Convention Center

[Just the facts]

So keep the arena and rebuild the exhibit space.

[Pete]

^

Not nearly enough room which is why they need a new cc in the first place.

[Just the facts]

^

Not nearly enough room which is why they need a new cc in the first place.

The new CC isn't much bigger. The issue was column free space. If they bump the west wall out to Robinson they could make it even bigger than the new CC. Then spend the rest of the money fixing the stuff they left out of MAPS I.

[Pete]

The new CC isn't much bigger. The issue was column free space. If they bump the west wall out to Robinson they could make it even bigger than the new CC. Then spend the rest of the money fixing the stuff they left out of MAPS I.

They currently only have 100,000 SF of exhibit space at the Cox Center and the main exhibit hall alone in the new cc was to be over 300,000 SF.

Similar big bumps in meeting space and ballroom space are planned.

This is all included in the studies done by Populous and well documented elsewhere.

[Bellaboo]

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.

Seattle has a sky bridge connecting their Convention Center over a 3 lane one way street. It's called Washington State CC. It has a huge canopy over the sky bridge and the street. Very cool looking.

[Teo9969]

I think this remains the best site plan we've seen. I'd like us to take this progression of action:

$30M - $60M: Use MAPS 3 money to buy any of the 10 blocks that are currently unowned
$30M - $45M: Move the sub-station
$50M - $60M: Build 2500 space Parking Garage
$50M - $100M: Subsidize Hotel

TOTAL: $160M - $265M

If we can keep under the $250M number, every penny goes into the Convention center account.

+$100M: MAPS 4
+$25M - $50M: Sale of Park-front Land
+$150M - $200M: Sale of Cox site

TOTAL: $275M - $350M + any potential balance from MAPS 3 money for construction of Convention Center.

[Edited for formatting and clarity]

[Teo9969]

And actually, you probably don't bill the $100M from MAPS 4, but just extend the MAPS 3 tax one extra year, and bill MAPS 4 as something else (Hopefully skip MAPS 4 in favor of an RTA)

[Just the facts]

Does anyone believe the City will sell the COX land at market value? My guess is they will either give it away or agree to put the proceeds back into whatever gets developed.

[Teo9969]

If it's the only way to fund the convention center, you bet your sweet tail they will.

And honestly, I'm okay with that. We're talking about selling our current CC for our new CC.

[CaptDave]

The Reno/Walker site would have a lot more vacant, publicly-owned land if the city had chosen Alternative D for the boulevard.

I'd been holding off stating this ever since I saw that option.

[Spartan]

I think this remains the best site plan we've seen. I'd like us to take this progression of action:

$30M - $60M: Use MAPS 3 money to buy any of the 10 blocks that are currently unowned
$30M - $45M: Move the sub-station
$50M - $60M: Build 2500 space Parking Garage
$50M - $100M: Subsidize Hotel

TOTAL: $160M - $265M

If we can keep under the $250M number, every penny goes into the Convention center account.

+$100M: MAPS 4
+$25M - $50M: Sale of Park-front Land
+$150M - $200M: Sale of Cox site

TOTAL: $275M - $350M + any potential balance from MAPS 3 money for construction of Convention Center.

[Edited for formatting and clarity]

No MAPS 4 convention center.

If we're going to spend over $100 million on land assembly, might as well do it on the current site.

[Teo9969]

No MAPS 4 convention center.

If we're going to spend over $100 million on land assembly, might as well do it on the current site.

I posted after that and suggested that we extend MAPS 3 by a year instead of calling it MAPS 4.

Where did you read in that post $100M on land assembly? It would be closer to half that amount, for a ton more land than the Ford site some of which would be sold at a later date anyway (At least 15% of said land)

As soon as the park is actually built, land values in the area will noticeably increase. We should use that to our advantage right now.

[ljbab728]

I posted after that and suggested that we extend MAPS 3 by a year instead of calling it MAPS 4.

Where did you read in that post $100M on land assembly? It would be closer to half that amount, for a ton more land than the Ford site some of which would be sold at a later date anyway (At least 15% of said land)

As soon as the park is actually built, land values in the area will noticeably increase. We should use that to our advantage right now.

Of course, extending MAPS 3 by a year would require a vote of the people. I think that might be a tough sell to complete the convention center. It could happen, but it wouldn't be easy.

