Convention Center

[TU 'cane]

Who is "they"? The consultants? If so, the answer to your question is pretty obvious in that graphic, which lists "located on streetcar route" on the very first line.

"They" being city leadership. You know, the ones who will ultimately make the decision.
4/7 sites are not within proximity to the currently proposed rail line (specifically, on the route itself).

[Urbanized]

"They" being city leadership. You know, the ones who will ultimately make the decision.
4/7 sites are not within proximity to the currently proposed rail line (specifically, on the route itself).

...which is why those sites score low in that area. Obviously the City leadership thinks proximity to streetcar is important or that criteria would not have been a part of the ranking.

[HOT ROD]

it appears to me that their ranking system is "again" fundamentally flawed and stacked in favor of the North Park. Here's why.

* Didn't the hotel developers prefer the E Park locations the most? then why didn't E Park 1 and 3 get 5 stars?
* Why do they keep saying that E Park is farther from Bricktown or unfavorable to the CBD?

E Park 1 is 4 walking blocks away from the Reno/EKG entrance and 5 blocks from Robinson/Sheridan (really 1 regular and 2 superblocks).

E Park 3 is 4 walking blocks away from the Reno/EKG entrance but you could argue that it is 2 blocks from the convention hotel entrance since this plan has it integrated, CBD is 4 blocks away (or 2 super blocks).

Assuming entrance to North C2S B is Harvey then it is 4 walking blocks (two reg and one superblock) to Bricktown Reno/EKG entrance and 4 walking blocks (2 normal and 1 superblock) to the CBD. Either E central park location is only one block further than N C2S from B town and CBD. So why the big difference in rankings?

If we are to assume North C2S A has the hotel in the block next to the arena, then I'd still argue the same for N C2S as the B hotel spot, since the CC still has entrance at Harvey and is not directly connected to the CC.

* How and the heck can they say E Central Park isn't ajacent to the Arena? Isn't that why developers preferred it the best (closest to Arena, Bricktown)?

E Central Park 3 is right across the boulevard from the Arena. The hotel is integrated with the Convention Center, so there likely WOULD be a CC entrance on the Boulevard side.

E Central Park 1 is a block away from the Arena, but the Hotel is right across the street.

N Central Park is a block away from the Arena. for Hotel site A, the hotel is across the street from the Arena but the hotel would NOT have a CC entrance. Hotel site B is on the other side of MGB, 2 or more blocks (depending upon where the doors would be) away from the corner the Arena sits. Now why did N C2S get a higher ranking for Arena than E Central Park?

* Streetcar so far away. What?

Streetcar is only two blocks away from E CP 3 and three blocks from E CP 1.

Streetcar would ahve a stop at the N Central Park Loading Docks, but the likely front door along Harvey would still be a block (or more) away.

* Far from existing convention quality hotels? Nope.

Say the Sheraton OKC is the closest large scale convention quality hotel to any of the cc sites under consideration: Sheraton's entrance is Broadway and Sheridan. So

E CP 3 is 5 blocks away. E CP 1 is 6 blocks away. N C2S (Harvey entrance) is 5 blocks away. How is N C2S closer to existing hotel stock? And I'd argue that N C2S B site is the FARTHEST from the Sheraton (entrance at Hudson) at 5 blocks away but a hotel on site A would be the closest at around 3/4 blocks depending upon where the entrance is.

In the next post, let me CORRECT the rankings a little bit to make things more fair/accurate and less STAGED considering the above revelations.

[HOT ROD]

Now let's rethink this CC ranking system being a bit more fair and not mix together the CC and hotel when the design doesn't call for it:


Reno/Dewey West Park E CP 1 E CP 3 N C2S A N C2S B CPark
Located on streetcar route NO NO NO NO OK YES NO
Adjacent to CPk Arena NO NO NO YES NO NO NO
Suppts existing Planning YES NO YES YES YES YES NO (NO CHANGES)
City Owned Property NO NO PARTIAL PARTIAL NO NO NO
Location from CBD * * * (bng genrous) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Loc from Bricktown * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Loc from Sheraton * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Loc from Film Row (?) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Other Dev Options * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 0
Hotel Developer feedback * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 0
Site Demo $$$$ $$ $$$ $$ $$ $$ chargeback
Utility Removal $$$ $$$ $ $$ $$ $$ $ (NO CHANGES)
Site Development Cost $$$ $$$ $ $$$$ $$$ $$$ $$$
Misc Cost as in purchase?? $ $ $$ $$ $$$$$ $$$$ chargeback + $$

I believe this is most accurate, fair, and equitable considering the two options and without swaying toward one or the other. My personal preference is the West Park because you could fully develop a convention district complete with its own hotels and amenities, growing OKC and leaving the other sites to private, highrise development. But clearly, that scored worst of all options so:

