Convention Center

[dankrutka]

And how about that convention center?

I think Steinbeck would like it.

[soonerguru]

It's also an unfortunate stereotype that's rooted in the dehumanization of the poor. Because the Joads, the Okies, are actually hardworking, good people. That the stereotype was reinforced probably pissed Steinbeck off...

How ironic that many of our state's leading politicians choose to dehumanize our poor the same way as outsiders once did. They just kick our own.

[benjico]

To be fair, Indianapolis has had positive name recognition for 40 years. So did Milwaukee, Dallas, Denver, Atlanta, Seattle, Phoenix, San Diego, Boston, Miami, and Cincinnati. Now if OKC could get a #1 TV drama or sitcom for 10 years we could follow that route.

Having Kevin Durant and Russell Westbrook wearing our city's name on national and international TV can sure help though. It's no successful sitcom, but when Oklahoma City leads the NBA in national TV appearances it's a nice perception boost.

[Just the facts]

Can the CC change the national perception? Nope, and it shouldn't try to. Can it change local perceptions? Yes, and it should have Civic Pride as a primary objective. Civic pride will eventually change the national perception.

[Pete]

Back to the site selection process, the subcommittee is planning to make it's final recommendation by the end of the month with the goal of having the City Council vote and approve the first week of July.

Will be very interesting to see what they decide, and we should know very soon.

[Just the facts]

I am still interested in why the REHCO site was included the second time. Is it there just as a baseline to see how it stacks up to other locations today? Surely if it comes out as the top location again (which it won't) the City won't pursue it anyhow.

[Pete]

I am still interested in why the REHCO site was included the second time. Is it there just as a baseline to see how it stacks up to other locations today? Surely if it comes out as the top location again (which it won't) the City won't pursue it anyhow.

They are also working on a variation of that site; where they only acquire part of REHCO's property and then use the south Clayco parcel for the hotel.

[Pete]

Here are the two options for that REHCO site:

[Just the facts]

They are also working on a variation of that site; where they only acquire part of REHCO's property and then use the south Clayco parcel for the hotel.

They can't even afford half of it. Plus, that begs the question of why they were using MAPS money to acquire land for a non-MAPS project in the first place.

[Pete]

We don't know the amount REHCO is now asking for some or all their property.

We also don't know what the City may be offering (such as a property swap) in addition to cash budgeted for land acquisition.


The two sides have had on-going negotiations.

[CS_Mike]

Seems odd to me that they would place the loading docks on the north side where it is in full view of the Myriad Gardens and either of the hotel location options. Why not put it on the south end so that it can eventually be obscured by whatever future development goes in fronting the boulevard?

[Pete]

The loading docks would be underground:

[Just the facts]

I think the plan is still to put the loading docs and exhibit space underground, which was strange considering one of the committee members said we need to scrap the whole underground thing since we can't afford it.

[Stickman]

If you go underground make sure the sump pumps are working. LOL

[Urbanized]

They are also working on a variation of that site; where they only acquire part of REHCO's property and then use the south Clayco parcel for the hotel.

We don't know the amount REHCO is now asking for some or all their property.

We also don't know what the City may be offering (such as a property swap) in addition to cash budgeted for land acquisition.


The two sides have had on-going negotiations.

All essentially what I have alluded to on here since shortly after the initial court case fell apart. The REHCO site is still in the running because it is by far the best site, from a convention sales and service standpoint. The other sites, while perhaps cheaper on the surface, all have significant flaws that will negatively impact the performance of the building for its intended purpose. Those flaws all create hidden costs, which depending on which site is chosen can include:

1. Tens of millions for electrical substation relocation (if east park is chosen)
2. Millions (tens of millions?) in additional streetcar track construction and ongoing increased streetcar operating costs, which will only add partial relief to walkability issues, and will only benefit convention center users rather than regular streetcar users, and which could to some extent compromise streetcar potential and effectiveness
3. Addional transportation budget added to all conventions, which makes OKC a less attractive destination for planners
4. Need for City/CVB to subsidize transportation costs to incentivize sales
5. Fewer convention bookings owing to less attractive location, resulting in ongoing operations deficit for facility

Comparison of these sites is not simple apples-to-apples, despite how some here have made it out to be. All potential costs driven by the selected location itself MUST be factored when weighing each site. Just because the LAND might cost less in one place doesn't mean that it is necessarily cheaper or the correct move. Otherwise we'd be building on raw land by the airport.

Besides, just because you heard a $100 million pricetag tossed around for REHCO doesn't mean that was the value, or even what REHCO hoped it would get. That was a pie-in-the-sky comp number thrown out in a court case in hopes of getting a high compromise number. And it also was for 3 blocks, when it could possibly be done instead in 2 (wouldn't that ostensibly make the new "high" number $66 million?). If a doable number can be found below, say, $50 million and a big part of that can be offset via land swap, why in the world shouldn't they be looking at the land that makes the most sense from a logistics, convention sales, and ongoing operational budgetary standpoint, both for the facility itself and for the streetcar? Answer: they SHOULD be looking at that land.

