Convention Center

[betts]

I'm fine with a new convention center, but I think we need to be realistic and understand that we may not see an upswing in business with a new building. I think it needs to be seen as a replacement. That being said, I think it needs to be in a location where we don't need a stunning work of art worthy of facing the Devon Tower and satisfying Larry Nichols aesthetics. We need a serviceable building in a reasonable location that doesn't cost a fortune. Just my opinion.

I also think its possible convention business will stay slow for reasons broader than the economy.

[Just the facts]

I'm fine with a new convention center, but I think we need to be realistic and understand that we may not see an upswing in business with a new building. I think it needs to be seen as a replacement. That being said, I think it needs to be in a location where we don't need a stunning work of art worthy of facing the Devon Tower and satisfying Larry Nichols aesthetics. We need a serviceable building in a reasonable location that doesn't cost a fortune. Just my opinion.

I also think its possible convention business will stay slow for reasons broader than the economy.

This^.

[CaptDave]

Everyone that voted YES for MAPS 3 years ago next month KNEW that a Convention Center was the centerpiece of this whole project.
To remove this measure is essentially a slap in the face to the voters.
That's why people like Ed Shadid need to respect what has already passed and get involved heavily "If" or "When" a future MAPS vote comes up.

I know a Convention Center is not a "sexy" public works project, but I understand the need for a new one.
This is just one of those things we will be happy we did it when we look back on it.. Like everything else associated with MAPS we did

I think if you took an objective poll of MAPS3 voters you would find the vast majority who voted for MAPS3 held their collective noses to do so because of the CC and Fairgrounds projects for no other reason than to get the projects that are most desired - streetcar, trails, sidewalks, park, and river.

I am not opposed to a new CC - I agree the Cox is not very good - but I do think the site selected is a poor choice and I think we are planning to build a much larger facility than is needed. I think Mayor Cornett had the site right and would fit in best with current and future development. There was a very well done concept by BG918 that would have been appropriate for a city like OKC and the convention business we can realistically anticipate. I would much rather invest in a very nicely appointed CC of reasonable size rather than something that will eventually be loathed by the vast majority of MAPS voters.

[Spartan]

To address a couple of points.

Convention business is not dying. It has experienced a slow down like EVERY thing else associated with the economy, and it will make a comeback.
We have NO idea what the economy is going to be like in 7 years. Why not be well prepared in case it does rebound?
OKC has been praised by forging ahead through the recession while other cities are being stagnant. This area is no exception.

Everyone that voted YES for MAPS 3 years ago next month KNEW that a Convention Center was the centerpiece of this whole project.
To remove this measure is essentially a slap in the face to the voters.
That's why people like Ed Shadid need to respect what has already passed and get involved heavily "If" or "When" a future MAPS vote comes up.

I know a Convention Center is not a "sexy" public works project, but I understand the need for a new one.
This is just one of those things we will be happy we did it when we look back on it.. Like everything else associated with MAPS we did

You're wrong because we didn't get to pick the MAPS that we wanted. We got to vote for the MAPS that we were offered by the Chamber junta, which was a "compromise" that got them a new convention center in exchange for us getting a little bit of money for other things.

I also agree that a convention center is not a "sexy" public works project, so therefor, we shouldn't be so hellbent on trying to make it one. You realize, right, that they have eaten up the most prime site for downtown development because it is the best site for a convention center?

It's one thing to not respect the "will of the voters," however I see two sets of data that are relevant here: the first being the voter data that showed even people who voted YES for transit did NOT want the convention center, and the second set of data being a secret CC study that will never be released for public consumption. Nobody is saying NOT to spend $250-280 million on something for the business community. However, I think we could allocate those resources a lot more smartly.

The people pushing this CC project have demonstrated beyond doubt that they can not be trusted with the public check book, are not interested in reevaluating old ideas and looking into current trends, and are NOT to be trusted on a public board. Essentially the entire MAPS3 Convention Center Subcommittee needs to be canned because by keeping them, we can be certain that this centerpiece project will be a failure. We don't need a new convention center anymore than we need a new Piggly Wiggly, laundromat, internet cafe, Dodson's Cafeteria, or other business models that went the way of the Dodo.

[Pete]

What makes taking that primo site even more unappealing is the timing of all this...

We already know there are several entities looking to build private developments downtown, so there is current and real demand. So, we're going to choose this time to commandere possibly the best real estate in all of OKC and forgo potentially massive private investment?? And PAY hundreds of millions to do this?


I've made this point several times: The consultants were charged with finding the best location for a convention center, not what was best for OKC overall. If a study was commissioned for the best office, residential, retail or hotel site they would all chose that one as well.

