New Convention Center issue

[TaurusNYC]

Has anyone considered remodeling the old Myriad to be solely a convention center? If you were to take out the arena, how much space would the building have? How often is the arena used anymore? With the Ford Center arena and a new convention center, would the building have much use at all? Does Big 12 tournament justify keeping the the whole thing as it is? Just curious.

[Kerry]

Has anyone considered remodeling the old Myriad to be solely a convention center? If you were to take out the arena, how much space would the building have? How often is the arena used anymore? With the Ford Center arena and a new convention center, would the building have much use at all? Does Big 12 tournament justify keeping the the whole thing as it is? Just curious.

It wouldn't help. The Myriad, including the arena is only 85,000 sq feet. If you took out the arena and put in a second floor you would only increase the space to around 105,000 and you would lose the largest contiguous floor space in the process.

If you build a new convention center and have the Ford Center it would still make sense to keep the Myriad open. After all, it does have a 15,000 seat arena that is good shape. In reality, it isn't necessarily the condition of Myriad that is the problem, although by comparison it has a lot of exposed concrete, it is the size that is the problem. OKC needs at least 500,000 sq feet to be competitive. The other option is just not to compete at all.

[westsidesooner]

By Kathleen Gray, USA TODAY
"What happens in Vegas may be moving to Detroit, Denver or Dallas."...........or OKC


I read this article in the USA Today this morning and while it doens't mention OKC it does speak volumes as to why we need a new convention center. And now would be the time to do it. A connected hotel would help too. Heres a link to the rest of the story.

Conventions seek lower-profile cities - USATODAY.com

[TaurusNYC]

Thanks for the info, Kerry. I was under the impression that the Myriad had 85,000 square feet of exhibition space excluding the arena. My thought was that if you took out the arena, gutted the interior, and created one contiguous space, the building could hold two or three times as much exhibition space.

[Oil Capital]

It wouldn't help. The Myriad, including the arena is only 85,000 sq feet. If you took out the arena and put in a second floor you would only increase the space to around 105,000 and you would lose the largest contiguous floor space in the process.

If you build a new convention center and have the Ford Center it would still make sense to keep the Myriad open. After all, it does have a 15,000 seat arena that is good shape. In reality, it isn't necessarily the condition of Myriad that is the problem, although by comparison it has a lot of exposed concrete, it is the size that is the problem. OKC needs at least 500,000 sq feet to be competitive. The other option is just not to compete at all.

Your numbers are completely wrong. According to the Cox Center's website, they have 100,000 square feet of exhibition space, plus the arena, plus the meeting rooms, plus the ballroom. The arena takes up at least 32,000 square feet, so doubling, so doubling it would yield at least 64,000 additional square feet. Not sure you putting a second floor in the arena leads to losing the largest contiguous floor space...

Still probably not big enough to get the meetings they want to go for...

[CCOKC]

I saw the interview that Steve had with the guy from the OKC's Convention and Visitor bureau in which Steve asked him why we need a new convention center. I'm sure it is still available on OKC Central. The guy said that basically with the underground parking under the Cox Center that precludes any building up and well as limits the weight on the existing exhibition space.

[andy157]

So. Like said before. You're going to deny 710 million other dollars of investment to the city because of 60 million that will go to the fairgrounds? Doesn't make any sense to me actually. Even though it's not the best use of money, it's definitely not worth voting down the rest of the projects. By any means.

Architect2010, As I said, IF I vote NO, the Fairgrounds will be the reason why. My issue has to do with the fact that the Fairgrounds already has its own source of revenue. It's not because they have a source, but more about their unwillingness to share any of it, while at the same time they come with their hand out expecting a share of the MAPS revenue.

I'm not concerned about whether or not spending money on the Fairgrounds is money well spent, as you seem to be, although I must say, the fact that someone is comfortable with spending 60 Mil dollars on a project when that money would be better spent elsewhere makes no sense to me.

Lets say I do vote NO. Then lets say by some unlikely chance the NO vote prevails by one vote, then yes, I guess you could say that I denied 710 Mil dollars of investment because of 60 Mil. But if I were you, I wouldn't be to concerned with that.

