Rover - who said the convention center isn't needed?
Rover - who said the convention center isn't needed?
Good points, I still don't think that's the best use of the land though. All this discussion assumes the the Myriad isn't used....therefore is ready to doze. That is very far from the case. I also still don't feel that retail is worth the loss. Plus, retail covers the first floor...what about the rest of the height above it. Unless you're flopping down 30 story towers, forget it. What downtown does NOT need is low-rise....and 8 floors doesn't count for a tower in that plot. You don't build an 8 floor tower next to a 50 floor one.
Profit can be defined as tangible and non-tangible though. Compare it to the Thunder. The non-tangible profit from the Thunder is astronomical. The point here being, a CC brings people to the city that might not have come otherwise. They then experience the city and leave with an altered perception of it...hopefully with a better view.
There is revenue generated in multiple places with a cc. Its economics depends on how you want to parse it and frame your argument for or against. Few take a macro look at it and nobody has a crystal ball anyway. Many want to take a single element of the analysis and extrapolate it to the whole product.
All I can say is look at the current Cox calendar and tell me how many of those activites bring in people from out of town. The vast majority are atteneded by locals. Heck, pick any convention center in the country outside of the top 10 convention centers and you will find that nearly all are heavily tilted in favor of local events. Nothing wrong with that becasue the Mayors Prayer Breakfast has to be held somewhere.
"non-tangible" profit? Where does that show up on the balance sheet?
This. It's a necessary commodity, and there is no down-side to having a competitive convention center, as long as you don't butcher your city or eliminate development opportunities to do it. But the benefits are far too-often way overstated. If I ever make any "attack comments" toward a convention center, it's just to bring that in line. I take it for granted that we need it, but come on, YOU CAN'T BUILD A CITY AROUND IT, WAKE UP [insert subcommittee names] PEOPLE!! there, I got that out.
Unless you are Vancouver. It was put in a premier location with outstanding views. If you haven't been to it, you should go.
I agree that you shouldn't build the city around it, but you also need to keep it in a vital area downtown and not make it a visitors' ghetto. I am okay with the Ford site with the caveat that the current Cox is reconfigured and re-developed to open private development to face the MG. Otherwise we have isolated the MG and reduced prime development opportunities. If we are trading the south side for the east then I think it okay.
I think though that the south side is more strategic, and also probably the west, which feels more open than the east frontage (that may or may not be a benefit for the east side though). I like the question Blair was asking earlier, which is why aren't we connecting these two parks? It's funny how that's not even part of the equation here because we view these parks so separately and inconclusively at the moment. However, I do think 20 years from now, we're going to be scratching our heads as to why the two parks aren't connecting, or why there's a convention center in the middle of the park...
As for Vancouver, yeah...
A riverside location for OKC could be cool, also. It's just too isolated, as you mention. But here's is an example of 300,000 sf of exhibition space for over $700 million. Obviously OKC is not going to get anything near this high-quality. But it is a beautiful site.
The building can't do that. The layout is such that the wall on the east and west side are also the wall of the "walking" area indoors. so unless you are prepared to create a building within a building, then it's not practical. You'd have to rip out walls and put in HVAC and all that goes with that into a structure that was never intended to do such things. I don't think you'd be happy with how it would look in the end anyway. Not to mention that you'd have to rip the holes in the walls for ONLY the doors. The structural steel would prevent you from having and store-front windows. You also can't put it outside the building because the sidewalk isn't wide enough for both foot traffic and storefront space. However, I don't feel that it has served as an issue for the Gardens in the past. In fact, I've rather enjoyed the lesser foot traffic in the Gardens. It's much easier to relax there when there aren't a million people around.
My personal opinion is that the new building should either be an architectural masterpiece that embraces the two parks (think Gehry swooping folds) or it should completely disappear within a "wrapped" urbanity. There in NO room in between. Anything less than being a profound statement/connector embracing the two parks or a building that completely disappears is what should be learned from the abortions of the past.
OKC has a chance to get it right, so let's do it right.
Which means it won't be either and we'll be left with something no one likes.
Do you honestly believe Hall was going to put up an "architectural masterpiece"?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks