Originally Posted by
Rover
I agree with Spartan about the need to reconsider the design vis-a-vis a realistic objective (though the rant about conspiracies, etc, could be omitted). A smartly designed medium sized facility with flex space, modern amenities (including communications, IT infrastructure, etc.), etc. would be appropriate. Putting it in a place where an affordable phase 2 is only an option and not a requisite would be wise (don't tie up great development sites if we don't need it. Trade some of the small meeting space requirement to the hotel development as part of the subsidy and limit the subsidies to a small amount of cash and more tax incentives. Move OKC's exposure to one which is more variable and less fixed. Then tear down the Cox and re-develop the site. Commit to use the income from the sale of the Cox site to increase the mass trans infrastructure or one of the other popular Maps 3 projects to spread the benefits and overcome some of the objections from those who object to the priorities.
Bookmarks