Convention Center

[Urbanized]

Whatever.

Sorry, I didn't realize that you had all of the facts at your disposal.

[Urbanized]

Do you know something that we don't know, which makes you favor some other site/configuration?

Spartan, all I know is that there are discussions ongoing which include locations that have either been universally dismissed here or are getting little to no consideration or discussion In the forum. I also know there are additional configurations and financing options/vehicles that have not been discussed here at all, by anyone, some of which have been a part of the plan all along, some of which are being driven by the new conditions. That's the reality of the situation as I understand it. Most of what is being discussed in this thread currently is just a lot of noise, based on incomplete information.

Regarding the second part of your question, I have no favored site and would be happy with several of them. All I care about is that the building succeeds in its intended purpose, and I've previously laid out the parameters that the industry looks for so won't bore with a rehash.

[Spartan]

Spartan, all I know is that there are discussions ongoing which include locations that have either been universally dismissed here or are getting little to no consideration or discussion In the forum. I also know there are additional configurations and financing options/vehicles that have not been discussed here at all, by anyone, some of which have been a part of the plan all along, some of which are being driven by the new conditions. That's the reality of the situation as I understand it. Most of what is being discussed in this thread currently is just a lot of noise, based on incomplete information.

Regarding the second part of your question, I have no favored site and would be happy with several of them. All I care about is that the building succeeds in its intended purpose, and I've previously laid out the parameters that the industry looks for so won't bore with a rehash.

So is it reasonably safe to say your interest then is the extent to which the CC succeeds as economic development, and not so much looking at the other needs that need to be balanced? Do you acknowledge that there are any other needs to be balanced?

And thanks for the honest answer and the helpful, though vague, insight on how this is shaking out.

[Pete]

Spartan, all I know is that there are discussions ongoing which include locations that have either been universally dismissed here or are getting little to no consideration or discussion In the forum. I also know there are additional configurations and financing options/vehicles that have not been discussed here at all, by anyone, some of which have been a part of the plan all along, some of which are being driven by the new conditions. That's the reality of the situation as I understand it. Most of what is being discussed in this thread currently is just a lot of noise, based on incomplete information.

If this is all true, then that would mean lots of big, important things have been discussed outside the dozens of public meetings, which is troubling in itself.

In fact, I still haven't heard any official mention of the proposed land swap that was being considered for the old site and if not for the pressing of Ed Shadid at the last City Council meeting, no one would have known there was an issue with the eminent domain action in itself, particularly as it has to do with the cc hotel. And that *still* hasn't been reported or mentioned by anyone affiliated with this process; the only time it came up was when the City Attorney casually slipped into the council discussion. And nobody -- including the Council -- seems to understand the implications or even what happened.

So, if the public (such as people on this board) are engaging in "just a lot of noise" that is because what is supposed to be a very transparent and highly public process is in fact neither of those things.

[Urbanized]

So is it reasonably safe to say your interest then is the extent to which the CC succeeds as economic development, and not so much looking at the other needs that need to be balanced? Do you acknowledge that there are any other needs to be balanced?

And thanks for the honest answer and the helpful, though vague, insight on how this is shaking out.

I think that of course all needs should be balanced. I've never said differently. I've only said that if you're going to build a convention center that it should not fail to attract conventions. That would be dumb and wasteful. Seems like a simple idea to grasp.

This can be done without wrecking downtown, despite what others here seem to think. In fact, if done properly it becomes a driver for other great projects an development, as should most if not all MAPS projects; especially the expensive ones.

[betts]

I think that of course all needs should be balanced. I've never said differently. I've only said that if you're going to build a convention center that it should not fail to attract conventions. That would be dumb and wasteful. Seems like a simple idea to grasp.

This can be done without wrecking downtown, despite what others here seem to think. In fact, if done properly it becomes a driver for other great projects an development, as should most if not all MAPS projects; especially the expensive ones.

My questions are, and I don't know if the answers are available. I've never seen them answered in a satisfactory fashion: Precisely what kind of conventions can we realistically assume we can attract? Will there be a significant increment in the size and type of conventions we can attract with a new convention center based on location? Can a convention center built with what many cities would consider a fairly small budget actually become a driver for other great projects? How and why?

[CaptDave]

Sorry, I didn't realize that you had all of the facts at your disposal.

So are you saying there is a lack of transparency in this process? There are discussions about locations other than what has been released to the public who is funding this project? Why not inform us about these "facts" most of us are evidently missing?

I don't doubt you may have heard a few things most of us are not privy to, but that only reinforces the impression this particular project has been a series of backroom deals of the sort no one should support.

