Convention Center

[Pete]

Note how no part of the REHCO property is being considered; not even the parcel south of the south half of the Clayco site.

Also, no consideration of taking any part of Central Park.

[Just the facts]

Environmental cleanup at the Coop site would take years and cost who knows how much. Plus they would have to move first.

On edit, they would also have to buy land from a railroad and we know how fast (slow) that happens.

I also find it interesting that the south Clayco site is even being suggested. I don't think that bodes well for the Clayco project.

[Pete]

I really like the East Bricktown site but just can't fathom how land costs could come anywhere close to budget.

They'd have to buy out part of the Bodyworks site, the new McDonald's and Circle K. And that doesn't even include what would be needed for a hotel and parking.

[Pete]

Entire meeting was 40 minutes. No one from the cc committee even spoke.

Yet another bizarre chapter in the story of this project.

[hfry]

Hardly a meeting. Seemed to be more of a press conference-ish update on what has already been decided. I understand the importance of picking a site as quickly as possible but it seems they are massively rushing.

[Just the facts]

Why does almost every proposal look like a reverse image of Utah?

[Anonymous.]

Now I definitely don't think you were kidding when you said the people who can make things happen, watch this thread.

[Just the facts]

From Steve's Twitter feed:

Possible new criteria: efficiencies w existing/planned development, synergies w streetcar, transit hub, Bricktown, Myriad Gardens, new park
3:44pm - 16 Mar 15

Why are these NEW criteria ?

[Pete]

The only things that have changed on that list since they did the initial process is that we now know the location of the transit hub (although it was pretty much known it would be in its current location all along) and the streetcar route, but even that could still be slightly adjusted without having to complete redraw.

Also, there are considerably more hotels planned now but I seriously doubt that represents a marked change since June of 2011 when they last scored the sites.

[josh]

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

That was never a realistic development.

[Plutonic Panda]

That was never a realistic development.

Obviously not in OKC. In nearly any other city, it is realistic and would almost certainly be done in a city of 1.4 million people.

You know, if Austin and Dallas(yes, I know they are much larger) can support all of the highrises there, surely OKC can support one.

[hoya]

Environmental cleanup at the Coop site would take years and cost who knows how much. Plus they would have to move first.

On edit, they would also have to buy land from a railroad and we know how fast (slow) that happens.

I also find it interesting that the south Clayco site is even being suggested. I don't think that bodes well for the Clayco project.

I would imagine that the south ClayCo site would be for the convention hotel portion. The ClayCo plan included a rendering with a proposed hotel.

My guess is that is your new convention center site. The city grants ClayCo's crazy high TIF request, and as part of the deal the convention hotel becomes a part of the ClayCo development. ClayCo also increases the amount of parking on both the north and south property, adding 2 or 3 more levels to each design. The south lot acts as part of the garage for the convention center. With the new TIF district, this lets the city effectively raise the funding for a lot of the convention center amenities (garage, hotel) without it coming from the dedicated convention center funding.

[jccouger]

The only things that have changed on that list since they did the initial process is that we now know the location of the transit hub (although it was pretty much known it would be in its current location all along) and the streetcar route, but even that could still be slightly adjusted without having to complete redraw.

Also, there are considerably more hotels planned now but I seriously doubt that represents a marked change since June of 2011 when they last scored the sites.

I'm sure property values have increased unlinearly in different parts of downtown.

[hoya]

My preference for these would be the Lumber Yard, with a hotel in Lower West Bricktown. Connect the two via a decorative sky bridge (don't kill me, JTF), that way conventioners don't have to walk across the downtown expressway, err, boulevard.

[Pete]

Here are the main site constraints as I see them (all this before even bothering to score for proximity to hotels and that other stuff):

1. Room for at least 300,000 square feet of contiguous exhibit hall space; i.e. parcel has to be at least this big
2. Room for neighboring convention hotel
3. Room for parking
4. Land acquisition can't exceed $13 million out of pocket (but seemingly can include existing City-owned property)

Looking at things from this perspective, you might as well cut Lower West Bricktown (Uhaul) because it only has about 240,000 square feet total, even if you pull down that beautiful, historic building.

All the other sites other than Cox have big land acquisition cots but it seems the City was willing to trade land before and will probably consider that again.

