Convention Center

[G.Walker]

Information & Latest News

October 13, 2015: Oklahoma City Council select the East Park 1 location for the Convention Center - News Article - Press Release
Links

Separate article on Convention Hotel
Convention Center Site Selection Study
Gallery

[BoulderSooner]

yes we could get an Omni .. just depends on who pays for it.... but as for location .. if the current site remains then the CC hotel must be on the east end across from the okc arena

[G.Walker]

I agree, I think that would be a great location for hotel. I was wondering if it was possible for the city to work with Howard/Hall, to help franchise out an Omni, Sheraton, W at that location, then the city won't have to pay for it?

[Just the facts]

Is the budget really $50M as previously stated?

The new Omni Convention Hotel in Nashville is pegged at $250 million.

http://www.tennessean.com/article/20...hout-Nashville

[Rover]

The $50 Million may just be the city's part.

[Larry OKC]

The $50 Million may just be the city's part.

That is correct. Trying to find my notes on it but $50MM was the midrange number of possible public subsidy of the hotel that was in the $250MM ballpark. Will keep looking (think it was ULI related info, either from their presentation, final report or reporting on the same)

[Rover]

I believe the city of Dallas paid for the development of their 1000 room hotel (Operator is OMNI) by establishing a municipality owned corporation and issued bonds to acquire land and pay a developer. The city paid about $350 million to have the hotel as part of their master re-development of downtown, along with the cc itself. This isn't unusual for cc hotels these days.

[Pete]

We have to be careful about incentives as they aren't fair to the existing hotels and those to come.

Hopefully, there will be enough business for everyone.

[Rover]

Not saying it is fair, or even recomended, but it is the way most large downtown convention center hotels are getting built these days.

[Just the facts]

Most convention center hotels are subsidized because they are physically removed from other sources of revenue. However, the Ford Dealer site was specifically chosen (allegedly) because of its proximity to the existing hotel stock. With that in mind I don’t see why a hotel adjacent to the Oklahoma City Arena, Myriad Gardens, and some of the largest employers in the city - in addition to being attached to a new convention center - should receive any public funding.

[Rover]

To draw larger conventions you need a certain pool of rooms that can be blocked. I am sure the chamber of commerce has studied this and knows if we have enough rooms downtown to effectively compete. Also, none of the existing hotels have gathering and public areas of size or style to serve as a convention hotel. No one has the right mix of meeting rooms, etc. to complement a conference center. I don't care how many Hampton Inn's, Holiday Inn's etc. we have in Bricktown, they are not convention hotels.

[Just the facts]

What is to prevent a private developer from build such a hotel Rover? At best, OKC might land 3 or 4 additional major conventions than already visits OKC in any given year so the 'block of room' argument rings hollow. OKC will not be hosting a major national convention ever week of the year. All of the local, state, and regional conventions already make regular stops in OKC so they do not represent any new dollars into the local economy.

If this hotel was being built some distance away from other potential sources of revenue then the 'subsidy' argument would have a little more validity but this hotel would be built in one of the most desirable parts of Oklahoma City, if not the entire state. They will have revenue streams available from multiple sources including downtown companies, Bricktown, the Oklahoma City Arena, Myriad Gardens, AND the convention center. Most convention hotels only get business from conventions which is why they are subsidized to begin with.

You pay subsidies to encourage people to development where they would not normally develop. You don’t pay subsidies to build where they would naturally build all on their own.

[Rover]

What is to prevent a private developer from build such a hotel Rover? At best, OKC might land 3 or 4 additional major conventions than already visits OKC in any given year so the 'block of room' argument rings hollow. OKC will not be hosting a major national convention ever week of the year. All of the local, state, and regional conventions already make regular stops in OKC so they do not represent any new dollars into the local economy.

If this hotel was being built some distance away from other potential sources of revenue then the 'subsidy' argument would have a little more validity but this hotel would be built in one of the most desirable parts of Oklahoma City, if not the entire state. They will have revenue streams available from multiple sources including downtown companies, Bricktown, the Oklahoma City Arena, Myriad Gardens, AND the convention center. Most convention hotels only get business from conventions which is why they are subsidized to begin with.

You pay subsidies to encourage people to development where they would not normally develop. You don’t pay subsidies to build where they would naturally build all on their own.

