Meet "Stakeholders"

Happy Monday everyone. To celebrate this glorious occasion, I thought I'd provide some insights into the C2S report recently compiled by MAPS 3 consultant ADG, which many took as a deliberate attack piece on the transit project. Why? Why else does a report about the implications on C2S need to go so far out of its way to attack the streetcar and "recommend" further study specifically to answer issues that have been answered in full already by ACOG, COTPA, Jacobs Engineering, the transit subcommittee, the Modern Transit Project, the Alternatives Analsysis process, and even ADG themselves.

But alas, about those stakeholders. First it should be mentioned that it has come out, through thourough investigation on the part of the transit subcommittee members who felt compelled upon seeing this "study," that not all "stakeholders" are equal, and not all "stakeholders" were asked the same questions, or even any questions about the streetcar at all. It seems indeed that the determination of who to ask about the streetcar was rather spurious and targeted toward individuals who would be prone to criticize the project. So this helps explain how a "study" based on interviews asking these people who have privileged status what they think about these public projects could have come out so unnecessarily negative for the transit project. The "stakeholders" interviewed were:

Mick Cornett
Meg Salyer
Gary Marrs
Larry Nichols
Tom McDaniel
Roy Williams
Anthony McDermott
Kim Low
Fred Hall
Bill Cameron
Bob Howard
Cathy O'Connor
Russell Claus
Kirk Humphreys
Blair Humphreys
Hans Butzer
Paul Green
Jim Tolbert

Now, meet the "stakeholder" +one whom I have information that leads me to believe are driving this attempted coup against the streetcar project.

Kirk Humphreys. Many of the you are actually already familiar with the former mayor, but Humphreys has been pretty busy since he has been out of office. Aside from a failed Senate run and continued electoral problems when he was voted off of the OCPS School Board, he has been fairly busy with real estate activities (hence OCPS) and chamber functions. I am also hearing that the former mayor has made it into a personal vendetta against transit, and hopes to derail the project. Humphreys also serves on the MAPS 3 Convention Center Subcommittee.

Mike Carrier. Meet Mike Carrier, who is the President of the OKC Convention and Visitors Bureau. I hope his surname does not derive from anything to do with transit, because Carrier has also made it into a personal vendetta against the transit project. I'm also assuming he does not see any value of the streetcar for his convention attendants. Carrier also serves on the MAPS3 Convention Center Subcommittee.

Oh yeah, route is final!

One of the ironic things about the MAPS 3 drama from this week (in case you haven't heard, ADG came out with this "study"), is that lost in all this in-fighting on committees (and the transit project being forced to defend itself from an unwarranted attack piece) is that the route is FINAL! Yes indeed.

It came out a few weeks ago that the BNSF underpasses leading into Bricktown would in fact be conducive to to provide enough clearance for the streetcar, which makes it an easy, viable option for connecting Bricktown and Deep Deuce to points west of the BNSF viaduct, which has had significant implications for the streetcar route planning process, which had been leaving open the likely possibility that those underpasses were not conducive. As a result of this discovery, the route is now finished: Here is the link to the route map on OKC.gov.

Here is the finalized route with a few graphic upgrades to help some of you guys pinpoint the route.

A very fluid MAPS 3 in transition once again...

I think we're seeing yet another possible shift, and possibly another complete bastardization, of MAPS 3 as we know it. Two important references for you to read, and I'll provide my commentary and background angle later:

Lackmeyer article & Bombshell C2S/MAPS3 study from ADG

OK, well I lied, there's three because Mike Mize took some..uh..liberties with his C2S impact study, and somehow finagled it to attack transit (kill two birds with one stone, I guess).

Transit subcommittee official response to ADG study

Stage Center complexities

I just wanted to tease what I have coming up on the Stage Center, but perhaps it is time for redevelopment of the Stage Center site. You guys know how staunchly I believe that the Stage Center is a great piece of OKC. I truly do hope to see it preserved, but even I can sometimes see the writing on the wall.

Do I want to box-in developers, by adamantly demanding that this block be preserved at the expense of more traditionally urban blocks (such as directly north) having to be demolished instead? That's not my goal in any way. I will just say that I am beginning to see a somewhat tit-for-tat situation in which one of these blocks is probably going to be redeveloped from the ground up. When given a choice between the Stage Center or the Preftakes block, I suppose ultimately I will come down on the side of 7-8 historic buildings rather than just one landmark.

A reality that I am beginning to understand is that OKC is indeed in store for potentially 2-5 new skyscrapers in the next 5-10 years, but all at least announced in the next 5. These are all actively being thrown out there. We know that SandRidge will build if they can sustain their growth, we know that there will be a voter-subsidized convention hotel (albeit these are not normally high-rises), we know that Continental will need to expand beyond the Mid-America Tower at some point, and we know that in 5 years, Devon will be back to square one. Throw in some rumors that I'm beginning to hear not just on OKC Talk, or documented by Lackmeyer, but from other sources as well, and we could be in store for some residential towers as well.

