Convention Center

[Pete]

What I believe is inconsistent is that you previously indicated (without qualification) that you wouldn't have a problem if a project landed on City-owned land, but WOULD have a problem with a land swap. You since refined you position to say that you would only support it if the location were identified in a the ballot/public lobby process, which I read as a backpedal. Then, when it was pointed out that similar transactions have happened previously, you made scale the issue.

Honestly I think your complaint has more to do with thus particular project and the personalities and organizations associated with it.

Again, very unfair characterization given the long course of this discussion.

And I've emphatically stated my distrust with many issues around this project and long before now, and the reasons why.

If I cast a particularly suspicious eye towards this project it's for reasons I've clearly outlined, not some sort of personal bias or agenda. I have zero to gain one way or another. I'll just leave it at that.

[Teo9969]

#whatcolorsarethisdress

I literally laughed out loud…Damn that was funny.

[Teo9969]

I'm with Pete on this.

What I am okay with: 1. paying $17M for the site and prep (and perhaps an overage of 10%, 20% at most because value of land downtown has increased quicker than expected since the original vote. 2. Swapping out land, this for that, and being done with it.

What I am not okay with: 1. Paying $17M for this site, without prep, and THEN including $10M worth of land (50% overage), when we specifically budgeted $17M for a specific purpose.

My problem, and I think Pete's as well, is including land IN ADDITION to a pre-budgeted amount, an amount that should be plenty to purchase a viable piece of land for the project and adding to that budget a significantly valuable piece of land.

This is also not strike-1 for the project. Were this the first time something happened that had us asking "What's really going on here", I think no one would really think twice about it.

If the land that we are building on is so valuable, maybe we need to reconsider the plans for the site. I think most here still agree that we'd prefer East-Parkside and we ought to at least test the waters on that location.

[BoulderSooner]

The city council could put another 50 mil of city funds to this project and it would not bother me one bit. That is what we elected them to do. (Control over a billion dollar budget). The maps vote and money is not the cap on projects.

Should the modern transit streetcar project not take other funds for the transit hub. Or if the city finds another 30 mil that could be used to extend the street car should that not be ok?

[Pete]

The city council could put another 50 mil of city funds to this project and it would not bother me one bit. That is what we elected them to do. (Control over a billion dollar budget). The maps vote and money is not the cap on projects.

Should the modern transit streetcar project not take other funds for the transit hub. Or if the city finds another 30 mil that could be used to extend the street car should that not be ok?

All this is fine with the proper public discussion and input.

Every dollar spent comes at the expense of something else, and there are many areas of need.

[Teo9969]

The city council could put another 50 mil of city funds to this project and it would not bother me one bit. That is what we elected them to do. (Control over a billion dollar budget). The maps vote and money is not the cap on projects.

Should the modern transit streetcar project not take other funds for the transit hub. Or if the city finds another 30 mil that could be used to extend the street car should that not be ok?

Again, if this were the first time that this project has caused consternation with regard to needing more money for it to be remotely successful, I don't think anyone would really give the story the time of day.

But it's not, and it's all happening a short time after they said "Oh no, we didn't budget enough for the whitewater facility or the sidewalks 'LET'S MAKE CUTS TO THE PROJECT'". There's the inconsistency in the argument on the opposite side here. A particular MAPS project, without any real reason given to the public, is receiving an incredibly disproportionate amount of contingency aid while being coupled with an inordinate lack of flexibility.

Can we at least investigate the substation land and see if that more closely resembles what was originally envisioned in terms of budget?

[Rover]

Just curious, is the white water facility going on property already owned by the city, or was it purchased with Maps money?

[Pete]

Just curious, is the white water facility going on property already owned by the city, or was it purchased with Maps money?

MAPS money. They have a $12.3 million budget for land acquisition and site prep.

[BoulderSooner]

MAPS money. They have a $12.3 million budget for land acquisition and site prep.

Both is the correct answer. Some odot trade and city land. Some land that had to be acquired

[Urbanized]

There was also land acquisition going on in the old Walnut Grove neighborhood (footprint of the WW facility) long before the location of the WW facility location was firm (which was well after the MAPS3 vote) and even well before the vote itself.

[Just the facts]

This is also not strike-1 for the project. Were this the first time something happened that had us asking "What's really going on here", I think no one would really think twice about it.

If the land that we are building on is so valuable, maybe we need to reconsider the plans for the site. I think most here still agree that we'd prefer East-Parkside and we ought to at least test the waters on that location.

I think this is big part of the CC problem. It has been shady from the beginning - literally - because they asked the public to vote on a plan the Chamber wouldn't make public (and still hasn't). The CC subcommittee could never be accused of running a good PR campaign.

As for the location, I was really opposed to it from the beginning but I came to realize that public/civic buildings should get the best spots - but, and this is a huge BUT, the architecture needs to live up to the place of prominence it is being given. If they are going to half-ass the design then I just as soon it be located next to the railroad (for the record - glass curtain wall falls under the definition of half-ass). Did anyone watch the video I posted of the Howard Kunstler Ted Talk about how bad architecture wrecked cities? The convention center in Saratoga Springs, NY he referenced is NOT acceptable here!

[Laramie]

We all agree that the Cox Convention Center will eventually have to be replaced. Oklahoma City completed study for the site process through the reputable firm Populous.

Let's get the new convention center & conference hotel under construction ASAP!

[Teo9969]

Let's frame this another way:

Are we excited about spending $25M to $30M for just the land that the convention center is going to sit on?

