…Why does the Mayor favor that site?

…Would the proposed ramp-box benefit ANY development on that site, or just a convention center?

Dennis, I can’t answer your question because while in every action the mayor makes it clear he favors the site south of Ford Center, he then says the opposite.

Mick baffles me these days, for these same reasons, he’ll probably never make a national political seat.

I have desired a transparent, open process on the convention center site as much as anyone else, but I can am quite certain that this agenda item IS NOT evidence of favoritism for the park-side convention center site.

Just as I could have said the “proposed convention center site” instead of “park-side” site and you would have known what I meant, the City uses the “proposed convention center” language to communicate what area and in what context the “ramp-box” item is being discussed.

And to clarify. The “ramp-box” is a ramp-underpass that will go beneath the Robinson I-40 bridge crossing lead ramp. The at-grade I-40, raised bridge crossings, and related lead ramps are a significant error in urban design; but not errors being carried out under the direction of the City. These errors that will certainly have a very negative impact on our new park, thus the City is doing what it can to ameliorate the affects.

That said, in the future the City should refrain from the loaded and leading language that indicates any convention center site is preferred in anyway. It simply causes confusion.

Read the agenda item again and ask yourself – would this ramp be an issue if the south of Ford Center site wasn’t in contention for a convention center?

Just got finished saying my piece before the City Council about this. Of course the item passed, and got a pretty good lashing from half of the horseshoe saying that I was spreading erroneous claims regarding a convention center site conspiracy, which is what Mayor Mick called it.

Now to get to work since I took off a few hours..

So, what happened at the meeting this morning?

Passed unanimously. They were claiming that the ramp-box needs to go there anyway and the item would be on the docket in its exact form and at the exact cost even if the convention center was not predetermined to go there.

It modification to the highway ramp was approved.

The language regarding the Convention Center probably shouldn’t have been referenced at all.

This is simply a move to “save land” that would otherwise be gobbled up by a conventional highway ramp. And from my experiences with ODOT, it is better to try to build these things in at construction rather than try to add them later.

This highway was promoted as being like I-75 in Dallas. Completely depressed with (no ramping) with streets crossing over at their current grade.

Instead, it is semi-depressed at 8′ below grade, and there are ramps at nearly every street that overpasses.

It is an impressive highway. Quite attractive engineering in fact with the artwork and gateways OKC Beautiful/others fought for.

But I do actually think that it is so much of a physical barrier that it will cause the north end of Core to Shore to develop with great density in the park area.

It is the other side of the highway that will probably take much longer.

So what does this mean for the iconic pedestrian bridge?

This is turning into quite the circus.

I think, if the highway cannot be built below grade, that the “Shore” part of Core to Shore is not going to be happening. By being above grade, the highway will essentially cut anything south of it off from the CBD. I’m also thinking that the proximity of the highway will basically ruin any plans for nicer development next to it. This is a HUGE disappointment, but perhaps it is the best argument for the convention center in that location. I don’t think we’ll have higher end residential that near the highway, and so hotels, restaurants and a convention center might be the best development we will be able to get adjacent to the park. I’ve also driven around that area, and it’s not really that far from Bricktown, especially if we plan streetcar access. Although I think, all things being equal, the park area is not best for the CC, all things are no longer equal.

Has the city pulled, or been handed, a short straw?
And if the highway is from at grade to 8 feet below grade, will all existing overpasses now have to be rebuilt to be raised?

Not a road person, obviously.

Jill, you comments suggest that the highway design will “essentially cut anything south of it off from the CBD…so hotels, restaurants and a convention center might be the best development”.

It almost sounds like you are suggesting building another entertainment district there. This is one of the BIG concerns. Why do this when the citizens have invested millions of tax dollars already in Bricktown, AND it has worked?
Oh, and your thought that it’s not that far from Bricktown? The walk would be anywhere from twice as long to three times as long.
It’s this simple, if the City puts the Convention Center south of the Ford Center, Bricktown will lose a large percentage of the business it currently gets from the Conventions. This will be cripling for the district, if you then have restaurants and hotels develop next to the CC, then you have KILLED Bricktown!

