MAPS 3: The Renderings
Conceptual rendering of the new convention center.
Conceptual MAPS 3 rendering of streetcar.
Conceptual MAPS 3 rendering of proposed central park.
Conceptual rendering of MAPS 3 Oklahoma River improvements.
The Greater Oklahoma City Chamber has launched its campaign site for MAPS 3 and it looks like the city council will vote 8-1 next week to send the ballot to voters. It’s always interesting to see the campaign renderings, though one must realize these renderings are just that – campaign renderings – and the project designs will likely change quite a bit before everything is said and done (assuming MAPS 3 passes).
These renderings show what’s being proposed for downtown. Despite assurances by the mayor and others that no site is chosen yet for the convention center, it’s interesting to note nobody is budging from the Core to Shore site. The folks in Bricktown are quite afraid city leaders won’t reconsider the site and will continue to put all their emphasis on Core to Shore at the expense of Bricktown restaurants and merchants. That said, the Bricktown Association is listed as endorsing the ballot on the www.yesformaps.com website by the chamber.
So what are your thoughts?
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
I agree with Brian, looks fine, but I’ll reserve judgment until I see the true building models. Something I found a bit odd, on the yesformaps.com site the current fifth rendering slide of “Promoting a Healthy Community” shows in the middle frame a jogger running around airplanes while a plane is landing or taking off nearby. It may just be me, but I don’t want to be dodging planes or being forced to don earplugs while jogging or on my bike. Does the current city trails plan really have trails planned to go on or very close to Will Rogers Airport? Just seems a little strange to me.
The convention center rendering is a joke. All of the C2S illustrations are way better (2 different designs), even though the location they have in mind is horrible. In the end we know these renderings are preliminary just to show the concepts of streetcar and convention center, yet the convention center rendering is so horribly atrocious. That is exactly what a $280 million convention center does NOT look like no matter what. That thing is worse-looking than the Myriad would have been had it not become the Cox Center, and it reminds me of Tulsa’s outdated convention center that they’re renovating. Perhaps it would have made up for it if it showed the OKC skyline or Bricktown in the background..
Nick – other than saying that you don’t like it, you don’t offer a specific critique… is it the glass you don’t like? The color? Layout? The Maps 3 site has a completely different rendering…
I think the coop location is far more desirable as well. I think anyone who can bring pressure to bear on the city to change the location should do so. Perhaps the city is worrried that the park, if the land on all side is left open for potential development, won’t take off. Perhaps they’re trying to push faster development by siting the convention center there. Has anyone ever asked why specifically the convention center is planned for the Core to Shore location and gotten a good answer?
The purchasing price (last I heard it was upwards of $70m) of the Coop location makes it cost prohibitive. Unless that site can be acquired at a reasonable cost, the new convention center will not be located there.
There have actually been 2 images of the convention center shown at the Maps 3 campaign site but they don’t seem to be present simultaneously. But if you look at them both closely, you will see that they are of the same building. The one Steve shows above is a part of the larger building image. Both images are here.
Sorry, I gave the wrong specific link to both convention center pics … should have been the correct link
Terry, what’s interesting is that nobody has mentioned the cost of moving the OGE substation for the south of Ford Center site. I wonder how that compares. Also, what’s the price attached to ensuring the city’s investment to date in Bricktown isn’t squandered by cutting it off from its lifeblood (convention business)? I’m not advocating one site or another here, but I do think these are questions worth asking.
Terry – $70 million? Where did that figure come from? For some reason it seems that the estimated costs of the Cotton Gin site are growing at an exponential rate (it was only $25 million two years ago).
Either way, we would need cost figures on both sites to make a comparison. Further, we have to factor in the detrimental effects the convention center will have on the park. For the park’s sake, we would be far better off developing the surrounding blocks with some type of mixed-use.
i am a little confused here, is the central park for the citizens of okc or the ones that attend some crappy convention? having the convention center right next to the park is asinine, don’t you think?
I’m not paying much attention to these renderings, in terms of specific architectural details. I’m assuming (should that be a correct assumption?) that an architect hasn’t even been engaged yet, and the convention center would likely look far different. The plan for the convention center I liked actually had apartments with balconies overlooking the park attached to the center on the west side. I have looked at the sites in question, however, and think the Co-op makes the most sense. If the city were to buy it, I wonder if we couldn’t somehow also combine our transit hub with the convention center, thereby making it unnecessary to buy land for the hub elsewhere and making it very easy for conventioneers to move around the city.
Blair – I’d actually heard, 2-3 years ago, the figure to be even higher, approaching $90m, but heard it to be down to this figure a couple of months ago. I can’t say these are accurate numbers, not being in that business. But they were said to me by people who I know are heavily involved with C2S, whom we both know.
You and Steve (good point)are exactly right, though, in stating we need cost anlaysis figures for both the Coop and the OGE substation. I’m not sold on either site, could argue for/against both locations. I think, if the chosen site is that on Robinson, the design of the Cvn.Ctr could be so it mitigates negative impacts on the park, while providing with a bustling use.
Also, with the transit element, having it placed here would seem to aliviate some of Bricktown’s concerns about the 3-4 block distance between them.
Either way, it should be a lively topic.
Terry, I keep hearing from the mayor there is no preferred location yet for the convention center and that the Producer’s Coop location could still happen. But merchants and property owners in Bricktown recall hearing similar reassurances that their pitch for a canal extension would get a fair consideration as well. I know several people in Bricktown who are very skeptical and worry that Cornett is seeking to create a rival commercial area in Core to Shore that could hurt Bricktown.
Thanks Terry! I figured you had a legit source; I just haven’t heard anything in that ballpark. I am not sure which figures to believe, but hopefully we will get the actual numbers before taking steps towards choosing one site over the other.
Hope things are good in your neck of the woods.
I also would rather see the convention center in the Coop spot…what dollar amount does every think is too high? If it is the $70-90mil that Terry stated does everything still think the city should purchase it?
What amount is too high? If the price is too high, is the location next to the park an acceptable one or you think there is a second location better than adjacent to the park?
Just asking the these questions because the location of the convention center seems to be a hotter topic than the actual convention center itself right now…
The mill should not be more than $30 million. If they don’t sell it to the city today, they will have to wait 30 years to sell it.
As for the park. I wish they would have designed around the existing buildings. The design calls for destroying the Film Exchange building and the neighboring building that could be where the restaurant is that they are wanting along the main path. They also don’t design with Union Station. The design just has it sittin there. They should have incorporated our existing architecture and made a park that blends the old with the new. It is possible. I don’t know if that firm even went to the site by the design.
In the Dallas Morning News today there is a nice article about the Trolly system that is celebrating their 20th anniversary with 350,000 annual riders. The rail system has 4-trolleys and is a great asset to Dallas.
I was looking at the OKC trolly pictured and it looks like the fairgrounds monorail train. How a historical trolly system be operated in the innercity like OKC used to have.
Jill wrote: “The plan for the convention center I liked actually had apartments with balconies overlooking the park”
I think I saw the same one and liked it best over the other options (think it was in one of Steve’s blog entries, but can’t locate it now). What I liked best about it was that it didn’t look like your typical convention center.
Steve, can you provide a link or repost those renderings here?
The renderings look good. But just as you said, they are just renderings. And not even of things that have started to be designed.
Steve, regarding the location of the convention center, is there another location big enough that would put it both closer to existing hotels and Bricktown than the Core to Shore location?