BTW, my understanding is that the City intends to borrow the $85MM to help pay for this project and thus there will likely be significant interest costs in addition to that base amount.
BTW, my understanding is that the City intends to borrow the $85MM to help pay for this project and thus there will likely be significant interest costs in addition to that base amount.
Borrowing money for MAPS is the first intelligent thing we have done since Maps 4 Kids. It's unfortunate that it's leveraging the convention hotel, which opens us up to some incredible risks. I hope that the city creates a separate authority to be on the hook for that, to shield the city's assets and especially the rest of the MAPS program.
With COTPA involved, a loan default there could further gut/kill our efforts to develop transit service and plan actual transit infrastructure.
Not only are there few good options, but they also require us to make real choices about our priorities that hang in the balance. It is clear that OKC prioritizes the conventions and fairgrounds above transit and neighborhoods.
Despite some previous negative comments about the Oklahoman, this video interview of Larry McAtee by William Crum represents the only local media outlet doing this.
http://newsok.com/multimedia/video/5...1001#gsc.tab=0
D, I'm calling it "low end" because of the price vs. what we're getting.
I know I'm exaggerating a little bit, but I'm trying to prove a point that 1) an OKC convention hotel should not cost the same as those in other cities due to the fact that this land is brownfield and/or already owned by the city, so 2) for the amount of dollars they're proposing/asking, we should get something twice as nice/tall as the most expensive existing hotel in downtown (the Renaissance OKC Convention Center soon to be renamed Marriott OKC Downtown) or akin to double the office tower u/c (BOKPP).
I know it isn't exact like-for-like but I feel that OKC is being fleeced AGAIN while other cities demand quality in their projects (OKC settles for the first conceptual rendering).
My opinion, I don't see why OKC's contribution of say $85M does not cover underground parking AND a 150 room addition (to Omni's 600 room block) and give us a 25-28 true highrise hotel tower with some luxury elements added to the glass curtain wall. I'm hoping that the CoC and CVB/Downtown OKC Inc are working on more than just controling the cost; I'd be fine if we got a quality hotel that took into account the purpose of TIF and other funding mechanisms instead of paying $85m for what will end up being a $114M hotel (once the city's contribution is added back to the developer's pocket). Let's get something for our contribution this time. ..
Interesting that there aren't any suites but I'd love to see two or three floors added that are suites; including presidential and a couple other premium dollar ones.
Oklahoma City, the RENAISSANCE CITY!
Very nice OKC! Looks like it will be a great addition to the skyline!
If you look at the floor plan, there are 15 floors of rooms with 645 rooms / 600 keys. This would indicate they don't have the exact placement of suites / size of suites planned yet. But they could go up to 45 suites if they were all double-room size. My guess is there are a few suites that are 3-4 rooms size, then many double size so they end up with exactly or slight over 600 rooms/keys. Something like 1 presidential suite quad-size, 1 triple-size suite, 35 double-size regular suites, and 568 standard rooms for a total of 603.
Omni may have already looked into adding a residential piece to this project and determined it to be too risky for the investment. Which I know all of us will be curious to hear about in detail if so.
Again, I'm not surprised this tower currently proposed (I understand it's preliminary) isn't any taller. There simply may not be any need. Look at Decious's comment about the other Omnis. This one is right in tune with their vision. It'll still be a decent addition to the core and will perhaps add some "bulk" to the skyline from various angles on I-40, but it'll probably be *just* too short to have any significant impact from other directions. Regardless, I think I'm more excited about the actual convention center and the future park than this hotel.
Edit: one last thing: will this hotel even break 250 feet? Knowing most hotels run with shorter ceiling heights, and this being at 19 stories, it seems to me a rough guess would put this at around 200 feet after the first couple floors are counted in.
If we ask for more, the cost will just go up and tax payers will have to foot the bill.
They can only finance so much, hence the $85MM gap that would only grow with more requirements.
The city struggled with getting housing on top of the Main Street garage. Now this is way better than a parking garage, but they probably have a full plate as it is.
Not to mention that overbuilding would not only create a need for construction subsidy but ALSO operational subsidy. This is where convention hotels in other cities have gone wrong. Everyone is so size obsessed and height obsessed that they are missing the most critical point; the CC hotel exists primarily to make the CC successful.
There is a formula to be followed in determining room number. They need to figure out how many people an Omni would draw on a regular basis if it was not connected to a CC. The flag itself is going to draw a certain number of people. In OKC for a full service hotel of that caliber it is probably 200 or so rooms on a regular basis. So, without any contiguous CC it would probably make sense for Omni to build a 200 room hotel. Anything over that needs to be driven by conference/convention business, and will usually be sold at a below-market room rate as an incentive for meeting planners to book. So there needs to be thought given to expected number of events based on the the CC facility itself, the expected room demand from those events, etc..