At that price point, I think we are being irresponsible to not at least make an offer for the other two locations that were under consideration in 2012, most particularly because the study indicated that this site should cost the least and that's turned out to be just not even close to reality.

[Urbanized]

Wrong. More than any other MAPS3 project the success of the CC depends upon its location, in this case it hinges directly upon its WALKABLE proximity to hotels, dining and entertainment. Other than the facility itself, that is the main selling point when pitching a conference or convention, and would be the most likely thing to compel a group to select OKC over another market.

Adding even five minutes to that average walk - or placing additional barriers like speedway-type boulevards between the CC and those amenities - could cripple the prospects of success for the most expensive of all MAPS3 projects. Keep it inside that bubble and OKC outperforms as a convention market; move it outside the bubble and we become a city easy to say no to, and one of those places that convention industry naysayers cite as an example of failure.

[Just the facts]

placing additional barriers like speedway-type boulevards between the CC and those amenities could cripple the prospects of success for the most expensive of all MAPS3 projects

Maybe certain people should re-think their desire for a speedway-type boulevard cutting the south side of downtown off.

[Urbanized]

While I agree with that, even if the boulevard were a happy little cobblestone lane, the south of Ford Center location would create walks in the range of 15+ minutes to a large number of critical locations. Contrary to the prevailing opinion that downtown "fat cat" business interests intervened on location because they inexplicably stand to benefit from the CC (nobody has ever bothered to explain how this would happen) the CC committee intervened on location selection because one site was already being pushed/assumed, and they came to understand how critical location was to the success of our biggest MAPS3 investment.

It's easy to dislike or distrust people because they are rich and powerful, but usually the reason they are rich and powerful is because they understand how business works. In this case, the convention business only works under a specific set of parameters. The CC is NOT the type of project you can place just anywhere in hopes of spurring development around it.

[SouthsideSooner]

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.

Not if it's for the hotel.

I've had several conversations with a council member about the convention center and hotel and they've maintained that the convention center hotel isn't going to require as much of a subsidy as many people seem to think. They've told me more than once that they felt like free land and a reasonable TIF would get it done.

If that's the case, the land swap may very well just be the portion of land being used for the hotel, greatly reducing the cost of the overall property that would come out of the MAPS budget.

[Teo9969]

Wrong. More than any other MAPS3 project the success of the CC depends upon its location, in this case it hinges directly upon its WALKABLE proximity to hotels, dining and entertainment. Other than the facility itself, that is the main selling point when pitching a conference or convention, and would be the most likely thing to compel a group to select OKC over another market.

Adding even five minutes to that average walk - or placing additional barriers like speedway-type boulevards between the CC and those amenities - could cripple the prospects of success for the most expensive of all MAPS3 projects. Keep it inside that bubble and OKC outperforms as a convention market; move it outside the bubble and we become a city easy to say no to, and one of those places that convention industry naysayers cite as an example of failure.

Congratulations, you just made a great argument for the East Bricktown site!!

[Rover]

Congratulations, you just made a great argument for the East Bricktown site!!

East BT is on the outer fringe and MG is in the middle of everything...walkable to more things of interest, not just BT restaurants and bars.

[Urbanized]

Congratulations, you just made a great argument for the East Bricktown site!!

As much as I would personally love the east Bricktown site, it puts downtown's only full-service hotels outside of the 10 minute bubble; 15-17 minutes away by foot. Believe me or don't, but that would have calamitous impact on OKC's ability to book conferences and conventions. Salability of OKC as a convention destination doesn't revolve ONLY around proximity to Bricktown.

[Teo9969]

lol…15-17 minutes away by foot? I can walk to Midtown from Bricktown in 17 minutes.

Broadway/Sheridan is 3 blocks away from the C2S North Site, 5 blocks away from the C2S South Site and 6 blocks away from the East Bricktown site.

I'm not arguing that the Bob Howard site isn't the BEST site…outside of the Cox Center it's the most prime real estate in the entire state of Oklahoma, but because of that, it's going to come at a price to the city in terms of land acquisition costs, and a price in terms of removing such prime real estate away from the private sector for a convention center that is going to be mostly useless to the average person spending time in OKC unless they beef up their plans for street front retail.

[Urbanized]

How about you get on Google Maps and measure walking distance from 100 Joe Carter (the northwesternmost point of the E Bricktown site) to the Skirvin, to the Renaissance, to the Sheraton, and to the Colcord. I'll sit here and wait.

These aren't random, made-up facts and figures I'm posting; they are convention industry standards. They don't give a flying flip how long it takes you to jog to Midtown. They only care about how long it will take the average VISITOR to walk from point A to point B using universally-accepted measures. Like I said, believe me or don't believe me.

[Rover]

Please don't confuse facts with opinion.

With the development of film row/west downtown, midtown, bricktown, core area, central park, the street car routes, etc., the currently tabbed site is good and much better than out on any edge, including east BT. People love to look at today when planners have to look at what will be tomorrow.

[Teo9969]

I'm calculating to Broadway/Sheridan where 2 of the 4 full service hotels sit:

5 minutes from Bob Howard (.3 miles)
8 minutes from Substation (.4 miles)
11 minutes from Bricktown (.6 miles)

If I'm a planner, I put it on the site of the substation, because you will get your full service hotel built right on the lot that will be plenty for many conventions and you add 3 minutes of walk time to other full service hotels and subtract about a minute of walk time from Bricktown and it kickstarts development on the east side of the Park, and opens up Bob Howard to be a larger scale development.

[Teo9969]

And just for *@%!s and giggles, it's 19 minutes from East Bricktown site to the Memorial in Midtown…so I missed by 2 minutes.