New Convention Center issue

[betts]

The above listed cities are almost assuredly always going to have higher convention volume. I understand what you're saying above, Larry, about needing to plan for growth, but I've heard almost everyone complaining about building a convention center....period....much less making it bigger and presumably even more expensive. We'll be lucky to get any convention center passed, much less one in the million square foot range, I'm thinking.

But, we're also shooting for second tier status, not first tier, so I suppose we can hope that square footage will make us competitive for the kind of conventions a city of our size could hope to attract.

[Larry OKC]

betts: to clarify, I am an favor of the Convention Center because it does bring in NEW, mostly out of area/out of state money into the economy and that can only be a good thing. Some of my concerns are spelled out in the above post (allowing for growth), then there are the other issues the Report cited as challenges in order to get to that goal of Tier II status (which aren't being addressed, some the City has control over and some are chicken/egg)

From the Report:

Strengths of the local Oklahoma City market that contribute to the success of a convention center include:
• Downtown/Bricktown Development and nearby visitor amenities.
• A highly unique and authentic Western and Native American heritage and attraction base.
• Recent attraction of the Oklahoma City Thunder NBA franchise.
• Large local corporate and government base.
• Affordable cost structure.
• Supply of visitor attractions, events and other amenities.

Some challenges facing the Oklahoma City market as they relate to functioning as a convention destination include:
• Building the brand awareness of Oklahoma City as a convention destination.
• Challenges due to the size and quality of the existing Cox Business Services Convention Center.
• Limited air accessibility.
• Limited supply of convention-quality hotel properties.

[Larry OKC]

... The Cox Center was bugeted some 40 odd million and ended up costing 60. The Civic Center was budgeted some 30 odd million and ended up costing 53. The Arena was the only project to come in under budget...

Hi,

Interesting article (Cost Hike Warning on MAPS) that ran in the Journal Record back in 1995:

Cost Hike Warning on MAPS | Journal Record, The (Oklahoma City) | Find Articles at BNET

Do you happen to have any links on those? (Please say yes) I have been piecing together the “voters told” amount for MAPS and haven’t been able to locate specific numbers for the Cox and the Fairgrounds (final numbers were all available from the City’s website). Also, the number I found for the Civic Center indicated $45.6M (instead of an even lower $30M).

According to the various articles I have located, it looks like only the Oklahoma River improvements came in on budget all of the the rest of the projects were well over (ranging from 116% for the Civic Center to 255% for the Canal) I HATE PERCENTAGES-one minute I look at them, and they seem right, the next, not so much ... but I know the math works out correctly that the Canal was 1.16 times more and the Civic Center was 2.55 times more...LOL.

The Ford is more complex, originally voters were told $64.8M and it was built for $87.7M ($22.9M or 1.35 times more). One article in the Journal Record from 1998 indicated that the estimates had increased to $94.5M and that may be what you are talking about, that they got it back down to the $87.7M amount.

Any assistance is appreciated!

[betts]

One of the advantages of building south of Reno is that space is not so tight, and at least initially, perhaps land will not be as expensive as it would be in the CBD. If I were the city, I'd purchase land adjacent to the planned Convention Center, for potential expansion if it's needed. Although I know the word "parking" is anathema, that land could be cleared and used for parking initially.

[Oil Capital]

FYI, a study was commissioned shortly after the Cox Center was completed. The study explored the possibility of taking out the arena and putting in a second level over a ground level in the volume of space which the arena occupies. Don't know what became of that, I'm guessing the cost and talks of future MAPS projects.
.

That was the original plan for after the Ford Center was completed. But then they discovered how valuable it was to have that second arena next door.

[Larry OKC]

One of the advantages of building south of Reno is that space is not so tight, and at least initially, perhaps land will not be as expensive as it would be in the CBD. If I were the city, I'd purchase land adjacent to the planned Convention Center, for potential expansion if it's needed. Although I know the word "parking" is anathema, that land could be cleared and used for parking initially.

