Flashback II: Rejected Site Added Back Into Consideration “To Have Three Choices”
SITE BACKED BY MAYOR RETURNS AS MAPS PROJECT POSSIBILITY
By Steve Lackmeyer
Business Writer
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Edition: CITY, Section: BUSINESS, Page 1B
A site in plans for the Core to Shore development long favored by Mayor Mick Cornett for a convention center is back in contention following the elimination of two other locations.
Populous, hired by the city to guide site selection for the $280 million convention center, had previously agreed with a MAPS 3 committee to eliminate the site south of the Oklahoma City Arena and east of a future central park because of its distance from restaurants and hotels and its isolation from the rest of downtown.
But in kicking off a committee workshop on Wednesday, Todd Voth, a planner with Populous, immediately announced the team had determined the existing Cox Convention Center site and a site along Main Street in Bricktown were no longer considered viable.
“Things change,” Voth said. “Our experience in these projects is that as you get closer to the end the more you get nervous about going over the cliff.”
Voth explained the Cox Convention Center would be too costly and too difficult to dismantle to make it a viable site.
“Fatal flaws” also were cited in quickly killing off another site previously chosen as a finalist — the city-owned surface parking lots along Main Street in north Bricktown. Voth said the site involved extensive removal of utilities, including high-pressure gas lines, has too much restricted access and not enough room for future expansion.
“In our mind, combined with what we believe will be a big building, this may not be the best use of this location,” Voth said.
Skirvin offers plan
Owners of the Skirvin Hilton pitched an elaborate plan last week for the north Bricktown option that called for the addition of a second room tower to make it the conference hotel, with a new gateway entrance that would bridge over E.K. Gaylord Boulevard and the BNSF Railway viaduct to connect with Bricktown and the convention center.
Representatives of the Skirvin were present at the meeting but were not given the chance to make their pitch, and instead were advised to meet afterward with Populous.
With those two sites eliminated, Voth then surprised the committee by reviving a site both Populous and the committee unanimously killed at their last meeting — a location south of the Oklahoma City Arena long favored by Cornett.
In reintroducing the site, Voth said the location would advance development of Core to Shore, a blighted area between the current alignment of Interstate 40 and the future realignment being built a few blocks south.
Voth also cited the site’s proximity to the Oklahoma City Arena and a central park being built west of the site.
Committee members rebutted Populous with their previous concerns — that the site is too far away from downtown’s restaurants and hotels, it is surrounded by unsightly blighted properties and would be separated from downtown by a wide boulevard comparable to Northwest Expressway.
Not one committee member spoke in favor of the site, but Voth responded he needed to have three finalists for which to draw up full comparisons before selecting a top location.
The south Core to Shore site remains ranked a distant third behind two other surviving finalists. One site, east of the Bricktown ballpark along Reno Avenue, was praised for having ample area, potential as anchor for the district, access and proximity to restaurants and hotels.
Populous cited disadvantages as being the site’s distance to hotels in the Central Business District, loss of the Coca Cola Event Center, visual appeal of the surrounding area and a less prominent address for civic image.
Highest-rated option
The site rated highest by Populous — and winning the most praise from the committee — was the former location of Bob Howard Downtown Ford, south of the Myriad Gardens.
Voth listed more favorable factors, and fewer disadvantages, than with any of the other sites. Favorable considerations include a prominent civic location, an address along the boulevard and across from the future central park, proximity to hotels, parking and the arena, easy access, room for growth, no business displacement and compatible land use.
The only negative factors listed were that it will require a subgrade or upper-level exhibit hall (which could be complicated by the area’s water table), a less efficient truck access and potentially higher construction costs.
Committee member Larry Nichols, executive chairman of Devon Energy Corp., noted the water table did not interfere with construction of sub-ground levels for the nearby 50-story Devon Energy Center. Other committee members noted the nearby Cox Convention Center has below-ground structured parking.
Populous is set to finish development concepts for the three sites by early May, at which time the firm is expected to suggest one location.
Committee member Kirk Humphreys asked Voth why Populous shouldn’t just focus on the site south of the Myriad Gardens since everyone in the room agreed it was the best option. Voth responded he felt all evaluation needed to continue on all three sites as part of “due diligence.”
With the reintroduction of the site south of the arena, the committee revisited the issue of whether the full $280 million pledged for the convention center would be available, regardless of which location is chosen.
Cornett has repeatedly insisted that $30 million of the convention center budget be set aside for purchase and clearance of an Oklahoma Gas & Electric substation on his preferred site. Council members have argued that he is wrong in stating they have already agreed to that spending priority.
Councilman Gary Marrs, who was present at the workshop Wednesday, declined to weigh in on the debate.
MAPS 3 program manager Eric Wenger told the committee the council has not decided the matter, but that he is following the mayor’s wishes in reserving the $30 million for the substation.
“The city has spoken clearly,” committee member Kirk Humphreys joked, “with two different voices.”
Thank you for joining our conversation on OKC Central. We encourage your discussion but ask that you stay within the bounds of our commenting and posting policy.
Comments
At this point City Manager Jim Couch insists there is no change on the site chosen for the convention center. But based on what I’m hearing elsewhere, I thought it important to refresh readers on what has transpired to date.
