Stadium District (formerly Producers Coop)

[Just the facts]

In the past you've repeatedly stated that the CC (and now a stadium) would be waste of money, won't have much economic impact, will ruin the pedestrian environment, should be tucked away in some corner away from everything else if built, won't drive ancillary development...then sometimes you say it will. Often your opinion changes from page to page. Let me know when you finally land on a position and I will let you know whether we agree or disagree. It won't be difficult to determine, since I've been nothing if not consistent in years of posting on the topic.

I like to think I have been the most consistent person on urban development in the OKCTalk community. I am often accused of living by rigid dogma I am so consistent and nearly every person on OKCTalk knows what I am going to say before I even say it - but anyhow, let me spell it out again so as to removed any confusion or misunderstanding.

1) I support a new convention center. I always have. Never once have I said I didn't.

2) I don't think a convention center will produce the revenue the Chamber told us it will - and it sure won't ever come close to recouping the $250 million price tag in either direct or indirect spending.

3) I don't like the REHCO location. A) Convention centers kill walkability. They are built at a scale that is not conducive to pedestrians. I don't mean from the front door to downtown hotels or Bricktown - I mean they will create a large separation between future Core to Shore residential development and downtown. Maybe even big enough to prevent future residential development. B) MBG would be better served being surround by midrise residential and sidewalk cafes.

4) Convention centers are a necessary evil, so they should be placed where they do the least harm to the community - and not so much where they maximize conventions. In my opinion, the full time permanent residents of a city should take priority over accommodating 3 and 4 day visitors and the business interest that cater to them.

5) I am not sold on a large public subsidy for a convention hotel that will still require an annual operating subsidy.

6) From an out of town visitor standpoint - it would make more economic sense to buy 700,000 random people a plane ticket to OKC under the condition they stay at a downtown hotel than it would be to build a convention center and hotel. That would be 200 out of town visitors every day for 10 years and if each stayed 5 days that would be 1000 out-of-towners downtown every single day - or in convention counting: 5,000 attendees every single week (how many conventions does OKC plan to have that big). Now I am not proposing we do that - I am just saying that it will produce more revenue than a convention center and hotel will.

7) I think the Chamber pulled the wool over the collective eyes of Oklahoma Citians but getting us to commit to a phase 1 convention center without telling anyone that a phase 2 and hotel were necessary to make it successful (something that is still being swept under the rug to this very day).

8) Fact - the vast majority of people currently using the Cox Center are people from Central Oklahoma. The numbers aren't even close. THAT is why I support a new convention center. It is a quality of life issue for me and not an economic one. If it was an economic decision I would just support item 6 above.

9) Convention centers are not a catalyst for new development. You cited Lucas Oil Stadium as a shining example of success - well go look at Google Earth and use the date slider and tell me if you see any adjacent development before and after. If there is any I sure can't see it. The very fact that Lucas Oil Stadium was build on a surface parking lot across the street from the RCA dome 30 years AFTER the RCA dome was built should be proof to anyone that convention centers and stadiums don't drive adjacent development. At best, they provide customers to existing businesses in the city - and that is it and more often than not, those customers are already area residents which doesn't supply new money to the local economy - it just redistributes who gets it. However, that doesn't stop the Chamber from counting them as convention center attendees and applying the revenue multiplier to them (see the Women's Conference).

10) I get it - you own a business that derives a lot of money from visitors, but good urbanism and community building should take a back-seat to private gain. I know that is a tough pill to swallow but that is the exact thing we collectively have been hammering Devon, Sandridge, the Public Works Department, OGE, and countless other developers/architects over for the last 7 or 8 years - and YOU were a part of that. Alas, when it comes down to your checkbook all of a sudden your emphasis on walkability is now limited to the tiny plot of ground between the front door of the convention center and Bricktown/Downtown. Some of us still care about walkability and good urban design for all of downtown and the downtown adjacent areas - even areas that haven't been developed yet. How can you ever promote walkability to anyone else when you opted out of it yourself when it came down to how it impacted you? It is disappointing.

Okay - that about sums it up for me. Since this was just 'off the top of my head' writing I am sure I left something off or wasn't clear on a specific item so if you or anyone else has any doubt about my position let me know and I will clear it up.

[mkjeeves]

I hate to say it, but I agree with JTF on just about every point.

But on topic and we probably don't agree, we don't need another anything resembling a public financed convention center, stadium, museum, type project on this spot. I've voted for every maps. Would not vote for that no matter what it's log rolled with. It needs to be private financed development. Period.

