Convention Center

[Spartan]

What are you talking about Rover? There's is just as old. There's a historic auditorium on the site that was finished around 2000, but the CC is much older and more brutalist. It has 134,000 sf of exhibition space. Ours is 100,000 sf of exhibition space.

And are you sure that nobody wants to knock off Orlando and Vegas? Otherwise, I don't understand why we're pumping more than DOUBLE what any other MAPS3 project gets into this CC folly. Also, I'm pretty sure we already draw about that many visitors a year. This article couldn't be more random from you, Rover.

But I agree that the emphasis should be on location (i.e., picking another location) and smart design. See my last 5 posts about how we could think outside the box and possibly turn this CC project into a success.

[Plutonic Panda]

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.

Well, I wish you guys the best of luck. It would be a shame to see this land raped by a convention center.

[CaptDave]

This south of Chesapeake Arena with loading dock facing the BNSF viaduct. This is the concept by BG918 I mentioned. Is there hope city leadership will reconsider the site? I think a well appointed version of this concept would serve the city well and fit within the fiscal restraints. I also think city leadership needs to level with the citizens of OKC and very clearly state their intent to ask taxpayers to fund an attached hotel. I am not opposed to a new CC. Building a new modern CC in a location near the CBD and Bricktown, yet out of the way, provides two prime pieces of land for redevelopment and would be good for OKC in my opinion. (I still hope there are plans for some sort of annual "Energy Mart" sponsored by our locally based energy companies. That would be a good justification for the expense for a new CC and would be a potential niche OKC could support very well as several posters have mentioned.)

[betts]

This south of Chesapeake Arena with loading dock facing the BNSF viaduct. This is the concept by BG918 I mentioned. Is there hope city leadership will reconsider the site? I think a well appointed version of this concept would serve the city well and fit within the fiscal restraints. I also think city leadership needs to level with the citizens of OKC and very clearly state their intent to ask taxpayers to fund an attached hotel. I am not opposed to a new CC. Building a new modern CC in a location near the CBD and Bricktown, yet out of the way, provides two prime pieces of land for redevelopment and would be good for OKC in my opinion. (I still hope there are plans for some sort of annual "Energy Mart" sponsored by our locally based energy companies. That would be a good justification for the expense for a new CC and would be a potential niche OKC could support very well as several posters have mentioned.)

Since I'm not being given a "like" option for your post, I'll simply state that I like this idea. I've always liked it. I think it's a waste of money to put some sort of screen on the substation, which removes an entire block of land from the potential for development around our new park. I suspect if you factor in the cost of building below ground loading docks on the current CC site, the added cost plus land will easily be comparable to the $30 million to move the substation. While I'd like something other than a CC to border on the park, it beats a screened substation hands down, IMO. And I'll speak up for an old design: The one that had apartments built on the side of the CC facing the park. There's a way to pay for some of the construction costs of the CC and make it more visually pleasing to the eye, will added residential to Core to Shore right away. The ground floor could be used for commercial development. If we're thinking about putting residential on a parking garage, I see no reason why we couldn't put residential on a convention center.

[Spartan]

Well, I wish you guys the best of luck. It would be a shame to see this land raped by a convention center.

It would be a shame to see anything or anyone raped by a convention center...

[GaryOKC6]

Well I guess that I have to make the unpopular statement that I for one am excited about seeing the convention center go forward. It does not really matter to me what is happening in Boston or Chicago because this is Oklahoma city. We don't need anything like they have we just need a new convention center that is right for Oklahoma City. I for one used to handle several conventions a year and we were forced to go to Chicago because of the size of the convention. We were basically held for ransom there because we had no choice. The cost of the FMI Convention for my company was around 240,000.00 for a 4 day convention. Before we were forced to move it to Chicago the cost was half of that. Cost is a big factor for many convention groups and OKC is relatively in expensive to visit compared to cities like Chicago or Boston. We will never have the giant convention s that go to Chicago and quite frankly we don't want them. On another note I heard the same thing in 1994 when the first MAPS proposed a new arena. There were al kinds of outcry’s about how we don’t need a new arena because the Cox Center is just fine. We built it anyway and we all know how that turned out. I voted for MAPS 3 and I say lets get started on it.

