Convention Center

[jccouger]

It has to be as close to bricktown as possible in a logical way. I've thought about this nonstop and I don't see any way it doesn't go to the east of the c2s park.

No way parking is located along the crosstown blvd. It will be the convention center or the convention center hotel. We are going to want the entrance from the boulavard in to downtown and bricktown to be as grand as possible. The Peake achieves this especially with the new entrance. Its why I've always believed the lumberyard site was going to eventually be special, despite Steve saying otherwise. Something amazing will also go in the uhaul parking lot and whatever the jealous thing Steve was tracking I'd bet some money on was going to be located here.

[Urbanized]

^^^^^^
It wasn't/isn't.

[Urbanized]

Back to the CC, I think people are focusing too much on Bricktown, and certainly are at least assuming that I am doing the same. If there were a large contiguous site available near the north edge of the CBD, for instance, I would believe it should be considered, as it would be walkable to a large number of hotel rooms PLUS dining/entertainment in Automobile Alley and Midtown. That works. Unfortunately, there isn't. The same could be true for something in east Deep Deuce, but unfortunately (FORTUNATELY, actually) that is now too built out.

The goal simply needs to be a CC that sustains itself, and is attractive for convention bookings, based on industry standards. THAT is what I'm stressing, NOT a connection to Bricktown specifically.

[Jersey Boss]

Personally, I'm against the Core 2 Shore site because I think the park is more valuable to the city, overall, than the convention center. That land will be one of the most prime spaces in the city. If you want housing, offices, and retail all along Robinson, if you want to eventually redevelop the Cotton Mill and connect it with the rest of the city, then you don't want to plop a convention center right there and form a superblock that will be there for the next 50 years.

Sitting back and reading the comments posted over last few days has been an education. What struck me about yours is there seems to be a philosophical difference between those who have a common goal of a better urban environment. There appears to be camp who feels the way to get there is through massive buildings that will draw tourists and help fund future growth. The other camp feels that instead of investing in buildings it would make more sense to invest in "people", i.e.. streetcars, parks, restaurants and such. Thoughts?

[Just the facts]

What about Shields ?

Ooops, you're right. At one time I thought the boulevard would go under Shields and I keep reverting back to that image for some reason. However, the point is still valid. The UHaul site removes the last connection between Bricktown and the boulevard.

[soonerguru]

Has the East Bricktown site been ruled out? To me, that would be the best fit possible. It's a perfect location for convention visitors.

I agree with Spartan that there is no need to have your convention center in the heart of your CBD. Accessible to, yes, but it's not necessary to have it centered in your CBD.

[hoya]

Sitting back and reading the comments posted over last few days has been an education. What struck me about yours is there seems to be a philosophical difference between those who have a common goal of a better urban environment. There appears to be camp who feels the way to get there is through massive buildings that will draw tourists and help fund future growth. The other camp feels that instead of investing in buildings it would make more sense to invest in "people", i.e.. streetcars, parks, restaurants and such. Thoughts?

That's interesting. I hadn't thought about it that way before. I'm not sure if I'm comfortable with the distinction. I like big buildings too.

My thoughts on the best way to rebuild our downtown have definitely changed over the years. When I first started posting I would have definitely fallen into the "big building" camp. I thought that a lot of the little amenities, like parks and shops, weren't really that important. What mattered was big office buildings where people would go and work. At 5 pm everything would close down and you would go home. And I thought that's the way it was supposed to be. I was a lot like PluPan.

The more I've posted here, the more the things that JTF and Betts have said have started to sink in. I think the most important thing, certainly now that our downtown is "alive" again, is to make it a place where people want to be. Urban neighborhoods that develop naturally, with housing and shopping and dining, are going to be more appealing than a huge multi-block convention center. The central park has the potential to be really special. It won't all be done tomorrow, but if you fast forward 30 years, you're probably going to have a dozen high rises lining the park, stuff similar to the ClayCo project. You can put the convention center there to "jump start" Core 2 Shore, but I think what you really end up doing is putting a hard limit on the type of development you're going to get there.

Private money outstripped MAPS 1 public money probably 20 times over. The investments we made in the ballpark and canal, etc, made Bricktown a fun and exciting place to be and then the private investment dollars flowed in. I think we need to have faith that the other downtown quality of life projects, the park and the streetcar, will do the same. But we limit what the park can do if we take up half of the frontage with something that most of the citizens are never going to use.

[ShadowStrings]

I'm too tired to think through this logically, but this is my sorry attempt at trying to think "outside the box."

Would the boulevard be far enough below grade that the convention center could straddle it and use both the Uhaul plot and the Lumber Yard plot? You wouldn't even need need all of the Lumber Yard site unless you wanted to put the hotel and/or parking garage on the east side of the Lumber Yard. You could even have one or two levels of the convention center underground but exposed to the boulevard (maybe with retail on the bottom floor fronting the boulevard?). This would allow for the loading docks to be on the same level as the large, contiguous space that is a necessity for the convention center. The hotel could be on the north or east part of Uhaul or on the east side of Lumber Yard. With the convention center fronting Reno, convention-goers would have easy access to Bricktown and are still close to the park and all of the hotels. It would also be neat for people driving on the boulevard to be able to drive under the building (though maybe this isn't safe...). This probably isn't a realistic idea since the boulevard would be finished by the time the convention center would start construction, plus it's probably way outside the budget.