[David]

I fail to see how the current C2S Site B site is anti-walkability (assuming it is still the plan to put the large hall underground). Stolen from the other thread.



This puts only the southwest corner of the gardens surrounded by convention center and amenities and half of that is the hotel, leaving the other half of the REHCO site and the eventual fate of the Cox site open for non-superblock development. Hudson running between two halves of a divided building feels to me like the the Moscone Center in downtown San Francisco, and if you think that site configuration is not walkable then you are simply wrong.

Of course, all of this is also dependent on a site configuration on our end that is walkable, and that is for the city to screw up or not.

[Urbanized]

Geez, that's a lot of typing, JTF. I think I'll pass on wasting my time with a point-by-point response.

I will say - as a way to demonstrate how flawed your criticism is as you attempt to impugn my motives - that I DON'T own a business that caters in large part to visitors...I WORK for one. I have very little personally at stake here. I could easily work somewhere else next year, or next week, in another part of town, and I would still feel EXACTLY the same way about the CC. What I have posted in the past has zero to do with Bricktown's self-interest, and everything to do with ensuring that we don't spend a quarter billion in taxpayer dollars to construct a failed building.

In years of posting on this topic I have never said that Bricktown proximity is the most important factor. In fact, if you look at the recent consultant's ranking matrix the favored location is far from the best possible location for Bricktown connectivity. It ranks far better for connectivity to Film Row, actually. I don't think that's a bad thing; in fact I think that it is a positive that a CC in this location would also feed business to (and itself benefit from) an emerging FR. Once the streetcar is in place, Automobile Alley (my first love) and Midtown would also benefit. This is good for the CC, and good for the community in general.

The important thing is that the location has industry-desired 10 minute walkable connectivity to hospitality AT ALL, and it is critical in this case that it is 10-minutes-walkable to existing hotel stock.

You're constantly harping about convention center subsidy...how do you not understand that a constantly-booked CC requires less operational subsidy (if any) than a CC that struggles to find business?

You claim that I'm compromising my walkability cred by supporting a public amenity that has an unwieldy scale. Guess what? The same is true of the Bricktown Ballpark and the Chesapeake Arena, both built on superblocks. Yet nobody is suggesting today that they should have been built in some out-of-the-way corner on the fringe of downtown. It's quite obvious to everyone how much vibrancy and economic impact they provide downtown when they are properly programmed. Could they have better designs from a walkability standpoint? Of course. And we should be pushing for this with the design of the CC.

But - in the case of the CC as it appears to be taking shape - it will certainly have far less negative impact on the environment than the Cox Center currently does. It will probably have less negative impact than 499 or some other projects taking shape, and by contrast will actually be routinely putting people onto downtown's sidewalks and into downtown businesses. As a bonus it will free up the Cox Center site for more walkable redevelopment and if utilizing the REHCO/Clayco option will also allow walkable mixed use development between the CC and Chesapeake.

Public buildings of this type have their place in a major city. They are hugely important, in fact. They just need to be thoughtfully located and executed. Instead of griping about the walkability lost you should be celebrating the opportunities gained for OTHER walkable development and the stabilizing economic impact a CC will have for ALL of downtown.

But anyway, nice job of calling my integrity into question in an attempt at winning a flawed Internet argument.

[Just the facts]

That is exactly why I prefer the east park or co-op site. It sacrafices a little bit of walkability for convention goers, but protects the rest of the surrounding area from the negative effects. Maybe the convention center supporters should take the Hippocratic oath - do no harm. The CC is not the big picture, all of central OKC is.

I also think building underground is a pipe-dream. I seriously doubt that is going to happen, unless there is a finish MAPS 3 right vote to increase the funding.

[Urbanized]

That is exactly why I prefer the east park or co-op site. It sacrafices a little bit of walkability for convention goers, but protects the rest of the surrounding area from the negative effects...

...and ensures massive taxpayer operational and other subsidy and little positive economic impact for a generation. Ask Dallas how much it has cost them in unanticipated, after-the-fact rail and infrastructure improvements plus private business subsidy to fix a poorly-chosen and walkability-challenged CC site. Pick your poison. You've obviously chosen that particular brand, so now I can definitively state that I disagree with your position. Until the next time you change it, that is.

[Just the facts]

So 2 blocks are the difference between subsidy and no subsidy and you can guarantee the REHCO site won't require one anyhow (never mind that the City will have to swap some of the most expensive land in the state and pay rent on the COX just to acquire the site). The Co-Op owners said they could sell the necessary land at the approved budget. Future subsidies could be paid out of that funding gap.