Cost 11$ 9$ 7$ 10$ 12$ 11$ 6$ + 2 chargebacks
4th 2nd 1st 3rd 6th 4th 7th

Stars 18 13 16 20 22 19 10
4th 6th 5th 2nd 1st 3rd 7th

X&Os 1 0 1.5 2.5 1.5 2 0
5th 6th 3rd 1st 3rd 2nd 6th

Summary: 4.333 4.667 3 2 2.833 3 6.67

Final Ranking: 5th 6th 3rd 1st 2nd 3rd disqualify

1. Central Park 3 .............. 2.0
2. N C2S A ....................... 2.833
3. Central Park 1 .............. 3.0
3. N C2S B ....................... 3.0
5. Reno/Dewey ................ 4.333
6. West Park .................... 4.667
7. Cent Park .................... 6.67 I would disqualify

This is how the ranking should come out, with CP3 leading N C2S A by just a touch. I suspect the city/consultants keep massaging N C2S or rather unfairly ranking CP 3 and CP 1 lower than it should to give N C2S A and B the edge in their ranking as was the case in the original consultant rank from populus.

Interesting that the consultants did not factor in opportunity costs into MISC for the N C2S but DID so (and overestimated it) for E Central Park when N C2S has highest market value of ANY site that would be repaid by either swap of Cox lands (and renting it) or upfront payment; either way the cost is in the $100's of M, yet they ranked it with just one $? I suspect there will be underground costs associated with E CP but not any more than what would be needed for N C2S, so I gave $$. I FAIRLY gave E CP 3 the highest site dev cost with N C2S next.

Also Interestingly, this ranking more or less follows the urbanist view that the CC should be located in the block bound by the Boulevard, Shields, 4th? and Robinson Ave; due E of the new Central Park and adjacent to the Arena. This would require a significant highrise component and underground uses since the entire development would be bound in this space. This would also create likely the most significant urban frontage in the entire state, since the entire site would be utilized and there would be NO GAPS. This could set the precedent for Urban Design for Downtown Oklahoma City if Central Park 3 site is duly (and by my ranking) rightfully so selected. In fact, if one were to factor in SITE USE compared to Existing Surroundings, all sites would score higher EXCEPT both of the N C2S since it would cut MGB from Central Park.

I wonder how I can submit my fair rankings to the city/council?

[HOT ROD]

Here is my revised ranking in Excel format. Pete, can you resize

[HOT ROD]

Here is the subsequent rankings:



Sorry everyone that this didn't reproduce correctly with my original post, but i hope you get the idea that our city/consultants appear strongly to favor N C2S and have unfairly ranked it to get the desired result. This is especially true when considering the Costs, which are totally under-valued for the N C2S for each of the city's ranks.

[Urban Pioneer]

So this morning, on KOSU, their Journal Record reports stated that the city authorized staff to proceed with negations on two locations. Core 2 Shore East and Reno/Dewey.

Maybe I missed something. If that was literally true, then the old Ford Dealership site is not being pursued by staff through direction via yesterday's meeting.

[AP]

^That is also what I understood from reading Ben Felder tweets.

[Urban Pioneer]

Then there is this- Council OKs negotiations for convention center land | News OK

[David]

I managed to miss the very end of the stream after the executive session, and the vote isn't in the Youtube video of the council meeting. I assume it'll be in the minutes, but those aren't up yet.

[Pete]

The two primary sites are the North Core to Shore B and East Park 1.

However, Reno & Dewey and East Park 2 are fall-backs.

Unless there is some dramatic change at the very end for the negotiations, it will go to North Core to Shore B (REHCO).

[onthestrip]

So am I reading this right? Instead of some ridiculous land price, Howard/Hall (Rehco) want to be given the ground of where the Cox Center is, on top of some money? I think its time to ignore Howard/Hall and move on to other properties. It may be the best location but it sounds like a losing situation for the city and taxpayers.

[Pete]

So am I reading this right? Instead of some ridiculous land price, Howard/Hall (Rehco) want to be given the ground of where the Cox Center is, on top of some money? I think its time to ignore Howard/Hall and move on to other properties. It may be the best location but it sounds like a losing situation for the city and taxpayers.

Another way to put it is the City really wants their land and is moving heaven and earth to try and get it.

[baralheia]

I honestly just don't understand why the city wants that parcel so ridiculously bad. Both sites would work well for a convention center, but East Park 1 would be much less of a headache. It seems like negotiating this land swap deal would still result in a much higher cost for the REHCO property - though some of that cost would be deferred (i.e. the leaseback arrangement that's been speculated for the Cox site). The City needs to be very careful to ensure they don't hurt the city with this deal.

