Convention Center

[betts]

Did they admit that, heretofore, most of the work done on the convention center has been a mistake of a noteworthy scale? Did they admit that they vastly underestimated property values? Have they admitted that they have been anything but upfront and transparent with even the city freaking council?

There is a very wide spectrum of posters on this board, and an even wider array of opinion espoused by said posters. Posters are sometimes even going to go "too far" with a thought or opinion so as to make a claim of something they aren't that serious about. It's the nature of the internet. But to use the radical end of the opposite side of the spectrum to dismiss the valid points of that whole same side is ridiculous. There are too many people on this forum who are well informed and reasonably objective and rational, Pete being chief among them, who are trying to raise concerns in the most public and far-reaching forum (internet or otherwise) this City has and the response from those involved is "Go home, you're drunk"?

I think any dismissiveness of "posters on this site" is indicative of a problem we have in this city. It is paternalistic and allows the powers that be to justify any decision made. While there are people in decision-making capacities that are incredibly knowledgeable, there are also plenty who want what they want because it's what they want, and it would be interesting to hear how complex and educated their reasoning is, were we allowed to question them directly.

We have some very knowledgeable people posting here, and regardless, public opinion should have some part in the political process.

[Just the facts]

What is kind of interesting is to go back and read this thread from the very beginning and see who has been right all along,

[Pete]

I think any dismissiveness of "posters on this site" is indicative of a problem we have in this city. It is paternalistic and allows the powers that be to justify any decision made. While there are people in decision-making capacities that are incredibly knowledgeable, there are also plenty who want what they want because it's what they want, and it would be interesting to hear how complex and educated their reasoning is, were we allowed to question them directly.

We have some very knowledgeable people posting here, and regardless, public opinion should have some part in the political process.

100% agree.

[Teo9969]

The thing that frustrates me the most about online communication is that people are categorized in 2-dimensional, this-side or that-side positions. There seems to be no room for nuance, and anytime nuance is injected into the conversation it's either 1. Ignored or 2. Treated unfairly or outright dismissed.

What kills me is that the majority segment of this board has a common goal: To support and vouch for Oklahoma City as a whole, and especially the downtown area. Some are very well-educated, some very well-connected, and plenty of people who are both. Then there are a lot of posters like myself who are still learning, and interested and being active in the most viable ways we can find, who are asking questions, putting out ideas to be further refined, and generally sharing our passion and concern for our city. Most of us are invested in multiple ways, even if we don't have the same resources as the major movers and shakers in this city. I've seen some incredible ideas come from people outside of the well-educated/well-connected segment of this board and there's no reason not to listen to these ideas and use them to make a better city.

There is an immature segment of the board –that is the nature of the internet– but by and large, this is a pool full of good ideas and idea refinement. On the rare occasions that the immature segment's opinion has aligned with the majority of the board, I've noticed the most amount of pushback from the city, and that is the wrong approach. I've very rarely seen this board be completely off-base, mainly because it represents a fairly wide-swath of contributors and a more objective view ends up bubbling up to the surface, particularly when it comes to more public projects.

[Just the facts]

I know one thing for sure, if Reno is to be the primary walking route between the CC and Bricktown then Reno needs to go on a diet. That traffic is way to fast to be safely traversed by out of towners on a regular basis, not to mention completely uninviting. On a rainy day with no on-street parking too many people would be constantly getting splashed.

[betts]

I know one thing for sure, if Reno is to be the primary walking route between the CC and Bricktown then Reno needs to go on a diet. That traffic is way to fast to be safely traversed by out of towners on a regular basis, not to mention completely uninviting. On a rainy day with no on-street parking too many people would be constantly getting splashed.

Agree. Not to mention it is an ugly street. When I told Jim Couch and Eric Wenger that I though it had no aesthetic merit, and was distinctly pedestrian unfriendly) they were shocked (or at least pretended to be).

[Pete]

Urban Pioneer is texting from the cc meeting just now...

Said that Roy Williams (Chamber) say it would kill the CVB business if the Cox site had to go dark for three years. Seems like the CVB and Chamber are still dead-set against the Cox site unless they can figure out a creative way to keep part of it open during construction, which seems highly unlikely.

The committee is still waiting for Populous to update the rating grid; not much can be done until then.

Couch mentioned the original site isn't necessarily off the table, which would explain why it was added back to the graphic / list of possible sites.

[Pete]

Interesting to note: Chris Fleming from REHCO (owner of original site) is at the meeting.

