Mayor Cornett on new convention center

[bdhumphreys]

In defense of Larry OKC, he has posted some great content and research. He has a position that contrasts with most of the people on this board, but he does a good job of representing that position and rarely - if ever - breaks down into sophomoric sparring.

The same can't even be said for all of the people that I typically agree with.

[Larry OKC]

We just need to remodel the old convention which we did not to long ago.

True we did, but as others have pointed out, it wasn't a complete remodel.It has been described as going through a time tunnel as you progress (or is it regress...LOL) from the newer areas to the areas that weren't touched.

Curious, does anyone know if the Cox ever got free internet connections within the building? Or even state of the art stuff? Seemed ironic that the COX center didn't have that from the day they got the naming rights.

Because of the apparent structural issues with the Cox (underground parking, low ceiling heights etc) it is probably cost prohibitive to upgrade it. If you take out the arena, can add some space but then you lose the advantage of having two arenas side by side for things like the Big 12 events.

[Larry OKC]

Larry OKC and Blazerfan11 are prompting me to search and see if this site has an ignore list. You guys are nothing but negative, all the time. You show up with an agenda and then complain incessantly. You're like mini Tom Elmores.

That's why I asked: "When was this photo taken?" The time of year would certainly explain it and thanks for the responses.

As I said in the post I am not against the Park at all, but I do have concerns beyond the appearance in the photo (the LandRun Monument). Personally think it is one of the best things about Bricktown and would be one of the few things I would take visitors to see. I think it is a shame that the City hasn't decided to fund it completely (originally announced as having 77 statues (1 representing each county). Now it is down to the 30 something range if I remember correctly. I hope they find funding within MAPS 3 to finish it completely (all 77 statues). I am dismayed at the deterioration of the landscaping.

As far as being negative, I am sorry you see it that way. While many of these things certainly can't be described as being positive, fact is, they are that way. If I ever post anything that is factually incorrect, PLEASE, by all means point it out and present the correct and/or conflicting info. Heck, reporters are human too and sometimes make factual errors that end up getting repeated.

Often am posting in reply to someone else's remarks. Sometimes giving the counter to the "rose colored glasses" view that some express. If offering that counter balance is negative, I am sorry you fell that way and it won't hurt my feelings any if you do find an ignore feature or simply choose not to read my posts. Even though I don't always agree with some people here, I always read their posts and consider what they have to say. If they are correct about something I haven't hesitated to say so. If I disagree, I say that too (and why I have a different conclusion or different set of facts that they may not be aware).

An attempt to close on a positive note

I am actually in favor of most, if not all of the "proposed" MAPS 3 Projects (even those, like the Convention Center that have polled badly). I can see the need for it clearly and think the Mayor presented his case well in the thread clip and in Doug's summation. Yes, I do have concerns. It is because of those concerns I question if those projects that most here support will ever get built with MAPS 3 passage. I know some will say they are guaranteed not to get built if it doesn't pass, but I have yet to see WHY that is the case. I can fully understand the concept of continuing the forward momentum. I certainly agree that MAPS 3 type projects will be a catalyst for even more momentum. I don't see how everything will come to a screeching halt if it fails. Haven't seen any evidence to remotely suggest that will be the case. No one has been able to tell me WHY they think it will stop dead in it's tracks (other than they think so). The opposite appears to be the case. How many years after MAPS is that momentum STILL going on? A successful development leads to another and another and another...

[Doug Loudenback]

In defense of Larry OKC, he has posted some great content and research. He has a position that contrasts with most of the people on this board, but he does a good job of representing that position and rarely - if ever - breaks down into sophomoric sparring.

The same can't even be said for all of the people that I typically agree with.

Completely agree.

Teresa Dobson was a 2nd speaker at the 10/21 Breaking Through luncheon and her presentation was only about the convention center. The audio of her speech is in Doug Dawgz Blog: All The News About MAPS 3. My summary of here 4:53 remarks is shown below:

Teresa Dodson is global accounts manager for HelmsBriscoe, a Houston firm that assists groups wanting to have conventions. Her job is to help them select a convention city and make plans for their convention events.

Her presentation focused upon a recent example in which she worked with an unidentified organization planning for a medium-sized 2010 national conference. The group wanted to meet somewhere in western United States. Oklahoma City was not one of the cities considered, and she explained why. Previously, the same organization had its annual conferences in "eastern" cities which she identified as New Orleans, St. Louis, Cincinnati, and Nashville. Prospective "western" cities considered, those on the "long list," were Chicago, Dallas/Ft. Worth, Austin, Denver, Salt Lake City, Seattle (but not seriously), and Anaheim. "And, as you can hear," she said, "Oklahoma City didn't make that list," although she added, "but with these products coming on line, Oklahoma City would be on that list. And I think that it's important to know is that how a city can grow if you get the right products in place."