Hi Betts,

Since the proposed amount for the Convention Center is "Phase 1", hopefully that is what the City is planning on doing. The City has already spent close to $6M buying property and has $26M authorized from the 2007 G.O. bond issue (that means we are already $26M in MAPS 3 debt and it hasn't even been voted on) LOL

[Larry OKC]

In addition to the $60M in improvements with MAPS, "$6.6 million, were made to the Cox Business Services Convention Center in preparation for the 2007 Big 12 Women's Basketball Tournament."

List of those improvements are at the City's website:

City of Oklahoma City

The City has also committed to make some improvements that sound similar to those being done to the Ford. No mention of who will pay for them or where the money will come from (could be coming from MAPS 3 since they would easily fit the generic description of "Capital Improvement" in the Ordinance). Article says more details will come but haven't seen anything yet.

NewsOK

Some of the more expensive sounding upgrades include:
• Renovation of the Cox Center’s ice-making system
• Upgrade to locker rooms
• Addition of a team store and team storage on the east side of the Cox Center
• Loge boxes and lower concourse VIP club
• Upper concourse season ticket holders club
• Addition of a game day party deck at a location to be determined
• Improvements to meeting rooms

[okcpulse]

Larry, you have to remember that a lot of the cost increase was due to an increase in construction costs. There was a national building boom happening during the late 1990s. The sharpest increases were in concrete and steel.

You have to remember the specifics. You also have to remember that the original MAPS tax extension that lasted six months covered those cost overruns. You also have to remember that a number of design changes were made to keep the projects within budget. For instance, the canal's depth was reduced to 4 feet from the original 16 feet. The canopy over the ballpark was simplified, as the original was much more elaborate.

Amenities were taken away from the Ford Center to meet budget constraints. Like I said, you have to remember the specifics.

[Larry OKC]

Larry, you have to remember that a lot of the cost increase was due to an increase in construction costs. There was a national building boom happening during the late 1990s. The sharpest increases were in concrete and steel.

And history has an annoying way of repeating itself. They didn't plan for this the 1st time around. Are they planning for it again? With MAPS being 47% over what voters were told and a City website (The City of Oklahoma City - 2007 City Bond Election) I just read indicates that 8.3% is budgeted in for just such things, why is MAPS 3 only budgeting 2.2% ($17M)??

Right now construction costs are cheaper but that won't always be the case (just like sales tax revenue is down from projections, but the City expects it to come back up again and are planning on $100M/year average). They think the sales tax collections will return to normal, but construction costs won't??

Construction costs are certainly a factor, don't contest that at all. Did you read the Journal Record link? Apparently the amount was low-balled and other cost factors (that were known) were not included (not uncommon, if they include the real costs, it makes it a much harder sell, and less likely to pass). Have to remember the specifics that MAPS almost didn't pass (54%) due largely to the most recent fiasco, the County Jail (which now is going to cost about 8 times what it originally cost to fix/replace it).

You have to remember the specifics. You also have to remember that the original MAPS tax extension that lasted six months covered those cost overruns. You also have to remember that a number of design changes were made to keep the projects within budget. For instance, the canal's depth was reduced to 4 feet from the original 16 feet. The canopy over the ballpark was simplified, as the original was much more elaborate.

Amenities were taken away from the Ford Center to meet budget constraints. Like I said, you have to remember the specifics.

Wow. How did a 6 month extension "covered those cost overruns"? When all said and done, MAPS was 47% over. A 6 month extension raised enough money to cover the overruns from the previous 5 years (and the overruns from the Arena)? Please explain the math on that.