[hfry]

Steve tweeted that David blumenthal is at ( or being represented at the meeting) his family and company own large sums of land all throughout the core 2 shore area. If a site near th farmers market or west Central Park site is chosen I wouldn't be surprised to see it be some sort of agreement with lots of devolpment by him around it. Similar to what hall is doing with the 21 c but that's just a guess. It does show that there are land owners who want to try and make different areas work and would include private devolpment.

[David]

In case anyone else wants to follow along: https://twitter.com/stevelackmeyer

(Also, you should be following Steve anyway if you aren't already and are active on Twitter.)

[Just the facts]

So what we know so far

1) not going east of railroad
2) not going on Cox site
3) hotel has to be directly attached
4) nothing is going underground

[Just the facts]

My guess: a restored street grid and the south half of the Clayco site. Hopefully the hotel will face MBG.

On edit: all 5 proposed Clayco buildings can easily fit on the Stage Center site.

[Pete]

The way the rating grid is setup, there is a heavy emphasis on proximity to existing hotels and Bricktown.

The fact Chris Fleming was in attendance tells me there is still a good chance it will go on the original site.

That is the site the entire committee and all the people of influence have wanted all the way along and I'm sure they will all try and move heaven and earth to make it happen.

[soonerguru]

I think any dismissiveness of "posters on this site" is indicative of a problem we have in this city. It is paternalistic and allows the powers that be to justify any decision made. While there are people in decision-making capacities that are incredibly knowledgeable, there are also plenty who want what they want because it's what they want, and it would be interesting to hear how complex and educated their reasoning is, were we allowed to question them directly.

We have some very knowledgeable people posting here, and regardless, public opinion should have some part in the political process.

Absolutely. By dismissing the majority of posters here -- who are offering opinions -- someone is being defensive. Easier to try to discredit the source than it is to confront valid questions. It's also interesting when long-time posters here join the chorus of "complaining insiders" by using condescending, arrogant, and even somewhat bullying language toward polite, rational and informed posters here.

[Urbanized]

At at all sensitive are we? Lol I'll buy you a beer next time I see you...

Is that why you said "no offense"? Generally "no offense" accompanies a statement that someone KNOWS will bring some offense. Suggesting that since someone hasn't responded it's the same thing as not having a response is a common message board tactic/cheapshot. You're better than that, UP.

Despite my high level of participation on OKCTalk I actually DO have a life (and job) outside of this board. Especially this time of year.

[betts]

The way the rating grid is setup, there is a heavy emphasis on proximity to existing hotels and Bricktown.

The fact Chris Fleming was in attendance tells me there is still a good chance it will go on the original site.

That is the site the entire committee and all the people of influence have wanted all the way along and I'm sure they will all try and move heaven and earth to make it happen.

Maybe a someone will donate the money to buy the site and Populous will give back the quarter million to pick a new site. And pigs will fly. My concern is where they'll start looking for spare cash for their "crown jewel".

[Jim Kyle]

100% agree.

"Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it" and this whole situation is a great reminder of that axiom.

Back in the Fifties and Sixties, the Pei plan was first brought into prominence, then adopted and acted upon, in much the same way as the current problem has been and apparently still is being addressed. We all know the consequences of that -- but all too few folk realize that Pei's original plan, had it been implemented, would have created a far better result that the downtown desert that resulted. However it got modified many times between the proposal and the final actions bore little resemblance to his original vision. Would anyone care to wager that we're NOT repeating those 60-year-old mistakes?

[Urban Pioneer]

Suggesting that since someone hasn't responded it's the same thing as not having a response is a common message board tactic/cheapshot. You're better than that, UP.

Well first of all, apologies. 2nd of all, I believe/trust you missed Pete's post. It has happened to me too. It was a unnecessary douchey cheapshot just to get under your skin a little bit. I thought you would take it with jest since we are friends.

And I was however sincere about the beer or I wouldn't have offered.

However, enough with the innuendo about backroom conversations from not only you, but multiple posters. I went to the meeting and spent time there afterward speaking to several people. There really isn't any reason for this to be a clouded process. This is a moment for everyone to work together to solve this location problem. The first process failed. Round 2. This is public money. It deserves a transparent process.

[CaptDave]

There really isn't any reason for this to be a clouded process. This is a moment for everyone to work together to solve this location problem. The first process failed. Round 2. This is public money. It deserves a transparent process.

I think this is what nearly everyone here is saying in one way or another - and throwing different ideas out along the way. There are only a couple people implying "those in the know" are working on it and will tell us what is going to be done regardless of any reasonable ideas from those of us outside the inner circle. Many of us still remember how the original ratings certainly appeared skewed to arrive at a predetermined conclusion - a conclusion that in light of recent events should have never taken precedence above other options. Maybe this entire mess would have been avoided had there been more transparency in the process.