[Spartan]

Truth. It turns out a discombobulated downtown, that never lives up to its potential for vibrant mixed-use development, would be better for the convention center (all they want is to make downtown the place to meet and sleep, and then take a taxi out to the airport). So that's exactly what they're going to create, and it's just a perk that they can lay waste to downtown in the process.

There wasn't a single urban planner involved in this process (just as there wasn't in the MAPS3 central park design process). The only way in which they analyzed the CC's impact was addressing the concerns of Bricktown property owners, but because there were not already Chamber junta "stakeholders" who could speak for downtown planning on the whole (and how one block relates to or impedes on other blocks, etc), that was not a concern that required attention AT ALL.

[RodH]

All of these arguments against the convention center remind me of the arguments made against the first MAPS projects, particularly the sports arena. "We already have an arena that is good enough." "It cost too much." "It is the most expensive project." "It is in the wrong place." "OKC will never get a pro team because..." I think that we need a new modern convention center because of the image that a crappy, outdated, convention center will provide to visitors. I have no expectation that it will greatly increase the number of conventions we get but I would like for it to be on par with the rest of the improvements to the community because it will be the first impression that many visitors will have.

[Spartan]

All of these arguments against the convention center remind me of the arguments made against the first MAPS projects, particularly the sports arena. "We already have an arena that is good enough." "It cost too much." "It is the most expensive project." "It is in the wrong place." "OKC will never get a pro team because..." I think that we need a new modern convention center because of the image that a crappy, outdated, convention center will provide to visitors. I have no expectation that it will greatly increase the number of conventions we get but I would like for it to be on par with the rest of the improvements to the community because it will be the first impression that many visitors will have.

I'm sorry, but anyone who is arguing FOR the convention center has to take responsibility for the planning implications of this project. You can't argue FOR it without addressing the reality that this will lay waste to a site that once already got hot for development. Talk about visitors and first impressions all you want... why not just spend $250 million on a massive Statue of Liberty out by the airport, and let mixed-use development still go forward on this site?

The Ford Center probably was a bad idea, and it was a stroke of luck that we got the Hornets and then the Thunder. That said, that was only an $89 million bad idea (1/3rd the cost of the CC), and we really needed a downtown arena which was considered a major success even before the NBA. There were NO downtown advocates who argued against that project, and I just tend to think when you're doing a downtown project, best ask the people who know about downtown what they think of it.

[Spartan]

I just read Lackmeyer's latest article on this and my eyeballs popped out.

“There is relatively little in terms of development going on right now,” Kaatz said. “So supply is being dampened. … There will be winners and losers; there always are.”

Plans move ahead for convention center, hotel despite collapse in national market | NewsOK.com

That is patently false, but not surprising for a firm that balances its checkbooks by selling a lie to every city it is hired by (essentially telling them what the Chamber juntas in every city wants to hear). CSL is attempting to mitigate the embarrassment of every single study they've ever done falling way short of projections by saying, well, it will get better in the future because no other city is expanding like they were 5 years ago. That is a downright lie because I work a short 5-block walk away from a massive construction site for the new $465 million Cleveland Medical Mart/Convention Center that will open in a year. Nashville is building a new $1 billion convention center I think, and who knows how many more countless cities there actually are if Oklahoma City is stupid enough to be trying this. And the dust hasn't even settled yet on the DOZENS of massive billion-dollar convention palaces built in the last 5 years. Now to mention all of those cities are now desperate just to get something, anything out of their gleaming new CCs after flushing upwards of a billion dollars down the drain. What a disgusting, crooked, bold-faced lie.

The sad reality is that OKC has gotten in bed with CSL, which may be a convention center conspiracy for all I know. Because if they're not a conspiracy or a CC racket, the only other option that leaves is that they are truly the worst consulting group in the history of consulting groups. Usually, when you hire a consultant, all you should care about is their track record. I dunnooo, I say go with the group that's 0 'fer 200, at least it will be interesting!

But what I do know is that this is essentially the same as finding a beautiful woman who will go to bed with you and tell you exactly what you want to hear, including that there are no other men. Then this lovely CSL group goes to dozens of other cities and tells them the exact same thing, that there are no other men, erm I mean cities. And then when you bust the broad for cheating on you with 50 other men, after a year you come back to her because she told you that this time it's different and there are currently no other men because she was exposed and her stock plummeted. But you still know for a fact of a few other men right now just off the top of your head, and our CITY COUNCIL STILL DOES NOT CARE. They can't wait to get in bed with these CSL consultants again and again and again. And shame on them for being so stupid and moronic.

[Midtowner]

Everyone that voted YES for MAPS 3 years ago next month KNEW that a Convention Center was the centerpiece of this whole project.
To remove this measure is essentially a slap in the face to the voters.
That's why people like Ed Shadid need to respect what has already passed and get involved heavily "If" or "When" a future MAPS vote comes up.