Also, certain players are definitely working in conjunction with other players. No doubt in my mind about that, and more on that later. But essentially, what we need to do is go back to ground one and re-plan out all of downtown, in a process similar to the first Core2Shore process. We need to figure out the best sites for these new skyscrapers, not just in terms of building up density strategically, but also skyline placing, building shading, and other issues that come into play here.

These are issues that are further eroding the credibility of the convention center site selection process, which is about to go down as the ultimate travesty in all of this if it turns out that they can actually afford the site (which is questionable at this point).

Look at all of the tags below this post and think of how these things could possibly be interrelated. Stay tuned...

The forgotten voter mandate

City Council, this is your mandate that you have forgotten (or done everything you can to try to forget). Don't forget, at any point, that usurping this pecking order in any way should be taken as direct infringement on the "will of the people" and all that jazz.


What's that project listed there at the bottom, very last? The one that nobody appears to have wanted. Oh yeah, the most expensive project, the convention center.

Divisiveness: A means to a convention

The convention center boondoggle has to come to an end, or be reigned-in somehow, yet how do you reign-in something that we have no control over? The committee structure of MAPS3 virtually guarantees that there is no way to hold their feet to the fire when a convention center takes over and orders the other projects around. The individual sub-committees are made up of members hand-picked by Mayor Cornett, who by and large, is a part of this convention center cartel.

Then city staff appears to have a major, major, major role in shaping the public discourse. It was the timeline drafted by them and their consultants that moved rocketed the convention center from being the last project, as was promised during the campaign by the mayor and all MAPS3 campaign literature. That is all orchestrated by City Manager Jim Couch, whom you’d better believe wants this convention palace built, come hell or high water.

Civic activism often takes on many different shapes and colors. Oftentimes, truthfully, it’s a mere means to an end. A group has a goal, and then accomplishes its goal by whatever means necessary. That’s not what urban activists normally do. The group that is displaying “means to an end” motives and actions is the convention crowd.

These are the exact same people who came out with this ridiculous boulevard to be named “Oklahoma City Boulevard,” following Mayor Cornett’s brilliant PR suggestion (that’s sarcasm). Behind the scenes, Couch’s planning department is pushing for streetcar to follow the new boulevard. These people genuinely want the landmark corridor to come to fruition, as they understand how it would boost sense of place in our community. They want to create an active, attractive downtown.

But they want this convention center even more, and that’s going to inevitably be self-destructive to all these other goals. Deep into their power binge, they saw the opposition to putting the convention center on a high-profile tract of land adjacent to the new park, and decided to show just how powerful they really are by moving it to an even more high-profile tract of land. Check-mate, they say. This is the essence of self-destruction and immaturity.

If urban activists wanted to be immature, for example, they could shun Heritage Hills residents for the recent to-do over the Mercy redevelopment site, in which Heritage Hills preservationists had some major egg on their face. Yet, those preservationists are generally great believers in OKC and excellent people to have on your side. Yet, I don’t believe the urban activists will be as rash and immature as these oil execs and big-time lawyers calling the shots on this convention center. This is the break-down of an “Us vs. Them” dichotomy, which we all wish wasn’t emerging in this city, but let’s face it—it is, due to the divisiveness of these convention center interests and the “Momentum” that they’re drunk on.

That community togetherness and that formerly united civic vision for rebuilding our inner city IS the collateral damage of the convention center assault. How else do you get a city to prioritize a project that very few people wanted to pass in the first place?

Bulldozer-happy morons strike again

This building was targeted by demolition earlier because the convention center super-block was going there. Instead, that convention center super-block got moved to just about the only potentially worse site they could have come up with.

So why is the International Harvesters building still on for demolition? This is yet just another great old building coming down. This city is becoming demo-happy as it was in the 1970s. Deja vu. Anyone who claims to be pro-preservation is just offering up lip service.

I'm just not sure this city is interested in historic preservation, urban design, sustainable development, and quality environments. And the means in which this city throws slings at those things are ridiculously over-funded (convention center) and the means in which they claim to care about those things (streetcar, parks, streetscapes, etc) are ridiculously under-funded by comparison.

This building is in the C2S region. There is also a very good corridor of historic buildings along SW 3rd with great potential. It will also likely be leveled if certain folks have their way. I'm beginning to think C2S is a disastrous undertaking that should have never even begun, not for the bad it looks like it is going to do, and not even for the supposed good we were told would come out of it.

C2S is nothing but an urban planning folly and a sham at that.

Incredible incompetency downs Automobile Alley project

Read more in Steve Lackmeyer's recent article about the stunning City Hall incompetency and misplaced priorities that downed what would have been a major development deal at Broadway and 13th. A large Houston-based development company that has had successful urban developments in Tulsa wanted to invest $38 million in Automobile Alley, giving it the jolt of mixed-use development it needs to continue growing.

