Convention Center

[Urban Pioneer]

Don't worry about it. Just remember this quote when the subject comes up for using MAPS III money for buses.

I don't disagree, the technicality exists for Council to spend anything on anything when it comes to capital projects. But the Bus versus Rail discussion is a lot further away from Convention Center, plus CC support hotel. At least politically and from a MAPS branding aspect. IMHO

[HangryHippo]

Some of Ed Shadids comments on the matter.

There are several obstacles to the successful development of our convention center; the development of the convention center hotel is the most pressing.
In a study (which has yet to be released to the public despite calls for its release) prior to the MAPS 3 vote it was made clear that to realize the economic benefits promised to voters, the new $250 million convention center, would have to be accompanied by a 600 room convention center hotel and that no city had been able to develop such a hotel without massive taxpayer subsidies in the previous decade.

The need for such a hotel and the additional massive future taxpayer obligation that the MAPS 3 vote would create was not discussed during the MAPS 3 campaign. In fact, that information was suppressed.

In the three years since the MAPS 3 vote the situation for taxpayers has worsened in cities trying to develop such hotels. The soon to opened 800 room Nashville Omni convention center hotel required a taxpayer subsidy of $128 million plus property tax abatements for 20 years. Nashville councilmembers recently shared with me that they had fear until the end that their subsidy amount would not be enough to get the deal done. Convention center hotels in regional cities like St. Louis and Austin are losing significant amounts of money for taxpayers after their completion.

The City of OKC has not performed any market analysis to indicate what such a convention center hotel would likely cost in the form of taxpayer subsidies.
The City of OKC has NO PLAN for how we would pay for what may be well over $100 million for the development of a hotel along with parking. MAPS3 funds cannot be used to buy the land for a convention center hotel.

If you're going to take from Steve's blog, don't you think you should at least give him credit for the continuing discussion on the convention center?

[Pete]

If you're going to take from Steve's blog, don't you think you should at least give him credit for the continuing

Shadid posted this on Facebook and elsewhere.

[BDP]

i think we are on the same page... i have only talked about the possibility of putting a new arena at the fair grounds... i agree... it's time for cox center to go. i have only been trying to make the argument that a second arena is something this city uses and needs to continue to use. and i think it is time to look at what is at the fair grounds and determine if it is enough, and if not, then look at the possibility of replacing it (at the fair grounds)

Gotcha. I must have gotten the conversation crisscrossed. 11k seems like enough capacity at the fairgrounds, but I honestly have not been to the facility in awhile, so I don't know its current state. I thought the city did some improvements awhile back, but they may have been more infrastructure things that maybe the end user doesn't see. In any event, it certainly is not a bad thing to have a couple of feasible venue options, both in terms of cost and capacity.

[BDP]

MAPS3 funds cannot be used to buy the land for a convention center hotel.

Didn't we just fix this problem: give them the land beneath the Cox Center.

We're awesome.

But he does have a point that, as far as I know, there has been no feasibility study or funding proposals. Kind of hard to work the designs around something that may or may not ever exist. It's probably why they should resign to placing the hotel offsite and finish the CC design as a separate project.

[jn1780]

...and we saw what the 60's did to OKC. I serioulsly doubt the ownership of the team would want to play at the fairgrounds anyhow. As for cost, the Arena is owned by the city so they can set whatever price they want - including free. The Thunder court is already removed many times during the season as it is now.

Go look at the Arena schedule - there are way too many holes in it. It is used maybe 70 days a year. It needs to be used 320 days a year. We have a long ways to go.

You always hear the concert argument being made. If you ask me this is the kind of excuse a needy desparate guy would make. "If I go out with friends, I will never get a date with that hot girl again." lol

Not very big league city like

[Pete]

The Peake is used far, far less than many comparable arenas.

Good grief, Staples Center here in L.A. has the Lakers, Clippers AND Kings, plus they have tons of concerts and other events.

Keeping the Cox Center just for the arena doesn't make any sense when we already have a nicer facility directly across the street with plenty of capacity. And exactly how many events have required both the Cox & Peake at the same time? Maybe two or three since the new arena opened 11 years ago??

And exactly what awesome city-changing future events are we hoping to land that would require adjacent arenas? I'm not aware of any we are actually bidding on.


So, we are going to hold onto quite possibly the most valuable real estate in all of OKC for perhaps a 20 days of events out the 4,000+ that both arenas have been in simultaneous operation???

[Steve]

Shadid posted this on Facebook and elsewhere.

Thanks for the thought OnlyOne. Pete's right on this - Ed has posted this comment in several places - I just highlighted it. Pete's been pretty good about respecting use/links to my content. And I appreciate how most folks on the site have understood that full NewsOK content needs to stay at NewsOK and not be copied and pasted.

[Teo9969]

It's amazing, because proponents of either keeping the co, or rebuilding a new arena on this lot are simply not thinking about how much opening those lots to other developments would be. It may be the most guaranteed spots for high-rise residential as the location is literally perfect being as close to the CBD without being in the mass of the CBD as we can get. It's also close to both parks, the arena, and Santa Fe station. New development on these blocks would almost surely bring new restaurant and retail (possibly even a CVS) so it would be very localized while still being close to Bricktown and the Arts district.

It would reshape our downtown more than any single project that has come up.

[Just the facts]

New development on these blocks would almost surely bring new restaurant and retail (possibly even a CVS) so it would be very localized while still being close to Bricktown and the Arts district.

It would reshape our downtown more than any single project that has come up.

Keep this in mind, this 4 sq block area would have more linear feet of retail street frontage than the corridors at Penn Sq Mall and the opportunity to go vertical 600' or more. Then build an intersection at California and Broadway like the original Piccadilly Circus and watch the tourist and their dollars pour in.