You might recall the Gazette poll which was run around the time of the election, the convention center was far and away the least popular project. The language of the ballot certainly doesn't bind OKC Alliance (who I imagine is running the show here) to do some, all or any of the projects.

If Alliance is considering dropping the trails project or the senior aquatics centers, the Convention Center, which by the numbers, is a questionable bet ought to be looked at as well.

I don't have to tell you that I was a big supporter of MAPS 3, even did a little bit of campaigning for it. If Nichols, etc., want the city to trust in their benevolent leadership, now is an opportunity for them to prove that they're in this for all of us. OKC does need a convention center, but considering the risk/reward of bringing us up to Tier 2, we should consider our options.

If I were to be able to recommend that the city secure a site large enough for a world-class convention center, then build something which will fit our needs right now which can be added on to later if the need arises, I think that's a win-win. It was a good plan when we did that with the CHK arena.

[BDP]

It was a good plan when we did that with the CHK arena.

That's a great point. The arena is a like a blue print on how to do this stuff. And, really, at the time, the arena didn't come at a possibly huge opportunity cost. There is demand that didn't exist when the arena site was selected.

Just put the thing in lower bricktown and people won't even care what it looks like. ; )

[Spartan]

I think a lot of our bickering would go away if we either redid the Cox and replaced the arena with more convention space, OR moved this over to the Coca Cola Events Center parking lot and either scaled it down a notch or planned this differently, to serve a specific niche that OKC is showing promise in. I actually think the Cleveland Medical Mart will be a huge success because it's geared toward hosting healthcare conventions, which have only dropped slightly compared to double-digit drops for every other sector, and because Cleveland is doing a lot of awesome things in healthcare with the Cleveland Clinic, the Health Tech Corridor, and several top-notch medical schools.



In that way Cleveland has made their convention center function as a part of their bigger picture. Similarly, Detroit's convention center has always had a tie to the auto industry there (and its exhibitions, like the Detroit Auto Show). OKC should look at THAT and not just the vague fuzzy idea of building a convention center for the sake of it. What is OKC poised to be successful in, economically (besides government)? I'd say energy, aerospace, or healthcare. Energy and aerospace may have similar exhibition/meeting needs. How would an "Energy Mart" work similarly to "Medical Marts" being build in Cleveland, Nashville, etc.?

[kevinpate]

Bottom line appears to be that the folks presently in control of going forward or taking a step back are only listening to folks who already think exactly the same way the decision makers think.

While that strength of conviction can at times be a good thing, believing only one's own hype, and being constantly encouraged to do so by a bunch of self interested yes men, can create a blindness to the reality which surrounds the decision makers.

It's sad that such folks don't live more like Wayne. It's one thing to hang out in a bubble a bit here, a bit there, just for fun. It's another thing to crawl in and let folks paint it an opaque rose color so you can't see what is really going on around you.

Not my city, but it seems that if folks see how bad a CC at that location is, and how unnecessary a fancy cc appears to be in general, it ought to be time to already be seeking to change out the decision makers on the horseshoe so things can be evaluated anew.

[Spartan]

I agree completely. Most people who vote in council elections just check the incumbent box without much thought into the matter. But we need a complete generational change in this city.

Folks like Gary Marrs who are visibly perturbed by change can not be counted on to lead a city of 600,000 people into the future when it's already 2012. More and more, I don't think you can rely on folks like Pat Ryan or Larry McAtee who are merely ambivalent toward change.

As for Jim Couch, the verdict has been in on his leadership for a LONG time. The casual bystanders and political establishment love him. Anyone who is watching more closely, however, has been screaming for him to retire for the last 2-3 years.

[Rover]

I still think that some of you don't understand niche marketing and how a "market" isn't just made up of one segment. Following is another recent perspective from a similar sized city. OKC doesn't need to compete for the mega groups to be very successful. But, it needs a modern place to hold both local, regional and some niche national meetings. And, the more we have successful public companies, large spaces for stockholders meetings, etc. might be important. The Cox is WAY outdated. If we do this, we can be successful doing something appropriate and not overreach.

As for the location, that's another story.

Small groups fill important hole at convention center; help bolster Sacramento region's economy - Sacramento Business Journal

Small groups fill a big hole at convention center
Sacramento Business Journal by Mark Anderson, Staff Writer
Date: Tuesday, October 30, 2012, 7:05am PDT
Enlarge Image

Dennis McCoy | Sacramento Business Journal
Downtown Sacramento should be busy this week as a lot of small groups are in town at the Sacramento Convention Center. This week is an example of what drove the Sacramento Convention & Visitors Bureau past its budget last fiscal year — lots of small pieces of business. It also means a boost to the region's economy that it wouldn't get otherwise.

Mark Anderson
Staff Writer- Sacramento Business Journal

Downtown Sacramento should be busy this week as a lot of small groups are in town at the Sacramento Convention Center.
This week is an example of what drove the Sacramento Convention & Visitors Bureau past its budget last fiscal year — lots of small pieces of business.
Six conventions are meeting in town this week, which between them represent 1,640 delegates and more than 2,442 hotel room nights booked.
All those small pieces of business generated nearly as much as the 2,626 hotel room nights generated by the National Congress of American Indians, which had 3,000 Native Americans in attendance last week.

Bookings are important to the region because the annual economic impact from those conventioneers is estimated by the bureau at $223 million, a figure which represents travel spending, hotels, dining and entertainment.

The largest group in town this week is the California-Hawaii Elks Association, with 176 lodges in California, Hawaii, Guam and the Philippines.
For many years, the Convention Bureau competed for the largest conventions that could fit in the Sacramento Convention Center, which can hold up to several thousand people.
But in its last fiscal year, the bureau looked for small conventions as well as large, some with hundreds of attendees and some with fewer than 20. That strategy brought in more overall bookings and also brought many groups new to Sacramento.

Mark Anderson covers technology, banking, finance, restaurants and tourism for the Sacramento Business Journal.

Related links: Sacramento, Business Travel, Leisure

[Spartan]

Rover, this is the Sacramento Convention Center:


If "incomparable" is the ironic adjective that we're using to describe the Myriad, Sacramento's CC is even incomparable-r..

I'll refer to Kerry's argument, that all it takes is to be better than Tulsa and we're in good shape to keep the annual Oklahoma Homebuilder's Association Convention.

[Just the facts]

That Sac Bee story indicates that OKC is wasting money building a larger convention center. I'm not saying don't build a new one but I am saying it doesn't have to be bigger than the current Cox. I wish they would have expounded on the 'big hole' in their headline. What does that mean?

Small groups fill a big hole at convention center

[kevinpate]

As for the location, that's another story

Again, not my city, but if it were, I'd maintain it is not another story, it is in fact the story. Whether OKC ends up with a fancy fancy cc, or a somewhat plain jane cc is completely secondary to where the cc will go. The existing location between MBG and the new park is just such a horrid choice in light of what that space could become, and in light of what is likely to be be erected around that space to the west.

Again, not my city. But it is a city I enjoy visiting, and the thought of seeing a cc end up between MBG and the new park just makes me very sad. So much potential case aside.

[Cocaine]

So what happens when Tulsa builds a new convention center.

[Plutonic Panda]

Is there any chance at all a new site could be chosen?

[Just the facts]

So what happens when Tulsa builds a new convention center.

They will still host the Tulsa Mayor's Round Table? Or are you thinking Devon is going to hold their stock holder meeting in Tulsa out of spite?

[BG918]

So what happens when Tulsa builds a new convention center.

They recently expanded and renovated the existing convention center. If necessary in the future they have a plan to build a new parking garage to the west and expand where the current garage is located. There is also a 200 room Aloft opening next month next to the convention center.

[Spartan]

So what happens when Tulsa builds a new convention center.

I'm not worried about a dying city out-competing us for conventions lol..

Joking aside, I really don't think Tulsa is in a position to be as aggressive as we are with economic development. That said, we need to be choosier. I just hope we don't have to waste $250 million just to figure out that convention centers don't yield as strong of a return as many other things that we ARE doing and could invest more in.

[Spartan]

Is there any chance at all a new site could be chosen?

We've been trying hard. I am willing to bet there will be one more last-ditch effort that will be more formidable and legitimate than any other effort against the CC, and Ed Shadid will probably have a lot to do with it. That said, if he doesn't take the issue on, I just don't see anyone else being a strong leader on the issue.

[Rover]

Rover, this is the Sacramento Convention Center:


If "incomparable" is the ironic adjective that we're using to describe the Myriad, Sacramento's CC is even incomparable-r..

I'll refer to Kerry's argument, that all it takes is to be better than Tulsa and we're in good shape to keep the annual Oklahoma Homebuilder's Association Convention.

Im not sure what you are saying. It is over twice the size of exhibition hall of the Cox and 40 years newer. No one thinks OKC is doing to replace Vegas or Orlando. We just need a smartly designed, appropriately sized cc. Something fitting and appropriate for an emerging city of our size and for who we hope to be for the next couple of decades. The point of posting the article about Sacramentos was that they get over a million visitors a year using there's. They do it with smart marketing of targeted niche conventions.

The focus should be on location and smart design.