The design changes didn't "keep the projects within budget" did they? Again, when MAPS was said and done, it was 47% over what voters were told. What those design cuts did accomplish, was keeping it from going over even further. Just imagine how expensive the Canal would have been if it had been 16 feet deep! It was the project that had the highest percentage increase (voters told $9M, actual cost of $23M or 2.55 times more). Or the Ballpark, even with the cuts you mentioned, it was till significantly over. Voters told $23.7M, actual cost of $34M (+ $10.3M) or 1.43 times more

Then there is the matter of them coming back to the voters for an extension of some sort (just as you correctly point out was done with MAPS) to "finish MAPS right". Unfortunately, we found out a few short years later that wasn't exactly the case either (another $120M for Ford improvements for many of the amenities cut originally). But then again, according to an article written at the time, it was the City's plan for the eventual tenant (the Thunder) to pay for any "finishing out" costs or amenities that the team might want. But instead of having the tenant pay for those, they convinced enough of the taxpayers to pick up the tab for the Millionaire and Billionaire owners.

While I am IN FAVOR of most, if not all of the MAPS 3 projects, the above definitely should give everyone cause for concern.

[betts]

The way I look at it is: If it costs more, it's because it costs more. It happens. "You get what you pay for" is an aphorism because it's true. If it costs more to finish the MAPS projects than the $17 million put back for just such a thing, then, at that time, the voters will have to decide whether to extend it or not. It's very difficult to estimate both what construction costs will be over the next 7 years (how many of us anticipated our current economic climate?) and how much tax will actually be collected. So, the city does the best it can, and if it's wrong we'll all have to decide how to deal with it.

Perhaps the city did hope that any new tenants would pay for the needed improvements of the Ford Center. They probably didn't anticipate that the new tenants would have to spend $350 million to buy a team and an additional $75 million to move them. Stuff happens. Regardless, the city did precisely what they should have done in that situation: They went to the citizens of the city and asked them if they wanted to fund the additional improvements. Voters made the choice. The same thing should be true if the MAPS projects cost more than anticipated and again, voters will have a choice.

[Larry OKC]

The way I look at it is: If it costs more, it's because it costs more. It happens. "You get what you pay for" is an aphorism because it's true. If it costs more to finish the MAPS projects than the $17 million put back for just such a thing, then, at that time, the voters will have to decide whether to extend it or not. It's very difficult to estimate both what construction costs will be over the next 7 years (how many of us anticipated our current economic climate?) and how much tax will actually be collected. So, the city does the best it can, and if it's wrong we'll all have to decide how to deal with it.

Respectfully ask again, the City KNOWS what the cost over runs were for MAPS (47%). The City KNOWS what the average cost over runs are in the 2007 Bond Issue (8.3%). WHY then are they only allowing 2.2% for MAPS 3?

Of the Big 3 items in MAPS 3, what are you expecting when it's done?

You do realize the City had the same plan with the Ballpark and ended up going 50/50 with the 89ers/Redhawks (no relocation or associated buying the team costs). The City literally gave away the naming rights to the Ballpark and even though there was a bit of an uproar, turned around and did it again with the Ford/Thunder (an amount that if handled correctly could have nearly paid the entire cost of the improvements).

[mugofbeer]

Respectfully ask again, the City KNOWS what the cost over runs were for MAPS (47%). The City KNOWS what the average cost over runs are in the 2007 Bond Issue (8.3%). WHY then are they only allowing 2.2% for MAPS 3?

Of the Big 3 items in MAPS 3, what are you expecting when it's done?

You do realize the City had the same plan with the Ballpark and ended up going 50/50 with the 89ers/Redhawks (no relocation or associated buying the team costs). The City literally gave away the naming rights to the Ballpark and even though there was a bit of an uproar, turned around and did it again with the Ford/Thunder (an amount that if handled correctly could have nearly paid the entire cost of the improvements).

I dont know if the numbers you gave above are accurate or not but I do have one question about what you say. Bond issues can only bring in a certain maximum amount of money because there is a limit on how many bonds can be issued. With this being the case, how can a bond issue come in 8.3% "over cost?" Are you simply saying that the cost of all the projects covered by the bond issue rose 8.3%? If so, I don't think they could have built all the projects outlined in the bond issue. This is actually a pretty common occurrance in large bond issues.

[Kerry]

The reality is that there are some conventions that will never come to OKC, thus there is not a need for +1,000,000 sq ft convention center. However, something in the 500,000 to 750,000 sq ft range would put OKC in the same league as peer cities in the region (Denver, Dallas, San Antonio, Kansas City, St. Louis, and Salt Lake City).