[soonerguru]

Here are the main site constraints as I see them (all this before even bothering to score for proximity to hotels and that other stuff):

1. Room for at least 300,000 square feet of contiguous exhibit hall space; i.e. parcel has to be at least this big
2. Room for neighboring convention hotel
3. Room for parking
4. Land acquisition can't exceed $13 million out of pocket (but seemingly can include existing City-owned property)

Looking at things from this perspective, you might as well cut Lower West Bricktown (Uhaul) because it only has about 240,000 square feet total, even if you pull down that beautiful, historic building.

All the other sites other than Cox have big land acquisition cots but it seems the City was willing to trade land before and will probably consider that again.

Of the available options, I prefer the East Bricktown site, with the "South of Chesapeake" site second.

[Pete]

Can't see any way East Bricktown is remotely affordable.

There is an existing McDonald's plus Circle K plus a good chunk of the Bodywork's site which is currently under contract for no doubt a big chunk.

Then, you still have to have land for a hotel; the land as outlined only has enough for the cc itself.

Parking could be structured across Reno to the south, so that's a big plus. But the other two things seem to be hurdles there is no way to clear.

[Pete]

BTW, since the city attorney said the reason they dropped the pursuit of the REHCO property was due to issues with eminent domain, where is that issue in this evaluation?

[adaniel]

I'm warming up to Reno and Dewey.

Still close to the streetcar; only an extra block or two to BT (still not super close, but at least its a straight shot), close enough to Film Row, and DT in general is growing westward.

[hoya]

BTW, since the city attorney said the reason they dropped the pursuit of the REHCO property was due to issues with eminent domain, where is that issue in this evaluation?

I'm thinking that pushes for a site that has easy access to a location the city already owns. That's why you're getting the weird gerrymandered site on ClayCo land. The private portion of the development goes someplace where they don't need to use eminent domain.

[Urban Pioneer]

I will try to put some more thoughts together later. I recorded the meeting. There was more discussion had by the subcommittee members than was eluded to. Also, it was pleasant to see Aubrey Hammontree (Planning Director) address the committee about the proposed location options.

Right now... After this... and discussions afterward... My guess is either east or west of the park due to land costs.

I made a public statement and asked that the $30 million be placed back into contingency until the full costs to the streetcar were assessed due to the potential delay and potential route changes. They need to assume they have $250 million to work with... Not $280.

[Pete]

I'm thinking that pushes for a site that has easy access to a location the city already owns. That's why you're getting the weird gerrymandered site on ClayCo land. The private portion of the development goes someplace where they don't need to use eminent domain.

Good point.

Also, keep in mind that you can put private development on land City acquires, just not through eminent domain.

But that also means you have to negotiate with private land owners who can drive up their asking price knowing that eminent domain -- and thus an objective decision by the courts -- can't be used. If they want to ask an outrageous sum, the City would either have to pay it or move on to yet another site.

[Pete]

I do like the Reno & Dewey location in terms of what that does for OKC.

It would put only the hotel on the park and then take land that is presently undeveloped and help draw private development to the west and south and deal with some pretty ugly properties along the boulevard.

Also, the City owns the land on the south side of the boulevard, so it should be easy to jump-start private investment in that area.

[hoya]

Good point.

Also, keep in mind that you can put private development on land City acquires, just not through eminent domain.

But that also means you have to negotiate with private land owners who can drive up their asking price knowing that eminent domain -- and thus an objective decision by the courts -- can't be used. If they want to ask an outrageous sum, the City would either have to pay it or move on to yet another site.

Right. I was looking at the Reno and Dewey location. If I remember correctly, a lot of the land on one of those blocks was recently purchased by a single owner, like within the last year. If the sale price was low enough, that would give the city a great argument for the cost of an eminent domain action in that area.

[Pete]

Not I. Not anymore. Steelyard project alone is enough to make me want to see those types of projects continue on the east side of Bricktown. Let's keep the CC in the core.

How about keep in the Core to Shore?

Agree about East Bricktown because all of the land they would be taking (apart from the parking lot) is either developed or slated for development. And everything around it, too. So that area is already raging and no sense in displacing planned private development with a big public block.