There is a repeated fundamental misunderstanding on this board of the purpose of a convention headquarters hotel like this one. It is NOT there to house all of the attendees. For various reasons (loyalty programs, price, desire to simply be elsewhere, or perhaps even not spending the night if local or regional), many, MANY conference and convention attendees won't even TRY to stay at the HQ hotel. It exists largely for the people who are facilitating the conferences; boards, association officials, presenters, vendors, etc.
If you build a hotel with a bunch of extra rooms just for the "blue sky" factor - that is, community ego, height on the skyline, or hoped-for growth that doesn't match the size/type of convention center that is attached - you are going to be building rooms that make no business sense. You are going to be building rooms that not only drive up the cost of the facility, they will have to be mothballed and won't make revenue. That will drive down the profitability of the hotel and put the city on track for ongoing OPERATIONAL subsidy. Those rooms still have to be maintained. They still have to be heated/cooled. They still have to be cleaned occasionally, even if not being used. They require more staff. They require more resources.
For all of the criticism on here regarding public subsidy in general, and of this project in particular, it amazes me that so many people are so bummed that the same building isn't bigger, taller, whatever. MUCH better for decisions regarding this hotel be based on sound business principles. Building it larger than required does nothing to help the CC's viability, and is actually HARMFUL to the viability of the hotel itself. If/when the CC itself requires expansion, there is a plan in place for more CC hotel rooms. That is wise and prudent, which is honestly what we should all be seeking here.
Quoting this section because it bears repeating. My understanding is there's potential for a second hotel, if needed, is this no longer the case? IF suites are not part of the Omni but are needed, the second hotel could easily be an Embassy Suites or something similar, filling the need for suites (if one exists) as well as being the potential second option (and I know we all agree competition is good, we've discussed it at length in the Google Fiber thread and several grocery store threads).
Yes. Considering that we will have 2 adjacent blocks that are literally surface parking, the ease to add more hotel rooms if its need is apparent is well worth building this facility conservatively.
Additionally, while plans seem to be a ways off for the Ford site, it seems pretty obvious that the site is going to have a hotel incorporated into the design, further decreasing the potential needs given its proximity to the CC (block and a half). The beauty of the East Park site has always been the future growth component.
I agree. that's why I stressed 'IF', and said if the need exists after the Omni is built. Everyone is acting like this is something other than a preliminary proposal. I mean, the meeting to even officially give it to Omni is only just now happening today. Acting like the thing is already built and proven to be inadequate because some people want to get in some sort of measuring contest with other cities is just insane.
Urbanized, you need to write a book or something. You have so much knowledge and information on this type of stuff. Great post.
It will prob. end up being about as tall as the Regency Tower Apartments. So we should be able to see it rise in the Skyline but not nearly enough IMO. If they build something about as tall as the Chase Tower or even the new BOOK tower it would stand out a little better.
Honestly, it's better for the tower to be a bit shorter, and be economically successful, than it is to be taller and be a money sink.
The Devon Tower could have been taller than the 850 feet that it was constructed at. But then we wouldn't be getting the BOK tower. As it was, Devon filled their tower, needed more space, and that led to more construction later. Now imagine if Devon had built a 1000 foot tower and then had been unable to fill it up. That could have killed development for quite a while.
A 250' tall convention center hotel isn't something that will wow anybody. But if it's successful and makes good money, that's very good for the city. It would suck if we pushed to make it a lot taller and then the city went broke trying to subsidize it. A 250 foot success story is better than a 400 foot failure.
If the city's economy stays strong, we're going to get more opportunities for taller towers. I think a lot of people are thinking of the high rise drought from the early 80s until Devon, and they're thinking that we better get some tall buildings while we can. As long as the city stays economically healthy, that won't happen again.
Agree with urbanized, but I thought we were seeking a minimum of 750 rooms. Is that out the window?
As tall as the Chase Tower??? That's the 2nd tallest building in the city...
Given it's position downtown, it's going to stand out in the only views that *really* matter: I-40 and I-(2)35. From the NW view around Integris, you'll actually probably see it right between Devon the new BOK tower, though it won't rise up too high.
I'll take what we're given. Having stayed at Omni down in Fort Worth, minus the million dollar condos they built on top that ours won't have, it's still the best brand associated with convention centers IMHO.
We're looking at preliminary plans at this stage. Omni added the residential piece to its Louisville convention hotel. There's still need for downtown residential; therefore let's not rule out anything until we get the finals plans.
Not concerned about the height; because if we need more than 600 rooms, there's room to add an additional hotel on site with rooms needed for future growth; then you have the potential to bring in some real convention gems. The streetcar route will be another impressive novelty piece to showcase the central core.
OKC's geographical location could carry more weight with convention planners than we anticipate. One thing is for sure, our WRWA expansion might be a key component with major planners.
There are currently 4 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 4 guests)
Bookmarks