Convention Center

[Zorba]

And it holds all of those cities back.

Well, I think the convention business in Las Vegas and Orlando is doing just fine without it... Maybe someday they'll add rail service and will finally be able to compete with Cleveland's convention business, though :-P.

I think people tend to get lost in their wishlists and loose perspective. Will the lack of public transportation hurt OKC's convention business, yes probably. Will it make it impossible for OKC to get conventions, no. Is it the number one thing holding OKC back from getting major conventions? Definitely not, especially considering the number of massive conventions that go to cities without any rail and little PT. Would a large convention come here instead of Vegas just because we had better PT? I kind of doubt it.

[Pete]

Grounds for green space: Idea to use park project land for convention center faces opposition
By: Brian Brus The Journal Record May 4, 20150

OKLAHOMA CITY – One of the site options for a new convention center downtown needs to be taken off the table so it doesn’t cause extensive delays and greater costs in developing the city’s new central park, said Anthony McDermid, a member of the MAPS 3 parks advisory committee.

And the architect working on the 77-acre project said it would be impossible to simply rearrange all the design elements residents are expecting if city leaders decide to convert part of the land to convention center use instead of leaving the center across the street.

“Once this is sorted out, and if the park becomes the new convention center site, we need to make sure people understand the impact of that,” said Mary Margaret Jones, a senior principal of California-based Hargreaves Associates. “It isn’t merely a matter of moving things around, a squinch here and squish there; it really will be a completely different kind of park, a much smaller park.”

The proposal to take land from the park project and use it to build a convention center was made recently by Devon Energy Corp. Executive Chairman Larry Nichols, who is also a member of the MAPS 3 oversight committee. The committee had asked that several downtown sites be re-evaluated for their viability after an asking price for the preferred property just west of the Chesapeake Energy Arena proved too costly. The process produced a short list of four previously identified tracts and Nichols’ idea as a fifth option.

The park space is across the street from the sports arena and is already owned by the city, which would save money. But its greater distance from existing hotels and the Bricktown district were negative points for the committee to consider.

The full park, as it’s currently envisioned, consists of 40 acres north of Interstate 40 and 30 acres between Interstate 40 and the Oklahoma River, connected by the SkyDance pedestrian bridge. Jones said Monday that if city leaders reassigned land from the park for a 550,000-square-foot convention center and hotel with at least 600 rooms and parking, it would eliminate about half of the north side of the park, forcing the reconsideration of elements such as a small boat pond and performance event lawn that can support 10,000 to 20,000 people by itself.

“It’s supposed to be a park full of programming like the Myriad Gardens, but also with larger play areas and woodland areas you can lose yourself in as a respite from the city – provide things that a small park cannot do in an urban context,” she said.

Even if a designer could somehow collapse all the elements into tighter boundaries, it would force the elimination of landscaping and beauty, what she called “the lungs that parks create in a living city.”

Jones also said her firm was working under the assumption that the convention center would be directly across the street. Since negotiations fell through with the ownership group of the former Fred Jones dealership property, Jones said they’re waiting for more design direction from City Hall.

McDermid said he was not speaking for the entire subcommittee, but so far he hasn’t received any positive feedback on Nichols’ proposal. McDermid is the founder of Tap Architects in Oklahoma City.

“If we placed the convention center in the park, we would have to start all over,” he said. “There’s no way the design of the park and the convention center could coexist as they are now. The park design has taken several years to develop and is predicated on the footprint we showed the voters.”

The original $777 million MAPS 3 package of projects that voters supported at the end of 2009 left some room for design flexibility. The ballot itself didn’t provide specific dollar figures, and the MAPS 3 informational campaign material from City Hall at the time promised a new, approximately 70-acre park that would cost about $130 million. Other projects in the issue included $130 million for a rail-based transit system and a new downtown convention center for $280 million.

To date, about $2.39 million has been paid to the Hargreaves firm for developing the park plan, less than half of the total design contract, city officials said Monday.

[Spartan]

Well, I think the convention business in Las Vegas and Orlando is doing just fine without it... Maybe someday they'll add rail service and will finally be able to compete with Cleveland's convention business, though :-P.

