Omni Hotel

[Laramie]

An opportunity to meet with Omni representatives:

This is an opportunity for citizens to have input into the process. So, if you want more high with mixed-use (like Louisville), more color (like Dallas) and more rooms (like Nashville); this is your opportunity to provide input.

The assistance requested by Omni represents 36 percent of the cost, compared to the 39 percent provided by the city for the redevelopment of the Skirvin Hilton Hotel. Public participation in similar convention-tier cities includes 47 percent for the Omni Nashville, 43 percent for the Omni Fort Worth and 40 percent for the Omni Louisville.

OKC's investment (thru subsidies) will dictate what kind of hotel we will get. Will the new conference hotel benefit other hotels in the core?

Designs are another major consideration in the upcoming negotiations...

...Andrew Casperson, vice president of Omni, cautioned against looking at any other Omni hotels for a hint at the ultimate design for the Oklahoma City Omni.

“We refuse to treat a building as a one-size-fits-all solution,” Casperson said. “When we get to creating a hotel, this hotel will be the focal point of the city in the design, decor, culinary experience. We will make it reflective of the city we will be part of.

How much will adding height & more rooms and a residential piece to the new hotel cost in subsidies; will Omni match the City dollar for dollar or will that 36% proportion remain the same?

O'Connor has tracked and tried to learn from hotel deals elsewhere, and concludes one mistake not being repeated by Oklahoma City is the decision by Baltimore to build and own the hotel. That “public option” was presented with the Marcus bid — but was rejected early on by city council members.

OKCTalk has been on top of the convention center & hotel concerns.

OKC has expressed that we do not wish to own a hotel; they are aware of Baltimore's miscalculation.

Let's have a good turnout for these meetings.

[OkieDave]

Shadid comment on today's Lackmeyer article:

This article by Steve Lackmeyer is a significant step towards explaining the reasons why so many, including at least one third (3/9) of the current OKC City Council, are in opposition to the convention center hotel project as currently envisioned. I appreciate it greatly.

A few comments:

The most worrisome contention of Professor Heywood Sanders, a nationally recognized expert on convention center economics, is his contention that “OKC is highly unusual, if not unique, in its lack of transparency and the withholding of information from the public”. Professor Sanders cites the refusal to this day to release the Convention, Sports and Leisure study referenced by Mr. Lackmeyer to the public, the contention during the MAPS3 campaign that building a new convention center would triple our convention business without explaining that no city had ever been able to triple its business and that a massively publicly subsidized hotel would be required in order to achieve that increase, and the repeated contention of members of the council since the MAPS3 election that they hoped no subsidy would be required despite the mountain of evidence to the contrary. The public was lied to at worst, lied to by omission at best.

The greatest utility of the MAPS program is that programs are built debt free. The departure with this hotel project is the tens of millions of dollars in interest the city will likely have to pay. The city will borrow a large portion of its $85 million contribution and then pay back the loan with revenue streams such as those cited by Mr. Lackmeyer.

There are costs of the project far in excess of the $85 million cited by proponents. In addition to the tens of millions of dollars in potential interest payments, the city bought the land for the hotel for $7 million and is forced to build a $37 million publicly financed parking garage at this time (most of which is buying land from OG&E next to the hotel site). Developers who have built hotels downtown without a subsidy will see business diverted from their projects towards the Omni hotel which competes on an uneven playing field. Finally, by spending so many economic development dollars on one project, we are left to wonder what could have been developed if the same resources were utilized elsewhere.

Robert Rowling, the founder of TRT holdings (the holding company of Omni Hotels), was worth $4.8 Billion and declared the 66th richest person in the U.S. as of 2012. Mr. Rowling is paying his $150 million contribution to the OKC convention center hotel in cash. With that kind of equity he could borrow the remaining $85 million with extremely favorable terms; almost certainly better than what OKC’s current developers have been able to access in financing their projects. If the convention center business that proponents contend will come to fruition materializes. Mr. Rowling would still realize a healthy return on investment.