As for money already spent on the COX Center; it isn't like that is wasted money as we will still have the Cox Center. It would be a different story of the new convention center was going to built on the same land as the Cox Center, but it isn't. OKC is already just one of a few cities (and maybe the only one) with two +15,000 seat arenas across the street from each other.

[andy157]

I dont know if the numbers you gave above are accurate or not but I do have one question about what you say. Bond issues can only bring in a certain maximum amount of money because there is a limit on how many bonds can be issued. With this being the case, how can a bond issue come in 8.3% "over cost?" Are you simply saying that the cost of all the projects covered by the bond issue rose 8.3%? If so, I don't think they could have built all the projects outlined in the bond issue. This is actually a pretty common occurrance in large bond issues.

If the cost of a G.O. Bond project exceeds what the ballot called for, and what we as Citizens voted for, the City has options. In the past the City has used a couple of different methods in order to complete the project. Although I only know of two, I suspect they have many more at their disposal.

For example, two of the listed Fire projects in the 2000 G.O. Bond Election in Proposition # 6 had cost overruns, the "Live Burn Building" for training, and the "Vehicle Storage Building". The Burn Building as voted on, called for a separate, and free standing, brick and mortor building. In order for the project to stay within its budget the building was later reduced down to a trailer house. The project cost the same but we recieved less.

In the case of the vehicle storage building we received what we voted for, in fact maybe a bit more, but of course it exceeded its budget. It took only a simple funds transfer from the dedicated sales tax fund to cover the additional cost. I guess you could say, they robbed Peter to pay Paul.

[Oil Capital]

Respectfully ask again, the City KNOWS what the cost over runs were for MAPS (47%). The City KNOWS what the average cost over runs are in the 2007 Bond Issue (8.3%). WHY then are they only allowing 2.2% for MAPS 3?

Of the Big 3 items in MAPS 3, what are you expecting when it's done?

You do realize the City had the same plan with the Ballpark and ended up going 50/50 with the 89ers/Redhawks (no relocation or associated buying the team costs). The City literally gave away the naming rights to the Ballpark and even though there was a bit of an uproar, turned around and did it again with the Ford/Thunder (an amount that if handled correctly could have nearly paid the entire cost of the improvements).

Maybe I missed it above. If so, would you mind telling us again where you came up with the 47% cost overrun for MAPS?

[megax11]

Whether one be for, against, or undecided about Maps 3, Megax11, you are vastly oversimplifying all of the numerous issues which are involved in MAPS 3 and I'll not elaborate here.

But, on one point, I take serious issue with you, where you said

We need both. Our past heritage is every bit as important as our present and future. After numerous grand buildings were destroyed in the 1960s-1980s, would you also have torn down the Skirvin, as many thought best to do?

I do agree about needing the past as well as the future, but the past hasn't been kind to the areas where Core to Shore would be implimented.

I expect tons of crime there. The places are ran down, and could be made to be better, where people can gather in parks, which we need, not only as a state, but as a country where we're getting so lazy, we're up there on the obese scale.

I have 3 kids and while they love being productive outdoors on top of playing games, so many of these parks are boring... I can imagine the whole Core to Shore being vibrant, and very scenic.

So what I meant in saying we need to get out of the old, is that we really need to take risks like we did in getting the renovations to Ford center, which brought us into professional sport territory, and in 1993 when we started getting a vastly superior Bricktown (it used to be so ran down.)

I do agree though, I am always for the past, but we need a balance of the past, while looking to the future, while also not thinking about what it costs us as citizens, who really need to think about the future of america (our kids; grandchildren,) as they need things to do in life while we take a dirt nap until the world ends.

I would also love to see a new convention center, as sometimes change is better, and the Myriad has always been ugly, even after only rennovating certain areas of it.