[warreng88]

Do you think restoring the streetgrid where the CCC is now will help with the idea of taking out EK Gaylord between NE 4th and Robert S Kerr Ave like Jeff Speck recommended back in 2008?

[BoulderSooner]

Do you think restoring the streetgrid where the CCC is now will help with the idea of taking out EK Gaylord between NE 4th and Robert S Kerr Ave like Jeff Speck recommended back in 2008?

no

[Just the facts]

Do you think restoring the streetgrid where the CCC is now will help with the idea of taking out EK Gaylord between NE 4th and Robert S Kerr Ave like Jeff Speck recommended back in 2008?

You know what is ironic, I was opposed to that idea back then because I thought it was more important to move cars through downtown faster. But now I look at it differently. Currently cars on EKG only have one way to get to Broadway. If California was put back in and EKG ended at 4th there would be 7 ways to get from EKG to Broadway. Think which situation would be better for traffic - 1 way or 7 ways.

Downtown Boulevard supporters are you paying attention?

[Praedura]

The Convention Center/Hotel proposals as a pdf:

http://www.okc.gov/maps3/M3ConCtrConcepts.pdf


This is from this site here:

MAPS 3 convention center concepts presented

Which, in turn, was found at the facebook page for MAPS 3

[Just the facts]

I had this discussion with PW. Honestly, it's a good idea as are so many others but for some reason I can't seem to get any kind of "vision" that would drive these types of projects.
...
Which brings us back to the age-old problem. We need more creative thinking.

Sid, you were spot on the other day when you said that the focus should be on getting City Staff sitting just under the City Council to either align with the vision stated by the City Council or get them out of the way. Any idea how to do this?

[Praedura]

I vastly prefer Scheme 03 myself.



I think that having the hotel separate and located near the CBD is much better and prevents the blocking view.
But hey, that's just my opinion.

[BoulderSooner]

I vastly prefer Scheme 03 myself.



I think that having the hotel separate and located near the CBD is much better and prevents the blocking view.
But hey, that's just my opinion.

the Chamber folks and the CVB folks want the hotel directly attached to the new CC

[Just the facts]

I suspect the cost issue has finally hit home and they realize the need to save as much money as possible just to buy the land, and at the same time reduce how much land they need to buy. These rendering only show them using half of what they original planned. The land at Cox is free and it is hard to argue with 'free'. With recent stories about Chesepeake and Sandridge spending corporate money on non-corporate things I would also suspect Devon is less than thrilled with ponying up money to cover any funding gaps. That's not to say the LN couldn't/wouldn't do it out of his own pocket though.

[BDP]

I vastly prefer Scheme 03 myself.

I think that having the hotel separate and located near the CBD is much better and prevents the blocking view.
But hey, that's just my opinion.

I agree. Kind of strange they didn't float a concept with the hotel on site that didn't block the views, like the one at the top of this page.

[Pete]

I agree. Kind of strange they didn't float a concept with the hotel on site that didn't block the views, like the one at the top of this page.

It seems the consultants feel strongly about having the CC front Robinson rather than the hotel.

The presentation references the "importance of Robinson".


I really like Scheme 3 as well but I'm afraid the powers that be want the hotel directly connected to the CC and therefore of the two others, I would go with the option to have the hotel face the Myriad Gardens rather than Central Park.

Also of note, in all schemes they are allowing for commercial development along the proposed boulevard on the west end of the tract.

[BoulderSooner]

I suspect the cost issue has finally hit home and they realize the need to save as much money as possible just to buy the land, and at the same time reduce how much land they need to buy. These rendering only show them using half of what they original planned. The land at Cox is free and it is hard to argue with 'free'. With recent stories about Chesepeake and Sandridge spending corporate money on non-corporate things I would also suspect Devon is less than thrilled with ponying up money to cover any funding gaps. That's not to say the LN couldn't/wouldn't do it out of his own pocket though.

the park just got the last piece of land on the north east corner of the park .. and the total came to just over 2 mil for 2 acres .. good comp for the city for the ford land ...

however the ford dealer land is bigger (as a single plot) fronts the park and the peake arena .. it will be interesting to see what the 2 appraisals come up with

[jn1780]

It seems the consultants feel strongly about having the CC front Robinson rather than the hotel.

The presentation references the "importance of Robinson".


I really like Scheme 3 as well but I'm afraid the powers that be want the hotel directly connected to the CC and therefore of the two others, I would go with the option to have the hotel face the Myriad Gardens rather than Central Park.

Also of note, in all schemes they are allowing for commercial development along the proposed boulevard on the west end of the tract.

I wish the hotel was narrower and taller if their going to go with one of those two options, but I guess there are issues that prevent this.

[hoya]

Now that I see the proposals, the design doesn't look too bad. The underground exhibit halls are a great help to minimizing the appearance of a super-block. Although my guess would be that the parkland on the west side of the convention center would be a necessity because you couldn't build anything tall on it with the exhibit space directly underneath. I like pieces of each proposal, but the positioning of the hotel in the third one seems best. It opens the Cox Center up to development and doesn't block the view of downtown from the new park.

[BoulderSooner]

I wish the hotel was narrower and taller if their going to go with one of those two options, but I guess there are issues that prevent this.

hotel is not designed .. the model is just a place holder ..

[Pete]

It is true that all this is just conceptual, but I imagine the hotel footprint and height are based on their ample experience with these types of projects.

In other words, the footprint in particular is no doubt based on what convention hotel developers would most likely prefer, namely some larger meeting rooms that require a decent-sized base.