Convention Center

[Spartan]

I think I really like the Blumenthall site.

It makes sense in the big picture.. and resolves my EXTREME agitation about what are we doing with these parks, MAPS 3, the boulevard, any of this. I need to see a vision for how it all results in the most vibrant downtown possible, and I'm just not seeing that, but the Blumenthall site comes closest.

So naturally I am sure that the CC subcommittee hates the site. "Why go there when you can prevent another development from happening somewhere better???"

[CS_Mike]

If the city is seriously considering either ponying up extra cash to pay for more expensive land or sacrificing significant revenue by shutting down the Cox for a couple of years, wouldn't it be a more responsible use of money to buy one of the cheaper, albeit less conveniently located sites and then spend extra money to extend track to provide streetcar service to the new location? If the concern is providing convention attendees convenient access to hotels and restaurants, wouldn't better streetcar access accomplish that as long as the CC remains reasonably close to Bricktown? At least you get more streetcar coverage out of the deal, which would make spending the extra money more palatable because you're getting some tangible extra benefit out of it.

[bchris02]

If the city is seriously considering either ponying up extra cash to pay for more expensive land or sacrificing significant revenue by shutting down the Cox for a couple of years, wouldn't it be a more responsible use of money to buy one of the cheaper, albeit less conveniently located sites and then spend extra money to extend track to provide streetcar service to the new location? If the concern is providing convention attendees convenient access to hotels and restaurants, wouldn't better streetcar access accomplish that as long as the CC remains reasonably close to Bricktown? At least you get more streetcar coverage out of the deal, which would make spending the extra money more palatable because you're getting some tangible extra benefit out of it.

Completely agree with this. Would something like this even be considered?

[Spartan]

I agree with that. The common argument (mostly from those who just won't ever be PRO co-locating the CC and streetcar) is that well a streetcar can only hold 120 people at a time and we will never have 30 sec frequencies required to move thousands of delegates quickly to their hotels.

The reality though about conventions is that a lot of the attendants, particularly if it's a good convention, tend to linger and come and go, skip a session or two to grab coffee and explore. Right after sessions end is usually go-time for hunting down that one person you need to catch and put a bug in their ear. You might need to slyly make some small talk for 10 minutes until said person is free.

Convention attendance is never entirely like-minded nor is it moving together as one massive block in single-file line like grade school. An attractive streetcar that comes every 5-8 minutes during peak hours and 10-15 otherwise is actually pretty ideal for moving huge event crowds that come and go of their own volition, on their own time. This is very different from the end of a Thunder game (the last of which was way too early this year!!) when 17,000 locals want to make a beeline for their car to go home, while the others may live downtown or nearby, and still wanna go home.

[Rover]

Even if the streetcar couldn't handle peak times, most big conventions use charter buses to facilitate morning start and afternoon ending times. The rest of the day it is pretty spread out and streetcar would handle just fine.

[Spartan]

Right, it's the airport connection which is really the biggest obstacle for OKC. That is the biggest pro that a lot of cities have. The biggest pro the RNC cited about Cleveland was the Red Line light rail connecting the airport and Tower City. When you get to CLE you can walk right off the train and into baggage drop-off at the top of the escalator. The DNC passed on Columbus because it lacks a rail connection with the airport, and so that route has suddenly (and annoyingly) leapfrogged in consideration.

[hoya]

We just don't have the budget to build the convention center that Larry Nichols wants to build. The convention center committee wants the best land downtown, and seems unwilling to settle for anything less. They are envisioning a $750 million convention center, and they have 1/3 of that to spend.

[Spartan]

We just don't have the budget to build the convention center that Larry Nichols wants to build. The convention center committee wants the best land downtown, and seems unwilling to settle for anything less. They are envisioning a $750 million convention center, and they have 1/3 of that to spend.

Then there needs to be a discussion, maybe on a member-by-member basis, about whether or not the convention center subcommittee has served the city in good faith and in accordance with voters. They serve at the pleasure of the Mayor.

I now understand the value of having streetcar skeptics on the streetcar committee. The CC subcommittee seems to be getting ahead of themselves. I honestly don't think this is my place to say, but I am just hoping that the Mayor and Council are considering it. It's one thing to have confidence in an important community stakeholder (or 4-5), but it's another thing to appoint them the unquestioned comptroller of the MAPS purse.

