Stage Center

[Just the facts]

I don't know - I think maybe a $750 million headquarters building, easy walking distance to a streetcar stop, 60 feet from an elementary school, and access to a quality park might spur adjacent development - but maybe you're right, and it won't.

Of course, downtown rental housing is at something like 98% occupied and 6 groups just got done fighting over who gets to develop the Mercy site (I think that makes 5 shovel ready projects). So I have that going for me.

[betts]

If someone wants to spend enough money, the Stage Center presence will not be an issue. I can about guarantee you any fight to save it will be totally glossed over in a rush by the city to embrace new development downtown. So, I wouldn't be worried. If someone is dying to develop that site, it will happen. If it doesn't, I'm quite happy to have the Stage Center there. It's certainly far more interesting to look at than a surface parking lot. Why tear it down for some theoretical development that may never happen? I consider it public art, personally, and it actually blends very well with the very visually busy Myriad Gardens.

[Just the facts]

Betts - I don't know of anyone suggesting that we tear it down and just have an open field waiting for some future development. Just like the Kerr Mac and India Temple buildings, a rundown vacant structure is better than an open lot. The owners of every abandoned and dilapidated lot around downtown need to be pressured to either open it, renovate it, build something new, or sell it to someone who will. I am not sure why this lot gets a pass on that. If nothing else, we need to be consistent.

I don't know who is going to spend the millions necessary just to turn the lights back on, so I will bide my time knowing full well that a 500 seat abandoned theater is not the highest and best use of this land and that a proposal to redevelop it into mixed-use housing will materialize sooner rather than later. I also look forward with great interest on what the nation search for development plans produces as I am sure any reasonable plan will do away with most of the grass on the site.

[ljbab728]

I also look forward with great interest on what the nation search for development plans produces as I am sure any reasonable plan will do away with most of the grass on the site.

I'm not quite sure what you're expecting from the national search, Kerry. The search is for a way to use an existing refurbished building not to redevelop the entire property. If some good ideas came about for the unused land, that's great. It's not the focus for the search, however.

[Just the facts]

I'm not quite sure what you're expecting from the national search, Kerry. The search is for a way to use an existing refurbished building not to redevelop the entire property. If some good ideas came about for the unused land, that's great. It's not the focus for the search, however.

Since the proposal has not been issued yet I don't know what they are asking for. My understanding is that they are simply looking for a way to save Stage Center. The obvious way to do that would be to expand it. If expansion is not the idea then how many possible solutions are there? Do you think they are going to get 20 proposals that say to rehab exactly what is there now? If they do, then what a waste of effort. Heck, let me save some architecture firm a few hundred thousand dollars and propose the following: Don't add or remove anything - just fix it back like it was.

[Double Edge]

Since the proposal has not been issued yet I don't know what they are asking for. My understanding is that they are simply looking for a way to save Stage Center. The obvious way to do that would be to expand it. If expansion is not the idea then how many possible solutions are there? Do you think they are going to get 20 proposals that say to rehab exactly what is there now? If they do, then what a waste of effort. Heck, let me save some architecture firm a few hundred thousand dollars and propose the following: Don't add or remove anything - just fix it back like it was.

The proposal has to include long term plans for the facility. Just fixing it back is not going to cut it unless maybe someone wants to fund an endowment or present a viable business plan for operating and maintenance going forward. I don't expect there to be any plan presented that does both of those, substantially saves the place and provides for the future. Appears none of the local downtown businesses can figure out how to use it for business meetings and want to pour money into it, just because, or we wouldn't be making a national call for proposals. Perhaps there is a wealthy building hugger from out of state who would like to save it, just because, but I'm not holding my breath. I don't think this proposal is to consider a complete remake that does not substantially save the present architecture.

From the article cited up thread:

The foundation agreement to create a request for proposals has conditions attached — any bids for the property must include proof of financial ability to fix and renovate the theater and solid evidence of a long-term viable user.

