New plans for Maxwell Convention Center

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by AVERAGE JOE

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

I disagree that it is useless.  I have been to several events in the arena.  It was used, it is used.  It has ticket stands, air conditioning, a sound system, beer stands, concession stands and bathrooms - amenities.

It is not flashy.  And yes, it certainly needs some work to be up to modern standards.  But it is not worthless.

Oooooh.... bathrooms! Air conditioning! Such amenities!!! Do you consider a car with seats, tires and a steering wheel to be loaded with "amenities"?

Let's cut to the chase:

From a pure definition standpoint, the old arena is a large, clear-span building with a seating bowl, so it is a building "with use".

In the real world, it is useless once the BOK center opens - unless it is comprehensively renovated. It's unmarketable in its present condition. That's the party line from the CVB to justify building the new arena. It's a bland cinder-block cave with 8900 cramped seats that hasn't been improved in any significant fashion since it opened in 1964.

Therefore:

1) Who is going to rent it when the glitzy new BOK center is next door? Only those who can't afford the BOK center or don't need that many seats. Which brings us to #2.

2) The old arena is not a marketable stand-alone property. If you need an arena that size and no convention facilities, you'd be better served with the Reynolds Center, the Mabee Center, or (dropping down to the 5,000 seat level) the Pavilion or UMAC, or even (dropping below 2,000) the PAC, Brady Theater or TCC southeast facility. It doesn't compete favorably with the other product in town. The only marketable asset about it is that it's attached to the convention halls. So...

3) If you need an arena that size and/or can't afford the BOK Center AND you need convention hall space... it still sucks. It's the same craphole that has supposedly caused us to lose convention business for the past 10 years. Now it's all of a sudden an asset? Not in its current condition.

4) the added twist of having 2 arenas next door is only relevant for highly specialized events like the Big XII tournament, which we'd only host every few years at best. But even in that light, the old arena in its current condition isn't an asset, it's a deterrent. It would drag the BOK center down like cement shoes. If you need two proximate arenas and you've got bids from Dallas, KC, and OKC, you're not going to accept the craptacular 1964 arena in its current condition as acceptable, no matter how nice the BOK Center is. Just doesn't compete with the other towns' product.

Hopefully, you've gotten the point that all this is tied to the current condition of the old arena. If it were comprehensively renovated into a modern, clean, attractive 8,000 seat arena with even a smattering of modern amenities, then it would be a major asset. But just keeping it as is and pretending it's an asset is a joke.

So again, the point is that if we're keeping the old arena we're going to have to pay for a major overhaul. Until that happens, it's all but useless from a marketing standpoint once the BOK center opens. And that's going to cost $$$$. Where is that going to come from?

Bravo!   You are exactly right, AJ.

[joiei]

OKC built the Ford Center right across the street from the Cox Center and they haven't torn down the old Cox Center yet?  In fact, I was there for the Red Earth Festival.  So I do not understand your line of thought.  IF OKC can do it, why can't we?

[AVERAGE JOE]

quote:Originally posted by joiei

OKC built the Ford Center right across the street from the Cox Center and they haven't torn down the old Cox Center yet?  In fact, I was there for the Red Earth Festival.  So I do not understand your line of thought.  IF OKC can do it, why can't we?

What's not to understand? OKC put money into the old Cox Center so that it's not a sh!thole. Our old arena is a major sh!thole. If we spend tens of millions of dollars to give it a major overhaul so that it's no longer a sh!thole, then we're in good shape. Until we spend the $$$, having a sh!thole arena across the street from the BOK center ain't much of a selling point.

And where is the money going to come from? Another tax increase? Cancelling other Vision 2025 projects to canibalize the available tax dollars? Issue a bond? Sell the entire facility to a private firm with the stipulation they have to renovate it?

Everyone's quite giddy about keeping the old arena now, but when the decision makers come crying that it's in such bad shape that we need to come up with $15 - 25 million to renovate it and your taxes are going up... people won't be so giddy anymore.

[joiei]

And where did Oklahoma City get the money to upgrade their old Cox Center, taxes from the citizens who live there.  And now they all benefit and get first class entertainment acts that we have to go there to see instead of being able to have it happen in our own downtown.  As for the needed renovation, any building needs an occasional rehab to keep it current and appealing for events.  And for properties of this size, it takes more than just a bit of bailing wire and some paint.  If you do not stay current with the needs of the people using the facility, then you will not be able to sell the facility to anyone who might want to use it.

