Convention Center

[Pete]

If you wondered how they were going to pay for parking for the convention center parking, this suddenly is on the agenda today for the MAPS 3 Board:

Recommend Resolution Allocating $10,000,000 of Oklahoma City Capital Improvement Sales Tax Funds for New Parking Facilities to Provide Public Parking for the Development in the North Core to Shore area, Including But Not Limited to the MAPS 3 Convention Center, MAPS 3 Park, the Potential Convention Center Hotel, and the Chesapeake Arena

Believe this just comes out of the regular OKC budget that is used for all capital improvements in the city.

Not sure what the MAPS 3 Board is voting on this. Ultimate approval would have to be provided by City Council.

[Rover]

See, to me this is exactly where the problem lays. Modern for the sake of modern doesn't necessarily equal good design.

This simplistic analysis could be said of ANY design style. NO design would satisfy everyone, especially those who want to be critical just to be so.

[Laramie]

This simplistic analysis could be said of ANY design style. NO design would satisfy everyone, especially those who want to be critical just to be so.

Agree 100%

Some critics will critique everything proposed. Just not sure what we want for the future of Oklahoma City. We're criticized for a city of our size for not having enough; especially when Tulsa has more to offer in quality retail.

If we proposed something on the larger scale, you hear that it's not going to work here because it's too big.

Examples: When we proposed the Chesapeake Energy Arena; the cricket chirping sounded off that we couldn't fill the Myriad; why do we need a 19,599-seat arena. The Peake was downsized from 19,136 to 18,203 to make room for comfortable seating (removal of cup holders) as well as a configuration to accommodate equipment for national & local TV telecasts.

Critics claim that the seats in the Myriad were larger than in the Peake. Fact is the Peake seats were "22 wide vs. those in the Cox Arena at "19 wide.

[Teo9969]

Solves the challenge of who would want to "reside" in a convention center and gets some mixed-use and after-five action on that east side, which I can't stress the importance of enough.

Spartan, can you expound on this?

[catch22]

Spartan, can you expound on this?

Sounds like he is saying if they did wrap the exterior in "housing" like has been discussed in the past, that it would be better to make the rooms boutique hotel rooms instead of residential -- would be easier to sell rooms by the night than it would be to lease to residents. Many people may not want to share walls with convention center traffic. I can see his point, but I think it is moot because it does not seem that it is being seriously discussed anyhow (wrapping CC in residential).

[Spartan]

They could easily bring back plans to involve some kind of private venture built into the site. Especially seeing as they apparently don't have enough funding to implement their full vision.

The CC and fairgrounds were pushed ahead of transit as a priority bc they supposedly catalyze more economic development (which is false). They should have to leverage the value of all that development to fund their vision just like transit has to. I think if people put their money where their mouth is, especially city governments, then great urbanism just happens.

[Teo9969]

I really think east of the park is a bad place for any sort of dwelling. It really needs restaurant/retail more than it needs beds. It's never going to be a high traffic area past 5, not because of the deadness of a convention center, but because of the barriers on 3 sides and a massive park on the other. It's one of the reasons many were adamant about the East park site for the convention center, because how else do you fill that monstrous hole? I know there was a hotel planned, and I know things would obviously be built, but 15 years down the line, we'll be looking at that area and saying, thank God it gets filled with conventioneers, because it's a pain in the ass to access and would be underperforming otherwise.

[Spartan]

I guess I just don't view park-front real estate as a massive hole. I think it could have been a really great little pocket. See the types of slender urban nodes that Denver has carved out of the Platte River Valley.

The commuter rail will also enter downtown behind this site if they use the BNSF tracks. Or has that future possibility also been dropped in favor of CC parking and fairgrounds arena?

This park does not have to have a "dead side," just as we don't have to have a new fairgrounds arena. (We prob do really need CC parking, but is it wise to drain nearly all of what's left of contingency? I mean good lord..)

[baralheia]

The commuter rail will also enter downtown behind this site if they use the BNSF tracks. Or has that future possibility also been dropped in favor of CC parking and fairgrounds arena?

The elevated BNSF rail viaduct behind this site won't be going anywhere; when the Regional Transit Authority finally gets off the ground, the eventual plan is to use that BNSF line for the north-south commuter rail line from Edmond to Norman. That isn't (and likely won't be) a MAPS project - funding will almost certainly be the responsibility of the RTA - and, unfortunately, commuter rail probably won't happen for another 5 years or more. Those rails are still used by a ton of freight rail traffic, as well as Amtrak's Heartland Flyer.

[jdross1982]

The fairgrounds arena is not going to be funded by MAPS 3 and has already been said several times it cannot wait until a MAPS 4. This will come from a different funding source as the arena is needed to replace the existing one.

Commuter rail (not counting the street car) was not a part of MAPS 3 so no it would not be "dropped" in favor of CC Parking either.