[Larry OKC]

I dont know if the numbers you gave above are accurate or not but I do have one question about what you say. Bond issues can only bring in a certain maximum amount of money because there is a limit on how many bonds can be issued. With this being the case, how can a bond issue come in 8.3% "over cost?" Are you simply saying that the cost of all the projects covered by the bond issue rose 8.3%? If so, I don't think they could have built all the projects outlined in the bond issue. This is actually a pretty common occurrance in large bond issues.

Hi mugofbeer,

If you will go the the Bond link I gave there is even more info but I think the following answers your question.

Question: How will the City pay for unforeseen needs?
Answer: Experience tells us that when we build large projects we discover needs that weren’t apparent when we were making plans. By including an unlisted line item we are making sure these unexpected expenses are covered. Limited funds, made up of less than 8.3% of the entire bond authorization, are included to address any unforeseen needs.


The numbers I gave are from 3 main sources: the final cost numbers are from the City's MAPS web page and the various "voters told numbers" are from articles written at the time of MAPS from the Oklahoman and Journal Record. If there is a specific number you are questioning, will be more than happy to provide where it came from (I don't have them all footnoted, but will provide the ones I have).

If anyone knows of a link to a single article where the 9 projects in MAPS were spelled out, (preferred PRE vote, like the Oklahoman has done for MAPS 3), it would be appreciated!

[Larry OKC]

Maybe I missed it above. If so, would you mind telling us again where you came up with the 47% cost overrun for MAPS?

Oil, Not a problem...I was doing the 47% number from memory, and re-ran the data, and I had rounded down. It is actually 47.75%. Voters were told $238M, final cost was $351.7M, a difference of $113.7M or 47.75%

The "voters told" $238M was in a Journal Record article dated 11/6/97 (about the middle of MAPS)

It is buried in the article: "We’ve had problems with MAPS to be sure. It was started as a $238 million proposal when voters approved it, and that was a sales job."

The final cost is found at the City's website:
City of Oklahoma City

(Have to go to each of the 9 project's link to find the cost for each)

Of course none of that includes the extra $100M to $120M to "finish" the Ford.

Again, if anyone knows of an article (prefer PRE MAPS vote) that spells out the total or individual project costs (like the Oklahoman did for MAPS 3) please provide. Thanks!

[Patrick]

In the MAPS ballot it states that the Arena would meet the standards of the NBA and NHL (doesn't mention just seating capacity standards).

Standards of the NBA and NHL doesn't necessarily equate Taj Mahal. It meet the bare minimums. And sure, it would've "worked" in its original design, but it wasn't near as nice as other NBA arenas.

While "Taj Mahal" may not have been specifically mentioned when it went to the voters, he were told since it's opening and in following years, it was the "crown jewel of MAPS" ... "First-rate Facility" ... "a Top-quality Arena" ... "the Premier Project of Maps" ... "Oklahoma City wanted The Best. Now it’s here." ... "the Ford Center is the area’s Premier Entertainment and Sports Complex" ... and finally, the “Ford Center is State of the Art” (This last one isn’t an isolated quote, but a descriptive phrase m entioned by at least 5 different sources).

I think that was more marketing ploy by SMG.

It was described that way while the Hornets were here and didn't start being called "adequate" and talk of REPLACING the Ford happened right about the time Bennett bought the Sonics. Then it was determined the Ford "needed" $120M in improvements (more than it cost to begin with) to bring it back up to NBA standards. Even though Stern said we didn't necessarily need any improvements to the Ford to land a permanent team. At the time of the vote, the Ford had just turned 5 years old. The Mayor admitted it was all his idea (no one at the NBA said we needed the improvements).

The Ford served its purpose for the Hornets, but it was obvious it wasn't as nice as some other NBA arenas. Most of the improvements have been more costmetic than anything and not necessarily required.

[Larry OKC]

Standards of the NBA and NHL doesn't necessarily equate Taj Mahal. It meet the bare minimums. And sure, it would've "worked" in its original design, but it wasn't near as nice as other NBA arenas.