[catch22]

Well I guess that I have to make the unpopular statement that I for one am excited about seeing the convention center go forward. It does not really matter to me what is happening in Boston or Chicago because this is Oklahoma city. We don't need anything like they have we just need a new convention center that is right for Oklahoma City. I for one used to handle several conventions a year and we were forced to go to Chicago because of the size of the convention. We were basically held for ransom there because we had no choice. The cost of the FMI Convention for my company was around 240,000.00 for a 4 day convention. Before we were forced to move it to Chicago the cost was half of that. Cost is a big factor for many convention groups and OKC is relatively in expensive to visit compared to cities like Chicago or Boston. We will never have the giant convention s that go to Chicago and quite frankly we don't want them. On another note I heard the same thing in 1994 when the first MAPS proposed a new arena. There were al kinds of outcry’s about how we don’t need a new arena because the Cox Center is just fine. We built it anyway and we all know how that turned out. I voted for MAPS 3 and I say lets get started on it.

I think most on here agree in part that we need new convention center space, whether that is renovating and expanding what we have or building new. The main level of "outcry" seems to be the location that was selected.

[CaptDave]

Gary,

I think many people agree OKC could use a new CC. I don't have any issues with anything you said. I think the primary aspect of the MAPS3 CC people are questioning is the location selected by the CC Subcommittee and the lack of full disclosure on the total cost of the CC Complex. The location is killing one of the prime development sites in downtown and will effectively split our two downtown parks needlessly (the underground CC is a non-starter due to cost - anyone with any degree of common sense recognizes this). If the plans were similar to the one I posted above, I would be nearly as supportive of it as I am of the streetcar, trails, park, and river development. If we were to build a new CC along the BNSF viaduct - an area not likely to see any mixed use development - we would have two incredible sites in downtown for redevelopment into commercial, residential, retail, or some combination. The Ford dealer and Cox sites could become huge sources of tax revenue for the city and would likely not require any incentives from the city to entice a developer to those locations. In summary, I think a new, modern CC will be positive for OKC but hope we will carefully think about the benefits vs opportunities lost of the location before we build something that we will regret later.

[Spartan]

Well I guess that I have to make the unpopular statement that I for one am excited about seeing the convention center go forward. It does not really matter to me what is happening in Boston or Chicago because this is Oklahoma city. We don't need anything like they have we just need a new convention center that is right for Oklahoma City. I for one used to handle several conventions a year and we were forced to go to Chicago because of the size of the convention. We were basically held for ransom there because we had no choice. The cost of the FMI Convention for my company was around 240,000.00 for a 4 day convention. Before we were forced to move it to Chicago the cost was half of that. Cost is a big factor for many convention groups and OKC is relatively in expensive to visit compared to cities like Chicago or Boston. We will never have the giant convention s that go to Chicago and quite frankly we don't want them. On another note I heard the same thing in 1994 when the first MAPS proposed a new arena. There were al kinds of outcry’s about how we don’t need a new arena because the Cox Center is just fine. We built it anyway and we all know how that turned out. I voted for MAPS 3 and I say lets get started on it.

So you're going to be happy with ANY convention center no matter what the implications are? To me, that's insanity. This is important, we need to get it right, if you ask me.

I'll say it again. If you or anyone is going to advocate for THIS convention center, you must take responsibility for the site, the shady process, the cost, and the fact that we're effectively on the hook for a massively expensive Phase 2 and CC hotel that will double our liability. We're not just on the hook for $250 million here, far from it.

If you want to talk about this convention center, let's talk about this convention center. Don't just say, "We need a convention center, end of discussion." Because that should be the beginning of the discussion.

[GaryOKC6]

I don't necessarilly over state that it is shady or agree. You have an extreme viewpoint compared to mine. . I guess I am alittle more enthusiastic than you are thats all.