[Laramie]

You'll see MAPS deliver on 90% of the projects originally proposed; there will be some projects downsized because of cost overruns. We've got to continue to select developers who deliver quality projects.

We're getting ready for MAPS IV; with the passing of each MAPS initiative the quality of the projects continue to improve with experience.

Riversports Rapids was uncharted waters, so far it looks good from the gate. So, things get better with experience.

[UnFrSaKn]

https://twitter.com/stevelackmeyer/s...57396985978880

[ljbab728]

An interview by William Crum with Larry McAtee which addresses the current controversy about the parking.

http://newsok.com/multimedia/video/5...1001#gsc.tab=0

[G.Walker]

An interview by William Crum with Larry McAtee which addresses the current controversy about the parking.

http://newsok.com/multimedia/video/5...1001#gsc.tab=0

The best interview I watched all year, & provides much needed transparency re the questions surrounding the big MAPS 3 projects.

[BoulderSooner]

A couple of things.

Parking has always been known to be needed for both the cc and for the park

The last min 10 mil was stupid. And handled correctly by the committee

The streetcar rail came in under budget the fairground main building construction came in under budget. Those are just off the top of my head

The side walk budget was doubled from congencency funds

The cc money taken from the contingency budget. Was first removed from the cc project at the beginning of this process. So in about every way it was cc money

And as far as staying on budget. Yes projects have had to cut that is the nature of planning projects 10 years in advance and est cost. The committees job is to use the available funds in the best way possible.

[Spartan]

The fairgrounds arena is not going to be funded by MAPS 3 and has already been said several times it cannot wait until a MAPS 4. This will come from a different funding source as the arena is needed to replace the existing one.

Commuter rail (not counting the street car) was not a part of MAPS 3 so no it would not be "dropped" in favor of CC Parking either.

I have yet to see a funding source for the fairgrounds arena. But I see the state wanting to do a sales tax for teacher pay. The county wants sales tax for a new jail. The city is squeezing its revenue streams for the CC hotel.

I just don't see transit happening in this environment, bc we know it will need to be a partial county sales tax (Okla and Cleve counties). Most RTA's range .5 to 1% in sales tax. Some but not all revenues can come from a special taxing district.

All of these are competing priorities. Anyone who doesn't acknowledge that just doesn't care about the other priorities.

[Spartan]

Apologies for the double post

[Spartan]

The elevated BNSF rail viaduct behind this site won't be going anywhere; when the Regional Transit Authority finally gets off the ground, the eventual plan is to use that BNSF line for the north-south commuter rail line from Edmond to Norman. That isn't (and likely won't be) a MAPS project - funding will almost certainly be the responsibility of the RTA - and, unfortunately, commuter rail probably won't happen for another 5 years or more. Those rails are still used by a ton of freight rail traffic, as well as Amtrak's Heartland Flyer.

Yes exactly.

That could have been a cool transit hub in the back of the CC, right where Shields becomes at-grade. Instead it will be loading docks and surface parking fronting Shields probably.

Direct transit link to airport is the single biggest competitive advantage CC planning can provide and we failed to achieve that bc we instead went basic.

[jdross1982]

"All of these are competing priorities. Anyone who doesn't acknowledge that just doesn't care about the other priorities."

Sorry, but your original statement was that they were to be dropped from MAPS. The problem with that statement is they were never a part of MAPS. No, the funding source for the fairgrounds arena has not been identified but they have also made it known they would be unable to wait until the next round of MAPS to build it.

Area transit in terms beyond the street car were not part of MAPS either. If you want to talk about potential future MAPS projects or MAPS votes vs "other priorities" than I would be on board 100% with that conversation as it is one that will be discussed at length. But my disagreement was solely at the fact that your claim that these projects were simply dropped from MAPS when they were no there to begin with.

[Spartan]

Well we've seen MAPS projects cut. Nobody cares about the sidewalks and bike trails. Also nobody noticed that one NW 122nd Street senior center (at a church) gobbled up a lot of the funding the others will have to share. The fairgrounds was pushed up as the first project, park and transit were pushed down in the overall phasing.

I was referring mostly to MAPS 4 Neighborhoods which becomes more difficult with the passage of each additional thing. There was great potential for MAPS and an RTA to work together in the future. We are instead dedicating our future revenue streams to pay down fairgrounds and convention facilities.

I just don't see how we will fund an RTA when we're paying for the convention hotel, an impressive fairgrounds arena, more public parking garages, convention center expansion probably, new county jail, and probably sales tax for teachers. Transit will never happen if all of that does. We simply wouldn't be able to afford it all.

I'm for teachers but the rest of those priorities? We can afford transit and we can afford competitive event venues. It doesn't have to be either-or, but it is when you go overboard on one end to the exclusion of the other. I'm just not sure we are making the right balanced investments, for the right kind of growth.