I think people tend to get lost in their wishlists and loose perspective. Will the lack of public transportation hurt OKC's convention business, yes probably. Will it make it impossible for OKC to get conventions, no. Is it the number one thing holding OKC back from getting major conventions? Definitely not, especially considering the number of massive conventions that go to cities without any rail and little PT. Would a large convention come here instead of Vegas just because we had better PT? I kind of doubt it.

Do you think there's a lot of good happening in Orlando or Vegas compared to other places?

Florida is a huge political swing state, too; and its probably a lot more inclined to go red. The only reason Orlando and Vegas have evolved as tourist traps is their reliably warm sunny weather.

A lot of cities have to use locality development strategies (where your pitching a more urbane environment) to overcome reliably bad weather, like Chicago, Boston, Seattle, Minneapolis, Denver, Cleveland, Toronto, etc.

[OKCRT]

I completely agree rail between the airport and downtown/CC would be great. But tons of huge convention towns do not have this. Orlando and Las Vegas neither have rail to their airport. DFW just got it. Chicago has rail to their airports but not to McCormick. LGA also doesn't have direct rail service and JFK's requires use of two different systems. SAN, SAT, IAH, MIA and FLL all lack rail service as well. In cities that are more likely to compete with us KC, Cincinnati, STL, Tulsa, Little Rock, etc all lack rail service to their airports.

Stl has rail service from airport to downtown(convention center) and many stops like the zoo in between. It's called the metro link. Stl has an excellent Metrolink service. You can ride that all over the metro area and across the Mississippi river to Ill. metro area. It's a great system and if OKC had something like this it would send us into another tier.

[Spartan]

Btw, this whole park thing is a sideshow to divert attention while they do something else unsavory... I find it hard to believe that Larry Nichols really wants to absorb the park into the convention center.

[LandArchPoke]

Here's an idea.... doubt those consultant would come up with a creative solution like this though. I'd use both the Uhaul site and Lumberyard. You could put the expo column free space underground from Reno south that would go under the new boulevard. You'd then put meeting spaces, etc. above ground on both the Uhaul and Lumberyard site with ground floor retail that would front Reno, The new boulevard, and an extended Oklahoma Ave to connect into SW 4th & the new park.



Red is the ground floor retail
Purple is the meeting spaces above ground
Blue line is the column free space (330,000 sq. ft.)
Orange would be the new hotel

This would also act as a front door to people exiting I-40 into downtown.

*Edit* Also forgot to add that the new retail if put into a TIF would help pay for the convention center hotel. There could be around 130,000 - 160,000 sq. ft. of retail based of the areas highlighted. Depending on what the sales per sq. ft. are (my guess would be a moderate range of $300 psf) would net about $1.25 million a year in OKC sales tax only so a 25 year TIF would capture about $31.25 million

[Zorba]

Do you think there's a lot of good happening in Orlando or Vegas compared to other places?

Your quote was that it was the biggest thing holding back OKC. I just don't really agree with it being the biggest thing. Although a lot of bigger things we can't really affect like awesome year round weather. I think having more/better non-stop air service would be a bigger deal than public transportation as well, which is a huge pro for Vegas. Really it doesn't matter, we can both agree good public transportation from the airport to the CC could help OKC edge out other cities and it is something we could directly affect.

Stl has rail service from airport to downtown(convention center) and many stops like the zoo in between. It's called the metro link. Stl has an excellent Metrolink service. You can ride that all over the metro area and across the Mississippi river to Ill. metro area. It's a great system and if OKC had something like this it would send us into another tier.

I didn't realize that the train went to the airport, I guess I never noticed it when I did trips to STL. All the other cities still stand.

[Spartan]

Agreed ^

Here's an idea.... doubt those consultant would come up with a creative solution like this though. I'd use both the Uhaul site and Lumberyard. You could put the expo column free space underground from Reno south that would go under the new boulevard. You'd then put meeting spaces, etc. above ground on both the Uhaul and Lumberyard site with ground floor retail that would front Reno, The new boulevard, and an extended Oklahoma Ave to connect into SW 4th & the new park.



Red is the ground floor retail
Purple is the meeting spaces above ground
Blue line is the column free space (330,000 sq. ft.)
Orange would be the new hotel

This would also act as a front door to people exiting I-40 into downtown.

