Convention Center

[Just the facts]

My last comment on this aspect of the CC. There isn't enough money to build the convention center they want, let alone build a convention center AND pay interest. The idea that the convention center will increase MAPS revenue to off-set the interest IS the growth model and it doesn't work (how much more empirical evidence do we need).

[BDP]

The idea that the convention center will increase MAPS revenue to off-set the interest IS the growth model and it doesn't work (how much more empirical evidence do we need).

LOL. If the CC doesn't generate revenues equal to or greater than 3% of its cost, then it's a VERY bad idea.

[Rover]

The idea that the convention center will increase MAPS revenue to off-set the interest IS the growth model and it doesn't work (how much more empirical evidence do we need).

It isn't that borrowing to finish it quickly will increase MAPS revenue, it is that it would reduce cost. Construction costs are escalating. Land costs have already escalated.

One, construction costs aren't rising all that fast (in fact, construction costs might be getting ready to tank).

Don't know why you think construction costs aren't increasing very fast. Your ideas of how to build a building close to the sidewalk are much better than your sense of economics. First Quarter 2015 Turner Building Cost Index - which measures costs in the non-residential building construction market in the United States - has increased to a value of 927. This reflects a 1.09% increase from the Fourth Quarter 2014 and a 4.75% increase from the First Quarter 2014.

[ljbab728]

Bill Crum's update after the advisory committee meeting today.

Panel to further study Oklahoma City convention center sites | Oklahoman.com

All five sites being studied for the MAPS 3 convention center remained in play Tuesday after an advisory committee agreed with architects’ recommendations to toss out some proposed configurations and authorize further analysis of others.

Linking the $287 million convention center with its proposed 600-room headquarters hotel, and locating the complex near transit, central business district hotels and Bricktown entertainment venues emerged as issues for committee members.

[Pete]

Lead designer Todd Voth, of the Populous design and architecture firm, offered the committee 11 possible configurations for the five sites under consideration. The five include the north portion of the MAPS 3 downtown park.

Gee, wonder how that ended up on the list of finalists, when previously the consultants had never considered it.

[Pete]

The downtown park’s lead architect has said putting the convention center on land reserved for the park would require designers to start over. Amenities, such as a great lawn and stage that are expected to bring in revenue to support park operations, would be erased.

Don't bother the convention center committee with these minor details!

But since you will be cutting so much, let's talk about that big, juicy budget of yours, shall we?

[Teo9969]

[betts]

So, what money was used to purchase the land for the park? If it came out of the park budget, then I would assume the CC subcommittee would have to reimburse the park subcommittee for land already purchased at a rate that would allow them to acquire new land, such as that south of the Chesapeake Arena. They should also have to pay to have the substation removed (there's that pesky $30million the CC already appropriated via subterfuge) and reimburse the park subcommittee for all planning/consulting/architectural renderings for which they have already paid.

In no way am I saying I'm OK with this. I'm outraged personally. But if the CC succeeds in doing this outrageous and disrespectful thing, the Park subcommittee better not just lay down. I would fight for every penny of my budget and to change the configuration of the park, but not the size.

[jccouger]

So, what money was used to purchase the land for the park? If it came out of the park budget, then I would assume the CC subcommittee would have to reimburse the park subcommittee for land already purchased at a rate that would allow them to acquire new land, such as that south of the Chesapeake Arena. They should also have to pay to have the substation removed (there's that pesky $30million the CC already appropriated via subterfuge) and reimburse the park subcommittee for all planning/consulting/architectural renderings for which they have already paid.

In no way am I saying I'm OK with this. I'm outraged personally. But if the CC succeeds in doing this outrageous and disrespectful thing, the Park subcommittee better not just lay down. I would fight for every penny of my budget and to change the configuration of the park, but not the size.

The park committee would for sure be reimbursed for the land the convention center takes. That's not even a question. This would allow for a more quality park with more money to invest on a sq ft basis. The same could be said with more money to invest in the convention center due to lower land acquisition costs.

Also, how hard is it really to design a park? Its not like you have to spend time with structural load engineering like you would a building. Just remove that stupid pond & keep the great lawn. The great lawn could even work in synergy with the convention center allowing a huge open outdoor space for gatherings. The pond is unneeded with the river directly to the south where river sport allows for boat rentals.