If it is such a great and risk free opportunity the city won't have to pay anything. They aren't going to volunteer it, of course. However, to build a LARGE hotel suitable to do what is required will most likely increase the risk and decrease the developers who will be interested. I'm just telling you how most of the deals are being done today. While you and others here are proud of our city and think every business opportunity is a slam dunk, investors don't all agree. If we want a real convention hotel with real convention amenities, we likely will have to subsidize to some degree. That is reality.

[HOT ROD]

its working in Nashville, why couldn't it work in OKC?

Im not arguing against or for, Im just saying and agreeing with others that we should just ASSUME that OKC needs to pay a subsidy for a 600+ room convention hotel to be built. After all, if Ford Site is the one then it is arguably the best most desirable location in the state. That is precisely why others are questioning the cc being built there in the first place, but if it is then the city should not need to subsidize it at all.

Can't have it both ways.

[Rover]

If you are correct then developers will compete for the opportunity and will quickly build it at the scale and with the amenities required. However, the city should begin to look at funding alternatives should that prove not to be true. My guess is that the private developers will want to build smaller and with less amenities than the city will want. If the convention center hotel is a dud, then it harms the CC. The city will want the best possible chance for the most possible business. That may or may not mean they share the risk. Dallas paid for the whole thing to get it right...you are saying Nashville didn't pay for anything. The truth is likely in-between. That is why $50 million of a $200 million is probably about the right target of expectation.

[metro]

Whatever is decided, I bet it's watered down of what should be

[PhiAlpha]

Whatever is decided, I bet it's watered down of what should be

Yes, probably true because everything done with the previous MAPS programs and MAPS 3, public and private, have been huge watered down disappointments and have in no way benefitted downtown as much as they should have...

That kind of negativity is unfounded, unsupported, and adds nohing to the conversation. Just because things haven't been done exactly as you would like doesn't mean they were watered down...get over yourself.

[Larry OKC]

PhiAlpha: I know you were being sarcastic but you largely spoke factually with the 1st part of your post. History indicates you were spot on.

The Canal is a perfect example (there has to be a "watered down" pun in there somewhere). As pitched to voters, it was to be a continuous waterway from the Convention Center, thru Bricktown connecting to the River.

Pre-vote cost estimate = $9MM.
Final cost to get only the Bricktown segment, $23MM

Estimated cost to get the connecting C.C. segment = $25MM (still conceptual, no commitment or funding source to date)
Estimated cost of River "extension" (funded through 2007 G.O. bond) = $3MM(?), actual cost undetermined as construction is still a few years away.

The Arena was another prime example, although told repeatedly by City leaders that it was designed/built as a state-of-the-art NBA/NHL facility, even Betts stated that it was an embarrassment. So much so, that more in upgrades/improvements than the original cost were required just 5 years later.

[betts]

I'm not sure I said the arena was an embarrassment, although I remember saying the video screens and scoreboard were an embarrassment. But, it was certainly bare bones. It may actually be lucky that it was bare bones, though, because if we'd spent another $100,000 on it when it was built, we might have spent it in the wrong places to be adequate for an NBA team. Remember. when we built it, we were totally wet behind the ears as regards professional teams. I think the city has learned a lot about what it takes to be the host of a professional team since then, but all the statements that we were building an NBA or NHL ready arena was pie-in-the-sky. At that time, we'd had very little indication that any professional team would seriously consider us as an option for relocation or expansion and I'm not sure we knew that much about how to build an NBA ready arena. I personally thought it was our "Field of Dreams" even if it wasn't very dreamlike.

[Rover]

Gosh, it seems that as badly as we screwed up the arena we sure did "luck out" and end up with an NBA team. So, the Maps was mishandled, the city messed it up, we got a crappy arena, the power brokers ran over the citizens.....and yet....we got the NBA team. I hope we keep screwing it up.

[betts]

We didn't get a crappy arena, if you were paraphrasing me. We got an incomplete arena that probably met minimum NBA standards. Anyone who disagrees with that statement wasn't in the Ford Center when it was first constructed. We did have a crappy scoreboard, which was quickly replaced. But at the time, we only had what many of us thought was an unrealistic hope of getting an NBA team, with a slightly better chance of landing an NHL team. So, considering the fact that we didn't have a bird in the hand, I think what was done was very reasonable and very similar to what we're talking about doing with the park: Build an arena that meets minimum NBA standards for seating, etc, but leave the finishing details for later, when we would know what precisely was needed.....IF we got a team. It's a very realistic way of constructing when money arrives in increments, IMO. As I said, it will work for the park too: Acquire the land, demolish buildings and minimally landscape to create the bones of a park early on. Then, later, as more money comes in, additional features can be added if desired.