[David]

I also think building underground is a pipe-dream. I seriously doubt that is going to happen, unless there is a finish MAPS 3 right vote to increase the funding.

For the location in question it's either underground or they rip out Hudson, and the latter seems pretty unlikely.

[soonerguru]

Is this our unicorn.

[Urbanized]

So 2 blocks are the difference between subsidy and no subsid..

The fact that you dismiss it as a two block difference shows how little you know or care to know about this issue. The difference in distances between the REHCO-to-hotels vs. COOP-to-hotels (meaning full-service hotels in the CBD) is closer to 1/4 mile.

And as long as we're talking additional expense, be sure to add extra, unanticipated streetcar track (paid for by whose budget?), extra streetcar operating costs (whose service is negatively impacted as a result?) and possibly additional hotel and private business subsidy in an attempt to make bookings more palatable to planners (see Dallas).

So, keep fantasizing about banishing the CC to the COOP site (or some other backwater). Fortunately this City's decision-makers have better sense than that.

[Just the facts]

Well, if the streetcar committee didn't waste a half of mile track with their location selection for the maintenance center it wouldn't be an issue. Heck, they could put the CC and the streetcar maintenance facility on the Co-Op property and do a 2 fer'. But that would make too much sense.

[Just the facts]

For the location in question it's either underground or they rip out Hudson, and the latter seems pretty unlikely.

Pretty sure they will end up elevating it over the road like Denver, Tampa, and Philadelphia. They just don't have the money to build what they envision. If they attempt it anyhow without all the funding in place we will end up with another AICCM.

[Laramie]

You will have a great view of downtown from I-40 once they dispose of this clinking, clanking, clattering collection of caliginous junk (Producers Coop Mill)!

[Just the facts]

Cone on - have a heart.

[Laramie]

Kerry (JTF):

Do you think there will be any opposition (can't keep from laughing) to the demolition of the Producers Coop Mill; it does have hysterical value.

[Just the facts]

Kerry (JTF):

Do you think there will be any opposition (can't keep from laughing) to the demolition of the Producers Coop Mill; it does have hysterical value.

I am sure somewhere someone will claim that it is a landmark for cross country travels and should be saved. I guess that is a good thing because it at least displays a fundamental understanding of place making and vernacular architecture.

[baralheia]

I'm usually for preservation, and to be honest, PCOM's departure will be the end of an era. If I'm not mistaken, there's been a cotton compress or seed crushing operation on that land pretty much since statehood; I know PCOM's been there since the early-to-mid 40's. The distinctive silos used for storing the seed products will be missed. But honestly, they're not historic structures, and they're not built to the strength of historic buildings in Bricktown or elsewhere. It's a bit sad to see this operation come to an end, but I can't wait to see a higher and better use come to this spot. I do hope that whatever development goes in here, it pays homage to the site's history in some way.

[Pete]

I am sure somewhere someone will claim that it is a landmark for cross country travels and should be saved. I guess that is a good thing because it at least displays a fundamental understanding of place making and vernacular architecture.

I know there are local architects that would very much like to see the silos saved and repurposed.

I'd love to see that as well, as the structures are icon and unique and we have very little of either in OKC.

However, I'm also sure this is never going to happen.

[betts]

I think the silos are very unique and would love to see someone work with the existing structures too.

[Just the facts]

Wonder how it would have turned out if instead of making the fairgrounds the Horse-a-rama they did it on this site. Then the fairgrounds could have stayed the fairgrounds.

[CCOKC]

I think one or more of the silos would make a pretty cool REI. Of course I have REI on the brain since I am planning my first backpacking trip and giving them plenty of my money this summer. But I am thinking of the Downtown Denver location that was an old train station. I know the silos aren't a train station but I think they could be repurposed into something pretty cool.

[Just the facts]

Those metal shed couldn't be used for anything accept recycling . At best they could be replicated in new construction.

[BDP]

Wonder how it would have turned out if instead of making the fairgrounds the Horse-a-rama they did it on this site. Then the fairgrounds could have stayed the fairgrounds.

Not sure if there is enough room. Either way, the horse-a-rama equals cash-a-rama, so it certainly wasn't a bad investment.

[HOT ROD]

so now, they can start investing in themselves for a change perhaps?

[Urbanized]

Who is "they"? The fairgrounds? It has seen tens on millions of capital investment in the past 20 years. It's reasonable to criticize the disappearance of various elements that many associate with the charm of the fair, but you can't say that the fairgrounds hasn't seen investment. Quite the opposite is true, in fact.