Read more: http://newsok.com/developers-to-be-s...#ixzz1XqRualu5

[Just the facts]

That is what I am saying DE - any plan that provides for future viability is going to have to expand the facility. If viability was possible with the current structure/configuration we wouldn't be having this discussion.

[kevinpate]

Short of discovering someone of true wealth who
(a) really likes SC as a giant art piece and
(b) would repair it and
(c) would endow its ongoing operational expenses
so folk like ACM students and other area performance artists have an accessible venue, I sadly expect something very different to be standing there well before my granddaughter's sweet sixteen rolls up in 2023.

[Double Edge]

Short of discovering someone of true wealth who
(a) really likes SC as a giant art piece and
(b) would repair it and
(c) would endow its ongoing operational expenses
so folk like ACM students and other area performance artists have an accessible venue, I sadly expect something very different to be standing there well before my granddaughter's sweet sixteen rolls up in 2023.

Exactly. I think it's more likely that would happen than some entity who did not put up an endowment or have that kind of funding and who would require more infrastructure to make it into a self supporting business or organization. But maybe that's just me.

[Spartan]

Short of discovering someone of true wealth who
(a) really likes SC as a giant art piece and
(b) would repair it and
(c) would endow its ongoing operational expenses
so folk like ACM students and other area performance artists have an accessible venue, I sadly expect something very different to be standing there well before my granddaughter's sweet sixteen rolls up in 2023.

It would make an awesome venue for the ACM students.

[Rover]

It would make an awesome venue for the ACM students.

Oh good, now we won't be able to get a drink on that side of downtown either.

[Questor]

Getting rid of Stage Center would certainly be the most risk-adverse decision the city could make, so that is probably the one that will ultimately be made. Unfortunately you just can't become a world-class city without taking risks. Sure you can be a city that is growing and has some nice amenities for its residents, but not really world class. That takes risk-taking. And unfortunately our culture here just doesn't support that as of late. The original MAPS was big and pushed our boundaries here in ways previously thought unimaginable and look at all it has done for us. The most recent MAPS, honestly, not that risky. Maybe politically risky yes, but look at what we are paying for and it is all pretty much standard by the book stuff. By the book gets you functional and perhaps well-utilized things, but it doesn't necessarily create something with a lot of 'wow' factor that attracts people to it simply for what it is. When I see Stage Center rotting I just can't help but think the same thing. Yes I hear that it is expensive to maintain, and perhaps not as functional as it needs to be, but it is one of those truly unique commodities that our city has and really no one is giving it a second thought. Yes we have proven that it probably can't work as a theater... so is that it? Are we not going to try anything else with it? Yep not a theater bulldoze it? To me that is incredibly short-sighted. But it's the safe move. It's an incredibly safe move.....

[dankrutka]

How were the projects in the original MAPs riskier than the projects in MAPs 3?

MAPs: a baseball stadium, standard arena, canal, library
MAPs 3: a convention center, street car, park, white water rafting

I guess I don't see how the projects in the original MAPs were super risky? They seem about as predictable (I"m not saying that's bad) as can be. Please explain.

[kevinpate]

Oh good, now we won't be able to get a drink on that side of downtown either.

the new nearby grade school would share at least equal responsibility if that's a concern for someone. I suspect it won't be an issue in the long term.

[Rover]

the new nearby grade school would share at least equal responsibility if that's a concern for someone. I suspect it won't be an issue in the long term.

I know...I was just trying to lighten the discussion. (Smiling)

[Rover]

Just curious...how many of you on this board, if you had $20,000,000, would buy and operate the Stage Center? Do you believe there is a business model you could make work? Or, if you couldn't, would you be willing to lose the money in an effort to benefit the artistic or cultural desires of the city? Do you do this on a more modest scale now (at a level commensurate with your wealth)?

[Spartan]

Oh good, now we won't be able to get a drink on that side of downtown either.