I have a vested interest in Bricktown doing well because I live just north of there. I have long felt the CC should be south of Bricktown, as it’s logical to me. I’m not suggesting building another entertainment district near the park at all, but I don’t really see the Core part of Core to Shore as being THAT far from Bricktown. So, if there are a few hotels and a couple of restaurants there, I don’t think it will kill Bricktown at all.

We’re looking at this from the perspective of people who get in their cars and drive two blocks to the grocery store. I’m thinking about New Orleans, where the convention center is a goodly distance from the French Quarter and yet they both kept busy back in the day. In Chicago people would consider the proposed location of the CC next to the park a gentle stroll. It would be wise to link it via streetcar to Bricktown, but as I said, after I actually looked at the distances, I wasn’t impressed.

If we put the CC south of Bricktown, and the highway is at grade, we’ve killed the Core part of Core to Shore and we might as well not bother to build the park. What’s going to go in there? Certainly you can’t assume the high end housing that was shown in the plans would be a sure sale, with the highway there and visible. I think it’s going to need to be a more commercial district, with retail, hotels and perhaps some lower cost housing. I could still see putting apartments on the park side of the convention center, as in one of the plans I saw, but they might need to be rentals for young adults, as opposed to upscale apartments. Our Central Park is going to need development around it, or it will turn into another Will Rogers Park, and I don’t think it’s going to be housing. So, I’ve changed my position completely. Put the CC to the east of the park, but make sure there’s easy access to Bricktown via streetcar. Just my opinion, of course, but if Bricktown fails, that’s bad for me. I simply don’t think this will have the negative effect on Bricktown that people fear.

Questions about the timeline of events…

Wasn’t it known BEFORE the Core to Shore report (late 2007) that the relocated I-40 was just going to be partially below grade?

Wasn’t that taken into account when they did the C2S report?

If it wasn’t taken into account, why are they just now addressing it?

Jill pointed out elsewhere that it appears they have “filled in the formerly partially below grade area behind Union Station. Why have they raised the level at this late date?

“I’ve also driven around that area, and it’s not really that far from Bricktown, especially if we plan streetcar access.”

But what if you are walking? That is true if you are driving but most convention goers aren’t going to have cars (as Jim pointed out along with former Mayor Humphreys) and if not mistaken, none of the proposed streetcar routes have included the C.C.

If it being partially below grade serves as a barrier to the whole concept, it could easily take 50 years or more to complete.

Larry, again I’m giving my opinion. I think six to eight feet below grade is acceptable. That allows one to see land, as opposed to cars, when looking south. It’s not as good as 20 feet below grade, but I think it would not create the visual barrier that an at grade multi-lane highway would. I do believe that if it is at-grade, the land south of the highway will have to be developed separately, as part of the river/boathouse/trail system, rather than part of the CBD. But, when I went and looked at the area behind Union Station last week, which I did randomly, having heard none of this, I noticed that it looked like they were filling in the previously excavated roadbed. That’s what concerned me enough to ask about it.

Now, what about the south of the Ford Center issue for walkers? It’s true, I was driving. But, I used to walk my dog over to the Myriad Gardens (I know, it’s off limits for dogs, but no one seemed to care) and so I have a fairly good idea about distances on foot. The south of the Ford Center location is simply not that far to walk, even for me, who lives north of Bricktown. If you develop the area between a CC south of the Ford Center and Bricktown, and you link it with a streetcar for those who fear to walk a few blocks, I’m now thinking it’s not that big of a deal.

As I said, I was always a big fan of the south of Bricktown convention center location. I still think it’s the best location, all things being equal. But I think that if the highway is at grade, which I find very upsetting I might add, the park is doomed without adjacent development of a non housing sort.