She described the organization's demographic needs as follows: "Just a little bit about this conference, so you can have some good idea about the numbers and the amount of revenue that it would generate. It is a 2 ½ day conference; it is 6-7000 attendees; 12,000 room nights with the peak room-night being 3,800 rooms; we view 30-40 break-out rooms; we will do some exhibits." She said that, "General economic development for that would be about $4 million dollars. That's just the attendees' spending the night and eating and doing some shopping," exclusive of other spending during the conference.

"The things that you do are important, the activities that you participate in. Some of the things about the long list, which is the cities that we were considering, are important — you have to have the right venue to come; you have to have space; you have to have the right amount of space. The convention center that we would be using would need at least 200,000 square feet of meeting space — and that's not a great sized meeting."

"The other things that take into consideration when you're looking at a city for a convention would be the 'short list,' which is what I talk about are having the rooms, having the right amount of space, but also having the things to do, and what's around that convention center, and again, it sounds like with this MAPS plan that you are on the right track with those types of products. When a convention person is in town — they wanna . . . and this group had a lot of free time on their hands, so they want to dine out, they want to go to the attractions, they want to shop — and all those things those things you see with the new MAPS plan would really promote that." She said that her company, HelmsBriscoe, is always looking at new sites and said she would be glad to promote Oklahoma City.

I thought that her presentation was fairly good ... probably a B- or a C+ ... and it probably accomplished what was evidently intended -- give an example of a medium-sized convention in which Oklahoma City was not considered and state the reasons why.

I did get the sense that she wasn't all that familiar with Oklahoma City or the MAPS 3 convention proposal. In the Q & A, someone asked a question which was inaudible but it was evidently inquired of her opinion about capacities, etc., of OKC's proposed convention center. You can't see it in the audio, but during her reply she said she'd not seen the specs of OKC's proposal and she turned her head toward the mayor ...

[inaudible question] [she replies] ... about the new convention center? I haven't seen the exact specs on that, do we have [looks at mayor] ... I, uh ... I don't know the 18,000, I'd have to see the specs on that but certainly, I think, building something bigger than we have opens up tons of doors ...

Well, we don't have such "exact specs" or probably even general specs (as far as I know) so it wouldn't be likely that she could know whether what is proposed here would actually put Oklahoma City on the "long list" she'd mentioned in the example that she gave.

The information at the city's MAPS 3 website merely says,

This project is a new convention center to replace the Cox Business Services Convention Center. The new convention center will include exhibit halls, meeting rooms, ballrooms, mixed uses, and parking.

[Larry OKC]

...Well, we don't have such "exact specs" or probably even general specs (as far as I know) so it wouldn't be likely that she could know whether what is proposed here would actually put Oklahoma City on the "long list" she'd mentioned in the example that she gave.

As with most of MAPS 3 so far, we are left to piece things together ourselves...LOL

Doug, probably have to go to the Chamber's Executive Summary of the Convention Center and dig thru it. Think the link was at one of these 2 articles (headlines are based on the link info say may not be exact), but thanks to the new 60 day DOK archive rule, I can't access them any more (also tried the Chamber website, but couldn't locate it there either.

NewsOK Q&A with Mick Cornett

NewsOK New cox convention center is priority for Oklahoma City study finds

Here are some highlights I pulled from it though (any info NOT from the report is indicated in brackets [italics])

From the Chamber's Executive Summary (3/9/09)

[Apparently this is the Phase 1/Phase 2 the Mayor mentioned in the Q&A article link above, and Phase 1 is approx the same amount included in MAPS 3. The table format isn't translating well here, so put in list form with the Current (Cox) numbers, then Phase 1 and Phase 2. How the Phase 1 numbers compare with other tier 2 cities we are hoping to compete with, I don't know. In any event, have to keep in mind those comparisons are with those cities CURRENT numbers, not ones that may exist 10 years down the road. The reason for that statement is: are we building for future growth? Again, I don't know that answer yet.]