Touche indeed.

[foodiefan]

Just curious...how many of you on this board, if you had $20,000,000, would buy and operate the Stage Center? Do you believe there is a business model you could make work? Or, if you couldn't, would you be willing to lose the money in an effort to benefit the artistic or cultural desires of the city? Do you do this on a more modest scale now (at a level commensurate with your wealth)?

Far, FAR above my pocket book and probably won't ever happen, but if it could be "fixed", it would make a great little combo art galley and performance/theater venue. Other than the OKCMOA, I can't think of any small galleries on that side of town.

[Larry OKC]

I think it would be an awesome house...no need for it to be a revenue generating thing...thats why I suggested someone with eclectic taste that has money could buy it, move it and repurpose it. of course it would probably be cheaper just to have a duplicate made.

[Questor]

How were the projects in the original MAPs riskier than the projects in MAPs 3?

The Bricktown Canal was risky. There's an old saying about water fountains, water art, canals, etc. being giant albatrosses for the cities they inhabit due to their constant cost. No one could really say whether or not in the end it would really add value to the city. There were very powerful folks in our town that opposed it. When you think of city improvements I agree that the items you mentioned, such as the new library, are pretty standard fare, but I would remind you of former mayor Ron Norrick's comments about how they bundled the riskier items, such as the canal, with the more straight-forward items such as the library because the least risky items had so much more public support behind them. OKC Arena was risky. We were building the thing under the premise that we would go after a pro team one day, and that we were building something of high-enough quality that it could be easily modified to meet NBA standards... and we were doing all of this on a very strict budget. $23 million I think, if I'm remembering correctly? In terms of pro sports arenas that is dirt cheap. There was a lot of concern that the whole thing was a pipe dream... that at the end of the day an arena like what we wanted couldn't be built for the price tag and so the fear was in the end we'd end up with an expensive (but not expensive enough) piece of junk that couldn't fulfill its intended purpose, or we'd end up having to double the price tag in the end to actually make it functional. But somehow the city managed to pull it off. You can't tell me that wasn't a big gamble.

When I think about MAPS 3, I don't really see anything that controversial. Yes, the new MAPS includes mass transit, which maybe in OK standards is a really 'out there' thought, but I mean come on. Mass transit is such a basic thing, and trying to sell it in a city that consistently ranks as the #1 city in America most in need of a transit overhaul is not a risk, it's about as close to a sure thing as you can get. Deciding to put a new conversion center where the council is talking about it may be risky, but that's a feature of our own ridiculous government's decision, not a risk associated with just having a convention center upgrade... again pretty standard fare. Anyway just my thinking. It is great that our city tries to be good stewards of our money, but sometimes you have to take risks to win it big. I guess I just sort of feel this same way about Stage Center.

Just curious...how many of you on this board, if you had $20,000,000, would buy and operate the Stage Center? Do you believe there is a business model you could make work? Or, if you couldn't, would you be willing to lose the money in an effort to benefit the artistic or cultural desires of the city? Do you do this on a more modest scale now (at a level commensurate with your wealth)?