Alternatively, is either site big enough to hold just the convention center, while the other site could be used for the hotel and parking? Again, I'm not sure how buying two plots of land is better than one.

I would support a MAPS 3.5 to raise enough money to purchase the land where the convention center was originally supposed to go (C2S North).

[HOT ROD]

ok folks, we've had a couple of days of shock and awe and a little bit of scortched earth thrown in with regard to the convention center - that I think it is time for a poll. I will create the poll based on the sites I've heard/read (and can remember).

Cox Convention Center site
C2S South (East actually)
Main Street
Bricktown North/Skirvin
E Bricktown
U-Haul
Lumberyard
Coop
Oklahoma Health Center/Oklahoma School of Science and Mathematics
Farmer's Market
repurpose AICCM
Fairgrounds
Suburban - near Yukon was suggested

hope that captures everything. Here is the poll: http://www.okctalk.com/general-civic...best-site.html

[hoya]

I don't see the Hoverboards/Floating City option.

[David]

I'm too tired to think through this logically, but this is my sorry attempt at trying to think "outside the box."

Would the boulevard be far enough below grade that the convention center could straddle it and use both the Uhaul plot and the Lumber Yard plot? You wouldn't even need need all of the Lumber Yard site unless you wanted to put the hotel and/or parking garage on the east side of the Lumber Yard. You could even have one or two levels of the convention center underground but exposed to the boulevard (maybe with retail on the bottom floor fronting the boulevard?). This would allow for the loading docks to be on the same level as the large, contiguous space that is a necessity for the convention center. The hotel could be on the north or east part of Uhaul or on the east side of Lumber Yard. With the convention center fronting Reno, convention-goers would have easy access to Bricktown and are still close to the park and all of the hotels. It would also be neat for people driving on the boulevard to be able to drive under the building (though maybe this isn't safe...). This probably isn't a realistic idea since the boulevard would be finished by the time the convention center would start construction, plus it's probably way outside the budget.

Alternatively, is either site big enough to hold just the convention center, while the other site could be used for the hotel and parking? Again, I'm not sure how buying two plots of land is better than one.

I would support a MAPS 3.5 to raise enough money to purchase the land where the convention center was originally supposed to go (C2S North).

At first glance that doesn't seem like a terrible idea, the convention center I've been to in DC straddles a road. Depends on land acquisition costs and whether it provides the continuous space Pete has been talking about.

[Just the facts]

If you want to keep walkability as an option you can't have it straddle a road. For pedestrians it might as well be a solid wall.

[jn1780]

I'm too tired to think through this logically, but this is my sorry attempt at trying to think "outside the box."

Would the boulevard be far enough below grade that the convention center could straddle it and use both the Uhaul plot and the Lumber Yard plot? You wouldn't even need need all of the Lumber Yard site unless you wanted to put the hotel and/or parking garage on the east side of the Lumber Yard. You could even have one or two levels of the convention center underground but exposed to the boulevard (maybe with retail on the bottom floor fronting the boulevard?). This would allow for the loading docks to be on the same level as the large, contiguous space that is a necessity for the convention center. The hotel could be on the north or east part of Uhaul or on the east side of Lumber Yard. With the convention center fronting Reno, convention-goers would have easy access to Bricktown and are still close to the park and all of the hotels. It would also be neat for people driving on the boulevard to be able to drive under the building (though maybe this isn't safe...). This probably isn't a realistic idea since the boulevard would be finished by the time the convention center would start construction, plus it's probably way outside the budget.

Alternatively, is either site big enough to hold just the convention center, while the other site could be used for the hotel and parking? Again, I'm not sure how buying two plots of land is better than one.

I would support a MAPS 3.5 to raise enough money to purchase the land where the convention center was originally supposed to go (C2S North).

The boulevard is already going to be starting its upward climb once it passes underneath the railroad tracks so the convention center would have to be built on a higher elevation also which would stick out like a sore thumb in Bricktown.

[Just the facts]

The boulevard is already going to be starting its upward climb once it passes underneath the railroad tracks so the convention center would have to be built on a higher elevation also which would stick out like a sore thumb in Bricktown.

The elevated and depressed nature of the boulevard east of the railroad, coupled with a view of Lower Bricktown parking lots and the back of a movie theater, is never going to promote street facing development. That section of the boulevard really is just going to be a car sewer.

[Laramie]

IIR we spent $16 million on land acquisition for MAPs I parcels which included the arena, ballpark & canal we now showcase.

You can imagine the devastation we felt when news came that $100 million was asked for the convention center site. So, it's back to square one.