Do you have an article or link WRITTEN AT THE TIME that would indicate that it was "bare minimum"? I have asked for it before in other threads and have never gotten a response. Nearly EVERY article I have run across indicates otherwise (see quotes below) and in those rare articles that do mention some cutbacks, they were items that the City planned the eventual tenant would pay for.

I think that was more marketing ploy by SMG.

Most assuredly SOME of the glowing phrases are mentioned by SMG on the Ford Center site, so I won’t include those. But since you indirectly asked for the sources they are as varied as the Journal Record, the Oklahoman, ESPN, the Associated Press, trade publications and a former and current Mayor of OKC:

Journal Record, “New arena expected to boost OKC economy” ... (6/7/02)

“We have a FIRST-RATE FACILITY that will seat 20,000 people...” said Oklahoma City Mayor Kirk Humphreys.


ESPN.com “Oklahoma City high on list of home sites for Hornets” Updated: (9/18/05).

When Oklahoma City opened up its Ford Center three years ago, its residents surely hoped that it would one day host a major professional sports team. After all, IT WAS BUILT TO SATISFY BOTH NBA AND NHL SPECIFICATIONS. ... Representatives in Louisville, Ky.; Nashville, Tenn.; San Diego; and Kansas City, Mo., also offered to temporarily host the team, but no city can offer THE STATE-OF-THE-ART FACILITY with as many open dates as Oklahoma City can. ... Oklahoma City mayor Mick Cornett said he believes his city is the first option if all the games can’t be played in the state of Louisiana. “THEY [NBA/Hornets] MADE IT CLEAR THAT THEY LIKED WHAT THEY SAW and that OUR ARENA WAS APPROPRIATE FOR NBA GAMES,” Cornett said.


Associated Press “Hornets to call Oklahoma City, Baton Rouge ‘home’” Updated: (9/21/05).

Numerous other cities -- including San Diego, Las Vegas, Nashville, Tenn., and Kansas City, Mo. -- also made offers to host the team for the upcoming season, but Oklahoma City had what few others could offer -- A TOP-QUALITY ARENA with few scheduling conflicts.


Ford Center - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The facility is the PREMIER PROJECT of Oklahoma City’s capital improvement program (MAPS) to finance new and upgraded sports, entertainment, cultural and convention facilities with a one percent (1%) sales tax. ... Ford Center received a $200,000 renovation as part of the Hornets’ lease.


http://home.digitalcity.com/oklahoma...er/v-116437664

The Ford Center, Oklahoma’s STATE-OF-THE-ART multifunctional facility, hosts a wide variety of sports events, concerts and more. And for the 2005-2006 NBA season, it is the home-away-from home of the hurricane-displaced New Orleans Hornets.


http://www.bricktownokc.org/Default.aspx?p=8085

Learn more about Oklahoma’s STATE-OF-THE-ART sports and entertainment showcase by visiting the Oklahoma City Ford Center.


ConventionSouth

....the Ford Center is the area’s PREMIER ENTERTAINMENT AND SPORTS COMPLEX offering a nearly 20,000-seat arena...


Oklahoma City's Ford Center Employs EV ZX1 Loudspeakers (2/7/07)

The Ford Center, Oklahoma City’s PREMIER SPORTS AND ENTERTAINMENT ARENA, recently incorporated a new EV sound-reinforcement system installed by Ford Audio Video of Oklahoma City.


Oklahoma City Blazers - Profile of the Oklahoma City Blazers Central Hockey League Team W/ Information On Roster, Coaches, Schedule, Tickets and More

Built in 2002, the Ford Center is STATE OF THE ART and hosts a number of amateur sports franchises.


Numerous articles said that improvements to the Ford Center were needed to bring the Ford back up to NBA standards (No, I won’t hunt them down and list them all here...LOL).