Questions this hypothetical are generally pointless. Why $20 million? What kind of incentives would be provided? Would tax breaks be given? There are so many details it is impossible to say for sure. In general I think that when so much of business is location location location and you and everyone else on the board has already said that this is an absolutely fantastic location I have to believe that there's a way to utilize the space and turn a profit. Allow me to pull an equally hypothetical scenario out of my butt. Say it would indeed cost $20 million to completely and fully restore the location as well as remodel the interior into whatever form of business I desire. Let's say I own a software company that employs 100 people and we make $250 million a year. Let's also pull out of thin air the thought that I reach an agreement with the city to split the costs in this manner: I pay for 25% of the remodel, or $5 million. The city pays for $15 million. They do this because they agree the location is a cultural icon and they want to protect it to some degree. I do this because I am looking for a location for my business and I think that, as a provider of business software, being across the street from one of the largest businesses in OKC is a great place to be. I also realize that the square footage is more than enough for the cube farms my employees will live in, and I like the avant garde surroundings that remind my employees and customers of the creative and out of the box nature of the company. It's a good deal for me because $5 million is a bargain compared to some of the locations I have been considering building. It's a good deal for the city because as a result of the restoration agreement I sign a multi-year lease, let's say 20, that will over the course of its life pay off the initial investment of the city and more. Maybe they sweeten the deal for me by providing tax incentives, and I sweeten it back for them by promising to hire 20 more taxpayers within 5 years. It's a win win for everybody. Sound far-fetched? I know for a fact that companies do this sort of thing all the time because mine recently did. Just look at the last few new build-outs that Price Edwards has done for major corporations in the metro... they are leases. You are thinking about this thing in way too narrow of terms. In business there is always a way to make money. If you can't then you aren't good enough at it.

[Larry OKC]

...but I would remind you of former mayor Ron Norrick's comments about how they bundled the riskier items, such as the canal, with the more straight-forward items such as the library because the least risky items had so much more public support behind them.

Which we have found out is logrolling and illegal (against the state constitution). Yet they keep on doing it after repeated assurances they would adhere to the law. Why? The Mayor said it was what the voters were used to.

...OKC Arena was risky. We were building the thing under the premise that we would go after a pro team one day, and that we were building something of high-enough quality that it could be easily modified to meet NBA standards...

It was built to meet NBA/NHL standards. The ballot even said so. Since there was no tenant, it was the City's stated position that they expected the tenant to pay for any upgrades they might want. At the time we were "going for" an NHL expansion team and while we made the list of finalists, lost out in the end. The Arena was built anyway when that fell thru and the 6 month extension was passed to "finish MAPS right". But yes, it was risky.

...and we were doing all of this on a very strict budget. $23 million I think, if I'm remembering correctly? In terms of pro sports arenas that is dirt cheap. ...

Not quite that cheap. Voters were told it would be $78.9MM, ended up costing $87.7MM ($8.8MM over, even after cutting a list of 22 amenities which were estimated to send the cost to around $93MM). There was an article that said that even the final cost it was built for was middle of the pack for comparable arenas. Which goes against any contention that it was built "bare bones".

There was a lot of concern that the whole thing was a pipe dream... that at the end of the day an arena like what we wanted couldn't be built for the price tag and so the fear was in the end we'd end up with an expensive (but not expensive enough) piece of junk that couldn't fulfill its intended purpose, or we'd end up having to double the price tag in the end to actually make it functional. But somehow the city managed to pull it off. You can't tell me that wasn't a big gamble.

And that is exactly what ended up happening. We had the Ford/NBA tax that cost more than the original price tag. Final cost of the Arena, a little more than double what voters were originally told.

... When I think about MAPS 3, I don't really see anything that controversial. ...

I would say there are three controversial ones in MAPS 3:

1. Convention Center: never achieved popular support by the public and arguably almost pulled the rest of MAPS 3 down with it. The scientific polling indicated that. Even the internal polling of the Chamber indicated that. The only person that claims he saw polling that supported it is the Mayor and to date hasn't revealed the poll he saw. he claims that they didn't include any project in MAPS 3 that didn't have at least 50% approval polling.

2. The Whitewater Kayaking facility: it was NOT one of the suggested ideas in the City's MAPS 3 internet survey (which was used as justification to proceed with MAPS 3)

The next one I include reluctantly...
3. Streetcars: although Transit did receive the highest number of suggestions in the Survey by a huge margin over any other suggestion, the City never revealed how that one component ranked. It was lumped together on the results page as "Transit (light rail, streetcars, etc.)" Several articles before MAPS 3 was unveiled indicated that the Transit to be included in MAPS 3 would be the comprehensive, all inclusive the Mayor often mentioned (Bus, Light Rail, Commuter Rail, Streetcars). We got 1 out of 4.