Summary of Convention Center Program Recommendations

Prime Exhibit Space
81,500 sf
200,000 sf
300,000 sf

Meeting Space
28,600 sf
50,000 sf
75,000 sf

Ballroom/Multi-use Space
25,000 sf
35,000 sf
50,000 sf

Total Sellable Space
153,600 sf
285,000 sf
425,000 sf

Total Building Space
1,000,000 sf [skewed by the arena space]
570,000 sf
850,000 sf

Headquarter Hotel Rooms
311 rooms
650 rooms
650 rooms

Hotel Meeting/Ballroom Space
0
50,000 sf
50,000 sf

Some challenges facing the Oklahoma City market as they relate to functioning as a convention destination include:
• Building the brand awareness of Oklahoma City as a convention destination.
• Challenges due to the size and quality of the existing Cox Business Services Convention Center. [only one addressed directly by MAPS 3]
• Limited air accessibility.
• Limited supply of convention-quality hotel properties.

[Hotel Space]
The average number of rooms available at headquarters hotels in the competitive and comparable markets analyzed is approximately 770.

On average, there are approximately 2,900 total hotel rooms within one-half mile of competitive and comparable markets primary convention facilities. Including existing and planned properties, there are approximately 1,600 existing hotel rooms within one-half mile of the CCC, which ranks tenth among the competitive and comparable set of markets reviewed. The limited hotel rooms proximate to the CCC is a competitive disadvantage when looking at similar national and regional facilities. Emphasizing this point is the fact that hotel properties will typically commit, on average, approximately 70 percent or less of their total inventory for non-local groups and events. Therefore, only an estimated 1,200 hotel rooms within one-half mile of the CCC may be available for large national or regional events.

Room Count – The total minimum number of sleeping rooms and suites should approximate 650. Beyond simply offering the physical room inventory, the public sector should negotiate with the hotel operator for a Room Block Agreement stipulating that a large percentage of the sleeping rooms in the hotel (often at least 80 percent) are available for the convention and visitors bureau to use in accommodating events at the convention center.

Increased Tax Impact
The estimated annual tax impact (including state and local sales and hotel/motel taxes) of the Cox Center has averaged $1.83 million over the past three years. Given the event levels and associated impacts estimated to take place in a new convention center development, total tax collections could increase to nearly $5 million during a stabilized year of operations.
• The State of Oklahoma is the primary beneficiary of tax collections. It is estimated that a new center could generate State tax collections of $1.9 million annually.
• In recent years, the Cox Center has been responsible for generating an estimated average of $592,000 annually in city sales tax receipts; and hotel occupancy taxes totaling $212,000 used for State Fairgrounds improvements, $141,000 used for the Oklahoma City Convention and Visitors Bureau and $35,000 for sponsoring special events.

It is estimated that the operations of a new convention center could increase annual tax collections in these specific areas to approximately
$1.6 million in city sales tax receipts,
$580,000 in revenue for State Fairgrounds improvements,
$386,000 in funding for the OCCVB and $97,000 to help sponsor special events.

[metro]

Brian Walters said they really want the new convention center so in 2015 they can tear down the Cox Center and build a super duper tax payer subsidized mega Basketball complex.

Brian Walters is out of touch with reality and the general consensus of OKC.

As I said in the post I am not against the Park at all, but I do have concerns beyond the appearance in the photo (the LandRun Monument). Personally think it is one of the best things about Bricktown and would be one of the few things I would take visitors to see. I think it is a shame that the City hasn't decided to fund it completely (originally announced as having 77 statues (1 representing each county). Now it is down to the 30 something range if I remember correctly. I hope they find funding within MAPS 3 to finish it completely (all 77 statues). I am dismayed at the deterioration of the landscaping.

Larry, just curious if you knew the Landrun Monument was a STATE funded project? Not CITY as you mention. To be technical, it was funded by the State Centennial Committee. No reason the City should fund this project, especially during a down economy when they are making cuts and supposively we need to hire more fire & police, etc.

[Larry OKC]

Larry, just curious if you knew the Landrun Monument was a STATE funded project? Not CITY as you mention. To be technical, it was funded by the State Centennial Committee. No reason the City should fund this project, especially during a down economy when they are making cuts and supposively we need to hire more fire & police, etc.

Actually we are both correct. The City did get some funding thru the Centennial Committee. Not sure what the ratio is on it but if not mistaken the City has the lion's share of the cost.

[Larry OKC]

Maybe Doug or Steve can provide an assist?

[metro]

Thanks for correcting me if true, however I was under the impression the State funded most of the bill. I'd like to see more data on that topic, but that's another thread.

[Larry OKC]

Metro, no problem at all and as I have said before if anything I post is factually incorrect or if someone has new/different info, absolutely post (have been known to do that myself once or twice)

[Doug Loudenback]

Maybe Doug or Steve can provide an assist?

I don't know.

[metro]

I tell you who would know on this issue, Urban Pioneer.