[Architect2010]

There is no concern from me beyond why the fact someone would vote no simply because fairground allocations. Nothing more. I understand what you said was hypothetical. I was questioning it. I actually agree with you completely, except for the fact that If I voted no, it wouldn't be because of the fair grounds solely. Don't read into something that's not there.

[Larry OKC]

I believe that getting too caught up in the minutia of exact costs versus estimates on the MAPS projects is losing sight of the big picture.

Respectfully disagree. Even though the saying goes, the Devil is in the details", it IS the big picture I am talking about. "Minutia" would be picking apart pennies. We are talking about $113 MILLION or nearly 50%. THAT is the "Big Picture".

[Larry OKC]

Your numbers are completely wrong. According to the Cox Center's website, they have 100,000 square feet of exhibition space, plus the arena, plus the meeting rooms, plus the ballroom. The arena takes up at least 32,000 square feet, so doubling, so doubling it would yield at least 64,000 additional square feet. Not sure you putting a second floor in the arena leads to losing the largest contiguous floor space...

Still probably not big enough to get the meetings they want to go for...

Don’t know who’s numbers are right on this one...LOL

The arena definitely skews the numbers, but according to the New Convention Center Study the Chamber did, the Cox has 1 million square feet (including the arena)

“Total Sellable Space” = 153,000 sf; of which

“Prime Exhibit Space” = 81,500;
“Meeting Space” = 28,600 sf; and
“Ballroom/Multi-use Space” = 25,000 sf.

Reworking the Cox just isn't practical for many of the reasons already posted. Imagine it being similar to the County Jail situation, it will actually be cheaper to build a brand new one ($54M) than to try to fix the current one.

[andy157]

There is no concern from me beyond why the fact someone would vote no simply because fairground allocations. Nothing more. I understand what you said was hypothetical. I was questioning it. I actually agree with you completely, except for the fact that If I voted no, it wouldn't be because of the fair grounds solely. Don't read into something that's not there.

I'm not trying to be argumentative here, and I'll try not to read into this something that doesn't exsist. Having said that. I have now made my decsion. My hypothetical scenario will become reality on December the 8th. I will be voting NO. Furthermore, my NO vote will be based solely upon the fact that the Fairgrounds are to receive revenue allocations from the MAPS tax, period, nothing more, nothing less.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong. That I would vote NO, and do so simply because the Fairgrounds is to receive MAPS tax dollars concerns you, and thats your only concern, nothing more, correct? Again feel free to correct me. I'll be voting NO solely regarding the Fairgrounds, whereas should you decide to vote NO, your vote would not solely be based upon the Fairgrounds receiving allocations from MAPS, correct? I have two questions to ask of you. First, If you were to vote no, what reasons would cause you to do so? Secondly, exactly what is it that you and I agree on completely?

[Patrick]

Unlike Doug, I'm still undecided. On election day when I step up to the voting booth, I may be in favor of maps 3, and vote YES. But if by chance I oppose the measure, and vote NO, that decision will be based solely upon the allocation of money going to the Fairgrounds. They have a funding source, and they need to live within it's means.

I agree with the other poster that said I wouldn't vote down $777 million because of $60 mill going to the fairgrounds. The money going to the fairgrounds will end the long run be worth it......afterall, we make a lot of money off our fairgrounds. Having improved exhibit space will be nice. And a complete overhaul of the exhibit space in the form of consolidating it into one large expo building is a good idea.

Problem with using the existing hotel-motel tax money is that we'd have to wait 10-20 years before we could even consider putting it towards the expo building. Much of the current money is tied to renovation and expansion of the horse facilities and arena. We really need this new exhibit space ASAP IMO. The earlier, the better. That's why I'd be in favor if getting it done with MAPS 3 now. 10-20 years from now when extra funds are available from the hotel-motel tax, it may be needed to renovate the horse facilities again.

[HOT ROD]

Larry, those figures includes ALL of the arena, including seating - which is only valuable as an arena and not as contiguous convertable floor space.