The city shifted funds for a needed railroad quiet zone for land acquisition in Core2Shore. No wonder they started making progress on C2S so soon. We are now truly prioritizing this nonexistent area of the city AND convention centers above things that people actually want like TRANSIT and improvement to existing neighborhoods of downtown first.

This Cornett City Hall is loosing its luster every week. What it needs more than anything is for someone else to have another major success that they can take credit for again in order to retain popularity.

The truth about the "Chamber junta"

I want to start revving up my reaction against the convention center site location again. I have a feeling the location debate was blown wide open by the council standing firm against a $30 million budget increase for the project. Obviously it won't affect anything. Anything that anyone, or however MANY people say, even if they are echoed by a councilman sitting on the horseshoe--won't have any chance in effecting a change in course on this convention center.

Explaining this absolutely ridiculous CC subcommittee, who do they think they are?
A lot of attention around the rogue MAPS 3 Convention Center Subcommittee, that so-called "Chamber junta" as they have been aptly labeled by all of the alternative media, has focused on the role of Larry Nichols. Nichols is a local civic warrior who is pushing relentless for what he sees as OKC's best interest, and his influence and power is surging. As he minimized his day-to-day role in running Devon to focus more on his civic ambitions, he has taken the bull by the horns when it comes to this city (I think a very apropos analogy), and I suppose one could say that the arrival of his influence in the last year or so has been felt with the subtlety of a steer mounting a comely heifer. Every conspiracy theorist in town is wanting to blame anything that smells fishy on him, and every respectable leader in town is too afraid to even set the record straight because they don't want to mis-speak when it comes to Nichols. But Nichols is not a corrupt overlord, and I like to believe his interests are mostly above-board. There, I said it, sue me.

This whole "let's lynch Larry Nichols" thing has been a distraction from what I think is the real problem with this "Chamber junta." There are a lot of hotel owners and operators and assorted interests aligned with them that are on this subcommittee. I mean existing hotels, like the Skirvin, Colcord, Renaissance, Courtyard, Sheraton, and so on. The hotel operators that have the most local influence are immediately around the Cox Center, not by virtue of their Broadway or Robinson address, but by virtue of their working relationship with the CVB. The CVB wants to maintain those relationships, for right or for wrong, in spite of what we obviously know that these hotels are amazingly inadequate for handling the convention needs of a "Tier 2" city. We need to start from scratch because a scattering of around 800 rooms over 4-5 separate hotels is a joke and is not going to impress anyone.

In fact, we were going to locate this thing across from the current I-40, and the proximity concern raised by planners had nothing to do with THESE hotels but rather to Bricktown. We have known, mostly all along, that we will have to start over on the hotel front. But we also didn't think we would have to start over on the entertainment and restaurant front, we expected to keep using Bricktown for that, and we also knew that would be a lot harder to recreate in Core2Shore than the hotels would be.

Basically our hotel picture is a small scattering of rooms around the Cox, and probably an equally sized (albeit getting larger with the aLoft) cluster of rooms around Bricktown. Why is ONE of these clusters, particularly the one that is going to be smaller soon, more important to stay close to than the other? Ask that question. The answer is that this has everything to do with these hotels exerting local influence on the convention and hospitality industry, which is running this convention center subcommittee. Obviously, these hotels are at capacity with their current monopoly on the hotel market. More hotels means they will take a hit and may-gasp-only be fairly profitable. (Let's not understate the booming state of the downtown hotels, which are all benefiting from increasing demand and abnormally low supply for a city our size) These guys aren't going to go out of business by bringing in more hotels or starting over with the convention-front, but they won't enjoy being booked solid anymore.

And I've been told by a past president of the Bricktown Association in person that they feel helpless in advancing their cause for anything against these bigger interests because they already have the Ballpark and the Canal. They wish they could pick up "that damn ballpark" and move it to Core2Shore if it's the reason their concerns don't get heard. It may seem insane to outsiders to say that Bricktown interests are being trumped by hotel operators, but it's just the truth that I see.

Can urbanism stand on its own as an agenda?
The interesting thing about OKC's activist circles is that all of the progressives have traditionally been tied to the economic development agenda for the sake of survival. Without the economic development agenda or dare I say "momentum," there is no push for a progressive agenda either. The Chamber can at least make token progress on the issues that progressives care about.

I want to pose a big question. Can a progressive agenda for urbanism and sustainability stand on its own, and take on competing factions on its own? I see MAPS 3 as resembling a bond between progressives and juntas, both attracting voter support from different ends, and I see the last few months as this show of bait-and-switch. Progressive votes were baited with certain items, and then the switch came when the convention center nobody wanted became the new priority, at the expense of other projects. Did progressives really get a bad deal? The streetcar and park might not even be happening without the convention center. We know that voters overwhelmingly took sides with the progressive items and did not like that convention center at all, but--do we have anything else resembling real proof that a progressive agenda can stand on its own and not depend on whoring itself out to the convention center interests?

This past marriage of convenience of progressive issues and the chamber junta makes for odd bed fellows indeed.