I don’t think the highway will ruin any nicer developments that may be proposed in the ‘Core’ portion of the project, just because the highway itself is brand new. The development in the area, regardless of it’s proximity to the highway, will be brand new. And there’s going to be a beautiful brand new park adjacent to the highway as well. The demand, when in full swing, will hopefully deterr any more “less-desireable” proposals. But I imagine either the DDRC will be expanded or a new design overlay district would be implemented for Core to Shore from presenting such astrocities.

Jill, sorry if my post came across the way it looks like you read it. Let me try again. Just as with tax rates, there is a ‘tipping point’ where someone says, “No, sorry, that is to much”. I don’t half the article handy (think it was here on Steve’s blog) where former mayor Humphreys measured the walking distance from the Cox to Bricktown and the Park site to Bricktown and it was double (IIRC). Does that amount cross the tipping point where the average person says, that’s too far, gets a cab or something and heads off in another direction? I agree with you that the Streetcar MUST connect DIRECTLY with the C.C. but if not mistaken, NONE of the proposed routes do that. That was a point stressed by the Bricktown folks and both of the former Mayors…connectivity to Bricktown is crucial (canal extension, streetcars etc.)

Is it going to be as bad as some are predicting if the Park site is chosen, probably not. Just as the Meridian corridor folks pushed for a convention center to be located more towards their area than Bricktown in the original MAPS. 16+ years later, the Meridian corridor seems to be doing just fine. People that have vested interests are logically going to try to protect those interests where they can. Thru MAPS & MAPS 3, as taxpayers we all have a vested interest in Bricktown etc work in conjunction with each other and not at odds.

Opinions are great for discussion, but here’s a fact. If the streetcar runs by the convention center, it might carry 50 people. That’s not a realist means of getting a convention on 2,000 to 10,000 to restaurants for lunch or dinner.
Jill, not only have two panels of experts disagreed with you on the site south of Ford Center, but the merchants and property owners in Bricktown have as well. They have invested private dollars based upon where the public dollars were spent(ballpark, canal, Ford Center, and the remodeling of the Cox Center in Maps 1).

When does public input start happening in regards to the proposed CC site?

Why is the city funding a 3rd study in regards to the proposed CC site, when two highly respected organizations have said the park site is the least desirable?

So, question here. What happens to the Core part of Core to Shore if we put the CC south of Bricktown? We have a lovely park in the middle of nowhere with blight surrounding it. Anybody here going to buy a $200+ per square foot house next to the highway? If we put inexpensive rentals there it certainly won’t mimic New York’s Central Park. What do people see happening to that area in terms of development?
How far in terms of blocks are other well-known convention cities’ centers from their primary restaurant/entertainment centers?

Will we be able to afford the cotton gin area even if we prefer it? Personally, I think the Main Street location in Bricktown is a terrible location for a convention center. A convention center there would ruin the ambience of Bricktown. The only other option close to Bricktown that I think would be reasonable is Meinders’ steelyard. What would that land cost?

I’m going to walk from the proposed site to Bricktown today and see what I think. Again, I suspect we’ve got the Okie perspective of distance stuck in our head, rather than that of actual city dwellers.

So, although I didn’t walk it, I did something which I think gave me better data. I drove from the site of the undesireable convention center to Bricktown and checked the mileage. I did it twice to make sure it was correct. It is 0.5 miles from the east edge of the site to Rooster’s (or Bolero, take your pick). Then, because I was curious, I drove from my house on 3rd and Oklahoma to both Starbucks and Abuelos, because I frequently stroll to Starbucks with my dog on weekends, and we walk to Abuelos often because my son likes it: 0.6 miles. Now, I challenge anyone to say they don’t consider Bricktown walkable for people who live in Maywood Park or Deep Deuce, and yet distances are comparable. The walk from the proposed convention center is ugly and not user friendly, and I think that skews ones perspective of distance. I know I walk as far or farther between subway stops and bus stops in Chicago and New York when I visit.