The truth is this convention center is still going to be more for local and regional events than anything else. The GE facility may in fact attract more O&G related events and it would be nice to attract more medical research events - I hope it does. But there is no reasonable expectation this facility is going to rival or draw convention business away from established locations. The claim of the cc being the "crown jewel" of MAPS3 was stupid the first time it was uttered and still is. I agree OKC needs an improved convention facility but some perspective and realistic expectations also need to be maintained.

[Just the facts]

If the Chamber projections are going to be used as the 'success' measuring stick - prepare for disappointment.

[Spartan]

Sorry everyone for the accidental double posts. Hard to do this in depth on my phone..

[Spartan]

I think that of course all needs should be balanced. I've never said differently. I've only said that if you're going to build a convention center that it should not fail to attract conventions. That would be dumb and wasteful. Seems like a simple idea to grasp.

This can be done without wrecking downtown, despite what others here seem to think. In fact, if done properly it becomes a driver for other great projects an development, as should most if not all MAPS projects; especially the expensive ones.

Right, and sorry if the question sounded combative or if this thread has gotten so divisive that we resort to combat. That said, I really am curious specifically A) how you would word or express the need to balance goals and B) how specifically can these various sites NOT wreck downtown.

I too want conventions obviously, I've just not seen too many examples where a CC was a totally positive addition. I am for any CC that attracts conventions and doesn't wreck downtown, and I would even be for finding ways to enhance funding for such a facility. One thing I am not for though is leaving half the site undeveloped for the next twenty years to hold that section of downtown (possibly park frontage even) hostage until funding is procured.

I also agree with Betts that the off the record, behind the scenes discussions are troubling. This is what gives Ed Shadid a pedestal on which to continue to attack MAPS. While one may consider it reassuring that there are plans being formed to ensure we truly pull off a successful CC project including obtaining additional financing, it's understandably less reassuring that we have a projevt for which we're already on the hook, additional financing is allegedly wanted, and we don't know how that will be extracted nor can we plan for the impact of that because "smart people behind the scenes are currently solving te problem" or what have you.

[Spartan]

I'll use this accidental double post to mention two CC articles in today's Plain Dealer:

Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati and others compete in convention-center 'arms race' | cleveland.com

http://www.cleveland.com/travel/inde...t_on_conv.html

[jccouger]

I think the fallout of the Ford site makes it clear that being a little hush about site selection is necessary to prevent price gouging on land.

I think the Reno & Dewey site will probably be selected, with the south part of the clayco site being used for the hotel. It's weird how they have colored over Reno though in the map graphic, I don't have any idea what that could possibly mean. Hopefully they don't intend to remove a portion of one of the busiest streets in the city (or maybe that would be a good thing?)

[Spartan]

I think the fallout of the Ford site makes it clear that being a little hush about site selection is necessary to prevent price gouging on land.

I think the Reno & Dewey site will probably be selected, with the south part of the clayco site being used for the hotel. It's weird how they have colored over Reno though in the map graphic, I don't have any idea what that could possibly mean. Hopefully they don't intend to remove a portion of one of the busiest streets in the city (or maybe that would be a good thing?)

Well we have already obliterated Main Street, with plans to do so for Western, so may as well do Reno as well to comprehensively eliminate any potential connectivity in and out of downtown. Connectivity is bad, Mmkay.

[jn1780]

I think the fallout of the Ford site makes it clear that being a little hush about site selection is necessary to prevent price gouging on land.

I think the Reno & Dewey site will probably be selected, with the south part of the clayco site being used for the hotel. It's weird how they have colored over Reno though in the map graphic, I don't have any idea what that could possibly mean. Hopefully they don't intend to remove a portion of one of the busiest streets in the city (or maybe that would be a good thing?)

I imagine they would have an underground exhibit hall that could goes under Reno. I bet you they included the original convention site so they could look into having the convention center west of Hudson and maybe close Walker off? I'm still not sure how they would afford the land unless they do land swaps.

Having the CC facing north/ south along Hudson( or even walker) reduces walk times as opposed to having it west/ east along Reno.


It would be a good idea to go ahead and postpone the boulevard so they could leave up the possibility of placing some of the exhibit hall underneath the boulevard at the Reno and Dewey site.

[betts]

I'll use this accidental double post to mention two CC articles in today's Plain Dealer:

Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati and others compete in convention-center 'arms race' | cleveland.com

How Cleveland's big bet on convention center is playing out: Success but room for improvement | cleveland.com

They too quote Sanders, who has managed to make himself the media darling of convention center criticism. Although I think some of his assertions may be correct, his research and writing are shoddy and do not meet my criteria for "scientific research". I would love to see some good research on this subject with objective, comparable data.

[Spartan]

How is his research shoddy?

His problem is that he's gotten entrenched in the issue he studies. His research, though, is the only credible body of work that exists on convention center economic development. Whether or not he has gotten jaded and cynical isn't really a discredit to his research.

[OklahomaNick]

Did you see this NewsOK article from today?

