Convention Center

[Urbanized]

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.

All of this discussion occurred in a public meeting, yet people claim the project has no transparency. SMH.

[betts]

I've lost interest in where this thing goes, as long as someone takes Mike Adams and shakes him. Any comments I've made about the CC being the crown jewel were facetious. I spent months convincing reluctant people to vote for MAPS 3, and the best argument was the "quality of life" one. The park is the crown jewel of MAPS 3, and it would be nothing short of stupid to reduce its scope, given the fact that most of us hope for a MAPS 4. Talk about playing into the hands of the opposition....

[betts]

All of this discussion occurred in a public meeting, yet people claim the project has no transparency. SMH.

Having been at the first meeting where the original site was chosen, it certainly seemed as if Populous was given some sort of impetus to arrive at the desired location. The scoring system had some very odd numbers, and the rationale behind them was odder. I saw no evidence of transparency at that meeting. And now we're talking about a two hour public meeting at which no decision was made.....it's too early to say there was transparency there. We won't be able to say that until we know what site is chosen and why. Also, as a taxpayer, if they go back to the original site, I want my $250,000 back.

[kevinpate]

I agree with betts as to Mike Adams and that number 4 bullet in UP's post (3003)

I do not know Mike Adams, but suggesting the work done to date on the north aspect of the park be squandered, wasted and tossed aside merely so the cc could be considered going on that spot is just absolute horse turds, and smells far worse.

You don''t fix a honking big error by making another one.

[CaptDave]

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..

Are you freaking kidding me? There is clearly a group of people willing to discard or diminish any other MAPS 3 project to insure the least popular, according to polling, is built.

Someone needs to ask if the overall MAPS3 timeline will be adjusted to move other projects up since the CC is probably going to be delayed. After all, other projects were split into phases or pushed back just to get the CC moved up in the timeline.

Why not build the entire MAPS streetcar system in one phase?
Why not move some other projects up in the overall MAPS3 timeline?

I want a nice convention center to be built and have no problem with it being a MAPS3 project, but the way it is being handled is getting beyond tiresome. I've been to several subcommittee meetings of a few of the other MAPS3 projects and have no problems with the way those projects are progressing even though some of them have been cut back because of funding issues. But it has long been clear the CC is far more equal than the others and has the backing of the usual influential suspects to push it ahead of anything the voters might prefer.

Why is the CC seemingly untouchable?
Why is there no consideration of reducing the scale of the CC to what we can afford with the MAPS3 funding allocated for it?

I don't think any of those questions are unreasonable in light of recent events.

[Spartan]

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.

You aren't suggesting that back door deals are afoot, however most people aren't so naive enough to think that that there aren't machinations afoot (read: not necessarily dastardly) to solve this overall equation. There does not seem to be the political will to solve this equation with the amount of funding that is a known commodity. So the problem then is that these machinations which may or may not be afoot (we all know they are, just because we know we are serious about this CC), absolutely require getting more funding out of the public in ways and dollar amounts that are known only to a small handful. Because you had us at the CC vote, which wasn't really a CC vote, and because we don't seem to have a choice but to also fund whatever else the CC needs, there are real funding implications that only get discussed (strictly in a theoretical sense though) on OKC Talk.

Which brings me to your unwarranted criticisms of OKC Talk as this crazy echo chamber of anti-CC ax grinders. I don't appreciate that for the following reasons.
1. Empirically, the pro-CC contingent is far more extreme and unreasonable than the anti-CC contingent.
2. Either way, I feel totally boxed out of the debate by extremists on both sides, either calling to cancel the project or get it more money. Equally insane ideas.
3. There are legitimate reasons to be extremely concerned about this project. I just want for it to be completed the RIGHT way.
4. Regardless of how you (Urbanized) are a proponent for all of MAPS, the same good will is not mutually inclusive of all the pro-CC contingent. Understatement of the year?
5. Given that OUR planners (nvm consultants) were never and will never be given the opportunity to guide this project, there exists little reason for optimism that we will get this right.
6. It's pretty obvious that relegating anyone with CC concerns as an "ax grinder" is the strategy for ignoring such concerns. Oh ye of the group think..

And thanks to UP for the following recaps from the meeting:

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.
This is valuable insight that anyone who challenges the Junta, regardless of pro or anti CC, should really value. Roy is first-class at what he does.

3. The substation site has not been considered a "fatal flawed" location and remains on the map until it is ranked out.
Then what kind of solutions, specifically, are being considered? This is important to get right, so naturally let's ask the consultants... or just Mike Carrier?

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.
Not surprising, this is about what you get from this group. The question though is which project can outbid which? (just kidding, that's not a question)

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.
A worthwhile alternative but farther from the hotel core that exists now, not being served by the streetcar route, and totally forsaken by ODOT's Blvd..if OKC cared about this site and/or area of downtown, it should have told ODOT so.

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.
This should be evaluated, considered, and priced-out, but I really don't think it would work. Nor do I think a CC is the highest and best use of that site.

8. Chris Flemming with the Howard Group was present. I found that telling.
Well they have to know that the assault on their site isn't quite over.

9. Larry Nichols asked if the streetcar route could be modified to accommodate whichever site was chosen.
Well now he wants it to serve his interests.