[betts]

Would any of us go back and get rid of the MAPS project we've built at over-budget prices? Not me. Again, I waste more money a month on stuff I don't need, food I shouldn't even be eating, expensive coffee, etc, than I pay for MAPS taxes. Regardless of what we spent, I'm delighted to have them and I don't miss the money. I suspect I'll feel the same way about the new MAPS projects, although I'm not sure there will be as much over-budget leeway in this group of projects as there was in the first. Certainly in committee we've not getting any wink-winks about the budget.

[Rover]

It is popular culture right now to look at costs as waste vs. costs as investments. No amount of logic will overcome the simplified reasoning of those who look at such things as dogma and black and white. It is easy to say don't spend money. Not spending money may help survival, but lack of capital spending, whether public or private, will kill growth and progress. No company ever saves itself into growth. No company progresses without some amount of risk exposure, leverage, and capital investments. Whatever the politics and positioning of the uber conservatives and their view of Maps, OKC has enjoyed unprecedented growth in tangible terms and in prestige because of progressive efforts represented by Maps. Maps has become a blueprint for many, many cities as they try to emulate the type and substance of growth we have enjoyed. Yet here, despite enjoying BILLIONS of dollars of spurred growth, there are those who are still upset over $10-20 million in costs. They can't differentiate the difference between true corruption and the effects of risk. And, they are naive to think that all this would have happened if our leaders would have UNDERsold the projects to begin with. Who would have voted for the original Maps with the city saying "we want to tax you to build a sub-standard but big arena". Instead, they imagined what we could be with a new facility and provided leadership to help the city achieve what we have now. Sometimes you have to look at the big picture instead of being anal retentive about the small issues. Again...nothing justifies any corruption. But small mindedness can be just as restrictive to a city's health.

[bluedogok]

Not quite that cheap. Voters were told it would be $78.9MM, ended up costing $87.7MM ($8.8MM over, even after cutting a list of 22 amenities which were estimated to send the cost to around $93MM). There was an article that said that even the final cost it was built for was middle of the pack for comparable arenas. Which goes against any contention that it was built "bare bones".

Those articles would have been dead wrong because pretty much every NBA/NHL level arena built in the few years before and after were twice as much if not more. One thread on here where we discussed the costs I posted up what the other arenas built around the same time cost.

Here are all the US arenas in the NBA/NHL, the year opened (or renovated) and the cost.

1968
Madison Square Garden - NYC: $123 million

1972
Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum - Long Island, NY: $31 million

1979
Joe Louis Arena - Detroit: $57 million

1988
Bradley Center - Milwaukee: $90 million
The Palace of Auburn Hills - Detroit: $70 million
Power Balance Pavilion - Sacramento: $40 million

1990
Target Center - Minneapolis: $104 million

1991
Energy Solutions Arena - Salt Lake City: Opened 1991, $94 million

1992
US Airways Center - Phoenix: $90 million

1993
Honda Center - Anaheim: $123 million
HP Pavilion - San Jose: $162.5 million

1994
Qucken Loans Arena - Cleveland: $152 million
United Center - Chicago: $175 million
Scottrade Center - St. Louis: $170 million

1995
Rose Garden Arena - Portland: $262 million
TD Garden - Boston: $160 million

1996
Wells Fargo Center - Philadelphia: $210 million
Bridgestone Arena - Nashville: $144 million
First Niagara Center - Buffalo: $127.5 million
St. Pete Times Forum - Tampa: $139 million

1997
Verizon Center - Washington DC: $260 million
Oracle Arena Oakland: Opened 1966, Renovated 1997, $121 million (renovation)

