Convention Center

[warreng88]

I have seen the future - OKC will not be replacing The Peake. Sooner or later economic reality is going to kick in.

Why do you say that. Do you think the Thunder will eventually leave?

[Rover]

I have seen the future - OKC will not be replacing The Peake. Sooner or later economic reality is going to kick in.

Another hopeful and positive post from JTF. Who would have thought?

[David]

Oh come on, JTF wasn't the only one speaking against replacing the arena. Not to mention this is the wrong thread for that discussion in general, if someone wants to talk about that the Post New Thread button is at the top of every sub-forum.

[SouthsideSooner]

I'm just thinking out loud here, but I honestly can't believe so many of you are already talking about a new arena to replace the Peake.
It's not an old facility, by any means (twelve years). On top of that, you just renovated it and expanded the total facility space to the tune of $85 million or so (not including the practice facility). And it's nice and modern (well, at least part of it is) and honestly not bad looking to the common eye.

I just say this as a caution because some cities become trigger happy when it comes to demo'ing and replacing perfectly fine arenas. While I am not claiming to be an expert, I do not see any reason why we should be even mentioning this now. This is a discussion to be had in ten years, and only then to begin preliminary talks about how to renovate/replace in a matter of years from then.

Agreed.

The vast majority of NBA arenas have been built in the last 20-25 years and the initial construction and the remodel of the Peake benefited greatly from being able to model ours off of those from the standpoint of size, amenities, fan experience and revenue generation.

Until most of those cities start building new arenas to a degree that would render ours obsolete, which isn't even being discussed, there's no reason we'll need to build a new one.

[Plutonic Panda]

Agreed.

The vast majority of NBA arenas have been built in the last 20-25 years and the initial construction and the remodel of the Peake benefited greatly from being able to model ours off of those from the standpoint of size, amenities, fan experience and revenue generation.

Until most of those cities start building new arenas to a degree that would render ours obsolete, which isn't even being discussed, there's no reason we'll need to build a new one.

while I can see what you're saying, why should we wait for other cities to make the first move? We should jump ahead of the game. I'm not saying we should rebuild it now, but I think we should have a new one under construction by 2025.

[KayneMo]

I know it was never going to happen, but the "rose rock" shaped convention center that was shown in the Skyline Ink conceptual video a few years back would be cool.

EDIT:

Here are some screen shots from said video.





Side view


Here is the video: Oklahoma City's "Core to Shore" - by Skyline Ink on Vimeo

Too bad this isn't a real proposal, I love the rose rock concept for the convention center especially since rose rocks are found nowhere else in the US except for central Oklahoma. Reminds me of Phoenix's Health Sciences Education Building because of both buildings' relationship to their respective state's geology. It was inspired by canyon formations.

[hoya]

while I can see what you're saying, why should we wait for other cities to make the first move? We should jump ahead of the game. I'm not saying we should rebuild it now, but I think we should have a new one under construction by 2025.

The reason the last round of NBA arena construction went the way it did is because teams found a big new source of revenue -- luxury boxes. If you could sell luxury boxes you'd rake in the cash. If you couldn't, you had trouble keeping up with rising player salaries. A lot of the old arenas weren't built in a way so that teams could add luxury boxes to them. It was a lot easier to just build new rather than try to change the old structure. We built ours with luxury box accommodations from the start.

Should OKC build a new arena? Only if there's a new thing (like luxury boxes were) that is becoming the standard and the Chesapeake can't be upgraded to have it. But right now I don't know what something like that would be. We're going to build new and add... what?

The Thunder have an absolute sweetheart deal in place at the Chesapeake. That one guy whose name I forget who is always bitching about how much MAPS costs has repeatedly shown how the city almost gave away the farm to ensure they moved here. The team is very profitable. Part of the reason the city was able to do that is because we got the Peake without using any bonds -- we basically paid cash up front. Most other cities are not going to be in a similar situation, and probably won't be able to offer the Thunder nearly as good a deal as they have here. That doesn't mean that we should never build a new arena, but we should be in no rush at all until something big changes.

[Plutonic Panda]

The reason the last round of NBA arena construction went the way it did is because teams found a big new source of revenue -- luxury boxes. If you could sell luxury boxes you'd rake in the cash. If you couldn't, you had trouble keeping up with rising player salaries. A lot of the old arenas weren't built in a way so that teams could add luxury boxes to them. It was a lot easier to just build new rather than try to change the old structure. We built ours with luxury box accommodations from the start.