My objection, always, to the convention center sited on the Central Park was that I thought we didn’t need a big ugly box on one side of the park, and that I would prefer more attractive development there: specifically retail and housing. I would still prefer both of those there, but, as I’ve said above, my big concern is the grade of I-40. If it is not below grade, and I don’t think we’ve established definitively that it will be below grade, I simply don’t see housing-oriented development going in there. I’m not sure what I see going in there. So, if we were to put the convention center there, especially if we used the plan I’ve seen that had attached apartments on the west side of the CC, facing the park, we’ve got an immediate stimulus to development in that area, and I don’t see anything happening there without it, personally.

What this new perspective does do is make me very anti-boulevard (as we have heard it outlined). I didn’t like the idea before, but if we site the convention center where it sounds like there’s going to be a push to site it, the boulevard will be a disaster. IF we put the convention center between I-40 and a boulevard with multiple lanes of fast moving traffic, then we do essentially cut off any sense of connection between it and Bricktown or downtown. That would be a terrible mistake. Any boulevard we create needs to be parklike, encourage strolling and meandering and actually function as a path between Bricktown, the Convention Center and the Central Park. I think anything more than two lanes of traffic in either direction, and ideally one, will doom our now shrunken Core (gazing mournfully at the Shore across many, many lanes of traffic). This all presumes the new I-40 will be at grade, of course. And then, we must make sure the streetcar connects with it, even if we have to sacrifice the route to the Health Sciences Center. I think the park and a convention center are a far more worthy location for a stop than the Health Sciences Center. There are certainly as many conventioneers who would use it to go places in town as workers at the HSC coming to Bricktown.

Just my opinion. I realize many smart people think otherwise, but I wonder how many of them have actually tried to think about how we can make these separate areas function as one great downtown, rather than separate areas competing with each other for development. They’re not far enough apart for that to be a good idea.

Jill:
Here’s the problem with your measurement, you measured from the East side of the proposed CC site, you need to measure from the West. The way they have it drawn and the way I have heard it explained is that the CC would open to the West so that it opened up to the park. The East side would be the beautiful loading dock area…

It’s interesting that you seem to be more concerned about what happens to Core to Shore, rather than other areas of downtown.
If I 40 wasn’t relocating, would any suggest that Core to Shore was a good idea?
Here’s another question, WITH I 40 relocating, are you sure it’s still a good idea??????

Jim, it’s still not a significant increase in distance, even measuring from the West. I thought I’d explained that what I think is important is that we NOT separate different parts of downtown. I think, if done correctly, Core to Whatever can flow seamlessly into the CBD and Bricktown. It doesn’t have to be a competition. The distances we’re talking about are negligible when you think about comparable distances in other cities. When I’m in New York, Boston or Chicago, I walk much farther between hotels, restaurants and attractions than I would between the convention center and Bricktown. The New Orleans convention center is much farther from the French Quarter than this convention center would be from Bricktown. We need to lose our idea that people won’t walk. Conventioneers are not from Oklahoma,for the most part, so they actually might be willing to walk a few blocks. There’s also no reason we couldn’t run trolleys, have pedi-cabs and have the streetcar available to transport those who aren’t walkers.

Being pro Core to Shore doesn’t mean you have to be anti-Bricktown. Personally, I’m probably a bigger fan of Bricktown, and almost assuredly a greater utilizer of it since I live so close than many of the people posting here. I simply don’t see why the two are mutually exclusive, now that I’ve really looked closely at the area and the distances involved.

To clear up some confusion on the distances. Complete comment can be read at:
http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/2010/03/08/convention-center-location-report/

Comment by Kirk Humphreys on March 9, 2010 @ 12:55 am

Jeff,

In saying that “it’s only 50 yards further than the Cox Center” you are parroting remarks by a city official that are inaccurate.

The facts are:

* The walking distance from the Cox Center to the center of Bricktown (Oklahoma Avenue at the Canal)is 1,430 feet.

* From the Lumber Yard site recommended by the HOK Convention Site Study and the ULI Panel to the center of Bricktown is 1,120 feet.