[Larry OKC]

From Doug's post quoting the presentation:

"...you have to have space; you have to have the right amount of space. The convention center that we would be using would need at least 200,000 square feet of meeting space — and that's not a great sized meeting."

from the Chambers Convention study:

Phase 1 [MAPS 3]
Prime Exhibit Space: 200,000 sf

Rooms needed (from her presentation)
"...12,000 room nights with the peak room-night being 3,800 rooms..."

From the Study

On average, there are approximately 2,900 total hotel rooms within one-half mile of competitive and comparable markets primary convention facilities. Including existing and planned properties, there are approximately 1,600 existing hotel rooms within one-half mile of the CCC, ... only an estimated 1,200 hotel rooms within one-half mile of the CCC may be available for large national or regional events.

While there is supposed to be an attached convention hotel with the new convention center, it is unclear if it is part of MAPS 3. But the point is that even with 100% of the Study's recommended 650 rooms (120 below the "competitive and comparable markets" average) we are still 1950 rooms SHORT of what she said are their CURRENT needs.

In some ways we will be barely covering their CURRENT needs (space). In others we are falling well short (rooms). Remember too, we are talking 10 YEARS from now.

I know some of this is chicken/egg, in theory if we build the convention center that will spur more hotel growth...but another 2,000 rooms would mean almost doubling what is currently there (and that's on top of the convention hotel).

Thoughts anyone?

[betts]

Brian Walters said they really want the new convention center so in 2015 they can tear down the Cox Center and build a super duper tax payer subsidized mega Basketball complex.

Seriously, have you ever learned the difference between fact and innuendo? Link to supportive data? And sorry, Brian Walters does not ever constitute a reliable source.

[betts]

From Doug's post quoting the presentation:

"...you have to have space; you have to have the right amount of space. The convention center that we would be using would need at least 200,000 square feet of meeting space — and that's not a great sized meeting."

from the Chambers Convention study:

Phase 1 [MAPS 3]
Prime Exhibit Space: 200,000 sf

Rooms needed (from her presentation)
"...12,000 room nights with the peak room-night being 3,800 rooms..."

From the Study

On average, there are approximately 2,900 total hotel rooms within one-half mile of competitive and comparable markets primary convention facilities. Including existing and planned properties, there are approximately 1,600 existing hotel rooms within one-half mile of the CCC, ... only an estimated 1,200 hotel rooms within one-half mile of the CCC may be available for large national or regional events.

While there is supposed to be an attached convention hotel with the new convention center, it is unclear if it is part of MAPS 3. But the point is that even with 100% of the Study's recommended 650 rooms (120 below the "competitive and comparable markets" average) we are still 1950 rooms SHORT of what she said are their CURRENT needs.

In some ways we will be barely covering their CURRENT needs (space). In others we are falling well short (rooms). Remember too, we are talking 10 YEARS from now.

I know some of this is chicken/egg, in theory if we build the convention center that will spur more hotel growth...but another 2,000 rooms would mean almost doubling what is currently there (and that's on top of the convention hotel).

Thoughts anyone?

As far as I know, there are no plans for a city-funded convention center hotel. I'm trying to think of any city I've ever been at for a convention where the primary hotel wasn't privately owned. I suspect they've either been in talks with some of the major hotel chains, or they know from what's happened in other cities that when there's profit to be made, i.e. a city has a dearth of appropriate rooms that it truly has a need for, a hotel chain is more than willing to step in to fill the vacuum.

[PLANSIT]

^Private sector will most definitely fill those needs. After Denver finished their Convention Center no less than 4 privately funded new hotels were constructed in addition to the publicly funded 1000 room Hyatt. This type of development is repeated across the country; there is no reason not to believe it wouldn't happen here.

[lump9816]

Didn't the city, I mean the tax payers, pay to remodel the Skirvin?

[betts]

We did provide funding to remodel the Skirvin, a city treasure. Doug can probably tell you more about the financing, and whether the city got a return on its investment in the renewal of the building. This is also something I was thrilled to see happen, and don't begrudge a penny of my taxes to saving this building. I'm not sure how that relates to a question regarding a convention center hotel, however.

[okcpulse]

The Skirvin was co-funded with TIF money, not necessarily provided by taxpayers at large.

[Larry OKC]

^Private sector will most definitely fill those needs. After Denver finished their Convention Center no less than 4 privately funded new hotels were constructed in addition to the publicly funded 1000 room Hyatt. This type of development is repeated across the country; there is no reason not to believe it wouldn't happen here.