Oh, now some are calling the leadership dysfunctional; yet we forget what the leadership has inherited over the years. Our city remained so stagnant from 1960-90 until MAPS jump-started OKC. Our city didn't get in the shape it's in overnight; therefore don't expect fast-fix changes. Yes, we need constructive criticism as we progress.

[bchris02]

Real estate in downtown OKC is so much more valuable now than it was in 1990, thanks to the success of the first MAPS program. There is really no comparison between the costs of land acquisition in downtown for the first MAPS and land acquisition today. It might as well not even be the same city.

[Pete]

Just a reminder that the site selection study was complete in June of 2011. In fact, the current site was identified as the leader long before that.

The eminent domain action wasn't even filed until the middle of 2014. And now they are claiming they had no idea that the owners wanted $100 million until last month.

First of all, it was very clear they would never be able to afford the land a long time ago.

Then they spend FOUR YEARS jacking around with no Plan B?


This mess in entirely the making of the people involved with the convention center and we need better answers than, "Oh, we had no idea they wanted so much money. And gee wow, land prices have really gone up lately and all the good spots have been developed. Hmm. Well, haha, I guess downtown is just a victim of it's own success! Have you noticed how well downtown is doing? It's really doing great, isn't it?? Because that's really the issue, not the fact we've spent four years and a ton of money and resources and now have no clue what we're going to do."

[David]

Victims of our own success in a way.

[jccouger]

Victims of our own success in a way.

That misses the point. Sure, land prices went up because of downtown success, but that is not what Pete is getting at. The citizens are the victims of poor planning by the convention center committee. The committee were idiots to put all of our eggs in one basket for 4 years, and then try to put rose colored glasses over our eyes & spin it to make it look like this is a good thing when their plans fell through.

[Pete]

^

I'm sure David's comment was a cross-post with mine; he was commenting on the post above mine.


I'm just tired of no one being held accountable over these kinds of issues, and as a result, the underlying issues are never dealt with.

[Canoe]

If we can not find a spot that is affordable where a convention center would be successful, and instead spent the money on a streetcar how many extra miles of track could we get? Would that streetcar lose money like the convention center will lose money or will it make money for the city? Could we reduce bus service with an increase in streetcar service?

[jn1780]

If we can not find a spot that is affordable where a convention center would be successful, and instead spent the money on a streetcar how many extra miles of track could we get? Would that streetcar lose money like the convention center will lose money or will it make money for the city? Could we reduce bus service with an increase in streetcar service?

We can't just cancel one MAPs project and divert that money to another. That wouldn't be what the voters agreed to even if they really just liked the rest of MAPs 3 program. If anything it would just mean early ending of the MAPs sales tax.

Not proceeding forward with the convention center is far from city leaders minds at this point.

[jdross1982]

Question for those that may know. Does anyone know who owns the properties just east of 235 between NE4th and NE 1st & Lincoln and N High Ave?

I think this would be a great location for the CC as it is a short walk to Bricktown and Deep Deuce and the road and walkways would make the trek very easy to mesh with both Bricktown/Deep Deuce and the OUHSC area. I would also think this land would be much cheaper to come by than taking up prime real estate next to the C2S Park. This area also provides plenty of room for future expansion and access to both highways, hotels and entertainment would make it a positive location. It would also drive development in the area.

It looks as if there is some small homes and a foster center but also lots of vacant lots.

[Stickman]

Exactly, go back to post 290...........says all you need to know.

[warreng88]

It has been interesting to read the mass of comments from so many great posters on this subject, which I think is a very important one. My vote was always for the original CC site, south of the Peake for several reasons: 1. It would help jumpstart C2S, 2. The city already owns or can own quickly much of the land and 3. It is literally the exact same distance as the old location.

If you took a walk from the corner of Reno and Harvey to Zio’s in BT it is an eight minute walk, all the way down Reno. If you took a walk from the corner of SW 4th and Shields/EK Gaylord, it is the same distance. From the SE corner of Boulevard and Robinson, it is less than a ten minute walk to the Renaissance and the Sheraton, downtown’s two largest hotels. Also, this might force the city to rethink the EK Gaylord/Shields layout south of the boulevard while they are working on it for the boulevard and maybe narrow it a little bit to add wide sidewalks and possibly bike lanes. This also makes the chance for expansion to the south that much easier.

Putting the convention center where our existing one is located is a logistical nightmare. We can’t just tear it down to the parking garage and build on top of it, it would have to go all the way down and then back up due to new building standards. We would again run into the issue of the water table and we would be without any sizeable conventions downtown for about four years.

The other option I think would be good would be the large parking lot in between Bass Pro and the Residence inn in BT. Straddle the canal (San Antonio did it) with the larger meeting space on the second floor and smaller spaces on the first floor with the hotel on the corner of Reno and Byers. The parking garage can be built to the south of the boulevard along with other meeting space, if necessary.

Just one man's opinion. Carry on...