[Just the facts]

The biggest pro the RNC cited about Cleveland was the Red Line light rail connecting the airport and Tower City.

The irony - it burns....


On a related note - put me down as leaning towards the Blumenthal site; so long as we don't get a superblock out of the deal.

[Laramie]

The Blumenthal site has brought the discussion & negotiations back to reevaluate several sites.

The $30 million proposed by Mayor Cornett to move the OG&E substation south of the Peake doesn't look so bad now that downtown parcels have skyrocketed since MAPS I.

OKC is now a victim of MAPS early success.

[BDP]

They did it without any MAPS style programs:

Well, they were mostly publicly funded with bond financing.

What's kind of interesting is that one of the things MAPS is always championed for is that the projects are debt free and nothing is built until the cash is there. This is kind of highlighting the down side to that. If this was bond funded, land acquisition and construction could have been started earlier, saving money on the cost of land and moving the return on investment closer. With OKC's AAA rating, we could have built this stuff for less than 3% interest and probably have it completed and generating revenue to service the debt by now.

Using one of your examples, CenturyLink Center was mostly paid for by bonds that were approved by voters in 2000. They started building the arena in 2001 and it opened in 2003. By contrast, OKC first passed MAPS in 1993, construction started on the arena in 1999, and opened in 2002. So, they approved funding for an arena 7 years after we did, but there's opened only 1 year after ours did.

Being debt free is nice and all, but I'm not always so sure if forgoing an additional 5-10 years of revenues is worth the 3% or so we save by not financing it, especially if it's gonna be the money maker the "experts" say it will be. It looks like we may have already lost more than that just by waiting until now to buy the land.

[Mike_M]

If the city is seriously considering either ponying up extra cash to pay for more expensive land or sacrificing significant revenue by shutting down the Cox for a couple of years, wouldn't it be a more responsible use of money to buy one of the cheaper, albeit less conveniently located sites and then spend extra money to extend track to provide streetcar service to the new location? If the concern is providing convention attendees convenient access to hotels and restaurants, wouldn't better streetcar access accomplish that as long as the CC remains reasonably close to Bricktown? At least you get more streetcar coverage out of the deal, which would make spending the extra money more palatable because you're getting some tangible extra benefit out of it.

To piggy back off of this and what others have said, the big elephant in the room is really transportation. This is a very difficult city to travel to. I talked about this in the "Made in Georgia" thread so I won't totally rehash it, but flying in and out of OKC is really annoying. I used to be a part of a national convention circuit and most people skipped the OKC years simply because tickets were either too expensive and/or had really inconvenient schedules. I think reaching Teir 1 Convention status is going to be extremely difficult for OKC, for reasons that are beyond its control.

That being said, I love the idea of a streetcar directly from the airport to downtown (stops at 21C, CBD, and Bricktown/Deep Deuce?), even without a CC being built.

[HOT ROD]

Personally, I think the E Park location in Core 2 Shore is the best for the Convention Center. This was Mick's original site and the city owns most of the land already, this site wont create massive superblocks but will help spur development in C2S by acting as 'fill-in' for this part of town.

I also, and most especially like that a rail stop could be built here to run to run from WRWA, ferrying conventioneers directly using Commuter Rail type trains. I saw someone post this idea earlier and it got me even more excited about this location than ever before. Not to mention that the Streetcar would service this location either now or in future expansion - there is no need to tinker with the streetcar route. ..

I don't like the argument posed by the so-called powers to be that E Central Park is far away from existing hotels/Bricktown. Um, the NE point is only 1.5 block walk from Bricktown, and only 3 blocks from the core of the existing hotels (basically the same as the PREFERRED Ford site). Unlike the Ford site, this has tremendous opportunity for expansion while allowing the city itself to expand.

While I like the Bluementhol site as well for the catalyst a cc could give to that area, the same can be said about the original location at E Central Park. Add in the ability to have a CR stop dedicated to conventioneers and this should catapult back to the #1 spot. Even in our non-scientific survey, E Central Park won hands down over any other site.

Stop with the studies and shenanigans, build the darn thing already!

[Architect2010]

I think reaching Teir 1 Convention status is going to be extremely difficult for OKC, for reasons that are beyond its control.