[Urbanized]

For anyone who cares: Top Value Destinations | www.themeetingmagazines.com

[Rover]

For anyone who cares: Top Value Destinations | www.themeetingmagazines.com

Obviously they didn't get the message that convention business is doomed to extinction and OKC can't compete anyway. Lol.

[ljbab728]

For anyone who cares: Top Value Destinations | www.themeetingmagazines.com

This is a very interesting comment from that article, giving the perception about airfare by most of our posters.

Oklahoma City represents substantial savings over doing the same meeting in Chicago or Dallas, Huckaby says. “And one reason for that is lower airfares,” she says. “And because the airport is very close to downtown, it’s a very convenient destination and you save money on ground transportation. You also get good value in hotel rooms, food and beverage and meeting space. You get good value on everything.”

I recently hosted a friend from London who was here for the first time and he had similar thoughts as this about all of the things there are to do here in a fairly compact area.

Over and above that, Huckaby was surprised to discover how much there is to do in Oklahoma City. Popular with attendees is Bricktown (pictured), the former warehouse district on the Bricktown Canal, offering entertainment, shopping and dining. “There’s a lot of nightlife downtown,” she says. “There are a lot of fine-dining restaurants and a wide range of inexpensive restaurants.” And she notes that the Boathouse District offers a range of outdoor adventures such as kayaking, paddleboarding, zip lining and bicycling. “I don’t think most planners realize how much there is to do in Oklahoma City. And a lot of things are within walking distance of the hotels. The city also has great infrastructure.”

[Just the facts]

That lower airfare comment is simply not true.

[bradh]

Just depends on where you are flying from, and what airline flies in and out of the city you're traveling to/from. But let's not derail this thread into another argument about airfares and air service to OKC.

[Pete]

Here's a pretty clear indication the convention center is going south of the Myriad Gardens and the convention hotel will be going to the south half of the Clayco property...

The City is set to sign leases and move 3 of the tenants currently housed at 428 W. California to the Arts District Parking Garage.

We had reported this was going to happen almost a year ago but then everything stopped when no progress was made with Clayco to develop any of their property, so there was no rush to move the tenants.

Now, suddenly, this is been moved to the front burner.

Also, looks like the OKC Public Schools foundation will take the one remaining space in the parking garage.


Still no official word where the Arts Council will go (they are also in 428 W. Cal) but I stand by the previous report that had them relocating to Union Station.

[Pete]

A special meeting of the Convention Center Committee has been called for Oct. 6th and a special meeting of the MAPS 3 Board has been called for Oct. 7th.

I believe they will officially reveal their location choice.

I also believe it will be the west part of the REHCO site for the CC and the south Clayco parcel for the hotel.

[ChrisHayes]

How long would it be till construction were to begin on the CC and hotel? Would be awesome to see the hotel, CC, OG&E HQ, and 499 going up all at the same time

[Spartan]

Anyone who flies regularly out of WRWA knows that the airfare is actually pretty high compared to other mid market airports. WRWA is also one of the nicest airports I ever see (in a nation of crumbling infrastructure), but cheap it is not.

It's actually a good thing. Airlines discount flights at ICT for example bc demand isn't as strong as at OKC.

As for the meeting this week - While I know they aren't listening outside the bubble, I can't wait to find out how much extra money and physical impact they will demand. Here's hoping that Hudson remains open and no new superblocks... Ugh

This CC has yet to bring a single convention to town, but it's already postponed the possibility of an operational streetcar to more than EIGHT YEARS after voters agreed to tax themselves to fund transit and parks. Let's keep that in mind as we are told this week how much extra money the CC subcommittee wants.

[LakeEffect]

This CC has yet to bring a single convention to town, but it's already postponed the possibility of an operational streetcar to more than EIGHT YEARS after voters agreed to tax themselves to fund transit and parks. Let's keep that in mind as we are told this week how much extra money the CC subcommittee wants.

Hold on. No one ever said the transit improvements would be immediate. At best, it was scheduled to be under construction right now, I believe. And we're not too far off from the beginning of that.

[Spartan]

Hold on. No one ever said the transit improvements would be immediate. At best, it was scheduled to be under construction right now, I believe. And we're not too far off from the beginning of that.

Thanks for the clarification. To be fair, my comment was directed in part toward our refusal to bond out parts of MAPS, as well as the actual two years or so we've added to the delay (the full system, which has done been broken into two "phases")

OKC citizens don't seem to demand much w regards to project delivery, but if they did... The citizens would turn against transit as a "boondoggle." (Not knowing te CC and "fiscal conservatism" have been the wedge)