* From the site depicted on the Core to Shore plan on the east side of the new park to the center of Bricktown is 3,120 feet. This is 3/8 of a mile further than the current distance — a major difference for a convention-goer on a lunch break. …

Kirk Humphreys

“If the streetcar runs by the convention center, it might carry 50 people”….

Not true. A streetcar can carry up to 130 people at a time comfortably. I realize that is not the same as 2,000 people in a single bound, but such tram service could quite comfortably handle the general load during the normal programming of a convention or “people coming and going to their hotels and such during a program.”

If we ran 5 trams during a period of people “dumping out of an event” on a special CBD circuit, we could handle 650 people on a circulation every 8-10 minutes in the CBD with traffic signal prioritization. So if an event of such size take 30 minutes to completely exit, that’s 1,950 – 2,437 people in that time frame at perfect operation.

So yes, a streetcar can make a fair impact and take people farther than they would probably be willing to walk. It really comes down to the size of the event itself, and how many streetcar trams/operators we can provide for in our operation and MAPS budget. This greater distance could benefit proprietors further away and help distribute the parking load.

I will say that one novel idea that Hans Butzer brought up to me once, is actually running the new streetcar directly through the new Convention Center building itself. Obviously, it would look cool, but it would also reduce wait times and get the streetcar off of the street and away from being delayed by the “mass exodus.”

I am not going “weigh in” on this convention center location discussion. But I would say that this new transit system “could” change the dynamic and impact area of convention/Ford Center events if designed properly.

A long rambling “tourist ride” as has been depicted in some proposals is going to be of great disservice to these types of scenarios where you need to handle unusual demands. Hopefully soon the planning process will reveal a very dynamic solution that is well designed and flexible.

“I don’t think we’ve established definitively that it will be below grade”…

Its 8′ below grade at Union Station.

Just to clarify, I am not the Jeff from the March 9th post referenced above from Kirk Humphreys. Somebody just emailed me debating it.

To each his own. lol

LOL…Sorry Jeff if my post (Humphreys post) caused you any grief…

I hope you’re right, Jeff. It doesn’t look like it’s 8 feet below grade right now, but maybe there’s a lot of packing of sand that will occur.

Walking distance from the proposed site south of the Ford Center is certainly farther than from the Myriad. If our only concern is making sure conventioneers have lunch in Bricktown, then by all means it should be located closer. My point is simply that it’s still not THAT far, and that I have to walk farther to get to Bricktown from Maywood Park, do it all the time and think nothing of it. It’s a relaxing stroll. I certainly don’t think locating the convention center 3/8 of a mile farther than it is currently located would keep people from going to Bricktown in the evening, and I’d like to see every effort made to make the Core a part of a seamless downtown, i.e. no multi-lane Boulevard.

So, Jill you are saying that 10,000 people will walk .7 miles for lunch?

NOT GOING TO HAPPEN! I have lost all respect for Jill’s post. She thinks that people have 2 hours for lunch.

I have been to many conventions downtown and we usually go to Bricktown for lunch because it is a 5 minute walk away. If the convention center is a half mile away that is now a 15 minute walk. People will either go to a new restaurant across the street or hop in a taxi and go somewhere else.

I don’t know if people will walk that far for lunch. It depends on the people. I think the 10,000 number is a bit of a stretch, because I don’t think Bricktown can accomodate 10,000 people at lunchtime, nor am I sure that we’ll attract that size convention even with a new convention center. Most of the conventions I’ve been at serve lunch, and we go out to dinner in the evenings, but perhaps my experience is skewed.

Most people posting here are from Oklahoma. I’ve found a lot of people in Oklahoma don’t like to walk two blocks if they can drive. But I have seen people walk to the Ford Center in the evenings from Bricktown for a game and go back to Bricktown afterwards. I’ve seen people park way over by Bass Pro to walk to the Ford Center for a game.

I’ve walked a lot farther than 0.5 miles when I’ve been at conventions in other cities, to get to my hotel, to go out to dinner. I walk a lot farther than that to get from one bus stop to another in Chicago when I visit.