I don't think we're striving to reach Tier 1, which honestly OKC will probably never be a part of that group of cities. Tier 2 is something much more attainable within our future.

[Stickman]

A while back the City put in a new water and maybe a sewer line (not sure) starting around SW 3rd and following just north of the future crosstown blvd.
Does anybody no if it was for GP or for the convention center site?
My way of thinking is to follow the $

[Stickman]

sorry D-post

[David]

William Crum is streaming another Convention Center meeting, should be accessible here if anyone is interested.

[Spartan]

The irony - it burns....


On a related note - put me down as leaning towards the Blumenthal site; so long as we don't get a superblock out of the deal.

With the RNC going to a 90% democratic city and 75% county, the irony is off the charts to begin with. Northern Ohio is deep blue, and those blue votes have built a relatively progressive transit system.

Yet Cleveland has a ton of old money that they want to court, and locating the convention in Cincinnati would just tap into donors that were already going to open up their wallets in 2016..

I was at a convention this week and everyone was making RNC jokes. Speakers would say "Cleveland has a wealth of placemaking examples that marry fine art and public art, hence we are welcoming the RNC in a few months."

[Spartan]

Personally, I think the E Park location in Core 2 Shore is the best for the Convention Center. This was Mick's original site and the city owns most of the land already, this site wont create massive superblocks but will help spur development in C2S by acting as 'fill-in' for this part of town.

I also, and most especially like that a rail stop could be built here to run to run from WRWA, ferrying conventioneers directly using Commuter Rail type trains. I saw someone post this idea earlier and it got me even more excited about this location than ever before. Not to mention that the Streetcar would service this location either now or in future expansion - there is no need to tinker with the streetcar route. ..

I don't like the argument posed by the so-called powers to be that E Central Park is far away from existing hotels/Bricktown. Um, the NE point is only 1.5 block walk from Bricktown, and only 3 blocks from the core of the existing hotels (basically the same as the PREFERRED Ford site). Unlike the Ford site, this has tremendous opportunity for expansion while allowing the city itself to expand.

While I like the Bluementhol site as well for the catalyst a cc could give to that area, the same can be said about the original location at E Central Park. Add in the ability to have a CR stop dedicated to conventioneers and this should catapult back to the #1 spot. Even in our non-scientific survey, E Central Park won hands down over any other site.

Stop with the studies and shenanigans, build the darn thing already!

I'm confused, are we thinking of the same East Park site? You said that it would not create a new superblock and that it would spur infill on that side of the park. Where would this infill go? What would it be if it's not a superblock - a megasuperblock?

That site is far huger than any of you who favor putting the CC there realize. You could fit a whole new neighborhood there. It is 3.5 times bigger than the old convention center, which comparatively the new one we are building is half the size (no arena).

This is becoming insane.

[Architect2010]

I'm confused, are we thinking of the same East Park site? You said that it would not create a new superblock and that it would spur infill on that side of the park. Where would this infill go? What would it be if it's not a superblock - a megasuperblock?

That site is far huger than any of you who favor putting the CC there realize. You could fit a whole new neighborhood there. It is 3.5 times bigger than the old convention center, which comparatively the new one we are building is half the size (no arena).

This is becoming insane.

Was it you that came up with a conceptual site plan for the EastPark site? I really enjoyed that actually and there seemed to be plenty of room for infill. Not that I trust the city to execute the site plan well if they were to choose that location.

[Pete]

Following this on-line, the presentation identifies 4 "acceptable cities"; the Cox site was disqualified for all the reasons we've already discussed.

The 4 remaining are:

1. East Park (east of Central Park)
2. REHCO site
3. West Park
4. Reno & Dewey

Next step would be due diligence on the four sites to determine site acquisition, costs, any barriers (such as the substation relocation, having to go partially underground, etc.).

[Pete]

Here are the 4 "acceptable" sites (created this from earlier images; not what was presented today which wasn't available in the agenda packet):

[Pete]

This is from today's meeting from https://twitter.com/DowntownOKCInc:.

Note that the entire Blumenthal property is now included in the West Park site.

[hfry]

[hfry]

Just saw that tweeted Pete. Interesting how on the west park, the Facebook page for it that was mentioned above was talking about how housing and retail, eating should help front the park. I wonder if they would have the foresight enough to build the CC back enough to allow for that with the conventional all behind it.