East park, with a $30 million (or whatever) utility relocation and who knows how much in extra (initial and ongoing) streetcar costs would probably be more costly at that point, with convention sales disadvantages to boot.

While I wouldn't be surprised at this point if it lands somewhere else (probably east of park if anywhere), you can guarantee that they won't stick a fork in the REHCO site until there absolutely, positively is ZERO chance of making it work.

[Pete]

All essentially what I have alluded to on here since shortly after the initial court case fell apart. The REHCO site is still in the running because it is by far the best site, from a convention sales and service standpoint. The other sites, while perhaps cheaper on the surface, all have significant flaws that will negatively impact the performance of the building for its intended purpose. Those flaws all create hidden costs, which depending on which site is chosen can include:

1. Tens of millions for electrical substation relocation
2. Millions (tens of millions?) in additional streetcar track construction and ongoing increased streetcar operating costs, which will only add partial relief to walkability issues, only benefit convention center rather than regular streetcar users, and which could to some extent compromise streetcar potential and effectiveness
3. Addional transportation budget added to all conventions, which makes OKC a less attractive destination for planners
4. Need for City/CVB to subsidize transportation costs to incentivize sales
5. Fewer convention bookings owing to less attractive location, resulting in ongoing operations deficit for facility

Just to be clear, only the first item on the list would be an expense of the MAPS 3 convention center budget.

The remainder would just affect the profitability of the CVB, which is also getting a brand new and debt-free facility. So, it would be a matter of them clearing less money than perhaps possible in a perfect world scenario, but would not represent any real loss. They would still make money off of conventions, as would the City.

Also, there are also hefty additional costs to this site as well, particularly the need to put most of the facility and all the loading docks underground.


Don't mean to be argumentative, just presenting the other side of the points you raised.

[Urbanized]

I understand what you are saying and agree, but a harder-to-sell location equals fewer conventions equals less revenue for the facility equals higher ongoing maintenance costs borne by...taxpayers.

A harder-to-sell-location equals fewer room nights equals less bed tax equals less sales tax equals hit to the general fund.

A more remote location equals higher transportation costs equals more transportation incentive given to conventions equals hit to taxpayers.

More streetcar track and more streetcar service dedicated to convention shuttles via streetcar equals more expense for streetcar OR more expense for CVB equals more expense for taxpayers.

And remember, these expenses go on...forever.

I do agree about the cost of building below ground.

The thing is, with the REHCO site the numbers are upfront. Does it cost more initially? In some areas maybe (probably) and in some areas definitely. But the others have more insidious, more long-running and more unknown costs. They also have an undetermined (but certain) negative impact on bookings, and yes, even though that is just unrealized revenue it is still revenue that WOULD HAVE added to the public coffers or offset operational costs. Those types of losses are far more dangerous, if you ask me. Better to just face things head on, do it right the first time, and not be chasing the perfect (or even just "acceptable") mix of things, a la Dallas (detailed in some of my previous posts).

[betts]

That's assuming the other locations, if chosen, are truly going to significantly impact numbers. In my experience, things are rarely as black and white as they're made out to be. Really, getting conventions to a place like Oklahoma City is all about the sales pitch. Even if every person at a convention couldn't simultaneously get on a streetcar, you promote riding to Bricktown and (horrors!) Midtown on the streetcar. You show them views of the park. You talk about walkability (and then make sure it's walkable). You show pictures of boat rides to the Native American Cultural center and the river adventures. Really, a difference of a tenth of a mile is not what I think about when deciding where to go. In fact, my favorite convention spot is New Orleans, and the walk from it to the French Quarter is a hike. I've yet to see any data showing distance, within reason, is the overriding determining factor in convention planners decision making process.

[Rover]

I think Urbanized is trying to bring rationalization with facts and not just personal opinion to this board. Thanks Urbanized.

[Urban Pioneer]

I guess what I don't understand about these arguments is that is that tentatively not "more" track or "more" expense. It was always supposed to be a slightly longer route to the south or to the north. This is not an aberration.

[betts]

And personally, I don't really care where they put the convention center, as long as its within budget and not in the park. I have no dog in the fight, with the exception of my long-time interest in the park. My comments are only regarding what seems like common sense to me. Additionally, I've always thought the idea of putting half the CC underground is a foolish one - even if price were no object I don't know why anyone would want a one story building in that location. But I also have no interest in ugly loading docks facing the park. The substation and boulevard will be eyesores enough.

[Bellaboo]

2. Tens of millions for electrical substation relocation (if east park is chosen)
3. Millions (tens of millions?) in additional streetcar track construction and ongoing increased streetcar operating costs, which will only add partial relief to walkability issues, and will only benefit convention center users rather than regular streetcar users, and which could to some extent compromise streetcar potential and effectiveness
4. Addional transportation budget added to all conventions, which makes OKC a less attractive destination for planners
5. Need for City/CVB to subsidize transportation costs to incentivize sales
6. Fewer convention bookings owing to less attractive location, resulting in ongoing operations deficit for facility

For the life of me I don't understand the 30 million dollar cost of relocating a substation. That just seems way overboard ?