Trust me, I was super stoke for the park as much as anybody else. Go back & read the park thread & I promise you'll see nothing but positive posts from me, but this is a golden opportunity to basically combine 2 Maps projects that actually will improve both of them.

[betts]

Are you a Chamber plant, Jccougar? They would be taking the land for the great lawn. They would be decreasing the size of the park dramatically. It would no longer exist as a dramatic park but rather as some grass backyard to the CC.. We don't need more money for the park. It doesn't need to be heavily programmed. Look at what Hargreaves charged to plan the park. This is NOT a golden opportunity. It's a slap in the face of the voters, and it's behavior as usual from the CC subcommittee, to whom no one appears willing to say "no"!

[betts]

I will be spending most of the summer in Chicago, where they understand the importance of an iconic park. Millenium Park conjures up wonderful images doesn't it, and the scale is impressive. It's pretty simple really - mostly just green. Can anyone immediately conjure up an image of the Chicago Convention Center? Which one of those two things is most important to citizens of Chicago and visitors?

"Our" understanding Is completely out of date and screwed up if we think a CC will make our city more impressive.

[jccouger]

Are you a Chamber plant, Jccougar? They would be taking the land for the great lawn. They would be decreasing the size of the park dramatically. It would no longer exist as a dramatic park but rather as some grass backyard to the CC.. We don't need more money for the park. It doesn't need to be heavily programmed. Look at what Hargreaves charged to plan the park. This is NOT a golden opportunity. It's a slap in the face of the voters, and it's behavior as usual from the CC subcommittee, to whom no one appears willing to say "no"!

What exactly was promised to the voters? Was the size of the park ever disclosed prior to voting? The park as designed right now IS highly programmed. I see people say they "want to get lost in the trees" but don't remember we had that park, & it was called the Myriad Gardens & nobody used it until we took all the trees out because it was scary.

Hargreaves over charged us, he's honestly been just as big of a hindrance to Maps planning as the convention center committee has been. I recommend you go back & reread the parks thread. He's been a major pain the butt from the get go on this.

[jccouger]

I will be spending most of the summer in Chicago, where they understand the importance of an iconic park. Millenium Park conjures up wonderful images doesn't it, and the scale is impressive. It's pretty simple really - mostly just green. Can anyone immediately conjure up an image of the Chicago Convention Center? Which one of those two things is most important to citizens of Chicago and visitors?

"Our" understanding Is completely out of date and screwed up if we think a CC will make our city more impressive.

I agree, big open spaces are the most important aspect of the park. That is why I think hargreaves making threats about taking the great lawn out is complete bull**** when there is a ridiculous pond that takes up half the land that nobody will ever use. We could still have the great lawn, trees, flowers & programming with the convention center.

[Urban Pioneer]

I actually like the pond.

[betts]

Whether or not you like Hargreaves is irrelevant. Is their design what I would create personally? Maybe not, but that's not an excuse to make the park smaller. What the voters were sold was an iconic Central Park. What they've been told they are getting for YEARS....until this article....is what they should get. The only excuse for making it smaller should be an inadequate budget to purchase the land for the park....which did not happen. What we should also get is a $250 million Convention Center somewhere reasonably close to other hotels. The land south of the Chesapeake Arena is as close to Bricktown as the parkland in question. The city already owns some of the land. The $30 million to move the substation already exists. The CC would not have to be built underground, saving money. There is room for expansion. I see no reason to take away the park when a perfectly acceptable site already exists - the one the mayor favored from the outset, and one Pete has shown us will work.

[David]

Don't even try to spin the CC committee raiding the park committee for land as a positive, it isn't even a particularly good joke.

[shawnw]

The downtown park’s lead architect has said putting the convention center on land reserved for the park would require designers to start over. Amenities, such as a great lawn and stage that are expected to bring in revenue to support park operations, would be erased.

If they are required to start over, they better darned well incorporate the Film Exchange in a new design. No reason not to at that point.

[Anonymous.]

Don't think it will happen. The park committee won't rollover like that.

