Convention Center

[Stickman]

Agreed, but what land would they have to purchase next to the park. Price comps on property seem to have gone off the chart.
Just this week a small piece of property on the S side of Reno and Lee went up for sale. Its not cheap either. .08 acres with a no account of a building on it is close to 3m asking.

[Pete]

Agreed, but what land would they have to purchase next to the park. Price comps on property seem to have gone off the chart.
Just this week a small piece of property on the S side of Reno and Lee went up for sale. Its not cheap either. .08 acres with a no account of a building on it is close to 3m asking.

The City could trade land for the ODOT property next to the park and it already owns the substation.

I already went over in detail how the land next to the park would likely fit in the budget.

The Cox site is an incredibly valuable asset to the City and may be a way around the cc budget, but the cost to the City would still be incredibly high in terms of the value of the asset and lost opportunity to grow the CBD and dissolve the super block.

[Just the facts]

As I see it, they are all out of affordable options. They need $500 million more to build what they envisioned. This has AICCM written all over it if they aren't careful.

[Pete]

Argument against using Cox Center for the MAPS 3 Convention Center:

1. It's 14 acres is roughly the same size as the Core to Shore North site and is at least and arguably considerably more valuable. Core to Shore North was rejected due to cost; why would we switch to a more expensive site? (Remember, whether we pay out of pocket for the site or not, it is still a valuable asset owned by the City and using it for this purpose is no different than spending other assets like cash.)
2. The City just paid consultants for a long-range development plan that included the Cox site. They concluded the Cox site is needed for expansion of the Central Business District, which is currently bound to the south. There would be great economic value to the City to have room for private business to expand. (Consider the economic impact generated by a similar sized portion of the existing CBD).
3. We are trying desperately to undo the massive harm inflicted by super blocks of the 1960's and a new convention center on this site would just perpetuate that existing issue for at least several more generations.
4. The new Transit Hub is directly across from the Cox site and replacing the existing Cox monolith with another for a new convention center greatly detracts from the potential of the hub and works against the substantial public investment being made there.
5. Much existing convention business would be suspended and disrupted during an at least two year redevelopment cycle. The CVB estimates the annual economic impact of the Cox Center to be approximately $30 million. Therefore, there would be at least $60 million in additional cost to the City, and that number could prove to be considerably higher, especially if there are construction delays. Would also be much more difficult to restart downtown convention business after it was at a dead stop for 2-3 years.
6. The Cox Center is currently the largest parking structure downtown and is operating at over 100% capacity BEFORE greatly expanding our convention space and business. The parking would be completely out of commission for at least two years which would cripple existing downtown businesses and still not provide nearly enough capacity for the new facility.
7. There is no clear location for additional parking to serve this facility and due to the location, anything nearby be constructed on very expensive land.
8. The cost to demolish and rebuild on this site would almost certainly not fall within the existing budget.
9. Like the Core to Shore North (original choice) site, all four sides of the Cox site would need to be made 'pretty' due tremendous visibility. That would mean burying the docks, investing in expensive facades all the way around, etc.
10. The Cox Center was rated #4 in the semi-final round of site selection and was cut from the list of 3 finalists. The Core to Shore South site – still a very viable option and with many advantages and few of the disadvantages listed here – is the only remaining option among the three finalists.

[Stickman]

The City could trade land for the ODOT property next to the park and it already owns the substation.

I already went over in detail how the land next to the park would likely fit in the budget.

The Cox site is an incredibly valuable asset to the City and may be a way around the cc budget, but the cost to the City would still be incredibly high in terms of the value of the asset and lost opportunity to grow the CBD and dissolve the super block.

Sorry; going the long way around the barn. I agree the South site is the best, what I'm referring to is the price of land including the sale to the new hoteliers from Tulsa. I guess the right land swap could cure this.
Your thoughts................gotta go.

[Pete]

The proposed Core to Shore Hotel site would likely not be needed for the convention center.

[hoya]

As I see it, they are all out of affordable options. They need $500 million more to build what they envisioned. This has AICCM written all over it if they aren't careful.

I agree. They can't build the type of convention center they want without a lot more money. I see three options:

1) Build a smaller, specialized convention center with the money they have available. Save the big Cox Center replacement for another day. I'm sure you could do a very nice Bricktown Convention Center on the Uhaul parking lot or on the Chevy Events Center parking lot for the money they have available. It's not going to replace the Cox Center by any means, but it adds to the resources of the city and buys you time to work out a better solution, albeit with a different funding source than MAPS 3.

2) Build the big convention center in a place you don't like, on cheaper land, and work to make the area around it usable for future conventions. I'm talking about places like the area immediately east of I-235 between the railroad tracks and NE 4th. You could put a pedestrian path right along the railroad tracks, making it not too far a walk into Bricktown. You could also run a dedicated rail shuttle service to the Santa Fe station. It would be like a 2 minute ride. It's not the ideal location, but we don't have the money for the ideal location.