*Edit* Also forgot to add that the new retail if put into a TIF would help pay for the convention center hotel. There could be around 130,000 - 160,000 sq. ft. of retail based of the areas highlighted. Depending on what the sales per sq. ft. are (my guess would be a moderate range of $300 psf) would net about $1.25 million a year in OKC sales tax only so a 25 year TIF would capture about $31.25 million

What if they incorporated the Uhaul Building as well, as a meeting and amenity space component. Those can be stacked in a small tower. They could leverage substantial state and historic tax credits to bring in additional funding for the CC. It would take some legal restructuring and bringing in a private sector partner, but the committee is always looking desperate to bring additional funding sources.

This would get the CC more funding and ADD to the overall MAPS 3 budget, unlike the zero sum propositions they typically explore.

They already seem to have a private sector partner in Omni. What if they just threw the CC into the scope of the RFP for the CC hotel, and then added the MAPS 3 $280 *cough$250*cough*. They could even bond the whole deal, break ground tomorrow, without counting appreciation gained. I would be okay with that, because we need to use more of our bonding capacity. As long as they bring in more funding, and NOT go after funding for other projects.

For that matter, I would be fine if they just put the whole budget into Devon stock...

[Just the facts]

The whole idea of MAPS is to build debt-free, not as money to pay back debt. The growth model doesn't work. If it did every level of government in the country would be swimming in excess cash like Scrooge McDuck.

[Teo9969]

Here's an idea.... doubt those consultant would come up with a creative solution like this though. I'd use both the Uhaul site and Lumberyard. You could put the expo column free space underground from Reno south that would go under the new boulevard. You'd then put meeting spaces, etc. above ground on both the Uhaul and Lumberyard site with ground floor retail that would front Reno, The new boulevard, and an extended Oklahoma Ave to connect into SW 4th & the new park.



Red is the ground floor retail
Purple is the meeting spaces above ground
Blue line is the column free space (330,000 sq. ft.)
Orange would be the new hotel

This would also act as a front door to people exiting I-40 into downtown.

*Edit* Also forgot to add that the new retail if put into a TIF would help pay for the convention center hotel. There could be around 130,000 - 160,000 sq. ft. of retail based of the areas highlighted. Depending on what the sales per sq. ft. are (my guess would be a moderate range of $300 psf) would net about $1.25 million a year in OKC sales tax only so a 25 year TIF would capture about $31.25 million

The Boulevard is still below grade at this point, so I'm afraid that tanks the entire plan.

[Spartan]

The whole idea of MAPS is to build debt-free, not as money to pay back debt. The growth model doesn't work. If it did every level of government in the country would be swimming in excess cash like Scrooge McDuck.

I'm not talking about growth, I'm talking about inflation and appreciation.

[Swake]

The whole idea of MAPS is to build debt-free, not as money to pay back debt. The growth model doesn't work. If it did every level of government in the country would be swimming in excess cash like Scrooge McDuck.

With the cost of money where it is. This is stupid, rising construction costs and rising land prices are costing far more money than the cost of bonding. It sounds good, but it's dumb policy and has been for years.

[Spartan]

Swake is right on the money.

[Rover]

The whole idea of MAPS is to build debt-free, not as money to pay back debt. The growth model doesn't work. If it did every level of government in the country would be swimming in excess cash like Scrooge McDuck.

I know the Tea Party mantra is no debt, but there are responsible CONSERVATIVE proper uses of debt....especially when rates are low. Issuing bonds that could be retired by MAPS money would be a responsible way to accelerate construction and save the money of escalated costs. Again, absolutism is okay when it comes to morals, but is detrimental to fiscal policy and economic development.

[jccouger]

I was the first person to recommend using a portion of the park land & I'm still the idea's #1 fan. It would create a useful synergy between the 2, & drive down costs for each. We'd have a better convention center, and a better park sq ft X sq ft then we would before. There will still plenty of park land to the South of I40.

Get rid of that stupid small boat pond and the issue is resolved. If you want to rent a small boat go less than a mile south & we have a river completely dedicated to that kind of thing.

[Spartan]

It would be a very simple process with revenue-backed bonds. But if they wanted, they could find ways to partner with the private sector on some component in all of these projects. It would be complex but bring in a lot more funding.