Oklahoman, “Election to be called for Ford Center upgrade” (12/07/07)

The city has contracted with the architects who designed the Ford Center, The Benham Companies, to study the IMPROVEMENTS THAT WILL BE REQUIRED TO BRING THE ARENA TO NBA STANDARDS. ... Cornett said the city, working in consultation with the NBA, has determined a new arena won’t be needed. The renovations will make the Ford Center comparable with the league’s best arenas and will prevent the city from needing a new arena for many years. “This is basically the equivalent of a new arena,” Cornett said. “It should last at least 15 years. We’ll have a STATE-OF-THE ART ARENA.”


Oooops, there’s that “state-of-the-art” phrase again...

The Ford served its purpose for the Hornets, but it was obvious it wasn't as nice as some other NBA arenas. Most of the improvements have been more costmetic than anything and not necessarily required.

You are correct, it wasn't as nice as SOME other NBA arenas. Don't have the quote handy but when compared to other NBA arenas, was described as being "middle of the pack" or similar language.


WOW, $100M+ for cosmetics? You do realize that the improvement amount is more than what the building cost to begin with? Guess you didn't hear about the building expansion (expensive sounding stuff) that is for the exclusive use of the Team/NBA (offices, locker rooms, TV studio etc)


Then there is the $20-25M budgeted for the practice facility....

[betts]

Larry, I'm confused about why language is so important. What is "state of the art" for a city hoping to eventually land an NHL or NBA team might be very different from what is expected of a city that actually gets a team. Remember, when the Ford Center was built, there was still a "pie in the sky" chance of getting a team. We were likened to the Field of Dreams "build it and they will come" dreamer. In addition, what might be considered "state of the art" for a city hopeful of getting a professional team could also change in 5 years.

Why is the description of the arena at the time it was built so important; why does it matter what people called it? Anyone who spent any amount of time in it who'd also been to professional arenas in other cities knew it wasn't state of the art for a true NBA arena. But, we didn't have a team, so most of us didn't pay it much mind. Also, we knew that Dallas had spent over four times what we had to get a new arena there, so it was clear we had a bargain basement arena. You get what you pay for, and we hadn't paid much at all. Clearly. The BOK Center in Tulsa cost over twice what we originally paid for the Ford Center, so again, we didn't pay for much and so we got bare bones. We ended up getting a lot for that minimal investment, as we got the Hornets for two years, which gave us the opportunity to try and land our own professional team.

Regardless, the voters voted for the Ford Center improvements and the practice facility. They were willing to improve the Ford Center (guess a few of them had actually been in the building, and knew it wasn't what it should be). They were given a choice and a choice was made. Now we move on.

It's time to think about choosing to do other things for the city that might have as much of an impact as our MAPS investment did.

[Oil Capital]

Larry, I'm confused about why language is so important. What is "state of the art" for a city hoping to eventually land an NHL or NBA team might be very different from what is expected of a city that actually gets a team. Remember, when the Ford Center was built, there was still a "pie in the sky" chance of getting a team. We were likened to the Field of Dreams "build it and they will come" dreamer. In addition, what might be considered "state of the art" for a city hopeful of getting a professional team could also change in 5 years.

Why is the description of the arena at the time it was built so important; why does it matter what people called it? Anyone who spent any amount of time in it who'd also been to professional arenas in other cities knew it wasn't state of the art for a true NBA arena. But, we didn't have a team, so most of us didn't pay it much mind. Also, we knew that Dallas had spent over four times what we had to get a new arena there, so it was clear we had a bargain basement arena. You get what you pay for, and we hadn't paid much at all. Clearly. The BOK Center in Tulsa cost over twice what we originally paid for the Ford Center, so again, we didn't pay for much and so we got bare bones. We ended up getting a lot for that minimal investment, as we got the Hornets for two years, which gave us the opportunity to try and land our own professional team.

Regardless, the voters voted for the Ford Center improvements and the practice facility. They were willing to improve the Ford Center (guess a few of them had actually been in the building, and knew it wasn't what it should be). They were given a choice and a choice was made. Now we move on.

It's time to think about choosing to do other things for the city that might have as much of an impact as our MAPS investment did.