Are the river projects particularly urban? I'm also not sure any of the money for MAPS 3 has gone toward the urban core, when you consider that the streetcar, park, and convention center haven't even gotten started yet. Kind of opposite of the perception. We do however take better care of the fairgrounds than any other part of the city.

[jdross1982]

I agree that we have seen some projects reduced from MAPS 3 which I see as very unfortunate as I would have much rather seen an extension of a year to 18 months of the tax to cover what was voted on.

When it comes to the hotel I take the stance that this was a necessary evil that is a requirement to go along with the CC and the parking garage should have been expected as well but like others didn't consider that with the long range thinking. OKC's biggest opportunity to get back some of the investment is with the Cox site.(once new CC opens) I could be wrong and would be the first to say it but I that site as a chance to expand sq ft office space with another tower or 2 on that site and bring significant investment to DT.

As for the funding for the fairgrounds arena, I have chosen to withhold judgement until the funding mechanism(s) have been identified. With what has been said previously, this will not be part of MAPS but not sure where that funding will come from as it could be paid for completely through fairgrounds revenue streams.

I also view the river projects as investment in the urban core as it will contribute to the overall landscape of OKC's urban core and will bring in additional investment. Yes the Park, CC and transit are the last of the MAPS projects which will bridge that gap but investment nonetheless. I am also anxious to see the proposals and renderings of development along the northern and western portions of the park.

Going back to finding a way to pay for each of these segments without sacrificing another is going to take some work. Most importantly it is going to take oil to spike and for city and state leaders to use that additional funding as capital projects to reduce long term debts by paying for them up front. Without a spike in oil I would agree it would be very difficult if not impossible to fund each of those items.

[Spartan]

Well, I think we're pretty much agreed on all of the above, and you must be a very patient and reasonable guy to take my earlier post in stride. I think massive insecurity and pettiness is the general response to anything less-than-rosy (or less than 30 stories) on here.

When I was a kid growing up on the south side, I always dreamed of these things happening in Oklahoma City, so it is very exciting to see some of it come to fruition. I never really considered oil prices in all of that dreaming. I hadn't considered myself to be living amidst an oil bust when I was growing up in the 90s. On one hand it is sad that we've resigned ourselves to the ebb and flow of commodities, and on the other hand it's a little weird because I don't automatically reconcile it with how I dreamed of these projects as a kid.

OKC needs to make investments that diversify the economy. I know that's easier said than done, but medium-sized cities everywhere are building their economies. OKC has a great tool in the MAPS program that it hasn't really used to its full advantage, or even half advantage, because the city is too busy offering it on a platter as a slush fund for the chamber and CVB to get their priorities met to the exclusion of others. I do think they have been driving the bus on MAPS 3 all along, and I think the more we beat up Mayor Mick for stupid things like CC location, the more that became the case. (By the way, when people on the east coast find out I'm from OKC, they always rave about how great he is)

So that's why I'm on fire about this fairgrounds arena that came out of nowhere, on top of this convention stuff. I get it, but I don't. It makes me sad to see honestly, and I know most people on here will never understand how a shiny new anything could make someone sad to see.

[Laramie]

Plans for the convention center site (convention center, hotel & adequate parking) will provide a catalyst for OKC to grow its convention & tourism industry.

This recipe for investment in two areas (fairgrounds & convention center trade shows) of the tourism industry will afford us the opportunity to pump out-state money into our local economy that's not directly related to oil & energy--that's the way you grow your economy.

[Spartan]

Not exactly lol.

You generally want to use your subsidy capacity to catalyze activities that generate incomes here for people who live here. Even if tourism becomes the next big thing for OKC, those are still very low income service jobs for the most part.

Hence why they really need to look at New Markets and enterprise zone funding for the CC hotel.

OKC should find ways to build off biotech, aviation, and some sectors that are underrepresented but possibly opportunistic. OKC is actually very low on logistics and manufacturing for instance. That's how you diversify OKC's economy...not conventions and horse shows.

[Urban Pioneer]

I agree that we have seen some projects reduced from MAPS 3 which I see as very unfortunate as I would have much rather seen an extension of a year to 18 months of the tax to cover what was voted on.

Other than fewer sidewalks and the grandstands at the river, what exactly was reduced? With a $42 million dollar surplus contingency budget, it's entirely possible to complete the original sidewalk plan and complete some of these other priorities even with the $10 million parking garage.

I actually went to the MAPS Oversight Board meeting and spoke on postponing the the garage decision until we could balance the check book. Optimistically though, it is entirely possible that all of these items can be covered in $42 million, including some options needed for the streetcar system.

Regarding the transit hub, Santa Fe Station is going to turn out great for our broader needs and be the future front door opening out onto the Cox site should that be redeveloped.