[betts]

I was the first person to recommend using a portion of the park land & I'm still the idea's #1 fan. It would create a useful synergy between the 2, & drive down costs for each. We'd have a better convention center, and a better park sq ft X sq ft then we would before. There will still plenty of park land to the South of I40.

Get rid of that stupid small boat pond and the issue is resolved. If you want to rent a small boat go less than a mile south & we have a river completely dedicated to that kind of thing.

We don't need a "better" park. The less programming and the more open land the better, IMO. We're not trying to create a cute little park like the Myriad Gardens, but rather something akin to the commons that were the center of American cities when they were being created. Again, look at Chicago, New York and Boston to see not only what such a park should look like, but also what it means to both citizens and visitors. I see no need for synergy between a convention center and a park. The convention center committee can operate within their budget like the other MAPS projects, or come up with a new idea, such as Spartan is suggesting.

[CaptDave]

The convention center committee can operate within their budget like the other MAPS projects, or come up with a new idea, such as Spartan is suggesting.

Or to use the usual argument against all sorts of public projects such as public transportation and passenger rail, if the convention center is such a necessity it should be profitable and therefore let a private developer / investor build and operate it.

To be clear, that isn't my position on the CC. The city needs a better CC than the Cox Center, but it does not need to be a Taj Mahal hogging up prime land for private development. Keep it within the budget the taxpayers provided unless the city specifically asks the voters for additional funds for the CC. Build a nice facility on the East Park site adjacent to the rail viaduct. If having a prominent address is so important, it can still have 123 Oklahoma City Blvd, OKC, OK because it will front the blvd across from the arena. (I agree with those saying the state / city should take advantage of low interest rates and judiciously use bonds to fund important projects - the CC Hotel, I44/235 interchange and Belle Isle Bridge immediately come to mind.)

[Laramie]

The whole idea of MAPS is to build debt-free, not as money to pay back debt. The growth model doesn't work. If it did every level of government in the country would be swimming in excess cash like Scrooge McDuck.

Great statement & observation JTF (Kerry Decker).

[Swake]

Great statement & observation JTF (Kerry Decker).

So you are in favor of being taxed for years before seeing the benefits of those taxes and pointlessly spending more money in the process?

The convention center would have cost far less in land and construction cost in 2011/2012 than it will in 2017/2018. Not to mention that if Maps had been bonded the Convention Center would be open now, supplying new customers to the downtown area increasing tax revenues? Not bonding the project is a big net cost loser.

[Just the facts]

No one is stopping the City from selling bonds for the convention center - but that is not what MAPS is for.

I do find it courious that the people who work in industries that directly benefit from civic projects like this are quick to say, "just borrow the money".

[CS_Mike]

No one is stopping the City from selling bonds for the convention center - but that is not what MAPS is for.

I do find it courious that the people who work in industries that directly benefit from civic projects like this are quick to say, "just borrow the money".

Who says it has to be an either/or proposition? The responsible way to use debt in this situation would be to have it work in conjunction with MAPS, not to replace it. MAPS funding could be used to retire the bond on the already completed project rather than to provide the money that finally starts construction on a project. That way you get the best of both worlds.

If the city deems a particular MAPS project especially important, it would make financial sense to borrow the money upfront to get ahead of rising construction costs, get the project built sooner than later, and then repay the bond with the MAPS revenue that is already being dedicated to the project. Thus the city likely saves significantly on construction costs (which would offset some or all of the interest ultimately paid on the debt), and the city may be able to avoid the need to "compromise" on a project just because the cost estimates come in higher than expected (often due to the rising constructions costs). Plus the city gets all of the other tangible and intangible advantages that come from having the project completed way ahead of schedule (i.e. extra revenues start sooner rather than later).

[Just the facts]

One, construction costs aren't rising all that fast (in fact, construction costs might be getting ready to tank). Two, what happens if MAPS revenue falls short (which also might be a real possibility soon)? National and global economic data isn't looking good - just as oil prices are recovering.

[Just the facts]

On second thought, never mind. We are discussing an idea that will never happen. I'll fly out of GPI before the City repays bonds with MAPS money.

[hoya]

There are good times to borrow money. Determining whether any particular point in time is good or not is the hard part.