[Rover]

I agree with Spartan about the need to reconsider the design vis-a-vis a realistic objective (though the rant about conspiracies, etc, could be omitted). A smartly designed medium sized facility with flex space, modern amenities (including communications, IT infrastructure, etc.), etc. would be appropriate. Putting it in a place where an affordable phase 2 is only an option and not a requisite would be wise (don't tie up great development sites if we don't need it. Trade some of the small meeting space requirement to the hotel development as part of the subsidy and limit the subsidies to a small amount of cash and more tax incentives. Move OKC's exposure to one which is more variable and less fixed. Then tear down the Cox and re-develop the site. Commit to use the income from the sale of the Cox site to increase the mass trans infrastructure or one of the other popular Maps 3 projects to spread the benefits and overcome some of the objections from those who object to the priorities.

[Spartan]

Well I'm not enthusiastic at all, so that would certainly be an extreme difference lol.

If they had proposed clearing the Civic Center-City Hall site in order to build the Ford Center, I'd have opposed that too, even if we KNEW then we'd get the Thunder. Site matters. A lot.

[GaryOKC6]

Good thing they are not mowing down the Civic Centre for the CC. I would not like that either.

[Spartan]

But it will inexplicably separate two parks. On a site that legitimate developers previously said they wanted to do a massive mixed-use development on, the likes of which OKC has never seen.

A convention center does NOT deserve any city's best development site. Nor should it split up a park, either.

[CaptDave]

I agree with Spartan about the need to reconsider the design vis-a-vis a realistic objective (though the rant about conspiracies, etc, could be omitted). A smartly designed medium sized facility with flex space, modern amenities (including communications, IT infrastructure, etc.), etc. would be appropriate. Putting it in a place where an affordable phase 2 is only an option and not a requisite would be wise (don't tie up great development sites if we don't need it. Trade some of the small meeting space requirement to the hotel development as part of the subsidy and limit the subsidies to a small amount of cash and more tax incentives. Move OKC's exposure to one which is more variable and less fixed. Then tear down the Cox and re-develop the site. Commit to use the income from the sale of the Cox site to increase the mass trans infrastructure or one of the other popular Maps 3 projects to spread the benefits and overcome some of the objections from those who object to the priorities.

I think Rover has ably restated my position, and the majority of OKC citizens' position very well. I think the main thing missing is any element of public input on the process. The CC Subcommittee seems to be operating in a vacuum. I don't think there is any evil conspiracy afoot, but the process should be more open - if nothing else, provide some concrete reasoning why OKC needs a CC of the scale the Chamber desires and why it needs to be built on the location selected. The consultant's recommendation was obviously slanted to achieve a preconceived conclusion. I think the people who are footing the bill deserve a genuine explanation.

[Spartan]

I agree with Spartan about the need to reconsider the design vis-a-vis a realistic objective (though the rant about conspiracies, etc, could be omitted). A smartly designed medium sized facility with flex space, modern amenities (including communications, IT infrastructure, etc.), etc. would be appropriate. Putting it in a place where an affordable phase 2 is only an option and not a requisite would be wise (don't tie up great development sites if we don't need it. Trade some of the small meeting space requirement to the hotel development as part of the subsidy and limit the subsidies to a small amount of cash and more tax incentives. Move OKC's exposure to one which is more variable and less fixed. Then tear down the Cox and re-develop the site. Commit to use the income from the sale of the Cox site to increase the mass trans infrastructure or one of the other popular Maps 3 projects to spread the benefits and overcome some of the objections from those who object to the priorities.

This is actually a fantastic idea.

It wasn't a rant about conspiracies, which by the way I said jokingly. The fact is, Rover, there are some real concerns about why your fantastic idea is not happening and will not happen. There are some even bigger questions about the role of consultants, including CSL which has been proven inept and corrupt by the Boston Globe and other investigations, and also Populous who was briefed by Couch, the subcommittee, and the "stakeholders" at the onset of their "study" over which CC sites they liked.

We're getting the CC that the "stakeholders" want. Not the CC that is a good idea, worthy of public funds.

[Rover]

I don't know that it was a preconceived notion, rather the result of a dogmatic point of view which might be common among a certain group. Using certain facts and a rigid logic will produce the same results repetitively. What needs to be challenged is the process and not necessarily the motives. In business, capital commitments are based on expected outcomes of well reasoned plans to achieve targeted results. The chamber must have a supportable logic and plan to penetrate specific market places and the design of the facility should reflect that. Resources to be committed to that plan, whether the marketing resources or the facility resources, should be in alignment. What is not transparent to the public is what the actual effort will be to fill up and make profitable whatever facility we build. There may be legitimate reasons why that plan isn't totally public. Companies do not make public the details of their business and marketing strategies and hand them to their competitors. One would hope that any consultant/designer used would be privy to those plans and design accordingly.