I’m not sure why this is such an upsetting topic. As I’ve said, if people think the most important thing about locating a convention center is having it where people are sure to lunch in Bricktown, and the city can afford the cotton gin site, then by all means, locate it there. That’s where I’d like to see it located as well, all things being equal. I just think, after I really looked at the site and its proximity to Bricktown, that the distances are being blown out of proportion by people who rarely walk anywhere. I’m a walker, and the distance, upon closer inspection, isn’t that bad, IMO.

…says the person who twice (almost) measured the distance. In her CAR.

Well, Andy, I suppose I could have gone out and bought a pedometer, since I don’t own one. I thought using my car, which measures in increments of 0.1 miles, gave a more reliable measurement than estimating blocks. What I was looking for was real data, not just an emotional reaction to the location. And again, I walk more than the distance from the theoretical convention center to Bricktown every day, since my dog gets at least two mile long walks through Bricktown and Deep Deuce every day, and we virtually always walk to Bricktown if we’re eating out, a farther distance than the power plant to Bricktown route. Have you even driven it? How many people have? I hadn’t. I’d driven around the park area and Union Station, but really hadn’t looked at the power plant. When I did, I was surprised at how close it is to the Ford Center.

That’s why I think, if we’re going to pick our battles, the boulevard is a better target. It has the potential for a much greater negative impact on the area than putting the convention center a couple of blocks further west, IMO.

Here’s the trick to measuring the distance. I’ve talked to Mike Carrier, head of the CVB, and other experts who say if the convention center is built on the site favored by the mayor, the loading docks would be facing Shields/E.K. Gaylord and the main entrances would be geared toward the central park. That might make a difference in distance estimates.

Really not trying to pile on Jill, but I am curious. In another thread you correctly pointed out that the distances people are willing to walk combined w/the wonderfully wacky Oklahoma weather for the Streetcar routes an important consideration. It seems you are throwing that reasoning out when it comes to the location of the C.C.???

I don’t fault you for using your car to measure the distance, but when in a car it can make the distance misleading. By car, it doesn’t seem that far. By foot, it suddenly seems a lot farther.

The purpose for the walk can also impact how far it seems and if it is worth doing or not. The same distance walked to work seems intolerable but to go to an entertainment event, not so much. If you are needing a quick bite on your lunch hour or convention break, distance is important because of travel time involved.

Everyone, keep in mind that the new C.C. will have eating places incorporated into it (just as the Ford and Bricktown Ballpark) so we won’t have 10,000 people (or whatever the number ends up being) making a mad dash for Bricktown. Some will, some won’t. However, the easier you make it for someone to do something, the more likely they are going to do it (teenagers being the obvious exception…LOL)

Larry, again all I can use is my personal experience and opinions. I think it is completely different to walk to a streetcar stop, after which you will then have to ride to a destination than it is to walk to a destination. I think in the former situation you have to factor in times from both, whereas when you’re walking, every bit of time you’re using to walk is getting you to your destination rather than a streetcar stop. I will, however, check and see how long my walk from my house to City Hall was and compare it with the CC to Bricktown walk.

And, I agree with the car versus on foot statement you made, as distances do seem different in a car versus on foot. However, I also noted in my previous post that I was comparing that distance against the distance I commonly walk to Bricktown to go to dinner or get coffee and the CC to Bricktown distance was shorter. If you put the entrance to the CC on the east side they’re probably comparable distances. I think nothing of a walk into Bricktown and I doubt anyone else in Maywood or Deep Deuce does either, as I see people walking from one to the other all the time.

I also agree that the easier we make the walk to Bricktown, the more likely people are to make it. But, I also think we are underestimating how far many people will walk. I know when I go to conventions I do a lot of walking, and expect to do so before I leave. The whole key is to make the walk logical, user friendly and attractive, hence my big issue with the boulevard.

