Thank you for asking these questions.

Uh, this was always the catch with MAPS3. The city leaders and private equity were always going to do whatever the hell they wanted with all of these projects. We, as citizens, just have to hope at least some of it works out for our benefit.

The game was rigged before the vote.

Steve you are right on! With the ammount of expense being dedicated to the “central park” I would think it a counterproductive travesty to have the convention center limit the potential for great new development along one of its prime boarders. As an example of parks spaces spurring significant development, look at Dalls and the Woodall Rogers park. It is only now underconstruction and yet the notion that it was approved and had funding has led to the addition of many large mixed use buildings as well as new office buildings being constructed so that they would be seen forever with prominance on the park perimeter. These parks do have a significant draw. Our new park is somehow more of a gimick if we do not allow it to develop and reach its potential.

Secondly, the cotton seed oil “metal buildings” have been an eye sore for years and seem totaly out of place with our burgeoning and bustling city with the river front it stands to reason that the replacement of those buildings with something much more urban and inviting will have a significant and positive impact to the way visitors view this city.

So does this also mean that the “Citizens” committee that was to research this issue as provided in MAPS 3 will have no input? Who are these people making the decisions? Who can be contacted? From reading the “multiple sources” comment, it seems that people beyond the city council are putting on the pressure, if so, who and why and where can they be contacted?

Thanks Steve!

I’m trying not to have too strong of an opinion now, but I would like the ultimate decision for the placement of the convention center to be backed up by strong urban planning logic- That is, it’s fine if they put the convention center at the south-of-Ford location as long as there is a sound reasoning behind it. Currently, the Co-op/Lower Bricktown site seems far more supported by principles of economic development/urban planning, but no one has really tried to develop any logic for the south-of-Ford site. Maybe there is no logic to be found there?

What if we could all come together and change this, save the Core to Shore project, save Maps 3, and affect a positive difference for our city.. What if everyone on blogs and on forums shined so much light on this issue that they have to bend?

Too bad your paper stonewalled this ahead of the vote.

Who owns the land south of the Ford Center that would be used for the convention center?

Steve

I hope the decision is made based more heavily on the consultant’s recommendations rather than the prevailing political vapors. Your question regarding park-frontage development is a good one. (Every convention I’ve been to has been spent in the caverns of a building, a hotel, and the adjacent entertainment venues.) The surrounding esthetics, although nice to have, is of no value to the actual functioning and success of the convention facility.

Since the existing Cox Center is not slated for demolition (right?), assumedly it and the Ford Center will be considered to be part of the critical mass of usable space for “the” convention center. If that is the case then any location directly adjacent to those facilities would work. The Co-op site indeed seems perfect IF a large, and seamless pedestrian link through-under-over the rail lines is created.

Thanks for asking these good questions!

For location, you can’t beat the current Cox Convention Center site. Why don’t they either renovate it, or just tear it down and build the new convention center there? It is close to downtown hotels and Bricktown. Surely the four square blocks it takes up would be ample room to build an adequate convention center. And i can’t believe the arena is worth saving for the Big 12 tournament that might come 2 or 3 times a decade. And isn’t the site of the current co-op awfully far from the downtown hotels to put a convention center?

Except the Cox Center is slated to be the new home of the AHL hockey team. Plus, the two arenas across the street from each other are a big selling point for the Big 12 tournaments, which do bring it a lot of money. The Core 2 Shore area needs some major public investments to spur private development, the convention center being one of them. Except, they need to get the location right and the public needs to feel ownership of the decision-making process. I sometimes feel like the OKC Chamber is the calling the shots with MAPS 3, especially the convention center. That’s a good way to shoot ourselves in the foot.

Sure the Co-op seems out of place, but isn’t that precisely why it is important? I’ve put out the call more than once to recognize this site as a symbol of place that is worthy of keeping and integrating it into our urban fabric. I can see that site as a large parking facilty, a multi-modal transit hub, or a mixed use development. Relics like this show our industrial past and have more character than many newly built pieces of architecture. Look at examples like Gasworks Park in Seattle as a similar icon of a city’s post industrial landscape.

In terms of placement of the convention center, it seems that we may have to think beyond simply hemming it in to preexisting blocks. Would the site east of the Central Park seem so wrong if the convention center was placed mid block and spanned over a north/south street, RR tracks and connected to the the co-op site? Doing so would create park frontage and offer the park as an amenity to the center?

eminent domain can certainly be used to purchase property at the value of what it is, today, rather than what the owner wants to sell it for or “thinks it is worth.”

that said, i’m undecided as to where the best location for the convention center is. furthermore, my prior comments about laying the streetcar lines are made in the assumption that serving a building as significant as the new devon tower would be a foregone conclusion. i still stand by that. i would not, however, hold up all construction for project 180 to put the streetcar first. it makes sense to put the lines where the traffic generators are. it does not make sense to think that you shouldn’t put service where the number one downtown destination will be. sorry to hijack the thread, but i viewed it as related to the question of “where should we build what with public dollars?”

Dennis said any site adjacent to the Ford/Cox superblocks.

I would argue for any site NOT adjacent to the Ford/Cox superblocks. The reality is that lumping together all of these superblocks creates a black hole in the middle of downtown. Think about that. The park is another superblock. The convention center would be another.

Yeah Nick… let’s put it Edmond!

The real question is, how much would it cost to buy the Co-Op? Does the expected cost of the new convention center have enough wiggle room for the cost to purchase the land?

Transparency…and a lot of it, is what’s needed here. Hopefully there will be no fait accompli regarding the convention center’s location. It would be great to see thoughtful responses to these questions by the appropriate city leaders.

i believe it has been mentioned to being offered 12.5 million.

mia culpa it’s really 42 acres for 120 million

Steve, I agree with you except for the statement:

Bricktown merchants have said and shown that the walking distance from the site south of Ford Center will devastate their businesses compared to the Southwest Producers Co-op south of Lower Bricktown.

I could care less if it makes it harder for Bricktown merchants. The argument could easily be made for any other inner-city district. Bricktown owners shouldn’t get a free pass, and frankly, they’ve rested and relied on the city’s efforts too much. It’s time they and the City step up their game a notch. A convention hotel in Bricktown, Co-Op or by Central Park is going to benefit all of downtown, including the infamous Boathouse Row, no matter location. At the end of the day, people are going to want to be a part of DOWNTOWN, not just Bricktown or Boathouse Row.

How many acres would a convention center take? How many would a transit hub? If one or both was built on this site, how much room would be left over for other development like hotels?

My only concern with this location for a convention center is its distance from existing downtown hotels. I think it would be a necessity that a streetcar line go directly by the convention center to those hotels (guests should not be required to change trains since they will make this trip often). Does anyone know of any city with a similar set-up? Where a large percentage of its hotels are a short streetcar trip away?

Architect Hans Butzer told me about a very novel concept last year. Apparently in San Diego the streetcar actual goes through the main concourse of the building. I think that is a really cool idea that should be considered no matter where the convention center is.

$120 million is a hell of a lot. Personally, I think it’s a great spot for a convention center. Unfortunately, I think it’s a budget buster. I don’t think taxpayers would like to extend the tax another year in a supplemental vote just so we could build it on that location. Then again, maybe they would. Everybody in OKC knows about that mill site. Saying “we want to put it right here” might be something people get behind. Then again, maybe not.

Who owns the land south of the Ford Center that would be used for the convention center?

Who owns the co-op site?

How about East of the Coca Cola center? That old metal fabricating building? Seems like another good spot.

$120 million is the asking price. The process of eminent domain can establish a different price.