Should OKC build a new arena? Only if there's a new thing (like luxury boxes were) that is becoming the standard and the Chesapeake can't be upgraded to have it. But right now I don't know what something like that would be. We're going to build new and add... what?

The Thunder have an absolute sweetheart deal in place at the Chesapeake. That one guy whose name I forget who is always bitching about how much MAPS costs has repeatedly shown how the city almost gave away the farm to ensure they moved here. The team is very profitable. Part of the reason the city was able to do that is because we got the Peake without using any bonds -- we basically paid cash up front. Most other cities are not going to be in a similar situation, and probably won't be able to offer the Thunder nearly as good a deal as they have here. That doesn't mean that we should never build a new arena, but we should be in no rush at all until something big changes.

those are all great points

[Laramie]

The Peake can become part of the new convention center-hotel-arena complex.

We need to remember that the Peake was originally built w/o all the bells and whistles; that's why the '97 NHL expansion committee passed on OKC, they didn't think we could possibly build a quality NHL/NBA arena with $89 million. They were right; therefore we had to invest another $100 million into upgrades (2008 MAPS for HOOPS) to bring it to NBA standards.

The Peake will have to do until 2025 (Collection for MAPS V begins), we will need a new arena; also the Cox Convention Center will be history by then.

Look for a new arena to cost in excess of $800 million (20,000 permanent seats/3-4 levels) if we want to keep the NBA in OKC. There will be other aggressive cities (Des Moines,Tulsa, Wichita, Omaha) who will want to lure the Thunder away, just as OKC did with Seattle. NBA expansion will be the topic around 2017-2020--possibly two expansion franchises.

[hoya]

The Peake can become part of the new convention center-hotel-arena complex.

We need to remember that the Peake was originally built w/o all the bells and whistles; that's why the '97 NHL expansion committee passed on OKC, they didn't think we could possibly build a quality NHL/NBA arena with $89 million. They were right; therefore we had to invest another $100 million into upgrades (2008 MAPS for HOOPS) to bring it to NBA standards.

The Peake will have to do until 2025 (Collection for MAPS V begins), we will need a new arena; also the Cox Convention Center will be history by then.

Look for a new arena to cost in excess of $800 million (20,000 permanent seats/3-4 levels) if we want to keep the NBA in OKC. There will be other aggressive cities (Des Moines,Tulsa, Wichita, Omaha) who will want to lure the Thunder away, just as OKC did with Seattle. NBA expansion will be the topic after 2020--possibly two expansion franchises.

Teams want new arenas because they produce more revenue, and for no other reason than that. Until some new design comes along that significantly increases revenue, and requires structural changes to the arena, there's no reason to build new.

Now eventually we'll have to replace the Chesapeake, I don't think anyone is denying that. But I don't think we're talking about 10 years from now. I think we're talking 20 years from now at least. By then I'm sure there'll be a new preferred design. I'm sure there are a significant number of current NBA arenas that were publically financed, and I bet some of them won't be paid off for quite a while. I don't think there's going to be a new round of arena one-upmanship until some of those places are paid for.

[Just the facts]

Teams want new arenas because they produce more revenue, and for no other reason than that. Until some new design comes along that significantly increases revenue, and requires structural changes to the arena, there's no reason to build new.

Exactly - new arenas weren't built just for the heck of it. The economic model of the league changed and facilities needed to change with them - but it was a one-time change. The NBA isn't constantly changing their business model.

[HOT ROD]

Keep in mind that the city will likely have significant proceeds from the sale and redevelopment of the Cox Convention Center grounds. This could be useful in redevelopment of the Peake or an outright new building then the city could sell/redevelop this existing Peake grounds.

That's the beauty of downtown development, it doesn't need to be a zero sum game for the city if it plays its cards right. Build it and satisfy the existing market AND/OR create one that likely will lead to more development. .... But again, OKC needs to be savvy enough to place rules, have a Master Plan of what kind of city it wants to become, and oversight on development (at least in the greater core) so that the CITY controls what gets built not developers/investors who likely may only be wishing for a ROI. This has worked in countless other large cities, no reason OKC can't become big league and start running this city/downtown as an investment on its future.

