Convention Center

[mkjeeves]

I don't dispute that the majority currently are, in large part thanks to the fact that we don't have a salable facility and adjacent controllable room blocks. When convention planners look at OKC they have to book for reasons other than facilities, and in fact in spite of them. You can't sell out of an empty basket. Where I was taking issue with JTF is that the numbers in his original statement left almost no room for out-of-state attendees, and that is simply not true at all.

My only add on to the agreed upon facts, the reports being fed to the council, the Stone report in particular about the need for a hotel, are based on number of attendees at the COX center, without regard that almost all of them are locals.

[Teo9969]

I went through all the attendance figures for events at the Cox Center, Something like half of all Cox Center users were Barons fans (and half of them were no-shows). Look at the event calendar, who do you think is attending high school graduations and the Oklahoma Bridal Show?

Cox Center =/= Convention Center. The Baron's most assuredly do not belong in a conversation about Convention attendance, because the Baron's are a sports team and not a convention.

That's just insanely dishonest intellectually…Unless we're putting an Arena into the new facility that we haven't been made aware of.

[Urbanized]

Cox Center =/= Convention Center. The Baron's most assuredly do not belong in a conversation about Convention attendance, because the Baron's are a sports team and not a convention.

That's just insanely dishonest intellectually…Unless we're putting an Arena into the new facility that we haven't been made aware of.

That is industry standard, everywhere in the country. All uses of a building are reported. If you look at the links I posted, they also include attendance at sporting venues throughout the metro, plus many other uses that aren't strictly "convention".

[mkjeeves]

Cox Center =/= Convention Center. The Baron's most assuredly do not belong in a conversation about Convention attendance, because the Baron's are a sports team and not a convention.

That's just insanely dishonest intellectually…Unless we're putting an Arena into the new facility that we haven't been made aware of.

Agreed. Those historical Cox attendance numbers appear to have been used by the consultants to determine X expansion in convention center space would generate Y times existing attendance and the need for Z many more hotel rooms, while most in attendance were locals.

[Just the facts]

Cox Center =/= Convention Center. The Baron's most assuredly do not belong in a conversation about Convention attendance, because the Baron's are a sports team and not a convention.

That's just insanely dishonest intellectually…Unless we're putting an Arena into the new facility that we haven't been made aware of.

Don't tell me, tell the CVB and the Chamber. They are the ones that lumped them together. And you are right about the arena. The new convention center will struggle to match the current attendance. Of course, then we will hear how the Barons attendance inflated the 'old' numbers.

Oh the web we weave when at first we try to deceive.

[jerrywall]

I run a convention that has decent attendance and was evaluated to have an economic impact in OKC of over 500k. We moved from OKC to Midwest City in 2013 due to issues with the Cox Center and the availability of rooms downtown. Our draw was about 50/50 local vs out of town/state.

I'm sure I'm not alone in that choice.

[soonerguru]

Substation is not the only issue. East park also places most amenities and hotel rooms outside of the desired industry-standard walkability radius, behind major barriers to walking, in the form of the below grade and highway-like boulevard, Reno Avenue and Shields/Gaylord. The other matter, as you discuss, is saddling the CC with the cost of relocating OG+E, which should absolutely be lumped into the site acquisition cost when doing apples-to-apples comparison. But I agree that it is apparently gaining traction.

Honestly, what site is better? Unless they can work something out with the Howard site I don't see anything that is more appealing.

[Stickman]

[Just the facts]

I run a convention that has decent attendance and was evaluated to have an economic impact in OKC of over 500k. We moved from OKC to Midwest City in 2013 due to issues with the Cox Center and the availability of rooms downtown. Our draw was about 50/50 local vs out of town/state.

I'm sure I'm not alone in that choice.

Just curious, was your economic impact calculated using your entire group or just the 50% from outside the area? I only ask because with things like the AICCM, they simply multiply the number of visitors by the spending of a represenative visitor to the area, add in a multiplier, and announce that as the economic impact, never even taking into accout that many of the 'visitors' are local school children on a class fieldtrip.