[Urban Pioneer]

And just to recap a few points from today's meeting based on memory-

1. All seats were taken.

2. Roy Williams made it a point to state that he had been told that putting the CC on the Cox site was a no go as we would lose the business that had been established.

3. The substation site has not been considered a "fatal flawed" location and remains on the map until it is ranked out.

4. Mike Adams, (MAPS 3 Oversight Board) specifically asked that the northernmost MAPS 3 Park (the grand lawn area fronting the Boulevard) be formally added as one of the alternative sites to be considered.

5. Gary Gregory, (a real estate broker who had represented the COOP site in the past), made a semi-formal pitch for the Blumenthal family land that fronts Walker and the new Boulevard one block west of the park.

6. Kimberly Lowe, (MAPS 3 Oversight Board), sent a text read via Meg Salyer, stating that she believes that eliminating the Ford Dealership site means that other site should be factored without basement expo halls to reduce building costs and keep the overall program within budget.

7. OkieDave, (David Glover), made a big pitch to reuse the Cox site by redeveloping from the inside (arena space) outward.

8. Chris Flemming with the Howard Group was present. I found that telling.

9. Larry Nichols asked if the streetcar route could be modified to accommodate whichever site was chosen.

10. There was discussion about the declination of the new OKC Boulevard under the railroad underpass and how that might affect the site fronting the Boulevard in Core 2 Shore south.

11. Susan Hooper, (MAPS 3 Oversight Board), asked about implications to sites via the Santa Fe Station expansion plan and relationship to the streetcar. They kindly gave me the light pointer and we got to go over all of the various implications to transit regarding the various sites. I'm really glad I got to go to the meeting as there was quite a bit of ambiguity about these issues. Also, I got to press the fact that changes to our streetcar plans may affect our budget and that we may need additional money to cover any gap that might be created by changing these site locations.

12. Gary Marrs, (CC subcommittee), asked whether scoring of sites could also include a factor as to their affect on costs and coordination of the other city-involved projects at hand.

13. Meg Salyer emphasized that this might be an opportunity to re-score affects to and positive results from external economic development projects.

14. Jim Couch was asked if the Howard/Ford site could be reconsidered. He said yes.

15. Mike Carrier expressed his desire for adequate expansion room.

16. Populous stated that they were looking at parking opportunities that could also enable development outside of the CC project.

17. Cathy O'Connor stated that all of the CC hotel contenders were fine with the site reevaluation process and only want assurances that the hotel site will be directly next to the CC.

Probably a few more thoughts will come. I suspect it will either end up back at the original site or the sites east or west of the park in Core 2 Shore South.

[Laramie]

nm

[Pete]

Thanks so much UP.

[Urbanized]

Apology accepted; I wasn't NOT going to let you buy me a beer anyway...

As far as people stopping things, you should stop saying I'm making "innuendos" or suggesting back room deals are afoot. I've never said anything like that, and in fact it's mostly people questioning the process who are suggesting it. Actually, I think you are completely misapplying the term. An "innuendo" is what is being made by the people here who continue to suggest the process is less than honest. An "innuendo" is disparaging. "Innuendo" is suggesting that one project is going to come after your favorite project's funding, despite no evidence to that effect. "Innuendo" is suggesting the process is "cloudy."

Here, check out the definition of the word for yourself: Innuendo - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

What I've said that there are creative and dedicated people working hard on this issue. I've said that I think there are reconfiguration and financing options that they are looking into that could make things work better. I've said that people on this board who are drawing up their Sim City site plans as if the C2SE has already been decided upon are missing the fact that there are other sites clearly in play, sites which are being ignored or dismissed here (I will say that I dig Spartan's creative layout). Some of these posters have said "there's clearly no other option that makes sense or that we can afford," and they are simply wrong about this.

This work by City officials isn't clandestine; it just means that staff are doing due diligence. It is correct for them to do so, it is COMPLETELY appropriate, and will ABSOLUTELY qualify as transparent when their findings are at some point in the near future included in consultants' reports or committee packets for discussion.

[Urban Pioneer]

Fair enough. And I must confess that a conversation with you is way different than the tone I probably erroneously apply when reading many of your posts.

[Laramie]

The City can't afford to jeopardize the MAPS brand with backroom deals that concern the convention center or conference hotel. It was the least popular; yet most expensive of those projects presented before the voters in MAPS III.

The new convention center & conference hotel if it is done right should provide a great venue to become a strong Tier III or potential Tier II convention destinations as we enter the 2020 decade. A conference hotel that provides a study recommend 735 rooms will be the key as we phase out the current Cox Convention Center.