1998
Bank Atlantic Center - Miami: $212 million

1999
American Airlines Arena - Miami: $213 million
Pepsi Center - Denver: $160 million
Conseco Fieldhouse - Indianapolis: $183 million
New Orleans Arena - New Orleans: $114 million
Philips Arena - Atlanta: $213.5 million
Staples Center - Los Angeles: $375 million
RBC Center - Raliegh, NC: $158 million

2000
Nationwide Arena - Columbus: $175 million
Xcel Energy Center - St. Paul: $130 million

2001
American Airlines Center - Dallas: $420 million

2002
AT&T Center - San Antonio: Opened 2002, $186 million
Ford Center - OKC: $89 million

2003
Toyota Center - Houston: $202 million
Jobbing.com Arena - Phoenix: $180 million

2004
FedEx Forum - Memphis: $250 million

2005
Time Warner Cable Arena - Charlotte: $265 million

2007
Prudential Center - Newark: $375 million

2008
Consol Energy Center - Pittsburgh: $290 million

2010
Amway Center - Orlando: $380 million

Reference:
Ballparks.com - Basketball
Ballparks.com - Hockey

As you can see, the only arenas in the same price range were built ten years prior or before. Even the one built the same year was double and it is not in Downtown San Antonio. The Ford Center was always designed/built as a budget arena because the thinking was that if it would have been finished out comparable to its contemporaries MAPS I would never have been passed.

[Larry OKC]

Those articles would have been dead wrong because pretty much every NBA/NHL level arena built in the few years before and after were twice as much if not more. One thread on here where we discussed the costs I posted up what the other arenas built around the same time cost....

Here is the article, this wasn't an editorial or the reporters contention but it was from the folks that built it and presumably would know... http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m.../ai_n10077613/

Benham Selected for MAPS Sports Arena (Journal Record, 3/22/95)

The Benham Group's plans for cost-effective design and its partnership with a national designer of sports arenas made the Oklahoma City firm the top choice as architect of the MAPS indoor sports arena, said Larry Roach, a principal in the firm.
...
The 20,000-seat MAPS arena also must be designed to standards of the National Basketball Association and National Hockey League, from which the city hopes to lure a franchise.

Roach said he does not believe arena seating must be scaled down to fit the $81 million budget. That price is in the middle range of similar arenas that have been built between $37.3 million and $175.1 million.

Roach said cost-cutting measures must be sought in the early part of design. "It is all too easy with a project of this scope and magnitude to push the envelope."

Do you think it is OK then to mislead the voters into thinking they are getting the Arena that is on the same level as the others you mentioned? You are partially correct with your last statement, due to the cost over runs, they stated that the finishing out costs of the Arena (any improvements the eventual tenant might want) would be paid for by that tenant).

Rover: So you are saying it is ok for them to say whatever they need to in order to get the vote to pass? No matter what deception, spin, half-truths, and in some cases out right lies may be involved? Don't you understand that each time they do it, not only are they putting the very project they are trying to get passed, but future projects as they are put before the voters?

Oh, by the way, we are not talking about $10 or $20 million. Try more like $114 million for MAPS collectively (plus the $100 million in the Ford/NBA tax, to actually make the Arena what they said it was all along...even when the Hornets were here).

Betts: Only the individual propositions, where individual projects or "like-kind" projects (Roads, Parks etc) that get voter approval should be built. That is the legal way of doing it. We do it with bond issues all the time. Sometimes propositions pass sometimes they don't. If MAPS 3 had been presented to the voters the legal way they said they were going to do it, the Convention Center would have failed and the concern that yourself and other sub-committee members have expressed that their maneuvering could endanger your own project wouldn't even be an issue.

I don't know which of the original MAPS projects would have failed if they had been presented as separate propositions. And I don't know anyone is suggesting that we should go back and erase any of those projects. Well, maybe the Trolleys since that ended up being a failure. The question remains, do you keep repeating the mistakes and illegalities of the past? Or do you make corrections the next time around? They said they were going to make those corrections this time and then flat-out didn't.