Also, I didn't mean to attack you or anything, I just felt you were arguing for arguments sake on a few things (about overruns and estimates and whatever) when the real question is: do you support OKC moving the next level and continuing the progress from MAPS by CONTINUING the 1-cent tax another 7+ years? If so, these are the projects the city wants to build: A new convention center, A 5 to 6 mile streetcar network downtown (as well as provisional money for commuter rail and a hub IF that materializes with the state and feds), A new central park, community centres, sidewalks where money is not currently allocated, expanded/completed bike trails, fairgrounds improvements, and river improvements (including a destination attraction).

I think this is really the question. Nit picking and blaming is so Tulsa (sorry Tulsa residents). But we could get caught up on that (which I call being too far right....) or we could buy everything and get into debt (which I would call too far left....) [benefit for Dave, haha]. But I don't see OKC doing either extreme. We have great city leadership that is both government and private - which is very rare for a major metropolitan city.

I think we need to continue to capitalize on that and extend the MAPS 3 tax and get those improvements. I can say, the project I don't like is the fairgrounds. It seems as though we are pouring money into a white elephant that already has it's own dedicated revenue stream (and that said stream could be expanded to pay for improvements and that stream could STILL be the lowest of any major city in the region, if not the nation). THAT is what I don't like.

But, maybe the city felt they should include it since they own the fairgrounds and maybe want to try to capitalize on their current lowest Hospitality Tax status. I don't know - I just think that $60M on the fairgrounds could go to some true city beautification/statues/fountains throughout the city to create an IDENTITY for Oklahoma City and the Hospitality Tax could be raised a little bit (but still be the lowest) and that money could fund fairgrounds improvements and additions.

Nevertheless, despite all of what I have said - I strongly support MAPS 3 because of the other projects that OKC desparately needs in order to compete with the big boys; and I think/suspect this might be the last time the city sends money to the fairgrounds in this capacity. At least, I hope so - as it should be self sustaining by now or if it is not, maybe we could contract out and have somebody else run/maintain it.

As for the Myriad, it can't be expanded and can't really compete. All one needs to do is look 90 miles NE and 110 miles N and realize we need to build a new convention center. Im not sure if Tulsa or Wichita have better convention business than OKC does (I doubt it), but their centers are WAY bigger and as such they could have bigger/better/more than us.

Also, our puny little center has no chance at competing against OKC's new peer cities in denver, indy, and nashville. To me, the convention center is a no brainer but I do have a question of where will it be built, how big it will be, and what will be the features.

I am very happy and excited about the streetcar system and contingent funding for commuter rail and hub. This is OKC thinking forward AND ALSO thinking OKC. We could all say, hey - we should make the bus system better first BUT - this is Oklahoma City..... Name me ONE PERSON you know, who would take the bus from the suburbs into downtown under the current system? Name me one person who would take a bus into downtown under even a better BUS system?

You probably will not be able to name any person in OKC - RIGHT NOW - who would be that thrilled to sit on a bus for 30-60 minutes for ANY reason; especially when you would not need to do so in a car. Because of this, and other perceived reasons - I think OKC needs to think of transit different than the standard (PROVE IT) model most cities use [prove it - as in first have a bus/commuter bus network that gets expanded into rail].

I applaud OKC for thinking out-of-the-box and approaching transit from the centre out. I think people who visit downtown WILL use transit and certainly would use a train that was as convenient as 6 miles of streetcar would be in downtown OKC. I also think the streetcar network would TIE IN the downtown neighbourhoods thereby increasing land values which in turn has a way of increasing development (see Portland Pearl District, also Portland Riverside District). I also applaud OKC for going big on this (up to 6 miles), as that will be much better than a 'demonstration' line of 1 mile or so, since 6 miles really gets people around most if not ALL of downtown OKC.

Once the streetcar is successful and people LIKE using transit and OKC reaches some density in pockets of the city, then we could send money to the bus system and explore light rail in a more commute oriented fashion. Also, if the state and feds can assist with true commuter rail, then I am happy to see the city with some foresight on this with provisional funding for that vehicle as well. All in all, very well done on the transit issue - to me it's a no brainer.

