Convention Center

[heyerdahl]

Still can't stop staring at how much better the OKC Boulevard "Grid" option would improve some of these sites.

[Pete]

It seems the plan is to research the four acceptable sites with the idea that they will commit to building on any of them if the circumstances (price, acquisition realities, etc.) allow.

The consultant still say the REHCO site is the best and I'm sure heaven and earth will be moved to make that site happen.

The continued inclusion of the Reno & Dewey site seems to indicate the skeptical view by the City that Clayco will be able to perform on the south parcel.

[bchris02]

So is the Cox site officially out?

[Pete]

So is the Cox site officially out?

Yes.

[Motley]

The Reno/Dewey site is far from current hotels and restaurants, but if the cc is built there, isn't it likely a boutique hotel would go in the Clayco site, a convention hotel on the Reno/Dewey site, and another one in the REHCO site? There would likely be 1000+ rooms in close proximity. As for trips into Bricktown, there will be the streetcars and Uber to get people there. Maybe even bicycle hansoms like used all over downtown San Diego. Is it really that bad of a location, especially in light of its availability?

[soonerguru]

Wow. No mention of Larry Nichols proposing a "fifth option" that includes swiping land from the park? It's in Crum's story. Unbelievable.

I gotta hand it to folks here: for being accused of being conspiracists, your conspiracies often come to fruition.

[Teo9969]

Yes.

whew!!!! Dodged a bullet there.

[Rover]

The continued inclusion of the Reno & Dewey site seems to indicate the skeptical view by the City that Clayco will be able to perform on the south parcel.

Or, they are trying to force Clayco's hand to fully commit to an actual schedule.

[Pete]

Or, they are trying to force Clayco's hand to fully commit to an actual schedule.

Clayco already outlined an aggressive schedule in their RFP response which would be written into any redevelopment agreement once fully executed.

There is lots of concern about them actually being able to perform.

[Anonymous.]

And of course now that we are building the anti-pedestrian Boulevard, we see two of the 4 options being south of it. Can you imagine crossing the intersections at Lee/Boulevard and Walker/Boulevard? What a joke.

[Stickman]

Probably a lot of SMOKE AND MIRRORS

The Dewey site would involve eminent domain
The Blumenthal site is pretty far from hotels and who knows what lies beneath (EPA)
The South site is a little more palatable but has its problems
The best site is the original one
Don't know how they will get there. Maybe part trade/$$.

Would be nice if we could trade off Cox center, which will quickly become a White Elephant to the City as soon as the new convention center
is built. The City could make a condition that the Cox center stay open until the last window is Windex on the new center. Will be interesting.

[Pete]

These are from yesterday's presentation by Populous:

[Urbanized]

Pete, what do the concentric circles represent?

[Pete]

Pete, what do the concentric circles represent?

Not sure but obviously some sort of distance marker from the center of the proposed site; looks to be about a 1- and 2-block radius.

Here are a couple of more slides:

[JRod1980]

I keep seeing this same argument about proximity to hotels, proximity to Bricktown, proximity to restaurants… I just think its a dumb argument. Anyone that is or has been in the convention/hotel industry knows that's a bunch of BS. Look at cities like Atlanta, Vegas, New Orleans, their convention centers are not directly across the street from all the hotels in town. Atlanta's convention center is on the west end of downtown and at least 5-6 big blocks from any really nice hotels. Vegas has the Las Vegas hotel which has several hundred rooms, next to their convention center but all the fancy hotels are blocks away. And in New Orleans the fancy hotels are closer the the French Quarter, then they are to the convention center, their convention center is along the Mississippi River on the east end of downtown again several blocks away from Canal St. where a majority of the hotels are located.

So I'm sorry but I don't buy the argument that the convention center is too far from hotels and Bricktown. As I stated long ago, the convention center hotel will likely get 80-90% of the convention center groups room nights. If big hotel chains want in on the action, i'm sure they will start building hotels closer to the convention center. Either that or update their existing hotels so that regardless of the distance people want to stay there. Building the convention center in the West Park or Reno & Dewey location would be great for that part of downtown and give it a boost in development…. (I'm Kelly Ogle, and that's My 2 Cents)

[Urbanized]

Remember that these are mostly superblocks that we are looking at. Those actually are at least twice the increments you describe. I suspect that they roughly represent walking times, which are critical to the success of the CC.

[jn1780]

Another reason I don't see them going for any of the sites south of the BLVD is that the initial street car route doesn't stop anywhere in front of these sites. Especially the east park site.

[Urban Pioneer]

I just want to point out here, as I have in the actual Convention Center meetings, that the streetcar committee is not necessarily opposed to modifying the streetcar route. However, we have expended a fair amount of money on engineering and surveying. Currently our project is supposedly within budget. Any modification to our plans might cause additional cost and may incur delaying the system being completed further.

My biggest fear with regards to the CC location is that we will be asked to stretch the route somewhere within the same budget. That might cause us to cut track from Midtown or Bricktown to compensate. There is also an operational legibility issue as well.

These decisions will need to involve broad planning discussions between committees and the oversight board that are held in tandem. The proposal for some leaders to suggest taking land from the park is a great example. For something like that to be considered, their ought to be a broader debate on the merits or negatives associated with such dramatic programming changes. So far, the streetcar program is plowing ahead without disruption and we are proceeding into more detailed drawings and will soon be ordering the cars.

[Just the facts]

If the CC process impacts other projects, those funds should come out of the CC budget. This is true if the CC takes park land as well.

[betts]

If the CC takes our parkland, which I would consider beyond outrageous, then they need to move the park east or west. There is absolutely no excuse for ruining one of the key MAPS projects, not to mention, appropriating land the taxpayers purchased specifically for a park. Sine the bridge is east of the park, the only reasonable recompense would be to remove the substation (with that extra $30 million) and move the park one block east.

[Urban Pioneer]

One of the challenges with the MAPS 3 Central Park is that it doesn't seem, nor ever has had, an organized grassroots contingency. It wouldn't be hard to organize one. But if the Convention Center site is chosen elsewhere, the program will be jn the "home stretch" anyway. As with all of the MAPS programs, being organized to see everything through in the best possible way, is key.

[betts]

Having to fight for the park promised to the voters by city leadership, which is scheduled to be built on land paid for by the taxpayers, is an equally outrageous concept. But I would certainly be happy to do so.

[Just the facts]

I for one wouldn't shed a tear if they current Central Park location got dropped and the money switched to the Promenade Park location.

[Teo9969]

I for one wouldn't shed a tear if they current Central Park location got dropped and the money switched to the Promenade Park location.

Remind me where "Promenade Park" is.

[soonerguru]

Mere discussion of shorting the park is an outrage and an affront to voters. I don't care what Steve Lackmeyer and Ed Shadid say: the voters were informed that they would get a specific slate of projects. I know, because I walked door to door trying to convince people to support MAPS 3. Regardless of the technical language used, the park was a major part of the package of options voters went to the polls to support.

I seriously doubt the park will be shorted. For starters, would we lose the lake that is proposed? How much would we have to pay as a city to completely redesign the park? And how would "convention center takes park land" play with voters? It would be a disaster.

I'm just disappointed at the arrogance of some city leaders to even suggest this. It undermines the integrity of MAPS with voters. And, to take this a step further, if a proposal is moved to advance taking land for the convention center that has been set aside for the park, I will raise holy hell and organize others to do so.