As to the conversation above, I agree the pond is dumb regardless of the CC taking land of the park. I would much prefer more "great lawn" type of space.


Currently the only lawn/staging area at the Myriad Gardens is almost constantly used and is overcrowded.

[betts]

So far, the only one on the Park subcommittee speaking out is Anthony McDermid. I haven't heard a word from Kimberly Lowe. Nor has she spoken up against the powers that be in the past.

[shawnw]

I see people say they "want to get lost in the trees" but don't remember we had that park, & it was called the Myriad Gardens & nobody used it until we took all the trees out because it was scary.

Also it would appear as though Couch/Kerr Park and Sandridge Commons will be the new place in town to get lost in the trees...

[Urban Pioneer]

If I have time, I will try to go to the Park meeting. You are right. I haven't heard anyone else on the Park Subcommittee specifically and publicly speak out against this proposal.

[Pete]

Here is the proposal for the Central Park site.

The main exhibit hall would be underground, as was proposed for the original site, and the hotel would be on the other side of Robinson.

The gray above-ground box would be for future expansion.

[baralheia]

I will be spending most of the summer in Chicago, where they understand the importance of an iconic park. Millenium Park conjures up wonderful images doesn't it, and the scale is impressive. It's pretty simple really - mostly just green. Can anyone immediately conjure up an image of the Chicago Convention Center? Which one of those two things is most important to citizens of Chicago and visitors?

"Our" understanding Is completely out of date and screwed up if we think a CC will make our city more impressive.

Millennium Park is very impressive, but I'd hardly categorize it as simple or mostly just green. The park is highly programmed: there's THE BEAN (or Cloud Gate, if you prefer - the large chrome sculpture; strangely neat and draws huge crowds), multiple plazas and fountains, including Crown Fountain, Boeing Gallery (outdoor art exhibition space), Pritzker Pavilion and Great Lawn (huge ampitheatre), Harris Theater (1525-seat performing arts theater) and Lurie Garden (2 and a half acres of very pretty flowers, grasses, shrubs, and trees). Millennium Park is only the NW corner of the huge Grant Park complex, but even looking at the wider view and taking all of Grant Park into account, it's still a highly programmed space. The rest of Grant Park includes Congress Plaza, the Art Institute of Chicago, Buckingham Fountain (very impressive, very large fountain in the center of the park; totally recommend visiting it), several monuments (including one for Abraham Lincoln), the Petrillo Music Shell (another outdoor ampitheatre), and the complex of incredibly impressive museums - Adler Planetarium, Field Museum of Natural History, and the Shedd Aquarium - just north of Soldier Field. There are, of course, some softball/baseball fields and tennis courts (16 and 12, respectively), part of the Lakefront Trail, and expansive gardens as well - but it's still probably the biggest, busiest park I've ever visited. And that was at Noon on a non-holiday-weekend Friday. The Central Park is going to be the closest thing we've got to Chicago's Grant Park, and we just can't afford to let it get cut in half by the convention center.

One other thing to note: Grant Park is bisected by multiple streets, including one of the busiest streets in downtown Chicago: Lake Shore Drive. However, appropriately placed and designed sidewalks and crosswalks did not impede foot traffic at all, in my experience, and were heavily used while I was visiting. Part of this is due to never needing to activate a crosswalk... Everywhere we went in downtown Chicago, walk cycles are automatic and programmed in to every street light. There are extremely few call boxes because in nearly all cases, they're simply not necessary. Assuming ODOT and the City coordinate and build appropriate crosswalks across the Boulevard (and I realize that is a pretty tall order, but still), I don't think it'll be the Great Wall impeding pedestrian movement to the extent that many seem to think it will be. Additional crosswalks can also be added where necessary, similar to the crosswalk between the Cox Convention Center and the 'Peake.

[shawnw]

it's going to be a tad silly if we end up robbing from the park for this thing and then the original site ends up vacant for years (a la canal-mini golf site) because it's priced too high...

[bchris02]

it's going to be a tad silly if we end up robbing from the park for this thing and then the original site ends up vacant for years (a la canal-mini golf site) because it's priced too high...

If I am not mistaking, the existing owners have intention of developing it. Somebody correct me if I am wrong.