The downtown park may not be everyone's cup of tea, but if you look at EVERY major city in the world (not just America), there is a large civic gathering spot that is the "pride of that said city". You could say the Myriad Gardens is that for OKC, but it really isn't big enough to host large events or be interactive and cator to a large demographic of folks. The arts festival isn't really even held at the gardens, its held in the street and fields across the street.

I also don't see anything wrong with there being 2 major downtown parks (or more); as I said, they would cator to different folks. But the main central park would be a civic identity. Think Seattle Center, or Millennium Park (Chicago), or Central Park (New York). All of these parks are man made pieces of work that each of those cities pride themselves for and is a symbol of pride for those cities. Our new Central Park would do the same for OKC. While it may not be as big as whoever or as interactive or whatever as whoever's park - it would be OKC's main civic gathering spot. Can you imagine having the Arts Festival there, capable of having some 100,000+ people A DAY visiting? Try that now at the current location (impossible). Also, I see the park with DAILY things of interest, from city announcements and speaches, to performing arts and cultural happenings of an organic nature, to beautiful women jogging around, to couples holding hands and enjoying the scenic paradise or interactive attractions. And if you also consider the park would remove a HUGE area of ghetto blight from downtown and that (most likely) the convention center would lie on it's edge (thereby also adding a huge attraction) and the parke would be served by the new streetcar network - I think this is also a no brainer.

I think the sidewalks are a no-brainer, OKC is the only big city I know where people need to walk on major streets due to there being no sidewalks (even in the dense inner city areas). How can OKC encourage transit use or healthy lifestyles if people need to walk in the street in order to get to the bus or go for a jog. Sidewalks are LONG overdue and I have always been quite vocal about sidewalks (AND LIGHTING) that is needed in OKC for a long time now, and Im glad to see OKC is listening (with MAPS 3 and the other bond issues addressing sidewalks - and hopefully street lights). The more street lights, the safer the city is at night and the more people will go out and/or use transit later. Also, it makes the city look so impressive (see aerial views of Chicago to see what I am talking about). All of OKC's major streets should be LIT and a very good portion of the inner city and current crime areas could reverse if the city installed lighting (and hopefully energy efficient lighting at that). Again, this is a no brainer as it adds to OKC's quality of life and perceived beauty.

The other projects, I couldn't really care one way or another - but I am glad OKC has thought of those segments (most likely to ensure passage of MAPS as a whole package). I can say, it will be wonderful for OKC to have a river destination attraction and that will be part of MAPS 3. Again, no brainer.

In conclusion (sorry for being so long), I don't see too many reasons why a person could not support MAPS 3. It is an extension of the current tax rate, does not add burden. It gives OKC a HUGE shot in the arm on big city infrastructure and attractions. It improves OKC's quality of life and opens the door for folks to rethink their OKC lifestyle and even civic pride. And, it moves OKC much closer to the peer level that OKC's population is currently among or reaching. Finally, it continues the Renaissance of Oklahoma City that began as MAPS - we should demand quality projects and during formulation - ensure white elephants dont keep sucking money away. But once it's time to vote - I think we all should support MAPS because it MORE THAN ANYTHING ELSE has made OKC into the wonderfully progressive city that it is today.

[Patrick]

Has anyone considered remodeling the old Myriad to be solely a convention center? If you were to take out the arena, how much space would the building have? How often is the arena used anymore? With the Ford Center arena and a new convention center, would the building have much use at all? Does Big 12 tournament justify keeping the the whole thing as it is? Just curious.

The building itself does have close to 1 million sq feet. You guys have to remember that the space currently stated for the arena is just the floor space. It doesn't include all of the space that the seating bowl takes up. If the seating bowl was removed, and a 2nd floor built to make two contiguous spaces (one on each floor), there would be plenty of space.

That all being said, the second arena is important for a number of reasons. First of all, obviously the Big XII tournaments. But, also, a lot of concerts and shows still use the Cox arena.....those that may need 14-15K seats, but not 20K seats. Cox arena is somewhere in between the size of Ford Center and state fair arena. Also, Cox arena might be a good home to the AFL team. I'm not sure AFL really needs the 20K seats Ford Center offers. I'd like to see Ford Center reserved for larger concerts and of course the NBA.