[jerrywall]

Just curious, was your economic impact calculated using your entire group or just the 50% from outside the area? I only ask because with things like the AICCM, they simply multiply the number of visitors by the spending of a represenative visitor to the area, add in a multiplier, and announce that as the economic impact, never even taking into accout that many of the 'visitors' are local school children on a class fieldtrip.

I'm sure its the total visitors, but the overwhelming majority of our attendees stay in the (or a) hotel, and eat near the convention center. That's also not counting all the exhibitors that set up and stay at the hotel, and the speakers (typically around 150 of them) who also all stay in the hotel and eat at the local restaurants.

And honestly, even if the dollar amount is off, that wasn't really the point (since honestly, any impact we had was just a drop in the bucket - especially compared with the cost of a new center). The point was that if I was making decisions to locate outside of OKC due to the facilities, then I'm sure others have been as well.

[Urbanized]

Honestly, what site is better? Unless they can work something out with the Howard site I don't see anything that is more appealing.

Of the sites currently being evaluated only the dealership site is better. I think you and I are in agreement on that.

[Urban Pioneer]

Another number that should be considered when taking on a site outside of the industry-standard walkability bubble is any additional streetcar construction and/or operational expenses driven by a more remote location. These should absolutely be added to the "land acquisition" equation. If a location is fully walkable, that number is zero. If it is not, and it drives more streetcar expense, the number is in the millions.

I kinda thought of that a long time ago. Where do you think our remaing "Phase 2" money is going?

[betts]

Substation is not the only issue. East park also places most amenities and hotel rooms outside of the desired industry-standard walkability radius, behind major barriers to walking, in the form of the below grade and highway-like boulevard, Reno Avenue and Shields/Gaylord. The other matter, as you discuss, is saddling the CC with the cost of relocating OG+E, which should absolutely be lumped into the site acquisition cost when doing apples-to-apples comparison. But I agree that it is apparently gaining traction.

This is getting to be a silly argument. When looking at the CC that uses parkland and the site south of the Ford Center, they are both at precisely the same latitude. You have to cross the boulevard regardless. It's probably going to be such an impediment to pedestrians that they might as well build an underground or a bridge so elevation is moot. The center of the CC within the park is farther from Bricktown by a block and it's not significantly closer to any hotels either. There shouldn't even be a boulevard, and this problem illustrates the ridiculousness of it's creation, but be that as it may, we're absolutely splitting hairs to the point of ridiculousness to imply that there is enough difference between the two locations that a convention goer would walk to Bricktown from one and not from the other. I'm sorry, but if that is the best argument for using the park instead of the east park site, it will be almost virtually impossible to justify. I saw Populous use some specious number assignment the last time they gave a presentation on the sites, so I'm fully expecting to be outraged, but any difference between these two sites is so small as to be insignificant. OG&E needs to give as well as get, and were I the city, I'd try to do a land swap and pay for the labor to move the substation only. If that's $30 million, then I am again in the wrong business, but regardless, they'll probably save that much by not having to put half of the CC underground.

[Teo9969]

This is getting to be a silly argument. When looking at the CC that uses parkland and the site south of the Ford Center, they are both at precisely the same latitude. You have to cross the boulevard regardless. It's probably going to be such an impediment to pedestrians that they might as well build an underground or a bridge so elevation is moot. The center of the CC within the park is farther from Bricktown by a block and it's not significantly closer to any hotels either. There shouldn't even be a boulevard, and this problem illustrates the ridiculousness of it's creation, but be that as it may, we're absolutely splitting hairs to the point of ridiculousness to imply that there is enough difference between the two locations that a convention goer would walk to Bricktown from one and not from the other. I'm sorry, but if that is the best argument for using the park instead of the east park site, it will be almost virtually impossible to justify. I saw Populous use some specious number assignment the last time they gave a presentation on the sites, so I'm fully expecting to be outraged, but any difference between these two sites is so small as to be insignificant. OG&E needs to give as well as get, and were I the city, I'd try to do a land swap and pay for the labor to move the substation only. If that's $30 million, then I am again in the wrong business, but regardless, they'll probably save that much by not having to put half of the CC underground.

Actually, Convention Attendees would not need to cross the Boulevard if we capped the tunnel that will split the CHK and block between Broadway/EKGaylord.