I’m not dying to see the convention center adjacent to the park. I just think, now that I’ve looked at it closely, that the site isn’t nearly as bad as I thought it was originally, and it might end up being the least expensive option, which should be worthy of some consideration.

Jill,

We aren’t talking about the Cotton Gin site, but the lumber yard north of it. That site is what we are talking about. Big price difference!

This was what was in the DOK this morning. I don’t know why the lumber yard isn’t being mentioned. Is it not for sale and/or is it too small? I remember looking at it and wondering if there would be room for a convention center hotel, but I don’t realy know how much land is required for both.

“At Tuesday’s city council meeting Cornett reiterated his belief that only two viable sites exist for a new convention center — south of Ford Center where the city is already buying land, and on the Southwest Producer’s Coop mill site, south of Lower Bricktown, which is being offered for sale for $121 million.”

Read more: http://www.newsok.com/oklahoma-citys-bricktown-association-calls-for-openness-on-convention-center-site-selection/article/3472888?custom_click=headlines_widget#ixzz0sWhvmR48

I think lots of people are missing a very important point here: what will make the CONVENTION CENTER most successful? People are talking about proximity to Bricktown like that is ONLY about keeping Bricktown successful. And of course, that IS an important consideration.

But this is just as important: are we really going to spend a MASSIVE chunk of the MAPS 3 budget on a building, yet change the formula that made its predecessor successful? Based on trying stabilize/develop a blighted part of town? “Here’s a convention center. That should help!”

The Cox Center consistently outperforms reasonable expectations for a building of its size, configuration, age and amenities. Why? Well, people in the convention business will tell you it is because of its proximity to hotels and Bricktown. It’s not just close, it is RIDICULOUSLY close.
That is what tips some events in OKC’s favor. You hear it time and again when asking convention-goers why they like OKC: “walking distance to Bricktown,” “close to hotels,” “you don’t even need a car in OKC.” Seriously, they really do say that last one. Often.

These are deciding factors that help OKC be competitive in the convention business.

Chicago? New Orleans pre-Katrina? Seriously? Those places are/were the selling point in their own right. You don’t have to get people sold on the idea of going to Chicago or Bourbon Street for a conference. Convenience is an afterthought. Not so with OKC. It’s an apples/oranges argument.

So while I applaud Jill for getting out and walking a couple of miles every morning — though I will point out that part of her route doesn’t by nature include crossing 3 massive multi-lane arterials and walking under a spooky railroad overpass — I don’t think we can expect the same cavalier attitude from most convention-goers.

Forget about Bricktown. Sure, it’s correct to be concerned about pulling away business from a critically-important district that is heavily dependent upon said commerce. But the real question is: are we going to spend hundreds of millions of dollars building a brand new facility that doesn’t work as well as its predecessor? Why in the world would we give away the competitive advantage we currently enjoy as a convention city? And exactly why would we even consider fixing something that ain’t broke?

“So while I applaud Jill for getting out and walking a couple of miles every morning — though I will point out that part of her route doesn’t by nature include crossing 3 massive multi-lane arterials and walking under a spooky railroad overpass — I don’t think we can expect the same cavalier attitude from most convention-goers.”

Although some of your points are well-taken, the only spooky railroad overpass you have to cross to get to Bricktown from the area behind the Ford Center is the same one you have to cross from the Myriad to Bricktown. The massive multi-lane arterial in question needs to be south of the proposed site for the convention center. That’s my point in fact. Guess I write notes that are too long. If we do end up with the convention center behind the Ford Center, it is imperative to make the walk attractive and user-friendly. That’s my point against the boulevard as currently proposed and why I believe it has to be a smaller road if we think there’s any chance for a CC south of the Ford Center to succeed.

I agree that Chicago and New Orleans compared to OKC are apples to oranges, but we need far more than a 0.2 difference in walking distance to be competitive, or we already would be.

Jill, did you see Kirk Humphreys repost earlier (Larry: June 30, 2010 @ 10:12 pm)in the thread? The walking distance is double (1,400 ft to 3,120 ft)