[Stickman]

Is the City waiting till July for more studies on other properties, or is there a moratorium on REASONABLE offers on the original site for 6 months?

[Spartan]

I posted after that and suggested that we extend MAPS 3 by a year instead of calling it MAPS 4.

Where did you read in that post $100M on land assembly? It would be closer to half that amount, for a ton more land than the Ford site some of which would be sold at a later date anyway (At least 15% of said land)

As soon as the park is actually built, land values in the area will noticeably increase. We should use that to our advantage right now.

It seems like OCURA basically has all of the land at least under contract, except for the proposed hotel site, which is just one block to go get. The substation should stay honestly. $30+ mil to move, or $2 mil to cover with an architecturally interesting skin and have an instant substantial mass fronting the park... the latter sounds pretty good to me!

Daniel Libeskind did this with a substation in NYC:

[Rover]

I

it seems like ocura basically has all of the land at least under contract, except for the proposed hotel site, which is just one block to go get. The substation should stay honestly. $30+ mil to move, or $2 mil to cover with an architecturally interesting skin and have an instant substantial mass fronting the park... The latter sounds pretty good to me!

Daniel libeskind did this with a substation in nyc:

+1

[ljbab728]

Does that substation in NYC have all of the overhead electrical wires going in and out like the one here?

[Teo9969]

I just looked through the County Assessor and it appears to me that Government (OK/OKC or otherwise) owns only between 25% and 35% of the land in the C2S East site.

[Urbanized]

Oops.

[Spartan]

Does that substation in NYC have all of the overhead electrical wires going in and out like the one here?

I would think that's a separate issue of buried utility wires. Obviously along the park may be one area that it's worth "wasting money" on buried utility lines.

As for land acquisition, that's 25-35% more than we had on the C2S North site, and I was under the impression that the city had most of it under contract and was slooooowly working on each deal.

[Spartan]

Took my proposal a little further...

[Pete]

^

Really like that.

Would need more parking but that could be worked in.

If they aren't going to the Cox Center, then they really have to find a way to make this site work. I just don't see any better alternative.

[Spartan]

The thing about parking is that my grid-preservation approach surrounds the CC with parking on the two sides which are the primary frontage. The likely end game result (a superblock) will surround the CC with nothing except for other superblocks or boundaries on all sides.

My proposed alternative leaves the city with a mechanism to leverage profits from OCURA's holdings in the C2S impact area to support the overall CC budget. Land along the streetcar and a primary cross-town corridor (S. Robinson), wedged between one of the nation's best parks and one of the nation's best convention centers, will make even the REHCO site look like the Bottoms in terms of land values.

The game that the Junta is playing is to get a site that incorporates some sort of "future expansion" space (ie the southern half of the C2S East site) that can potentially sit as red dirt if voters don't give them more MAPS 4 money for the CC nobody wants as well. That's their idea of "leverage," and yet they somehow hold the finance-savvy trump card over planners?

[Pete]

As far as the expansion, that is not part of MAPS 3 so IMO they should not be looking to acquire land for that purpose with MAPS 3 money.

However, it would be wise to choose a site where there is at least the possibility exists for future expansion -- like the C2S south -- but money for the land and building itself would have to come later and from another source.

[Teo9969]

As far as the expansion, that is not part of MAPS 3 so IMO they should not be looking to acquire land for that purpose with MAPS 3 money.

However, it would be wise to choose a site where there is at least the possibility exists for future expansion -- like the C2S south -- but money for the land and building itself would have to come later and from another source.

It's all apart of the convention center at the end of the day. The problem I have with waiting to buy expansion land is that we know it's going to skyrocket. We have a chance to buy land at $x/acre and by the time enough MAPS 4 money (assuming there will even be a MAPS 4) is sufficient, we'll have to pay 2$x/2.5$x/3$x per acre. Construction costs are not going to rise like that in the next 8 years. So instead of the Convention center costing taxpayers $550M overall, it will end up costing taxpayers $650M overall…That's not a win, and that's not how we should approach this project.

If we're presented with a plan that can survive without ever expanding, then proceed thusly. But if expansion is readily admitted as necessary, we need to prepare for that now, not repeat the cycle of becoming a victim of our own success. That's the worst misappropriation of funds/resources: Not learning from previous mistakes.