I'm argued out

For the last few weeks, things have been slow on here just because I have a lot of pics I took around town, construction progress related for the most part, and now I just can't even find the energy lately to get them off my phone and onto this blog. I am just all argued out. There is not much left after 3 years of advocating for urbanism in OKC.

Now I look around and I see what it's mostly come to. The Stage Center, one of Oklahoma's very few pieces of "starchitecture," is probably at the end, and the council is moving forward with this idiotic location for the convention center, and so on. You just can't win. These people look at the Stage Center and do not see architecture, but rather prime real estate that is worth a lot of money. They see the Myriad Gardens and the new planned MAPS 3 park and think dividing these with a convention center is a good idea. That last one is especially moronic.

Idiots. People are IDIOTS. And I have nothing else to say right now, I'm truly just at a loss. But not for long...just give me a week to take a deep breath.

Transit Subcommittee Mtg

My apologies for how posting has slowed down so much, basically I am still adjusting to coming back from Europe, and I am also waiting on my camera to arrive by post (I left my nice camera over there). But I did manage to make it to the MAPS3 Transit/Streetcar subcommittee meeting today.

I can't say it was all that eventful of a meeting, honestly. They did accept a report, rather than receive it. Apparently there is a very important distinction here. This is the kind of mundane, mind-scraping technicalities that the real public servants have to go through. This is what makes it harder to really serve (effectively) on these committees rather than just sit on a blog and criticize every move.

Some details emerging so far:
The hub will be a 3-phase project, and in total, it will cost around $125 million. This is just for the hub facility alone. The building itself, the Santa Fe Depot, will cost $2.5 million, and then it will probably cost another $2 million to renovate, according to one of the consultants, when asked. The bulk of the cost is in Phase 2 which will ready the station for Amtrak and commuter rail service--Amtrak preparations will cost $50 million alone and it is unclear how much of this can be covered by other levels of government, but I would assume a lot of it.

Consultants also spoke of how keen Norman was on the idea of commuter rail. The thing is that Norman is perhaps the most progressive city in Central Oklahoma, and has been highly supportive of transit issues in the region for a long time. A few years ago they even wrote a resolution against the destruction of the Union Station railyard, and that was at the behest of Tom Elmore, who even OKC's most ardent transit enthusiasts have distanced themselves from--despite that he does know his stuff. Norman has its own nice downtown that transit can be a catalyst for.

Those who stuck around were shown a tour of the Santa Fe Depot after the meeting, which began right after most of the MAPS3 Transit Subcommittee had finished jay-walking across E.K. Gaylord. It goes without saying it is a beautiful old building. Jill Adler, one of the subcommittee members, had a really awesome idea of somehow commemorating the former black-only waiting room in a way that memorializes OKC's civil rights history. I hope that happens.

The streetcar timeline

"This is a 50 to 100-year project, and we all want to get it right." - Mike Mize, ADG Consultant (20:21 into this week's MAPS 3 Oversight committee)

Are any of us ever going to see feasible urban transit in our lifetime?? It would be nice to see before I die, and I say that as someone in my younger 20s.

Can anyone see why in spite of "all this wonderful progress" it is still compelling to just give up and walk away from OKC? Who is to say it's not a sham? To get a new convention center at any cost...

What does MAPS 3 stand for? What does OKC stand for right now?

Breaking MAPS3 news

Jeff Bezdek is reporting on OKC Talk that the MAPS 3 Citizens Oversight Committee approved the "Option 1" timeline. I know that this puts SOME OF the streetcar project within expected timeline delivery, but not sure about other projects, since the streetcar is obviously my main concern at this point. I think Option 1 might be the original timeline proposed earlier by ADG, the local consultant for MAPS3. This original proposal put the park first, the streetcar second, and the convention center last.

Will edit this as more details become available.

edit: Evidently "Option 1" is different from the original timeline. Option 1 moves the convention center up 21 months in the timeline. It moves the Lower Park, Phase 4 river improvements (the "cosmetic improvements") , and Phase 2 of the streetcar project to the end of the timeline (anything beyond a 4-mile starter loop).

Well there you have it. Done deal.

How good developments go bad

This will be a post dedicated specifically to how developments get proposed, or rumors about, and then the developments halt and get to the point where they're dead on arrival. Since it's just a blog post, I'll make it short, and just focus on the primary reasons I've seen since I've been giving up my life to track OKC developments (kidding--well, mostly). The main reasons are unaccounted economic changes, incompetent development teams, what I like to call "strict 2009 adherence to 2007 ideas," and another big one is the limbo caused by big-ticket public projects, many of which are still up in the air.

I will also try and relate this back today, with the implications of post-MAPS3 passage Oklahoma City. Remember: We were supposed to see all of this amazing amount of spin-off development.