Because this project is on the scale of a large MAPS project but never included on an election ballot, several members of the council are in favor of allowing the people of OKC to vote on the matter. Options would include increasing the city’s hotel/motel tax and/or the city’s rental car tax to form the bulk of the public subsidy. Both options would require a vote of the people and would be paid by residents largely outside of OKC who were most likely to use the facility. If the people of OKC were to vote to move forward with such a project I feel confident the City Council would then be unanimous in its support going forward. I suspect, however, that proponents will never allow the project to come to a vote of the people because they know the public is firmly in opposition, which speaks volumes about the nature of our representative democracy.

[Laramie]

Dr. Ed Shadid lost me during his run for Mayor when he opposed Mick Cornett; he wanted to do away with MAPS. Citizens (voters) will ultimately make that decision when they turn down a MAPS initiative.

We need to see what the city is proposing in financial subsidies (Tif, bonds, hotel/motel tax) before we jump on Ed's bandwagon.

[dcsooner]

Shadid comment on today's Lackmeyer article:

This article by Steve Lackmeyer is a significant step towards explaining the reasons why so many, including at least one third (3/9) of the current OKC City Council, are in opposition to the convention center hotel project as currently envisioned. I appreciate it greatly.

A few comments:

The most worrisome contention of Professor Heywood Sanders, a nationally recognized expert on convention center economics, is his contention that “OKC is highly unusual, if not unique, in its lack of transparency and the withholding of information from the public”. Professor Sanders cites the refusal to this day to release the Convention, Sports and Leisure study referenced by Mr. Lackmeyer to the public, the contention during the MAPS3 campaign that building a new convention center would triple our convention business without explaining that no city had ever been able to triple its business and that a massively publicly subsidized hotel would be required in order to achieve that increase, and the repeated contention of members of the council since the MAPS3 election that they hoped no subsidy would be required despite the mountain of evidence to the contrary. The public was lied to at worst, lied to by omission at best.

The greatest utility of the MAPS program is that programs are built debt free. The departure with this hotel project is the tens of millions of dollars in interest the city will likely have to pay. The city will borrow a large portion of its $85 million contribution and then pay back the loan with revenue streams such as those cited by Mr. Lackmeyer.

There are costs of the project far in excess of the $85 million cited by proponents. In addition to the tens of millions of dollars in potential interest payments, the city bought the land for the hotel for $7 million and is forced to build a $37 million publicly financed parking garage at this time (most of which is buying land from OG&E next to the hotel site). Developers who have built hotels downtown without a subsidy will see business diverted from their projects towards the Omni hotel which competes on an uneven playing field. Finally, by spending so many economic development dollars on one project, we are left to wonder what could have been developed if the same resources were utilized elsewhere.

Robert Rowling, the founder of TRT holdings (the holding company of Omni Hotels), was worth $4.8 Billion and declared the 66th richest person in the U.S. as of 2012. Mr. Rowling is paying his $150 million contribution to the OKC convention center hotel in cash. With that kind of equity he could borrow the remaining $85 million with extremely favorable terms; almost certainly better than what OKC’s current developers have been able to access in financing their projects. If the convention center business that proponents contend will come to fruition materializes. Mr. Rowling would still realize a healthy return on investment.

Because this project is on the scale of a large MAPS project but never included on an election ballot, several members of the council are in favor of allowing the people of OKC to vote on the matter. Options would include increasing the city’s hotel/motel tax and/or the city’s rental car tax to form the bulk of the public subsidy. Both options would require a vote of the people and would be paid by residents largely outside of OKC who were most likely to use the facility. If the people of OKC were to vote to move forward with such a project I feel confident the City Council would then be unanimous in its support going forward. I suspect, however, that proponents will never allow the project to come to a vote of the people because they know the public is firmly in opposition, which speaks volumes about the nature of our representative democracy.