[HOT ROD]

Patrick, I agree with you about the Fairgrounds now and I no longer have reservations because of it. But I can say and hope, that future MAPS initiatives DO NOT have fairgrounds RENOVATIONS OR FUNDING involved; because it has it's own revenue source that could be expanded and if there needs to be immediate funds available bonds could go out and repaid using the hospitality tax.

now, if we ADD THIS OR THAT to the Fairgrounds, then that's different. But to keep sending MAPS money to the Fairgrounds to keep it running or keep making the state fair worse and worse (who thought of getting rid of the monorail....... angry) - I say they should use their own money for that stuff or we contract out somebody else to run it.

[Patrick]

I agree Hot Rod. I'd like to see the hotel-motel tax raised and be used solely for the fairgrounds after this.

[andy157]

Patrick, I agree with you about the Fairgrounds now and I no longer have reservations because of it. But I can say and hope, that future MAPS initiatives DO NOT have fairgrounds RENOVATIONS OR FUNDING involved; because it has it's own revenue source that could be expanded and if there needs to be immediate funds available bonds could go out and repaid using the hospitality tax.

now, if we ADD THIS OR THAT to the Fairgrounds, then that's different. But to keep sending MAPS money to the Fairgrounds to keep it running or keep making the state fair worse and worse (who thought of getting rid of the monorail....... angry) - I say they should use their own money for that stuff or we contract out somebody else to run it.

Hot Rod, Like you, I also hope that future MAPS initiatives do not include any funding dedicated to the Fairgrounds. But considering the power, and influence of the individuals that collectivly make-up the Fair Board Trust. If they want it chances are they're going to get it.

[HOT ROD]

Andy and Patrick, we all agree. I am not even opposed to fairgrounds funding - but at least ADD something. Don't just use MAPS money for operations and maintenance (which I suspect is really what they're trying to do.....)

They have a funding source for that, why not use it or increase it a little. Use MAPS only for NEW attractions like what MAPS has added NEW to downtown.

That's really my thoughts. ...

[Larry OKC]

Patrick, I agree with you about the Fairgrounds now and I no longer have reservations because of it. But I can say and hope, that future MAPS initiatives DO NOT have fairgrounds RENOVATIONS OR FUNDING involved; because it has it's own revenue source that could be expanded and if there needs to be immediate funds available bonds could go out and repaid using the hospitality tax.

now, if we ADD THIS OR THAT to the Fairgrounds, then that's different. But to keep sending MAPS money to the Fairgrounds to keep it running or keep making the state fair worse and worse (who thought of getting rid of the monorail....... angry) - I say they should use their own money for that stuff or we contract out somebody else to run it.

Not TRYING to be argumentative, but....

What are you basing that hope on? MAPS included the Fairgrounds, MAPS 3 includes the fairgrounds, why wouldn't MAPS 4, 5...10? Fairgrounds being included is probably a political consideration to get more people to vote for the measure (think I read a recent article that the fairgrounds are used by more people than any other MAPS project). Which also explains the low polling of the Convention Center, it isn't seen as something that most people will use (but that is the reason I am in favor of it in theory, it brings in primarily NEW, out of area/out of state money into the economy and that can only be a good thing).

Don't think I even brought up the subject of budgets/costs, but was providing the factual info that showed what did happen.

AGREE with the condition of the State Fair getting "worse and worse". Had hoped when Skip Wagner was replaced that the Fair would once again return to a 3 weekend run (even 4 weekends for the Centennial). But sadly, it hasn't. Bennett may have been involved with the decision to remove the monorail (he has been the Chairman of the Board of Directors since at least 2003, when O'Toole replaced Wagner).

To others: I am not against OKC (was born here, reared across the country, moved back here during college and been here the past 20+ years...even live across the street from where I was born). Am actually in favor of most, if not all of the announced projects. IF they are built, substantially as promoted AND without going significantly over what we are told (not true of MAPS). Unfortunately, there isn't anything in the Ballot or Ordinance that says it will happen.