This is the Flatiron project, on Harrison Avenue, just north of Deep Deuce--proposed by Grant Humphreys who has been a successful, innovative urban developer. So what could have gone wrong (because this project is definitely been dead for a while, in spite of past efforts to revive it)? Humphreys was somewhat over-extending himself, especially at a time when he was still heavily leveraged in the Block 42 project which he finished a few years ago and has recently still been selling off the last units in that project. Block 42 was an innovative project for OKC because it combined townhomes and flats in a building with a striking urban design, so price points were high. It was also competing with several other projects within the immediate 3-block vicinity. The Flatiron project also called for a lot of mixed-use space, and I imagine it was difficult to find high-end commercial tenants to sign-up for an outpost location at a time when even Bricktown was losing retailers. It's a shame because it would have been an awesome project, but Humphreys will be back downtown, and is currently working on Carlton Landing at Lake Eufala.

The Cotton Exchange is an especially interesting project because it's up there with the old "Factory" proposal as the projects I most wish could have happened. I won't get into the details of how much I love this project, but it would have been a great one. It offered prime commercial space right on the canal as well as with frontage on Mickey Mantle, and it also offered a good amount of residential which Bricktown badly needs. The Centennial was a huge success, so it begs the question why OKC can't support this kind of quality mixed-use development, even though we surely haven't seen much of it. The developer, Gary Cotton, was in trouble though. He didn't have the resources to pull the project off--he had a little bit of equity from the sale of the Bricktown "Mercantile" building. He needed other investors but didn't want to listen to other ideas, from what I've heard. It's still a shame that this didn't go forward because he was using the brokerage team that The Centennial used (which sold out, and still had many interested clients), and because other experienced Bricktown businessmen were offering lots of advice. He also benefited from not just lots of Oklahoman and blogosphere coverage, but even got TV news coverage, which downtown development rarely gets.

Many people got very excited when Tom McDaniel announced that OCU wanted to move its law school to the gargantuan Fred Jones auto factory, which is an awesome historic building. The deal died when Tom McDaniel stepped down as president of OCU and a new guy came in, who didn't like the idea so much. But it's hard not to note the sequence of events: Chamber officials promise there will spin-off MAPS development, Tom McDaniel announces OCU will develop law school downtown if MAPS passes, MAPS passes, Tom McDaniel becomes chair of MAPS Citizens Oversight Board, downtown law school plans are nixed. I would chalk this one up to political problems, if the new leader of OCU doesn't like the idea, then I don't see how anyone is going to "force" him to follow through.

For years, the Union Bus Station was a magnet for vagrants, which caused problems for the developers on both sides of the facility who wanted it gone. First, Dick Tanenbaum, redeveloper of The Montgomery on Walker, wanted to buy the bus station and close it down, and put a jazz club inside of it. It would have been a win-win, downtown didn't need the Greyhound station anymore, it was a blight, it attracted vagrants, he could have renovated it and turned it into a historic gem and just put a jazz club inside of it, which would have turned a problem for the neighborhood into an asset for the neighborhood. That's what you call making lemonade out of lemons. Obviously Tanenbaum, a veteran Central Oklahoma developer, had the resources to make it happen. One problem: The owner was pesky and had no intentions of moving, and was difficult to deal with. So Tanenbaum gave up and turned his files over to Nick Preftakes who was on his way to acquiring the whole block anyway. Preftakes also found the owner to be pesky, but by using his properties positioned all around the station, he was able to make it difficult for the bus station to remain there, and forced its closure that way. One problem now: The owner still doesn't want to sell to Preftakes, and harbors a grudge, seemingly. Well let's be honest, when Preftakes put up a property fence just to make it difficult for buses to make wide turns, that wasn't very nice. So I'm not sure Preftakes is going to get to include this parcel in his block in the end, anyway. I just hope the building gets restored somehow, and not leveled.

How could I not bring this one up? haha.. The Braniff Lofts proposal, from 2006 and 2007, would have been a really vital piece toward preventing a controversy (and a tragedy) that would soon follow. A group of investors local of investors ("Corporate Redevelopment LLC"), many with significant Downtown OKC experience and have been mentioned often on this blog, were negotiating with Kerr McGee to acquire these abandoned buildings surrounding their headquarters for redevelopment purposes. The plan was to, at the very least, use the Braniff building AND the KerMac building and convert the two into lofts--the developers at the time were convinced they had a winner, and many onlookers are still convinced the proposal could have been a winner. The deal fell apart because KMG was acquired by Anadarko Energy who refused to honor the deal between the investors and KMG. SandRidge acquired the block and demolished the buildings to make way for a corporate plaza. These buildings, except for the Braniff Building which was lucky enough to already be on the historic register, are goners and lofts or mixed-use of any kind on this block will never have an opportunity to happen. I would chalk this one up to corruption at many junctions.