I find this person's points of contention to be most credible.

[Urbanized]

What he doesn't acknowledge is that if Omni built a downtown hotel entirely on their own nickel they would build it around 200-300 rooms max, and would NEVER discount rooms to book CC business. Using a free-market argument means that you are willing to live with whatever the hotelier deems good business for them, and that you are willing to give up control of the end result.

There is a trade-off here; we are asking Omni to build extra rooms that they would not otherwise build, and we are REQUIRING Omni to make those rooms available in blocks, for below-market rates. In return for them agreeing to build rooms that don't fit their full for-profit model, it is entirely fair for Omni to expect assistance/incentive.

Failure to build an adjacent hotel with the ability to dictate blocked rooms at below-market rate would cause the CC to dramatically underperform, which could in turn lead to expensive subsidy for THAT building (on top of not capturing expected economic impact). Should this have been discussed in depth during the original MAPS campaign? Perhaps, but this train has left the station and we CANNOT afford to waste the huge dollars we (voters included) have already chosen to spend on the convention center.

Without question transparency is important, but it bears repeating once again that we elect our Mayor and council to make important decisions just like this one, and the funding mechanisms being discussed for this project are not in any way unprecedented.

[Spartan]

Why do people care how wealthy the Omni CEO is?

Honestly, Lackmeyer's article assuaged a lot of concerns I had. As long as Omni owns 100% and paying down the city's investment isn't last on the waterfall, and the subsidy is constrained within 40%, I'm ok with the deal.

The issue isn't how much we spend on special facilities. The issue is how little we spend on transit. I'm most concerned that the city will claim they're tapped out and too broke after this deal to invest in transit. In Columbus they literally pulled a potential streetcar revenue source and re-dedicated it to paying down bonds for a THIRD convention hotel.

There really are direct trade-offs, and the way I see it this will tip the balance of MAPS 3 to mostly going toward events, providing less than half for residents. So much for branding the initiative as parks, bikes, River, transit, and other good stuff.

[Pete]

I feel much better about this with Omni involved.

Convention hotels is what they do and there is tons of experience and track record to point to.

Plus, it's a great brand and something we don't have in the entire state.

I would have been much less enthused if we had gone the Marcus / Marriott route.

[Spartan]

It's definitely hugely beneficial that Omni has their own capacity for marketing/responding to RFP's.

Honestly wouldn't be a bad idea to take the marketing budget away from the CVB and let Omni do it on a contract basis. Privatize that s***!

[Laramie]

By the time we get the Omni constructed; you could easily approach close to $90 million in subsidies (+10%).
Let's hope there's something left in that contingency fund to tie all the loose ends together.

Better yet, could a residential piece by added (like Louisville's Omni) to the new Omni which could strengthen the financial footing; or is it too late to add to this development?

[stile99]

or is it too late to add to this development?

Again, 'preliminary'. Nothing has been approved, nothing has even been officially submitted. I'd say it isn't too late for ANY change.

[Spartan]

Technically it is preliminary until a deal is inked. However, if OKC wants an Omni on this site, this concept and design is what Omni has already spent most of its professional fees to produce. So there's that. In the development world, professional capacity is scare and valuable. You can only scroll through so many hundreds of emails and hound the same person for an approval so many times a day.

[pure]

I'm not sure if this was posted on here already or not and I know it doesn't matter anymore since it looks like OKC is going with Omni but this is what the Marriott that Marcus/Mortenson would have built would look like.



you can see the rest of the proposal and more pictures here, http://www.theallianceokc.org/sites/...20(public).pdf

[warreng88]

I'm not sure if this was posted on here already or not and I know it doesn't matter anymore since it looks like OKC is going with Omni but this is what the Marriott that Marcus/Mortenson would have built would look like.



you can see the rest of the proposal and more pictures here, http://www.theallianceokc.org/sites/...20(public).pdf

I like the design of the Omni better, but wish it was facing the park, like the Marriott. It would also give room for the parking garage to the east.