3) Go big. Get more money from somewhere. Sell the Cox Center now, perhaps, but the city rents the land from the new owner for the next 5 years or however long we need. Use the money from that sale to buy the Lumber Yard and the Cotton Mill. Use money from a seperate pile, whether state or federal credits, to do environmental cleanup on the site. In the end, the city will only use a portion of the land in that area for a convention center. Once it's been cleaned up, the city can ask for significantly more money than they paid for it for the rest of the land. This requires a lot of cash up front, however.

[Pete]

If you include a parking garage and the public portion for the convention hotel (likely $70+ million) then no way the cc can be built for the $282 million budget.

However, those items have thus far been excluded.

So, for the $282 million they could very likely build on the Core to Shore South site. The big wildcard is the cost to relocate the OG&E substation but that is simple matter of getting a current and detailed estimate. If it could be done for near the previously estimated $30 million, than that site would almost certainly work within the budget.

Since that is the highest rated of the currently available options, IMO they should be taking a hard look at the costs for that site while also being open to other ideas as Plan B.

But the only other site that I can see working at all within the existing budget is the Cox site, and I've already outlined why I think that is a horrible idea. And only within in the budget as in throwing in at least another $200 million in hidden costs (value of Cox Center land, the cost to area businesses for lost parking and lost convention business).


If they can't make this project work for the existing budget, then I think it's time to push this back to MAPS 4 and be upfront about all the related costs. In the meantime, the existing budget could be carried forward or split among the other projects.

[Just the facts]

I'll post a response to those items when I have access to a keyboard. However, the biggest challenge they are going to have is building what they envision for the money they have available. In hind-sight, this should have never been a MAPS project because of the limited funds typical of MAPS projects. If their study say X sq feet are required and anything less is a failure in the making then MAPS was definately the wrong funding vehicle.

[Pete]

^

Except what they'll end up doing is taking that site then building a new monolith not unlike what is there, just newer.

They can't afford to do it any other way.

So, when they talk about using that site, we need to deal with the current realities and ask if that is anywhere near the highest and best use of that property for the rest of our lifetimes.

[Pete]

BTW, in addition to not budgeting for parking or the now-deemed-essential convention hotel, they also didn't budget for expansion; either the building or the land. So, throw that on the pile.


Let's now total this all up:

Current budget with only $13 million in budgeted land costs: $282 million
Public piece of convention hotel: $70 to $140 million
Parking structure (land & construction): $50 to $70 million
Convention Center expansion (land & construction): $50 to $100 million

That's $452 to $592 million.


And that does not include:
Cox site value: $150 million
Lost convention business: $60 to $120 million
3 years of lost parking revenues from Cox: $20 million
Downtown business lost due to 1,000 spaces taken out of inventory for 3 years
Fancy hidden docks and other elaborate design plans

[hfry]

Emergency meeting is going on now Steve is live tweeting it for those interested https://twitter.com/stevelackmeyer

[Pete]

They are basically extended the contract with Populous to the end of June and want a new site selected by July 7th for city council to review.

Many more involved in the site selection this time around: MAPS 3 subcommittee, MAPS office, ADG, Planning, Public Works, Alliance for Economic Development.

[jerrywall]

Many more involved in the site selection this time around

Is this a good thing or does it get into too many cooks territory?

[Pete]

From Urban Pioneer:

[Pete]

So, basically starting all over and doing what took two years in a few months.

[Pete]

Larry Nichols noticeably absent from the meeting.

Also, this is a presentation by Mike Mize from the City of OKC.

Not discussing what the process should be, but rather telling the group what has already been decided.

[jn1780]

So, basically starting all over and doing what took two years in a few months.

Hmm, The new plan has already been decided upon and this is all just for show?

[Pete]

[adaniel]

Looks like the UHaul Site, Co-Op/Lumberyard location, and Reno & Dewey have been added as possible locations

[Pete]

Note new Reno & Dewey location incorporates south parcel of proposed Clayco development, as was proposed here.

The West Park site is largely owned by the City.

[Pete]

Reno & Dewey seems like the only realistic new addition but the land costs would still be way too high, even though the City does own the south half of the Clayco site.

[Pete]

If the East Park sites are too far away for the CVB lobby, then West Park might as well be at the Fairgrounds.

[Plutonic Panda]

Looks like the UHaul Site, Co-Op/Lumberyard location, and Reno & Dewey have been added as possible locations

i thought they're building a high rise on the lumber yard?

[Pete]

Wonder the reason for the weird gerrymandering of the possible coop site?