It appeared to be one of the turning points of downtown development when the Downtown Ford announced it was closing and was demolished. The land owners, Fred Hall and Bob Howard announced potentially ambitious plans to redevelop the large site into a huge mixed-use development. The Jones-Hall family has been involved in other deals, and was involved in the OCU deal that fell through, and Howard has been engaged in redevelopment of of Mid-town lately, so there is no doubt that the development wherewithal and resources were in place. The site could have possibly been the largest mixed-use downtown development to date. "It's no surprise, and it fits our long-term plans to develop that site into commercial retail and housing," remarked Hall, at the time. It was lauded as a success of MAPS spin-off. Why did the deal fell through? Because it got gobbled up by a MAPS subcommittee that insisted the convention center needed to go on THE most promising piece of real estate in all of OKC.

I'll make this my last one, and I think it's a big one. No matter how you slice it, The Triangle masterplan died. At a time when the possibilities for bubble-style downtown development appeared endless, the plan seemed fail-safe. A group of investors including Bert Belanger, Ron Bradshaw, among others, would team up to do a ton of development in a small area. However each one encountered difficulties selling units of their first project and then 2008 hit, and it became apparent that downtown development could not go forward purely driven by speculation on condo units. The group broke up, although they are still individually engaged in development in the "triangle" area, although hardly according to the original plan. And some new investors have popped up and added projects such as LEVEL and Aloft.

So, here you see a multitude of reasons. In every one of these cases, it is a shame that the development died, although this is not always the case--sometimes developments are bad and projects dying would be good. However, there HAS to be a way to meet over these kinds of things and compromise. Bad developments need input for improvement before they actually apply for the permit. Good developments need input to ensure their success. This goes both ways, the process shouldn't JUST be about putting pressure on bad projects. Furthermore, a lot of these reasons are preventable. Switching to a more sustainable economic model for real estate would have prevented a lot of the post-2008 development lethargy we were seeing until recently--the economy never stops, sometimes it contracts, and even that presents an opportunity (for more modest real estate deals). For instance, people still need housing when they can't afford a mortgage, which is why for-rent housing has thrived in the post-2008 economic climate. Capitalizing on that could have prevented a lot of these projects from collapsing. Also, a LOT of stuff is in limbo when we have these big-ticket items in limbo. Do you think somebody wants to build a mixed-use or housing investment when they aren't yet 100% certain where the streetcar route will go? Do you think somebody wants to invest in a huge hotel project without knowing where the new convention center and likewise, streetcar lines, will go? Of course not!

One thing that has been an absolute failure thus far is MAPS accounting for the spin-off development. It was one of the most persuasive reasons why we passed MAPS3. We wanted to buy into a vision for building a city, not just for building a single park or an isolated convention center. These things aren't being coordinated AT ALL. There is no single planning document that has more than one big-ticket public investment component in it. There are however millions of planning documents, district masterplans, streetcar route ideas, convention center proposals, and so on and so forth. Nobody is proposing that this stuff come together. Furthermore, a lot of the interests behind certain projects need to step down and realize that their project isn't the center of the universe. The end goal is spin-off development, not having a city built around a convention center. When you eat your most promising site for mixed-use development to put the convention center on it, you miss the mark. You can have your cake and eat it too. The convention center subcommittee needs to address the goals of downtown as a whole just as every other subcommittee needs to be concerned about it. Ignoring the big picture is setting us up for failure at a time that immense resources have opened up such an enormous opportunity.

Every MAPS3 subcommittee needs to be tasked with the exact goal, and it needs to be an overarching goal of what we as a city hope to create with this opportunity. Each subcommittee needs to be opening its meetings discussing this goal, whether it be attracting investment, or improving quality of life. There needs to be a singular vision shared by all. Right now what we have is a convention center subcommittee that has run amock with the process, stepping on other projects to make sure that at the very least the convention center gets done, and running completely contrary to the goal of MAPS.

These guys need to sit down and analyze universal MAPS goals. They need to ponder what they as a convention center subcommittee can do to improve quality of life and attract mixed-use development to downtown. I'll tell you one thing: You can do a LOT more to accomplish this than by eating the best real estate in the entire city for your convention center, which is going to happen anyway. That makes no sense whatsoever.

"C2S North" site chosen

The "Core2Shore North" site was just chosen for the new convention center. That is the former Bob Howard Downtown Ford dealership site that a few months ago was going to be the site of a huge mixed-use development.

So now we will have a convention center in between two parks.

Too weary to go into all of the reasons why this is a horrible site, for OKC that is, I mean it's great for the conventions... well actually, first we're going to have a big vacant lot between the two parks for ten years until we break ground on the CC. Unless they get to move the site up, in which case, we won't get as much mileage of streetcar track because of this decision. Or something else would be impacted.

There might be some interesting solutions that can alleviate the negative convention center impact we're about to add downtown. I'm more interested in pursuing that public debate than attempting to oppose yet another high-profile decision that was already made mostly behind closed doors.

The question NOT asked

It's funny that right now, the convention center subcommittee of the MAPS3 Committee is meeting and they are going to make a very big decision that will impact downtown and Oklahoma City for a long time to come, as they name the location of the new convention center, a Phase 1 investment of $280 Million (Phase 2 I believe will make it approach $400 M). But it's really funny because there's a really important question that was never asked at any point during this process, and is probably not going to be asked today.