Cost set for new MAPS 3 convention center site analysis | News OK

The MAPS 3 convention center advisory committee is expected to sign off Tuesday afternoon on a contract with design firm Populous for a new analysis of potential convention center sites.

MAPS 3 program manager David Todd says the new study is expected to cost $265,000.

Work is to begin next week and be wrapped up in June, in time for the city council to vote July 7 on a recommendation.

The city scrapped efforts earlier this month to acquire its preferred site, a several-square-block area west of Chesapeake Energy Arena that for many years included a Ford auto dealership.

The MAPS 3 convention center advisory committee meets at 3:30 p.m. Tuesday at the city office building, 420 W Main St.

The MAPS 3 Citizens Advisory Board is expected to consider the contract on Thursday, and it would go to the city council on March 31.

$265,000 to analyze sites? THAT'S INSANE! They are seriously going to pay someone to re-do their original study and propose the exact same sites (minus 1)?
They can just read on here for potential sites. That is a lot of money..

[Pete]

That report is misleading.

Their entire contract is being increased $265,000 and that includes site evaluation, facility programming and concept design report services.

So, after the new site is selected, they'll still have to do new programming and a concept design. They did many revisions and possible layouts for the current site, so that's a pretty big job. And since the old plan was mainly underground, it's a good bet they'll have to start completely over.

I suspect they would like to charge us a lot more but we simply don't have the budget after flushing a ton of money on the other site.

Our total A&E budget is $31 million and we've already obligated $19.7 million (with the increase) to Populous. We still have to have someone actually design the building from the general concept Populous and the committees agree upon, then engineer the whole thing.

[BDP]

So, after the new site is selected, they'll still have to do new programming and a concept design.

Maybe this time they should wait until after the site is acquired before doing programming and concept design.

[Pete]

Maybe this time they should wait until after the site is acquired before doing programming and concept design.

Tell that to the MAPS 3 project managers (City staff).

They are the ones managing and paying them.


Would be interesting to see how much they've billed us for throw-away work on the old site.

[BDP]

Would be interesting to see how much they've billed us for throw-away work on the old site.

Sure would. I'd also love to know what Populus is thinking right now. I'm sure they're happy to get the extra money, but they got to be shaking their heads behind closed doors.

[Pete]

Populous gets paid $20 million regardless.

We also paid them a bunch of money to study the area around the convention center based on that old site, which is now pretty much useless.


It's the beauty of being a consultant... You get paid for your work regardless of what the client does or doesn't do with it. (And I say that as a consultant myself.)

[Stickman]

Maybe this time they should wait until after the site is acquired before doing programming and concept design.

Seems like a 5th grader would have figured this one out.

[Urban Pioneer]

If this is all true, then that would mean lots of big, important things have been discussed outside the dozens of public meetings, which is troubling in itself.

In fact, I still haven't heard any official mention of the proposed land swap that was being considered for the old site and if not for the pressing of Ed Shadid at the last City Council meeting, no one would have known there was an issue with the eminent domain action in itself, particularly as it has to do with the cc hotel. And that *still* hasn't been reported or mentioned by anyone affiliated with this process; the only time it came up was when the City Attorney casually slipped into the council discussion. And nobody -- including the Council -- seems to understand the implications or even what happened.

So, if the public (such as people on this board) are engaging in "just a lot of noise" that is because what is supposed to be a very transparent and highly public process is in fact neither of those things.

Crickets.... No offense Urbanized. If developer-based political machinations were off the table, I'd say City Staff would very much want to go where they know they can get the land for free or for cheap. Also, Some of us have raised holy hell about the streetcar budget, so who knows how that plays into their overall decision making. Half of the sites are near or on the streetcar line. Half are definitely a stretch and would probably affect the southernmost part of the alignment. This is particularly true if you want an direct connection to Bricktown from the Convention Center that isn't four blocks away on Sheridan. Presumably, such changes in streetcar alignment will affect some of our A&E costs as well and require additional steel rail and electrification.... Potentially more cost.

It will be interesting to see the tug-of-war play out between land costs, developer offerings, politics, and our request to re-suspend the $30 million substation contingency until the streetcar project budget is fully understood barring route changes that this CC site change may present.

I guess I will go to the meeting tomorrow and record that one as well.

[Pete]

I guess I will go to the meeting tomorrow and record that one as well.

Please do!


At the last committee meeting City Staff told everyone that land the cost and ease of land acquisition would be a big factor.

But, if there are supposedly all these other dealings that the general public doesn't know about and aren't being discussed in these meetings, then how exactly does it get figured in?

Is that part of the rating process or does all that stuff just happen behind the scenes and take precedent over the ratings?

And again, how does possible issues with eminent domain fit into this?


It seems we are just doing the same things that led to this problem in the first place.