Personally, I think we could do another upgrade to the Peake - especially considering there were elements of the initial upgrade that didn't get implemented; we could implement those AND perhaps add more amenities/restaurants still within the existing property line. If we wanted to, we could retrofit the exterior with glass and there you go - a brand new building that could compete with anyone. As was mentioned, OKC already meets and competes well with the current NBA standard. We'd be stupid to be first to create the new standard given the risk and our small market size - leave it to Chi, NY, LA to do that and then with the redevelopment of nearby lands - OKC will be ready to potentially build a new arena 20+ years down the road. ...

[Stickman]

I'm sure Pete has stated the time line on the purchase of the property before, can' remember. I was told by a source, not sure how reliable, that they were wanting to settle for a lot of money. If this is the case, would this not effect the monies left to build the convention center?

You have to figure they are probably wanting 10 million a block plus for the parcels to the south of 2nd st.

[Urbanized]

There is likely to be some sort of land swap involved, which would negate some portion of the land acquisition costs. But yes, those costs would come from the CC budget.

[Pete]

The eminent domain resolution has been dragging on for quite a while now, which indicates the parties cannot come to agreement.

Based on comparable downtown sales over the last few years, it looks like the price would be somewhere between $20 and $33 million and the CC budget only includes $17 million for land and site preparation.

Any land swap is still a cost that should be billed to the convention center project.

[Stickman]

I will guess between 33 to 39 million, my two cents of course. This might make it difficult to compete with some of the larger cities with what is left over. It can be done in two phases just as Phoenix, with success.

[Urbanized]

...Any land swap is still a cost that should be billed to the convention center project.

Disagree with this statement. If the City instead built on land it already had in its possession should the fair market value of said land be deducted from the budget? Correct me if I'm wrong, but pretty sure the original build of the arena (COTPA-owned), the downtown library (OCURA-owned), ballpark (partially COTPA-owned land), Fairgrounds projects, etc. didn't get this treatment. Are you suggesting the CC should be penalized in way that other projects have not been?

[Pete]

In the scenarios you mention, the City already owned the land and when those projects were put forth everybody understood the City land would be a part of the projects. It wasn't included in the budget because there was nothing to buy; no further related expense.

Swapping another parcel that has market value (which is why the prospective owners would want to trade for it) means that value should be deducted from the convention center, as it's value is already on the books elsewhere.

If one account is debited, another must be credited. Basic double-entry accounting.

[Urbanized]

I agree about accounts being properly debited/credited, but again disagree that this need involve relieving the CC budget of cash insofar as none changes hands. What you are suggesting would create no benefit to the City to gain from doing a land swap vs. buying outright; we'd might as well just pay fair market value for the dealership site and stay in the real estate holdings business on whichever other piece of property is in the discussion.

[Urbanized]

And by the way in the projects I mentioned it was NOT universally assumed that all of them would land on City-owned property. In the cases of the arena, the ballpark and the library ALL of the locations were very fluid. The library could have ended up on privately-owned property; the ballpark DID in part do so.

[Pete]

It's not about cash, it's about assets.

Whether it's a check, future tax abatement, bonds, free utilities or anything else of value the City has to offer it still counts exactly the same and has to be accounted for.

[Pete]

I just learned yesterday that the City Attorney has given the legal opinion that any land swap for the convention center would not be charged back to it's budget.

So clearly, this is the strategy to get around the big price gap that seems to exist in their budget vs. what will have to paid for the land and site prep.

[DoctorTaco]

I just learned yesterday that the City Attorney has given the legal opinion that any land swap for the convention center would not be charged back to it's budget.

So clearly, this is the strategy to get around the big price gap that seems to exist in their budget vs. what will have to paid for the land and site prep.

Definitely a back door subsidy of the Convention Center. Undeniable.

[Just the facts]

Do we know what land is being swapped? As for this concept in general, I don't have a problem with it so long as the values are close to each other, and I am okay not counting it towards the CC budget (unless the land being exchanged has some environmental issues that the City will be on the hook for in the future). In the end this might end up being a good deal if the Hall group has an interest in still going forward with their initial desires for the CC site.

[Pete]

I'm sure the Cox Center site is one that is being considered.