[AVERAGE JOE]

quote:Originally posted by joiei

And where did Oklahoma City get the money to upgrade their old Cox Center, taxes from the citizens who live there.  And now they all benefit and get first class entertainment acts that we have to go there to see instead of being able to have it happen in our own downtown.  As for the needed renovation, any building needs an occasional rehab to keep it current and appealing for events.  And for properties of this size, it takes more than just a bit of bailing wire and some paint.  If you do not stay current with the needs of the people using the facility, then you will not be able to sell the facility to anyone who might want to use it.

So the $178 million in taxes we're paying to build the BOK Center aren't enough for you? I voted for the project and I support it. However, now we're likely to be asked to pony up even more tax dollars dedicated toward an arena project, right on the heels of the $178 million investment we haven't even finished building yet. Enough is enough.

And the new arena was supposed to replace the old one, which factored into the decision of whether to vote yes to build the new one. If they'd said "Let's increase taxes and spend $178 million to build another arena downtown right next to the old one so we have two arenas to maintain... and oh, by the way, we'll need to ask you for millions more in tax dollars at some later date so we can refurb the old one"... I doubt the arena portion of Vision 2025 would've passed.

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by AVERAGE JOE

quote:Originally posted by joiei

And where did Oklahoma City get the money to upgrade their old Cox Center, taxes from the citizens who live there.  And now they all benefit and get first class entertainment acts that we have to go there to see instead of being able to have it happen in our own downtown.  As for the needed renovation, any building needs an occasional rehab to keep it current and appealing for events.  And for properties of this size, it takes more than just a bit of bailing wire and some paint.  If you do not stay current with the needs of the people using the facility, then you will not be able to sell the facility to anyone who might want to use it.

So the $178 million in taxes we're paying to build the BOK Center aren't enough for you? I voted for the project and I support it. However, now we're likely to be asked to pony up even more tax dollars dedicated toward an arena project, right on the heels of the $178 million investment we haven't even finished building yet. Enough is enough.

And the new arena was supposed to replace the old one, which factored into the decision of whether to vote yes to build the new one. If they'd said "Let's increase taxes and spend $178 million to build another arena downtown right next to the old one so we have two arenas to maintain... and oh, by the way, we'll need to ask you for millions more in tax dollars at some later date so we can refurb the old one"... I doubt the arena portion of Vision 2025 would've passed.

Maybe they're going to use some of Michael Bates $120M overage from Vision2025 to put towards the convention center.

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by joiei

And where did Oklahoma City get the money to upgrade their old Cox Center, taxes from the citizens who live there.  And now they all benefit and get first class entertainment acts that we have to go there to see instead of being able to have it happen in our own downtown.  As for the needed renovation, any building needs an occasional rehab to keep it current and appealing for events.  And for properties of this size, it takes more than just a bit of bailing wire and some paint.  If you do not stay current with the needs of the people using the facility, then you will not be able to sell the facility to anyone who might want to use it.

Actually, I don't think OKC had to spend much on their old arena because it was never a ****hole like the current Tulsa arena.  What they did spend on the remodeling the Cox Center was included in the original MAPS proposal, approved by the voters.

The problem with the Tulsa proposal is that they are not being honest and open about it.  They are presenting it as if we can just keep the current arena, as is, and then we'll be able to get the Big XII Tournament.  They are either woefully ignorant or dishonest. If that arena is going to serve ANY purpose whatsoever, it is going to require the expenditure of some major money, and they seem intent on pretending that is not the case.

[cannon_fodder]

The arena clearly needs work, I agree that it is in a neglected condition.  But it is marketable now, so it will be so then.  It NEEDS work, that doesn't mean it is worthless.  Will it serve us better as is, or as a rubble pile?

Two arena's nearby are more important that you think.  Many events (NCAA or conference tournaments among them) do not like playing on other school's courts.  In fact, C-USA simply will not do it (unless its Memphis... which plays at a city facility).  

But I digress.  The real question is simple, is Tulsa better served by a single monster arena downtown, or by a pair of arena's like every major destination city has?  And are we better off trying to reuse the arena or bulldozing it and replacing it with a huge empty space?

I think we are better being able to attract conference tournaments, NCAA games, and smaller venue attractions downtown while adding to the asset base of the city.

[AVERAGE JOE]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

The arena clearly needs work, I agree that it is in a neglected condition.  But it is marketable now, so it will be so then.  It NEEDS work, that doesn't mean it is worthless.  Will it serve us better as is, or as a rubble pile?