Flashback III: http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/2011/07/13/ed-shadid-gets-his-say/
The decision to deny a request for a continuance to discuss the matter of the convention center location was unprecedented at the time. Nothing would have been lost by delaying the discussion and vote on the convention center location by one week and Pete White’s efforts to that end were commendable. The decision to place the convention center between two urban parks would not receive the endorsement of many, if any, downtown planners. In reviewing the decision-making of the past, it is instructive to witness the absence of holistic planning in the process ie: what is best for downtown and the interplay between all of the new projects and not just what would be the best site for the convention center in a vacuum. This statement from the story was/is worrisome:
The only negative factors listed were that it will require a subgrade or upper-level exhibit hall (which could be complicated by the area’s water table), a less efficient truck access and potentially higher construction costs.
What was apparently ignored then was that a significant percentage of the available land for development along the boulevard would no longer be available, that pedestrian connectivity between two urban parks would be inhibited, that two urban parks separated by something as large as a convention center is virtually unprecedented, that the central park would be further isolated, that tremendous mixed-use development could have occurred on the site, that the central park could have potentially been moved north into a natural symbiotic relationship with the wildly successful urban park, the Myriad Gardens etc…
In the last convention center subcommittee meeting Mike Carrier indicated that $250 million would not be sufficient to build a convention center which would allow us to reach the next tier of conventions; that shortfall is worsened with the current convention center location selection.
What can we learn from the CS&L study on the new OKC convention center performed by the Chamber in 2009 prior to the MAPS3 vote in relation to the convention center location selection? That, unfortunately, is unknown because as of this date, some three years later, the study has still not been released to the public. In retrospect, there was nothing wrong with looking at the site favored by the Mayor. It is interesting that the consultants scored the current convention site the highest and then just prior to this story, determined that the current location could not be rehabilitated. Steve, I assume you have reviewed the engineering studies on the feasibility of rehabilitating the Cox convention center?
BethanySooner: Here is a review of the Vitagraph property sale
http://edshadid.org/sale-of-vitagraph-property-raises-a-myriad-of-questions-for-the-okc-taxpayer/
Holy cow! This was precisely the reason that I mentioned the purchase price for that piece of property knowing that it could/would have a direct effect on adjacent property values such as the ‘chosen’ location for the convention center.
Thank you Steve and Ed for enlightening the public on what has been transpiring. Keep up the good work.
Oh, and if you get around to it maybe you guys could help us to understand how public works projects such as Project 180 are cost-estimated and scheduled resulting in outrageous overages and partially completed streets.
It makes me wonder if some of our overseers might not profit from some training in cost accounting and project management.
Ed, the site favored by the mayor actually was found to have had some “false” factors added into its ranking, most notably the absence of the cost of relocating the substation. The site east of the park was universally discredited by the committee, had very little support from the consultants other than “needing three” sites to consider, and was considered detrimental to Bricktown and area hotels.
I still don’t know why the site east of the park is any more detrimental to Bricktown hotels than the current site. Neither site is immediately adjacent to Bricktown and both require some walking and/or other form of transit. Both sites are reasonably close to other downtown hotels. If we’re planning a convention center hotel, and has there ever been any indication we’re not, any other hotel will just be for overflow regardless. I wonder if Oklahoma City ever hosts conventions large enough that a convention center hotel wouldn’t provide adequate space regardless.
It seems to be that with our budget, we’re going to have two options: build a small gem of a convention center or build a large cheap building, ala the Myriad. If the planners insist on placing it between our two showplace parks, it seems to me that a small gem would be a more desirable option. Then, put funding for an increase in size on the next MAPS ballot.
Oklahoma City as it is now is never going to attract Tier Two conventions anyway. We need more retail, including some upscale retail. We need to finish the Native American Cultural Center and we need the Adventure Line, so conventioneers and their families have something to do when they come to Oklahoma City. Very few people go to every convention offered by their company or professional society. I know I pick the ones that are in locations that I think will have interesting things to do in my free time. So, if people insist on the current site, build a building that looks great and functions seamlessly. Be satisified with Tier 3 conventions, all the while working to improve retail and entertainment options in Oklahoma City. Then, when we’ve got a city that people who go to Tier 2 conventions might consider worthy of interest, make the convention center big enough to attract them, with MAPS 4 money. A big convention center built on the cheap won’t do that.
If we take money from other MAPS projects to make the planned convention center bigger and better, we’ll never get another MAPS ballot passed. And we’ll find that people don’t want to come here for conventions anyway, as our city isn’t ready to host conventions of that stature.
Just my opinion.
Steve, are you bringing this up because you have gotten some new information?
The selected site concerns me because of potential land costs, no true ‘back’ side for service and deliveries, and of course taking up valuable frontage to two city parks.
It truly was an unusual process as far as site selection and positioning in the timeline.
Now that we are where we are in the process, my greatest fear is that there will not be enough money to do it right and it will either be an inferior looking product, or that some other project(s) will get slighted.
Speaking of costs, do you know why the city paid so much money for the vitograph property west of the Myriad Gardens?