What is the best convention center for the REST of OKC, that doesn't revolve around the convention center?? They never considered that a convention center could possibly be less than ideal for any of these sites. We have proper analysis based on what is good for the convention center and for the convention attendees, and tons of studies done on that, tons of debating was done, great questions were asked. But I contend that is 1% of what should have been considered.

The other 99% of the puzzle that they totally ignored or didn't care about was the rest of OKC that won't go into that convention center. They didn't consider what was best for the park. Best for Core2Shore. Best for downtown retail. Best for downtown housing. Best for downtown nightlife. Best for downtown in general. They looked at this solely from the perspective of what is best for conventions, and that's it.

So ladies and gentlemen, here you have it. The #1 priority of MAPS3 and for all of downtown, our entire downtown investment strategy, is based on conventions. For better or for worse, this is the concept that we are using as the basis for the future downtown. Let's just rename it the Convention Center District right now, because that's the most important thing.

If not, we would have considered other things. Hard to argue otherwise. Maybe they would have considered at some point where the convention center would have best fit into an overall downtown masterplan that puts all of these huge investments and projects into one plan. Why can't we do that?!?

So much for that

Skirvin proposal, we hardly knew ye...

For the best. The committee now seems to be heavily leaning toward the former Bob Howard Downtown Ford site. The OG+E substation site has mysteriously risen from the grave.

The Skirvin Proposal

I was currently in the midst of a large convention center post, with some thoughts on the progress so far from the MAPS 3 Convention Center Subcommittee. Well, evidently I was not about to have time to do such a blog post, if the Skirvin Partners would have anything to do with it. Do I think their proposal changes the game? Not in the slightest. But it becoming public does preclude anything else I might say, so perhaps it is best to just start with the now locally-famous Skirvin proposal.

I am going to cover this proposal in a completely unbiased way, since this is going to be controversial. I will give my strong opinion of this in a later post...

Background: OKC is building a new $280 million convention center. A centerpiece of the project that is not included in the budget will have to be a convention hotel, a hotel with minimum 700 rooms that can expand the convention center's ability to compete for vital larger conventions. The convention hotel, not being included in the budget, will have to be funded somehow. It will likely receive up to $60 million in city subsidies, money which will have to come from somewhere, but money which the city will likely get some ROI from (eg., it will probably be a loan).

Enter Skirvin:


The Skirvin Partners propose that their hotel be repositioned to serve as the city's convention hotel. It is a proposal for siting the convention center between Bricktown's Main Street and Deep Deuce's 2nd Street. Essentially, across the street from the new Maywood Lofts on 2nd, and across the street from the Sherman Iron Works bldg in Bricktown.

The Skirvin currently has about 225 rooms. That's a far cry from a convention hotel, so they propose adding a second tower just to the north of their property (where there is currently a bank drive-thru) that will have 425 rooms. Then things get interesting with the razing of the Santa Fe Garage, which provides 1,518 parking spaces for downtown workers. Then to replace these parking spaces, it's proposed to build an 800-1260 space parking garage on 2nd Street, where the Sherman Iron Works bldg currently is (Main/Oklahoma in Bricktown), possibly incorporating the historic building into a parking structure.

The Santa Fe Garage, which would be razed under this plan, would be replaced with a structure that features a large open "gateway," available office space that the Skirvin suggests could be ideal for the Chamber of Commerce, and more structured parking. This parking would accommodate between 575-895 spaces. Then it would ALL be incorporated with a large pedestrian bridge that crosses E.K. Gaylord and the BNSF tracks, connecting the new "Skirvin complex" and the convention center across the tracks.

One of the complexities happens to be that the site between Main and 2nd streets is currently a rail yard, one that is currently slated to become a high speed rail corridor. There is a proposed arc that cuts across the entire site (the non-utilized tracks currently veer to the north, but this would be a new arc that veers to the south merging with the BNSF tracks). The arc is important because ODOT's proposed high-speed rail corridor from OKC to Tulsa terminates where the Turner Turnpike terminates. So in order to get it further into downtown OKC, it has to come from the NE. So this will essentially be where the line changes from utilizing the BNSF track (that divides downtown and Bricktown) to where it veers to the NE toward the "Adventure District" and on to Tulsa.

While it is certainly true that high-speed rail is far from being funded at this point, especially given the current debt situation of the government, it is a salient fact to point out that there are still local plans to go forward with rail connections to the Adventure District and MWC/Tinker. These regions to the NE and E would be connected via this arc as well, with or without high-speed rail to Tulsa. Placing a convention center over this railyard could prove to be a fatal setback to rail connections to the NE. You could raise the convention center and allow the rail lines to pass underneath uninhibited, but doing so would likely put a convention center with the desired specifications well beyond the reach of $280 million.