[HOT ROD]

Larry, I just think MAPS should be used to ADD to the Fairgrounds and not be used for normal operations and maintenance of it. It appears there would be some consolidation of Expo in Maps 3 but does that really amount to $60M? I think part of that money includes operations and maintenance; which I am opposed given the Fairgrounds has a revenue source (several actually).

Now, if we ADD an attraction to the fairgrounds - GREAT, use MAPS. But dont use MAPS to keep the white elephant running just so we can keep having horse shows. Dont those shows pay rent/fees?

the monorail was a great way to get an overview of the fairgrounds as a whole and decide where you then wanted to go. I think the sky tram is a joke. Very bad of Bennett or whoever decided to get away from a transit oriented people mover with history in favor of a one direction kiddie tram. And it probably used Maps money to get rid of the monorail, i bet.

Again, not opposed to Maps 3 because of the fairgrounds but saying the fairgrounds should be able to hold its own now or soon without having to have MAPS bail them out. It would be different if the hotel/motel tax didn't go to them.

[Patrick]

Don't think I even brought up the subject of budgets/costs, but was providing the factual info that showed what did happen.

IF they are built, substantially as promoted AND without going significantly over what we are told (not true of MAPS).

In regards to cost overruns....simply, they happen. With a project of this magnitude, I don't think it's easy to predict the "actual" price of these projects. Plus, you never really know for sure what the actual amount of sales taxes collected will be. It's all a guestimating game. Sure, MAPS 1 went over budget, but a 6 month extension to cover the cost overruns wasn't all that bad. You can't really blame the city for the projects costing a little more than anticipated. There's no science to predicting the costs....you don't know the true costs until the bidding process starts. Budgets, for the most part, are always guestimates. Take my church budget for example....we make a budget for the church at the beginning of every year. In the last 10 years, we've never actually made the budget, unfortunately. So, it happens with any budget, not just the city.

AGREE with the condition of the State Fair getting "worse and worse". Had hoped when Skip Wagner was replaced that the Fair would once again return to a 3 weekend run (even 4 weekends for the Centennial). But sadly, it hasn't. Bennett may have been involved with the decision to remove the monorail (he has been the Chairman of the Board of Directors since at least 2003, when O'Toole replaced Wagner).

Well just remember that the Oklahoma State Fair Grounds are more than just a 2 week annual fair...far more. In fact, they're used for horse shows and events more than they're used for the actual fair. You can't blame the condition of the annual fair on the facilities. And, improving the facilities won't improve the fair necessarily. Improving the facilities will improve the shows and events we can attract though. Having a large expo building will help us in attracting larger events and trade shows. In regards to the monorail, it simply wasn't functional anymore. There were two choices: tear it down and take it out of service, or build a new one. The costs of building a new one were quite large, and probably weren't worth it, considering it only would've been used for 2 weeks out of the year. I just don't see where the monorail is all that important. We need to be focusing on improving our ability to attract bigger and better events and horse shows throughout the year. That's the bigger focus of the actual grounds anyways.

Unfortunately, there isn't anything in the Ballot or Ordinance that says it will happen.

Well, I think public trust in the city govt. and public trust in the MAPS programs, passage of future bond issues, etc., depends upon the actual outcome of these programs. Although, yes, the ballot doesn't say it will happen, the peoples' votes dictate whether it will happen and keep city leaders accountable. The reason people have voted for subsequent MAPS programs is because MAPS 1 improved our city and produced everything it promised. All of the projects promised were completed. Had they not been completed, the chance of getting future projects passed would've been slim. Just look at the OKC Public Schools. They completely abused and misused the 1993 bond issue money. Thus, many bond issue proposals later were defeated. The public didn't trust the administration. It was only through the backing of MAPS that enough public support was able to be garnered to again try to invest money into the local school system.

Sure, city leaders could misuse MAPS 3 money. But, if they do, they'll have a tough road to climb to ever get a MAPS program passed again. And they're public reputation is at risk. If MAPS 3 passes and doesn't produce all it promises, most will call for Mick Cornett's head, and his reputation in the local community will forever be tarnished. I doubt Mick wants to leave a legacy like that.

