the river boats to bring people to and from the meridian corridor. Not the whole thing built on the river but have the south tip of it around the area. or put a cove of some sort there. if we want it to be seperate from other convention centers is going to have to blow people away.

[jbrown84]

It's already been expertly argued. It's way too far from the density of services, hotels, and entertainment downtown. Moving the convention center that far away would require all new hotel and entertainment development that (best case scenario) would take years. It would also cannibalize the hotels that already built in the downtown area.

All that just so it can go next to the river and have Devon boats docking in front? Nope.

[Kerry]

This is absolutely the best time for OKC to be doing this. The best time to catch up (and pass) other cities is when they are standing still. Pushing forward with MAPS III while other cities are putting projects on hold will reap returns twice as fast and at a much lower cost. As for a river location, is there any chance of expanding the river to wind through Core to Shore? If done right there could even be an opportunity for a downtown marina.

[soonergolfer]

Businesses and groups look at a good convention center for its facility, proximity to hotels/entertainment/dining as well as ease of commute between these things. They are not looking at proximity to a 15 minute boat ride.

[blangtang]

How new is this study and/or when was it commissioned?

Okay, they should build a new CC. They should also gerrymander the Devon TIF to include the new location for said CC. Combined with TIF funds and a new hotel tax, this thing is self funding. This way the MAPS 3 can be dedicated solely to transit improvements. Assuming we need a way to get all these convention goers from airport to downtown hotels.

Try to take the airport bus to downtown, or better yet get yourself from the airport to the CC via public infrastructure.

[BG918]

I'm glad to see the city is moving forward with this. I'm pretty familiar with the Cox and the city's plans for a new convention center having designed a concept myself last year at OU. http://www.okctalk.com/okc-metro-are...oring-c2s.html

The location south of the Ford Center on the boulevard is ideal for many reasons:
1. Location next to the Ford Center and near Bricktown, and near existing hotels and downtown businesses.

2. Anchor of the new boulevard and adjacent to planned 'convention hotel' at the corner of the new boulevard and Robinson, either the SE corner actually connected to the conv. center or NW corner with conv. center coming to the corner.

3. Location across from the new park west of Robinson

4. Plenty of land for potentially 1+ million SF of space needs including placing ugly loading docks away from pedestrians on Shields.

5. Mixed-use potential along the boulevard w/ restaurants and shops.

[BDP]

The best time to catch up (and pass) other cities is when they are standing still.

Totally agree. In fact, it may by Oklahoma City's only chance to do so. While MAPS was incredibly impressive because it took a no name town and made it into a viable destination for arts, entertainment, sporting events, and conventions, several other markets that already had a competitive infrastructure when MAPS started spent that time making there's a lot better.

Given our relatively stable economy when compared to the rest of the nation, we are actually in a better position today to elevate our infrastructure beyond other markets that will have to go into a holding pattern as far as community improvements go. No doubt when the economy comes back online, the same markets that have been historically superior in amenities will go right back to making improvements.

Tulsans are already complaining that OKC are whiners and that Tulsa is still better.

I'm not sure how this study constitutes whining, but you get a lot of ridiculous perspectives from those who are into the whole city rivalry thing. In the end, though, this has nothing to do with Tulsa, other than the fact that it is simply another market with bigger convention facilities than Oklahoma City's. Taking effort to improve one's community is not whining and the point is not to garner the approval of Tulsans, but to invest in our city in whatever way we feel will raise the standard of living, improve its competitive position, and make it a viable and desirable place for current and future generations to live, work, and create.

[okcpulse]

I can't even fathom the scope of this in this current economic climate.

But remember Karrie that Oklahoma City leaders drew the plans for MAPS in 1992 and citizens passed the $309 million package in 1993.

During those years, Oklahoma City's economic climate was horrible, yet MAPS was still able to happen.

[BG918]

But remember Karrie that Oklahoma City leaders drew the plans for MAPS in 1992 and citizens passed the $309 million package in 1993.

During those years, Oklahoma City's economic climate was horrible, yet MAPS was still able to happen.

You also must realize it is much cheaper to build now as material prices like concrete, steel, copper, etc. have fallen with the economy. You can build something that would've cost $500 million for much less now. That doesn't even factor labor which results in more competitive bidding and thus less expensive.