[Laramie]

Again, 'preliminary'. Nothing has been approved, nothing has even been officially submitted. I'd say it isn't too late for ANY change.

Agree and can't see why it wouldn't be difficult to change or modify.

Omni has its architects on payroll; the current design wouldn't be that difficult to modify. Some high rise residential above the convention center hotel would be sold before you could get it built.

In this case, additional height (above the hotel) over just infill could make for an impressive view of OKC as well as the Core to Shore developments.

[DenverPoke]

Agree and can't see why it wouldn't be difficult to change or modify.

Omni has its architects on payroll; the current design wouldn't be that difficult to modify. Some high rise residential above the convention center hotel would be sold before you could get it built.

In this case, additional height (above the hotel) over just infill could make for an impressive view of OKC as well as the Core to Shore developments.

Why is everyone so infatuated with the height of this hotel? OKC (as well as most cities) would be better served with 20 new 10-story buildings that have great street level interaction and eradicate parking lots rather than 4-5 40-story towers.

[OKCisOK4me]

I see nothing wrong with the height.

[DenverPoke]

I see nothing wrong with the height.

Agreed, could the design be a little more unique, sure, but I think its about perfect for its context and location. It also allows for another midrise hotel to be built should the demand warrant it.

[OKCRT]

Agreed, could the design be a little more unique, sure, but I think its about perfect for its context and location. It also allows for another midrise hotel to be built should the demand warrant it.

Should be at the very least as tall as the new BOK building. Somewhere between BOK and Chase would be perfect then another one around 20 stories next to it down the road.

[dankrutka]

Why is everyone so infatuated with the height of this hotel? OKC (as well as most cities) would be better served with 20 new 10-story buildings that have great street level interaction and eradicate parking lots rather than 4-5 40-story towers.

I'll never get it. If OKC never had another building over 300 feet it wouldn't bother me at all. Generally, tall buildings are for passers-by, but 4-6 story buildings with walkable ground floors that activate the street are the stuff of great cities. Besides, OKC has plenty of underutiized properties in its core to allow for 4-6 story buildings to be built for a long time... (which just makes tearing down historic structures more absurd). It's not like OKC needs to go vertical. In fact, some recent studies suggest that people psychologically do not enjoy being around high rise buildings.
/end of rant/

[2Lanez]

Why is everyone so infatuated with the height of this hotel? OKC (as well as most cities) would be better served with 20 new 10-story buildings that have great street level interaction and eradicate parking lots rather than 4-5 40-story towers.

This. Particularly in OKC.

[Laramie]

Sure we have space & vacant areas in our core. Infill is good; however, if we're going to demolish historic buildings, why not put something of value & volume in its place.

Does anyone feel that Devon Energy Tower wasn't worth building in OKC or would you prefer something smaller?

[Colbafone]

Why is everyone so infatuated with the height of this hotel? OKC (as well as most cities) would be better served with 20 new 10-story buildings that have great street level interaction and eradicate parking lots rather than 4-5 40-story towers.

Totally disagree. The real opportunity of 40+ story towers in OKC is very clearly almost non existent. In order for the downtown to truly grow, it has to be able to draw people and events to it. It's pretty evident that funding 4+ story buildings in the city isn't TOO difficult. But, apparently, funding anything over say, 12 stories, is pretty difficult. No one seems to want to pull the trigger on true high rises except Devon. And I get that, its not an easy thing to drop that sort of money.

I guess what I'm saying is, whatever scale you want to use, OKC is a pretty mid/average tier American city. And that's fine for some. But i, personally, want better. I want a future NBA All-Star game here. I want an MLS or NHL team here. I want tourists. Building a bunch of 10 story buildings isnt going to impress anyone except for the people that activly read this forum. At current, I would take 4-5 40+ story towers 1000 times out of 1000 in downtown over 20 10ish story midrises in OKC.