[Rover]

Sorry, I was trying to be sarcastic.

I think we got a bargain for the Ford Center. Even though it was basic, it included all the essentials and it was pretty inexpensive for what we got. And we seemed to have been able to navigate the improvements in stages in a way the citizens can handle. I don't think it an accident it has worked out as well as it has, though it did take some luck, and unfortunately at the expense of New Orleans.

I think we should identify the essential elements of the park and make sure we do those things well. Add in one or two impressive elements so we can get the citizens excited by what will happen in the future. Give us enough to keep the vision alive, but we don't have to have the full dream at once. Pay as you go has some advantage.

[Larry OKC]

Betts, you did mention many times how crappy the arena was and you were embarrassed to take visitors to it. You went into some detail talking about how embarrassing it was to have stained concrete floors, folding tables set up to sell merchandise, unfinished, bare sheet rock in the restaurant....

I don't really expect you to remember saying it since you also said in one of our first exchanges a few years ago now that you didn't remember being told that the Ford was designed/built to at least NBA/NHL standards. That you didn't remember being told that it was a state-of-the-art arena etc. I then gave you something like 16 different quotes/articles/links where those statements were made (ranging from a former mayor to even the NBA). You conveniently dismissed it all as being unimportant. The NHL & NBA were consulted during the Arena design so that even though we didn't know "that much about how to build an NBA ready arena", it would meet their needs (not just seating capacity). It even met the specifications when we hosted the Hornets (did require relatively minor $2MM in improvements). Yes, it was built "builders white" (not bare bones). As repeatedly pointed out that due to MAPS cost over runs a list of 22 items were omitted from the final design. In doing so, it was the City's intent for the eventual tenant to pay for any "finishing out costs" that a specific team might want/need). And I agree, that was a smart move since we didn't have a tenant. To bad we didn't stick to that plan.

Were you living here already when we voted on the original MAPS? Did you read the ballot? It was relatively detailed (compared to the MAPS 3 ballot). To refresh everyone's memory, here is what was on the 1993 ballot:

(B)(7) An indoor sports/convention facility meeting not less than National Hockey League (NHL) or National Basketball Association (NBA) standards.

Yes the NHL was the emphasis at the time because we thought it was our best bet (we were a finalist for an NHL expansion team, which Bennet was also going to own). But according to numerous articles written at the time, the NBA was never left out of the loop and they were consulted during the design of the Arena. The "crappy" scoreboard was specifically purchased meeting NHL standards (not sure if it specifically met NBA standards or not, the NBA wasn't mentioned in that article).

Many will be quick to point out that we met the needs for a temporary team with the Hornets, yet forget Commish Stern stated that we didn't necessarily need any improvements to get a permanent team.

I contributed to the derail (but it was relevant to the discussion as it served as an exmple), but getting back to the topic of the thread....

Here is what City Councilman Shadid said about the Hotel in this weeks Gazette:

Ward 2 Councilman Ed Shadid also expressed concern about moving up the convention center, and that opportunities for economic development that could be spurred by other projects, such as the modern streetcar, were not taken into consideration.

Shadid also said the convention center, which prior to the 2009 MAPS 3 vote polled the lowest in project popularity, would have probably polled even lower if people had known there would be pressure to make an additional investment for an accompanying hotel.

“The popularity of convention center was only 27 percent because we kept from the people that we’re going to have to come up with an additional $50 million for a hotel,” Shadid said. “That wasn’t discussed before the MAPS 3 vote.”

[betts]

Larry, no matter how many people you quote or how many times you say it was supposed to be state of the art, the fact remains that anyone who has visited a couple of other NBA arenas and who has been inside the Ford Center knows that while it was big enough and had the reqisite number of seats and suites, the finish details were not there. Anyone who thinks that an $89,000 arena can be state of the art when compared with $250,000 to $450,000 arenas has magical thinking, be it you or the mayor.

[Architect2010]

Have we not all come to the agreement that the Ford Center was left intentionally unfinished? Did we not, in 2009 as a city, vote to have the unfinished Ford Center brought to a more "league-comparable" finish? And in the end, it will still be cheaper than some 400 million dollar arena.

Political riff-raff and opinions aside; old news. Let's get back to 2011.