Excellent post. Thanks Betts

[Kerry]

Oil, Not a problem...I was doing the 47% number from memory, and re-ran the data, and I had rounded down. It is actually 47.75%. Voters were told $238M, final cost was $351.7M, a difference of $113.7M or 47.75%

The "voters told" $238M was in a Journal Record article dated 11/6/97 (about the middle of MAPS)

It is buried in the article: "We’ve had problems with MAPS to be sure. It was started as a $238 million proposal when voters approved it, and that was a sales job."

The final cost is found at the City's website:
City of Oklahoma City

(Have to go to each of the 9 project's link to find the cost for each)

Of course none of that includes the extra $100M to $120M to "finish" the Ford.

Again, if anyone knows of an article (prefer PRE MAPS vote) that spells out the total or individual project costs (like the Oklahoman did for MAPS 3) please provide. Thanks!

You need to factor in the $54 million in interest earned on MAPS money. Cost overrun was 17%. However, since there was not any debt at the end of construction you could argue that there was $0 cost overrun.

[Doug Loudenback]

I do agree about needing the past as well as the future, but the past hasn't been kind to the areas where Core to Shore would be implimented.

I expect tons of crime there. The places are ran down, and could be made to be better, where people can gather in parks, which we need, not only as a state, but as a country where we're getting so lazy, we're up there on the obese scale.

I have 3 kids and while they love being productive outdoors on top of playing games, so many of these parks are boring... I can imagine the whole Core to Shore being vibrant, and very scenic.

So what I meant in saying we need to get out of the old, is that we really need to take risks like we did in getting the renovations to Ford center, which brought us into professional sport territory, and in 1993 when we started getting a vastly superior Bricktown (it used to be so ran down.)

I do agree though, I am always for the past, but we need a balance of the past, while looking to the future, while also not thinking about what it costs us as citizens, who really need to think about the future of america (our kids; grandchildren,) as they need things to do in life while we take a dirt nap until the world ends.

I would also love to see a new convention center, as sometimes change is better, and the Myriad has always been ugly, even after only rennovating certain areas of it.

megax11, about the bold (past) parts above, these points:

1. I have no optimism that the parts of the area south of current-I40 that may contain buildings some would consider worthwhile saving will be -- not for the reason that some might be deserving and couldn't be worked in to a well designed architect's plan -- but for the reason that I don't sense that a public will exists to do so.
   
2. COULD it be done? Sure. The remnants of Deep Deuce that still exist are testament enough to that. The qualities of being vibrant and very scenic are not at all limited to the "new." If they were, virtually everything constructed today would also become dull and less vibrant, just because it, too, becomes "old" as time passes.
   
3. I'm not sure that I understand what you're saying with the "crime" point. But if you mean that incorporating some of the old buildings would lend itself to crime, I'd have to disagree. Deep Deuce in its run-down period was, I suppose, crime ridden, but those few parts of it which have been restored today are not, as far as I'm aware, anyway.

[Doug Loudenback]

Oil, Not a problem...I was doing the 47% number from memory, and re-ran the data, and I had rounded down. It is actually 47.75%. Voters were told $238M, final cost was $351.7M, a difference of $113.7M or 47.75%

The "voters told" $238M was in a Journal Record article dated 11/6/97 (about the middle of MAPS)

It is buried in the article: "We’ve had problems with MAPS to be sure. It was started as a $238 million proposal when voters approved it, and that was a sales job."

The final cost is found at the City's website:
City of Oklahoma City

(Have to go to each of the 9 project's link to find the cost for each)

Of course none of that includes the extra $100M to $120M to "finish" the Ford.

Again, if anyone knows of an article (prefer PRE MAPS vote) that spells out the total or individual project costs (like the Oklahoman did for MAPS 3) please provide. Thanks!

See the crop from a November 14, 1993, Oklahoman article below. The full article is much larger. Click the cropped image to open the full version. I have modified the text arrangement so that it will better fit in a more or less rectangular space.



Maybe you said and I missed it, Larry, are you just curious or does this comparison have something to do with the current analysis of Maps 3?