Lastly, the Skirvin Partners have pointed to two factors that they feel make their proposal the best one for the city: 1, with the city having to come up with $60 million somewhere if they try and bring in a traditional convention hotel, they would be asking for "far less" of a subsidy. 2, they claim that Downtown OKC would not be able to absorb a new hotel with "more than 600 rooms" (ideally the convention center needs to have more than that) and they claim that using 225 existing rooms coupled with just 425 new rooms minimizes the risk of throwing off downtown's hotel room balance.

Some thoughts on this proposal coming up soon in a broader analysis of the convention center process so far...

Maybe C2S needs to be scrapped

I am thinking more and more lately that Core2Shore needs to be scrapped. Not even pursued. Not a dime spent in that direction, even though it's too late..

These are the reasons: Yes, it would be nice to have a model contemporary, urban city. Yes, C2S is a neat opportunity to build that. However, I don't trust OKC to build that. I don't trust OKC to turn what is essentially brownfield into a model urban city.

The urban boulevard would have been nice.

The urban central park would have been nice.

The convention center located across the tracks would have been nice.

The urban waterfront would have been nice.

All of these things and more would have been nice.

All of them are being screwed up. Either there is a grand conspiracy to prevent urban from ever happening, or this city is simply clueless when it comes to building urban things.

Consider the boulevard. It's not going to be anything close to a model urban boulevard. The city is insisting that someone other than the city pay for it, and that means ODOT--so it's going to meet their specifications for new roads. It will have super-wide lanes, 6 or 8 lanes, and it will have pedestrian tunnels and bridges encircling it in every direction. Not people-friendly at the street level. The boulevard is already going to be a cluster, there is nothing that can happen at this point to mitigate that. The plan for that is already set in stone. The city could tell ODOT last minute to drop the project and the city could pursue it on its own, and build a much simpler boulevard on its own, but that isn't going to happen.

Consider the central park. This last week the council voted to do a new pedestrian TUNNEL underneath Robinson, presumably, between the convention center (the site the mayor is HELLBENT on) and the central park. First, I was bracing for the impact of the park just being a front lawn for the convention center. I had no idea they would take that even further and have tunnels leading from the front door of the convention center to practically the middle of the park. That is turning out to be a nightmare worse than I would have ever imagined. You don't even at least have to cross the street there. Oy veigh...

What is wrong with crossing the street? Why do we need all these pedestrian tunnels and bridges? Are we planning for some alternative future universe where humans will no longer be born with 2 legs that work?? Unless we're trying to get people across I-40 or across the tracks, that seems totally worthless and unneeded. Why are we spending money on that? Ugh.

What is wrong with simple 4-lane boulevards (2 in each direction) with a wide landscaped median or something? That would cost a fraction of what this street-level superhighway that meets ODOT specs is going to cost. It would be less of an urban nightmare, as well.

This city does not need Core2Shore. It doesn't need anywhere new to build a park and a convention center, even though the park is already being built. It doesn't need any more available land downtown. Downtown already has a huge inventory of vacant lots and abandoned buildings that aren't close to finding uses. I am scared at what OKC is going to end up building in C2S.

And I'll tell you how this will end up: It will just be a continuation of the superblock cluster. There will be virtually zero mixed-use development around the park or anywhere in Core2Shore. It will be parking enterprises and low-impact development like maybe a few restaurants and maybe a convenience store. It will have all these super-wide streets and million-dollar infrastructure pieces that nobody uses unless there is a big convention or a big event in the park. It will be absolutely dead. It will feel like an expensive, government-built ghost town. It will go down in history as the biggest urban renewal folly since the 1970s, anywhere. It will absolutely fail to attract private investment because people will not want to go there. Everything in it will probably be named after Mayor Cornett.

That's not a legacy I would want. Perhaps it is absolutely for the best that the MAPS3 Convention Center Subcommittee decided to scrap the two C2S sites from consideration. I would much rather see what they can do within the context of an existing area, which will at the very least put limitations on the project. More limitations are what we need as long as somebody very high up is listening to morons who know nothing about urban planning.

Is streetcar moving too fast?

That's what Jane Jenkins says in the Gazette.

“I think that’s jumping way ahead,” said subcommittee member Jane Jenkins. “I’m willing to vote that we’re adopting this map as a starting point, but I don’t know that this is where we’re going to end up. I still think we need to slow this process down. I think there are a lot of things out there, and I think we’re moving way, way too fast.”

Bezdek said the subcommittee would waste millions of dollars if it proceeded too slowly.

“So what?” Jenkins said. “I’m sorry, I think we can come back and do that later. Wasting millions of dollars as opposed to making a mistake? I think we’re moving too fast.”

Jenkins said before going further she wanted the subcommittee to review transit projects currently being studied, as well as get more input from planning and transit professionals.

Does anyone else think that the streetcar process is moving too fast? I personally am swayed heavily by the point that Project 180 isn't going to slow down, no matter the whims of the streetcar subcommittee, but it is interesting to me if some of the subcommittee members themselves feel uncomfortable with the pace of the process.

I also think there is a political clock ticking. The makeup of the City Council won't stay the same forever..