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.
Very important issue, definitely not getting enough attention either on here, other media, or seemingly in official proceedings.

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.
Very good, glad that these two projects are being considered dually. At least a positive indication that the CC committee realizes they also need to sell conventions on OKC.

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.
"Victim of our own 'success';" success being defined as ability to hyper-concentrate MAPS superblock projects.

13. Meg Salyer emphasized that this might be an opportunity to re-score affects to and positive results from external economic development projects.
YES! Amen. We need to stop planning MAPS3's non-transit components based on a 2009 snapshot of where downtown was.

14. Jim Couch was asked if the Howard/Ford site could be reconsidered. He said yes.
Seems like a planted question.

15. Mike Carrier expressed his desire for adequate expansion room.
This is most troubling. Someone needs to call this out as holding a chunk of downtown hostage for more funding. OKC just isn't going to come close to beating other cities on facility size, end of question. Carrier needs to consider the ramifications of having widespread undeveloped and undesirable frontage surrounding his convention center. Maybe he should hire a planner if he and/or the CVB are so stubbornly incapable of considering the built environment.

16. Populous stated that they were looking at parking opportunities that could also enable development outside of the CC project.
This is encouraging and smart. Serving private development as well is a great "kill two birds with one stone" use of TIF or other funds.

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.
Well that IS a change.

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.

My "knee-jerk" reactions in bold.

[Bellaboo]

I'm surprised that no one's commented on Bluementhal offering 7.6 acres for the CC adjacent to the REHCO site for 13 million ?

http://newsok.com/owner-offers-new-c...rlyAccess=true

[jccouger]

I support Mike Adams & the North Maps park site! A better convention center, a better (but smaller) maps park & better areas left for private development. Count me in!

[betts]

I support Mike Adams & the North Maps park site! A better convention center, a better (but smaller) maps park & better areas left for private development. Count me in!

What makes a smaller park better? We already have a small park in the Myriad Gardens and I think the small size and heavy programming is a hindrance to utilization that promotes a healthy lifestyle. That's what I think an urban park should do, personally.

[Pete]

After all this, I've become convinced they are going to end up back on the original site.

[jccouger]

What makes a smaller park better? We already have a small park in the Myriad Gardens and I think the small size and heavy programming is a hindrance to utilization that promotes a healthy lifestyle. That's what I think an urban park should do, personally.

More money to invest in to a smaller space. Quality over quantity, if you may.

There would still be plenty of space in this park, on the south side of I40 & even more south to the river trails.

[mkjeeves]

After all this, I've become convinced they are going to end up back on the original site.

I've thought all along this is just political theater.

[Pete]

I'm sure there was an initial falling out between the two parties but it seems cooler heads have prevailed.

If eminent domain isn't used (and it probably won't) then the building of the convention hotel on this site will no longer be an issue.

[betts]

After all this, I've become convinced they are going to end up back on the original site.

I've been thinking the same thing. What a bunch of drama and expense for nothing. The money will be interesting to watch though. Hopefully they don't spend so much on land that we get an ugly, cheap box right in the middle of everything. And hopefully they don't go looking for money in other MAPS project budgets. Not a good idea.

[Pete]

My understanding is that REHCO would have taken in the neighborhood of $25 million, so I suspect the City has found a way to bridge the gap between that number and their $13 million budget.

[hfry]

If that happens it will be interesting what populus new study say should be the site. But also what the price of land will be.

[Canoe]

I'm surprised that no one's commented on Bluementhal offering 7.6 acres for the CC adjacent to the REHCO site for 13 million ?

Owner offers new convention center site in Oklahoma City | News OK

Can we use this as a comparable to the ford dealership lot?

[Pete]

This is the Blumenthal site:

[BDP]

The park is the crown jewel of MAPS 3, and it would be nothing short of stupid to reduce its scope,

I agree. I think it's the thing that the most people are most excited about. I also think it's something that people will get behind spending more money on to improve it in the future, because, like the arena, more citizens will actually use it.

There's probably no better indicator of how apathetic the people are about a convention center than when you hear "but we already have one". The cox center is a piece of crap and I think a lot of people have no idea how bad it is because they never have to interact with it.

[shawnw]

I like the Bluementhal thought but it's far-ish and would either muck up the boulevard plans and/or would be mucked up by the boulevard plans I suspect. Muck up as in delay one way or the other due to needed design changes.

[Just the facts]

I want to know more about the $200 million development adjacent to the park that Steve mentioned. Where did that come from?

[Teo9969]

If we were to go with the Reno&Dewey site, would it be worth considering a Convention Center/Public School hybrid? It would be a scheduling nightmare, and maybe so much so that it's totally impractical, but an interesting thought none the less.

[jn1780]

If we were to go with the Reno&Dewey site, would it be worth considering a Convention Center/Public School hybrid? It would be a scheduling nightmare, and maybe so much so that it's totally impractical, but an interesting thought none the less.

Plus, it would mean demolishing a school that would only be a 3-5 years old at that point.

[Teo9969]

Plus, it would mean demolishing a school that would only be a 3-5 years old at that point.

Why?

[Motley]

I hope the new boulevard is far less massive and less of a chasm between upper and lower CBD than in the photo above. I take it that is the old I-40 route; will the boulevard be less than 1/2 of the old I-40 footprint?