Originally Posted by
Urban Pioneer
And just to recap a few points from today's meeting based on memory-
1. All seats were taken.
2. Roy Williams made it a point to state that he had been told that putting the CC on the Cox site was a no go as we would lose the business that had been established.
This is valuable insight that anyone who challenges the Junta, regardless of pro or anti CC, should really value. Roy is first-class at what he does.
3. The substation site has not been considered a "fatal flawed" location and remains on the map until it is ranked out.
Then what kind of solutions, specifically, are being considered? This is important to get right, so naturally let's ask the consultants... or just Mike Carrier?
4. Mike Adams, (MAPS 3 Oversight Board) specifically asked that the northernmost MAPS 3 Park (the grand lawn area fronting the Boulevard) be formally added as one of the alternative sites to be considered.
Not surprising, this is about what you get from this group. The question though is which project can outbid which? (just kidding, that's not a question)
5. Gary Gregory, (a real estate broker who had represented the COOP site in the past), made a semi-formal pitch for the Blumenthal family land that fronts Walker and the new Boulevard one block west of the park.
A worthwhile alternative but farther from the hotel core that exists now, not being served by the streetcar route, and totally forsaken by ODOT's Blvd..if OKC cared about this site and/or area of downtown, it should have told ODOT so.
6. Kimberly Lowe, (MAPS 3 Oversight Board), sent a text read via Meg Salyer, stating that she believes that eliminating the Ford Dealership site means that other site should be factored without basement expo halls to reduce building costs and keep the overall program within budget.
7. OkieDave, (David Glover), made a big pitch to reuse the Cox site by redeveloping from the inside (arena space) outward.
This should be evaluated, considered, and priced-out, but I really don't think it would work. Nor do I think a CC is the highest and best use of that site.
8. Chris Flemming with the Howard Group was present. I found that telling.
Well they have to know that the assault on their site isn't quite over.
9. Larry Nichols asked if the streetcar route could be modified to accommodate whichever site was chosen.
Well now he wants it to serve his interests.
10. There was discussion about the declination of the new OKC Boulevard under the railroad underpass and how that might affect the site fronting the Boulevard in Core 2 Shore south.
Very important issue, definitely not getting enough attention either on here, other media, or seemingly in official proceedings.
11. Susan Hooper, (MAPS 3 Oversight Board), asked about implications to sites via the Santa Fe Station expansion plan and relationship to the streetcar. They kindly gave me the light pointer and we got to go over all of the various implications to transit regarding the various sites. I'm really glad I got to go to the meeting as there was quite a bit of ambiguity about these issues. Also, I got to press the fact that changes to our streetcar plans may affect our budget and that we may need additional money to cover any gap that might be created by changing these site locations.
Very good, glad that these two projects are being considered dually. At least a positive indication that the CC committee realizes they also need to sell conventions on OKC.
12. Gary Marrs, (CC subcommittee), asked whether scoring of sites could also include a factor as to their affect on costs and coordination of the other city-involved projects at hand.
"Victim of our own 'success';" success being defined as ability to hyper-concentrate MAPS superblock projects.
13. Meg Salyer emphasized that this might be an opportunity to re-score affects to and positive results from external economic development projects.
YES! Amen. We need to stop planning MAPS3's non-transit components based on a 2009 snapshot of where downtown was.
14. Jim Couch was asked if the Howard/Ford site could be reconsidered. He said yes.
Seems like a planted question.
15. Mike Carrier expressed his desire for adequate expansion room.
This is most troubling. Someone needs to call this out as holding a chunk of downtown hostage for more funding. OKC just isn't going to come close to beating other cities on facility size, end of question. Carrier needs to consider the ramifications of having widespread undeveloped and undesirable frontage surrounding his convention center. Maybe he should hire a planner if he and/or the CVB are so stubbornly incapable of considering the built environment.
16. Populous stated that they were looking at parking opportunities that could also enable development outside of the CC project.
This is encouraging and smart. Serving private development as well is a great "kill two birds with one stone" use of TIF or other funds.
17. Cathy O'Connor stated that all of the CC hotel contenders were fine with the site reevaluation process and only want assurances that the hotel site will be directly next to the CC.
Well that IS a change.
Probably a few more thoughts will come. I suspect it will either end up back at the original site or the sites east or west of the park in Core 2 Shore South.
Bookmarks