Surprised since Betts is from Denver she didn't know about that. ;-)

By unclear if included in MAPS 3 or not, was referring more to the Study that mentions a hotel but it doesn't make it clear if it is publicly funded (and so far we really haven't heard anything on the matter directly with MAPS 3)

It isn't so much that we don't have hotel space, but they are scattered all over the place (along 1-40), Meridian (to the Airport), the length of NW Expressway and Memorial. Downtown hotel space has also increased since MAPS but not near to the level they say we need to be at currently (much less 10 years from now). There isn't the high concentration within the radius of the convention center currently that the Study and the presenter mentioned.

That is one thing I am curious about...why 10 years from now? If we are already losing business, why wait that long to fix it? The Mayor's office has said he wants the Boulevard and Park to open first and the Convention Center to be "staged last" and the time he put on it was 10 years. Granted some of it may be a cash flow thing as the Convention Center is the most expensive item (estimated time to collect $280M is just under 3 years), but then another 7 years to design and build after that? Certainly all of the design work can be done before all of the money is in hand to begin construction?

I am in favor of the Convention Center but just wonder if we are doing it right?

Just looking at the info available so far, think 10 years from now, the light bulb is going to go off and someone is going to realize we built too small and aren't meeting the minimum standards that will be required then. That will require the Phase 2 to kick in and even that probably won't be enough so it will be even more expensive to correct at that point. Similar to the County Jail situation when because we didn't design and build the $50M+ thing right the 1st time, it is going to cost between $200M and $400M+ to correct now.
That's 4 to 8 times more than the original cost!

Unlike others who don't see a convention center as benefiting them (they won't ever use it which may explain why it is polling badly), anything that brings in NEW, primarily out of area and out of state money into the economy can only be a good thing. This is supposed to translate directly to new jobs (think they said 3 times just for the convention center alone), not to mention all of the construction jobs for the Convention Center and all of the new hotels that will follow, then there is all of the new jobs staffing all those too. Seems you would want to get that kind of economic development (think the Mayor said tourism has a $2 BILLION impact on OKC) up and running as quickly as possible rather than purposely delaying it until last. IMO

[betts]

Larry, I suspect there's a worry we won't be able to get voters to pass "do it right" dollars. If the convention center, even at it's current price tag, stood alone, it would fail miserably. Think about what the anti-vote people would be saying if this tax were going to need to generate close to a billion dollars. Hopefully the city will build this one so it can be added on to rather seamlessly. That can be done if it's planned in advance. It's possible to build a 1,000 square foot house so that it's simple to double the size later....I've seen plans for such structures. So, if the city thinks they need a bigger center, they need to make it simple to add what we may need later, later. Maybe they're hoping that if they drag out the construction a little, they'll be able to convince the public to chip in the extra to make it bigger right away....don't know.

Yes I didn't know the Hyatt in Denver was publicly funded. I was already living here when it was built, and I'm not much of a conventioneer. I really think that won't be necessary in Oklahoma City.

[PLANSIT]

Article from 2003 re: Denver Hyatt:

By Cindy Brovsky, The Denver Post Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News

Mar. 4--The publicly funded $374.3 million Colorado Convention Center hotel took a step closer to reality Monday night as the Denver City Council voted 8-4 to approve the project.

The council passed an economic plan and set up a nonprofit hotel authority to oversee the project. Both issues needed council support for the city to proceed with financing and issuing bonds this spring. The city will build the 1,100-bed hotel; Chicago-based Hyatt Corp. was chosen to operate it.

While not a necessity, I would like to see the city try and fund something like this (smaller scale) when/if the new convention center is built. I can think of several cities that have built similar hotels for their convention centers. Seems to work out for them.

[progressiveboy]

Article from 2003 re: Denver Hyatt:





While not a necessity, I would like to see the city try and fund something like this (smaller scale) when/if the new convention center is built. I can think of several cities that have built similar hotels for their convention centers. Seems to work out for them.

Dallas approved a bond issue about 4-5 months ago to start construction of a convention hotel in downtown with about 1,200 rooms. They have already broke ground.

[kevinpate]

Maybe one of the tribes might step up to build a convention hotel, with or without wanting to offer a big ol' gaming lobby area as well.

[Kerry]

The Marriott Waterside in Tampa was paid for in part by the City of Tampa.

Looking at convention center success. | Goliath Business News

The Tampa Convention Center debuted in the fall of 1990. However, it wasn't until 2000, when the 717-room Tampa Marriott Waterside Hotel & Marina opened, that the Center realized its potential. More bookings and larger groups increased convention business by 40 percent. This success was a catalyst for Tampa to enhance the downtown waterfront with another $500 million in projects, including a centralized entertainment complex, an electric streetcar line and a riverwalk.

The round building in the foreground is a station on the streetcar line.