I feel with the size of OKC, smaller midrises aren't going to be all the difficult to build/fund at current and in the future in OKC. But, how often will a true high rise opportunity present itself in downtown OKC? 10 story buildings don't bring big new job opportunities or All-Star games to OKC. High Rises do. There is also the cosmetic appeal and marketability of the city with more high rises. To me, you just cannot pass up high rises in this city for lesser quality mid rises. The opportunity to build mid rises will always be easier and more abundant than the opportunity to build a high rise.

With that said, I love this new hotel. Do I wish it had housing on top to add some height? Sure! But, as is, it's going to be a badass hotel. I go to Comic Cons and Anime Conventions all over the country every year, and this hotel looks FANTASTIC next to almost all that I've stayed at. I really have no complaints with this hotel. I'm excited!

[DenverPoke]

Totally disagree. The real opportunity of 40+ story towers in OKC is very clearly almost non existent. In order for the downtown to truly grow, it has to be able to draw people and events to it. It's pretty evident that funding 4+ story buildings in the city isn't TOO difficult. But, apparently, funding anything over say, 12 stories, is pretty difficult. No one seems to want to pull the trigger on true high rises except Devon. And I get that, its not an easy thing to drop that sort of money.

I guess what I'm saying is, whatever scale you want to use, OKC is a pretty mid/average tier American city. And that's fine for some. But i, personally, want better. I want a future NBA All-Star game here. I want an MLS or NHL team here. I want tourists. Building a bunch of 10 story buildings isnt going to impress anyone except for the people that activly read this forum. At current, I would take 4-5 40+ story towers 1000 times out of 1000 in downtown over 20 10ish story midrises in OKC.

I feel with the size of OKC, smaller midrises aren't going to be all the difficult to build/fund at current and in the future in OKC. But, how often will a true high rise opportunity present itself in downtown OKC? 10 story buildings don't bring big new job opportunities or All-Star games to OKC. High Rises do. There is also the cosmetic appeal and marketability of the city with more high rises. To me, you just cannot pass up high rises in this city for lesser quality mid rises. The opportunity to build mid rises will always be easier and more abundant than the opportunity to build a high rise.

With that said, I love this new hotel. Do I wish it had housing on top to add some height? Sure! But, as is, it's going to be a badass hotel. I go to Comic Cons and Anime Conventions all over the country every year, and this hotel looks FANTASTIC next to almost all that I've stayed at. I really have no complaints with this hotel. I'm excited!

Fair enough. You want Charlotte which looks good on a postcard but is pretty awful from an urban standpoint, while I prefer Portland, which isn't much to look at from afar but has an awesome downtown. To each their own.

[HOT ROD]

I think OKC is closer to Portland than it is to Charlotte in that OKC has a compact, dense core (although it is being stretched a bit now). Yes, it added a super-tall and the current wave of towers are 20 something floor highrises but all OKC needs to be more portland like is retail streetfronts and some residential towers which honestly is not difficult to do.

I agree that we should adopt more density ala portland but lets also go big a few more times and make some more highlights into the skyline (ala Charlotte). Charlotte pretty much had to do that in order to get recognition from out of Atlanta's shadow, we need to do the same to escape Dallas and Houston's while at the same time, retain our dense core and expand residential ala portland. I think it all can be done and hope the city's master plan has it as such.

[Laramie]

Very well stated, Hot Rod!

Cities are faced with competition and recognition as:

Charlotte (2,426,363) competes with Atlanta (5,710,795)--225 miles
Louisville (1,278,413) competes with Cincinnati (2,157,719) & Indianapolis (1,988,817)--100 miles.
Portland (2,389,228) competes with Seattle (3,733,580)--145 miles.

Oklahoma City (1,358,452) competes with Dallas-Ft. Worth (7,102,796)--190 miles.

Which city has the biggest obstacle to overcome?