[Patrick]

Larry, I just think MAPS should be used to ADD to the Fairgrounds and not be used for normal operations and maintenance of it. It appears there would be some consolidation of Expo in Maps 3 but does that really amount to $60M? I think part of that money includes operations and maintenance; which I am opposed given the Fairgrounds has a revenue source (several actually).

Actually the $60 mill will go strictly to ADDING this large new Expo Building to replace aging smaller exhibit buildings. Won't be used for operations, etc. So, I guess in that sense, I'm not opposed.

the monorail was a great way to get an overview of the fairgrounds as a whole and decide where you then wanted to go. I think the sky tram is a joke. Very bad of Bennett or whoever decided to get away from a transit oriented people mover with history in favor of a one direction kiddie tram. And it probably used Maps money to get rid of the monorail, i bet.

No, actually MAPS money didn't go to removing the monorail. That came out of the fair's general budget. And, I'm not sure removing it was all too bad. We had two choices: remove it or spend millions on a new system. I'm not sure spending that kind of money is worth it for 2 weeks use out of the year.

Again, not opposed to Maps 3 because of the fairgrounds but saying the fairgrounds should be able to hold its own now or soon without having to have MAPS bail them out. It would be different if the hotel/motel tax didn't go to them.

I don't see it as bailing them out. It is adding this new Expo building, which will allow us to attract bigger and better trade shows.

[Larry OKC]

... I'm not sure spending that kind of money is worth it for 2 weeks use out of the year. ...

Hi Patrick,

Curious, but how is that much different than the Ford Center improvements that are being made for the team that only uses it for 41 days a year? (The reduction in seats discussion)

... In regards to the monorail, it simply wasn't functional anymore. ...

Also, will have to research this now, but if memory serves, the monorial was fully functioning when they decided to tear it out...will report back after I see what I can dig up...

:-)

[Larry OKC]

haven't found if it was functional or not but definitely sounds like it was expensive to maintain

Okla. State Fair officials gather market research on public’s opinion (Journal Record, 9/26/2003)

The monorail is so old, parts aren’t made for it anymore, Wagner said, and getting parts custom-made is expensive. “The monorail is not likely to last no matter what we do, regardless of the renovation,” Wagner said. One of the options being considered is to transform the line in such a way that fair-goers can get on and off at a number of locations, using the line to get around the fairgrounds in a type of car superior to that which is used now.

[Kerry]

Let's cut through the size crap. I added up every sq foot of rentable space in the entire Cox Business Services Convention Center.

Room Dimensions Sq. Ft.
Meeting Room 1 46' X 27' 1,265
Meeting Room 2 46' X 27' 1,269
Meeting Room 3 46' X 26' 1,219
Meeting Rooms 4 46' X 40' 1,855
Meeting Rooms 5 46' X 29' 1,365
Meeting Rooms 6 26' x 25' 680
Meeting Rooms 7 24' X 30' 738
Meeting Rooms 8 25' X 53' 1,349
Meeting Rooms 9 49' X 32' 1,575
Meeting Rooms 10 49' X 33' 1,631
Meeting Rooms 11 49' X 33' 1,631
Meeting Rooms 12 49' x 32' 1,575
Meeting Rooms A 48' X 65' 3,278
Meeting Room B 51' X 65' 3,508
Meeting Room C 103' X 109' 11,216
Meeting Room D 51' X 65' 3,508
Meeting Room E 48' X 65' 3,278
Meeting Rooms 14 40' X 32' 1,283
Meeting Rooms 15 40' X 32' 1,283
Meeting Rooms 16 51' X 32' 1,639
Meeting Rooms 17 51' X 33' 1,697
Meeting Rooms 18 51' X 33' 1,680
Meeting Rooms 19 51' X 33' 1,680
Meeting Rooms 20 51' X 32' 1,593
Meeting Rooms 21 29' x 22' 672
Boardroom 41' x 23' 887
Arena 32,000

Grand Total: 85,354

That puts OKC right between the Hickory Metro Convention Center (84,023) and the Lexington Convention Center (86,494). The option before the OKC voters on the convention center is to compete for conventions, or not to compete.