[Spartan]

I understand what you are saying and agree, but a harder-to-sell location equals fewer conventions equals less revenue for the facility equals higher ongoing maintenance costs borne by...taxpayers.

A harder-to-sell-location equals fewer room nights equals less bed tax equals less sales tax equals hit to the general fund.

A more remote location equals higher transportation costs equals more transportation incentive given to conventions equals hit to taxpayers.

More streetcar track and more streetcar service dedicated to convention shuttles via streetcar equals more expense for streetcar OR more expense for CVB equals more expense for taxpayers.

And remember, these expenses go on...forever.

I do agree about the cost of building below ground.

The thing is, with the REHCO site the numbers are upfront. Does it cost more initially? In some areas maybe (probably) and in some areas definitely. But the others have more insidious, more long-running and more unknown costs. They also have an undetermined (but certain) negative impact on bookings, and yes, even though that is just unrealized revenue it is still revenue that WOULD HAVE added to the public coffers or offset operational costs. Those types of losses are far more dangerous, if you ask me. Better to just face things head on, do it right the first time, and not be chasing the perfect (or even just "acceptable") mix of things, a la Dallas (detailed in some of my previous posts).

We are looking pretty ridiculous right now trying to hold together the vision Larry Nichols has of a huge generic convention center. It is proving difficult to bring to fruition. Normally in a project's life cycle when you encounter these structural issues, you embrace the chance to innovate and do something different. I'm not seeing any desire on the convention subcommittee's part to innovate and make a different site work with a real concept. What I am instead seeing is creative new pitches for why we need more money to obtain the same site to build the same convention center that Larry Nichols has been set on all along.

I am especially not seeing any renewed interest in the bigger picture and/or concern for the rest of the city/downtown, but rather just concern about the best site for the convention center. Basically more of the same that we have been getting all along, which hasn't worked. It would be beneficial to us to consider what is best for each of these sites, and it may (most likely) not be a convention center. Does that thought ever cross into anyone's mind?

The high cost of the REHCO site is either the free market or some higher power telling you that a convention center is probably not the best use for that site. I know that may be shocking that there could perhaps be a better use than a convention facility, but yes, at least that seems to be what the market is telling us.

[Rover]

I don't know that the market has told us anything yet. We haven't seen a transaction of the proposed property at anywhere near $100 million and most likely won't. We also haven't seen a credible private development plan that supports that value, either for the current owners or future ones. The market has not spoken, only a few people who are manipulating valuations based on self interests, whether it be the Maps people or the current owners.

As for higher power intervention, I think He has better things to do than to manipulate a dispute between new urbanists and business persons.

[Teo9969]

I understand what you are saying and agree, but a harder-to-sell location equals fewer conventions equals less revenue for the facility equals higher ongoing maintenance costs borne by...taxpayers.

A harder-to-sell-location equals fewer room nights equals less bed tax equals less sales tax equals hit to the general fund.

A more remote location equals higher transportation costs equals more transportation incentive given to conventions equals hit to taxpayers.

More streetcar track and more streetcar service dedicated to convention shuttles via streetcar equals more expense for streetcar OR more expense for CVB equals more expense for taxpayers.

And remember, these expenses go on...forever.

I do agree about the cost of building below ground.

The thing is, with the REHCO site the numbers are upfront. Does it cost more initially? In some areas maybe (probably) and in some areas definitely. But the others have more insidious, more long-running and more unknown costs. They also have an undetermined (but certain) negative impact on bookings, and yes, even though that is just unrealized revenue it is still revenue that WOULD HAVE added to the public coffers or offset operational costs. Those types of losses are far more dangerous, if you ask me. Better to just face things head on, do it right the first time, and not be chasing the perfect (or even just "acceptable") mix of things, a la Dallas (detailed in some of my previous posts).

These expenses go both ways:

1. Lost Property tax from a more substantial development on higher valued land (both South Stage Center and all of REHCO) because we're putting an exempt building on higher valued land.

2. Ensuring the relative inability to generate sales-tax revenue in a higher traffic (all modes) area of the city, and not having a good displacement of the lost opportunity (You're not fetching the same quality of development in East Park or West Park as you would at Bob Howard = less sales tax revenue).

3. The costs to expand. Expansion from the Bob Howard site will be considerably more expensive compared to anything south of the Boulevard.

There are certainly more issues such as having more parking in the CBD (whereas a Garage on either side of the park would actually be a welcome help to the area), etc.

The best convention center site long-term for the convention center is unequivocally the Cox Center, followed by Bob Howard.

The best convention center site long-term for Oklahoma City is literally any non-MBG-fronting site.

It really is that simple.