I said this earlier in the year, but if you capped that area, you could also have place for a food-truck park which would DEFINITELY address the lunch-time issue for attendees.

[Just the facts]

The boulevard isn't going to be deep enough to cap it.

[Teo9969]

~850 feet between Harvey and EK Gaylord.

If you allotted 150ft to the capping, then the grade would still be less than 3°.

The area would be between 65% and 75% of the area of Bleu Garten and it would give pedestrians an unobstructed path to Reno.

[Teo9969]

How far are they taking the Boulevard down?

[Urban Pioneer]

8'

[Teo9969]

What's another 17 feet???!!!!

[Urban Pioneer]

So the railroad bridge is about 13.5' elevated at that location. They are aiming for around a total 17.5' entry depression. There are 20' wide sidewalks planned for at least one side of the underpass to allow mass pedestrian movement into Bricktown. Declination begins approximately 350' west of the EK Gaylord intersection and just west of the Oklahoma Ave intersection.

There is an opportunity to design substantial pedestrian infrastructure not unlike the sidewalks near the Cox to feed into these 20' wide sidewalks at the underpass. Maybe it might help alleviate some of the concerns that Urbanized and other Bricktown stakeholders have regarding accommodation the mass exodus that happens with conventions at the East Park site and adjacent Thunder games.

[Urbanized]

This is getting to be a silly argument. When looking at the CC that uses parkland and the site south of the Ford Center, they are both at precisely the same latitude. You have to cross the boulevard regardless. It's probably going to be such an impediment to pedestrians that they might as well build an underground or a bridge so elevation is moot. The center of the CC within the park is farther from Bricktown by a block and it's not significantly closer to any hotels either. There shouldn't even be a boulevard, and this problem illustrates the ridiculousness of it's creation, but be that as it may, we're absolutely splitting hairs to the point of ridiculousness to imply that there is enough difference between the two locations that a convention goer would walk to Bricktown from one and not from the other. I'm sorry, but if that is the best argument for using the park instead of the east park site, it will be almost virtually impossible to justify. I saw Populous use some specious number assignment the last time they gave a presentation on the sites, so I'm fully expecting to be outraged, but any difference between these two sites is so small as to be insignificant. OG&E needs to give as well as get, and were I the city, I'd try to do a land swap and pay for the labor to move the substation only. If that's $30 million, then I am again in the wrong business, but regardless, they'll probably save that much by not having to put half of the CC underground.

I have never, EVER promoted the north park idea. In fact I'm decidedly against it. You're arguing against a straw man. Not surprising.

[heyerdahl]

The fact that the idea of creating a cap for pedestrians to cross the boulevard is coming up is a sign that everyone already knows how big of a mistake the boulevard is

[Urban Pioneer]

We forced major changes to the Boulevard. But the only way it will truly be pedestrian friendly and be of proper scale is if once the city takes the keys, spends the money to tear out significant portions of it and fix it to what it should be.

[Laramie]

Actually, Convention Attendees would not need to cross the Boulevard if we capped the tunnel that will split the CHK and block between Broadway/EKGaylord.

I said this earlier in the year, but if you capped that area, you could also have place for a food-truck park which would DEFINITELY address the lunch-time issue for attendees.

Agree with the capped area which would be better suited for a monument; however, the idea (only on suggestion on your part) of the Lunch-time issue for attendees eating from a food truck? Hopefully Bricktown or the Conference Hotel could better address this issue providing lunch for attendees.

[Teo9969]

Agree with the capped area which would be better suited for a monument; however, the idea (only on suggestion on your part) of the Lunch-time issue for attendees eating from a food truck? Hopefully Bricktown or the Conference Hotel could better address this issue providing lunch for attendees.

Bricktown is too far away from all potential locations with too few quick-service concepts to be a comprehensive solution for lunch. I'm sure certain places could mitigate the service aspect, but if Abuelo's or In The Raw or other sit-down concepts are going to make a push for convention lunch business, they might as well deliver to the C.C.

A hotel restaurant is also not a significant solution.

Anyway, Food Trucks will be down in this area during conventions regardless of whether they have a dedicated area, because there is money to be made. So it needs to be considered in this whole situation anyway.