[Popsy]

But it will inexplicably separate two parks. On a site that legitimate developers previously said they wanted to do a massive mixed-use development on, the likes of which OKC has never seen.

A convention center does NOT deserve any city's best development site. Nor should it split up a park, either.

Would it be possible for you to name those legitmate developers?

[Rover]

The parks will be separated, regardless. It doesn't matter if it is a big public project or private project, a large structure will separate the two. Itis a moot point unless you want to eliminate development on that site and just make a continuous park cut into threes by a boulevard and an interstate highway.

[Spartan]

Would it be possible for you to name those legitmate developers?

Sure. Fred Hall and Bob Howard.

[Spartan]

I don't know that it was a preconceived notion, rather the result of a dogmatic point of view which might be common among a certain group. Using certain facts and a rigid logic will produce the same results repetitively. What needs to be challenged is the process and not necessarily the motives. In business, capital commitments are based on expected outcomes of well reasoned plans to achieve targeted results. The chamber must have a supportable logic and plan to penetrate specific market places and the design of the facility should reflect that. Resources to be committed to that plan, whether the marketing resources or the facility resources, should be in alignment. What is not transparent to the public is what the actual effort will be to fill up and make profitable whatever facility we build. There may be legitimate reasons why that plan isn't totally public. Companies do not make public the details of their business and marketing strategies and hand them to their competitors. One would hope that any consultant/designer used would be privy to those plans and design accordingly.

Well they say they need architectural renderings, which requires speeding up the CC development, in order to produce marketing materials.

I think transparency is much more lacking regarding site selection, the issue over 250 v. 280, and the subcommittee's push to move the CC up at the expense of other projects that were ALL much more popular (not implying that means don't do the CC, just that out of respect you DO save it for last, clearly).

[CaptDave]

The chamber must have a supportable logic and plan to penetrate specific market places and the design of the facility should reflect that. Resources to be committed to that plan, whether the marketing resources or the facility resources, should be in alignment. What is not transparent to the public is what the actual effort will be to fill up and make profitable whatever facility we build. There may be legitimate reasons why that plan isn't totally public. Companies do not make public the details of their business and marketing strategies and hand them to their competitors. One would hope that any consultant/designer used would be privy to those plans and design accordingly.

I think that is the crux of the "opposition" to the CC process Rover. That standpoint is perfectly acceptable when a private business is committing its capital. It is entirely different when public resources are being used to fund such ventures. What possible legitimate reason is there for the public not having access to "the plan"? I cannot think of any honestly and the perceived veil of secrecy only serves to erode support for a new CC.

[Spartan]

I think that is the crux of the "opposition" to the CC process Rover. That standpoint is perfectly acceptable when a private business is committing its capital. It is entirely different when public resources are being used to fund such ventures. What possible legitimate reason is there for the public not having access to "the plan"? I cannot think of any honestly and the perceived veil of secrecy only serves to erode support for a new CC.

Any time you can only access the "executive summary" it should raise red flags...

[Popsy]

Sure. Fred Hall and Bob Howard.

I made the assumption that Fred Hall and Bob Howard would be your answer Sparky when I asked the question. Truth is that one is an investor and the other is a car dealer. Could you explain how they became "legitimate" investors capable of developing the selected CC site? If it wouldn't tax your imagination to much, could you also explain why two parks should not be separated. Let me be clear here though, I ask these questions not caring if the CC goes there or not. In fact I now hope the city tells Hall and Oats, er, Howard to shove it because they became overly greedy in pricing the project. Let them develop it, but I am not going to get my hopes up that they will.

[Just the facts]

If you guys want to see a CSL Study just google "csl feasibility study". Many of them are on-line. I can't figure out the Lexington, KY file. It appears the study said don't expand, but the city is doing it anyhow saying their study said to expand.