Two arena's nearby are more important that you think.  Many events (NCAA or conference tournaments among them) do not like playing on other school's courts.  In fact, C-USA simply will not do it (unless its Memphis... which plays at a city facility).  

But I digress.  The real question is simple, is Tulsa better served by a single monster arena downtown, or by a pair of arena's like every major destination city has?  And are we better off trying to reuse the arena or bulldozing it and replacing it with a huge empty space?

I think we are better being able to attract conference tournaments, NCAA games, and smaller venue attractions downtown while adding to the asset base of the city.

I'm afraid you continue to miss the real question. How are we going to pay for the necessary renovations to the old arena?

I'm not arguing against the value of having 2 arenas, which is what you keep defaulting to. But to realize the value of that arrangement, both arenas have to be in good shape. Having 2 cars in the driveway is great if they both run. But if one's up on blocks, it's not doing you much good. The potential is there, but you won't benefit from it until you fix it up.

So again, how are we going to pay for it? My guess is that this subject won't be mentioned by public officials anytime soon, but it will in a year or two...

[cannon_fodder]

Now Joe, THATS a good question.

Selling the naming rights should being in a few million.  Leaving a couple million more to figure out.  Bake sale?

Hopefully, and wow I HOPE, it could be done with operating revenue from the arena(s).  Or perhaps the new hotel that is going to be built at some point would have an interest in it.  Avoiding ANOTHER tax would be great.

But I believe it is important to keep the second arena.  The revenue the Tallon's pay to rent it can be a start (not to mention just keeping them in town!).

[chlfan]

quote:Originally posted by AVERAGE JOE

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

The arena clearly needs work, I agree that it is in a neglected condition.  But it is marketable now, so it will be so then.  It NEEDS work, that doesn't mean it is worthless.  Will it serve us better as is, or as a rubble pile?

Two arena's nearby are more important that you think.  Many events (NCAA or conference tournaments among them) do not like playing on other school's courts.  In fact, C-USA simply will not do it (unless its Memphis... which plays at a city facility).  

But I digress.  The real question is simple, is Tulsa better served by a single monster arena downtown, or by a pair of arena's like every major destination city has?  And are we better off trying to reuse the arena or bulldozing it and replacing it with a huge empty space?

I think we are better being able to attract conference tournaments, NCAA games, and smaller venue attractions downtown while adding to the asset base of the city.

I'm afraid you continue to miss the real question. How are we going to pay for the necessary renovations to the old arena?

I'm not arguing against the value of having 2 arenas, which is what you keep defaulting to. But to realize the value of that arrangement, both arenas have to be in good shape. Having 2 cars in the driveway is great if they both run. But if one's up on blocks, it's not doing you much good. The potential is there, but you won't benefit from it until you fix it up.

So again, how are we going to pay for it? My guess is that this subject won't be mentioned by public officials anytime soon, but it will in a year or two...

If you read the article, it says how:

"...No extra funding would be required for the $50.5 million Vision 2025 project, officials said.

The money would come from not having to demolish the arena seating bowl and scrapping a $4 million glass entrance planned to face Fifth Street.

All of the other major components of the renovation -- including the addition of the state's largest ballroom, escalators, extra meeting space and new finishes throughout -- would still be in the plan. ..."

[AVERAGE JOE]

quote:Originally posted by chlfan

quote:Originally posted by AVERAGE JOE

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

The arena clearly needs work, I agree that it is in a neglected condition.  But it is marketable now, so it will be so then.  It NEEDS work, that doesn't mean it is worthless.  Will it serve us better as is, or as a rubble pile?

Two arena's nearby are more important that you think.  Many events (NCAA or conference tournaments among them) do not like playing on other school's courts.  In fact, C-USA simply will not do it (unless its Memphis... which plays at a city facility).  

But I digress.  The real question is simple, is Tulsa better served by a single monster arena downtown, or by a pair of arena's like every major destination city has?  And are we better off trying to reuse the arena or bulldozing it and replacing it with a huge empty space?

I think we are better being able to attract conference tournaments, NCAA games, and smaller venue attractions downtown while adding to the asset base of the city.

I'm afraid you continue to miss the real question. How are we going to pay for the necessary renovations to the old arena?

I'm not arguing against the value of having 2 arenas, which is what you keep defaulting to. But to realize the value of that arrangement, both arenas have to be in good shape. Having 2 cars in the driveway is great if they both run. But if one's up on blocks, it's not doing you much good. The potential is there, but you won't benefit from it until you fix it up.

So again, how are we going to pay for it? My guess is that this subject won't be mentioned by public officials anytime soon, but it will in a year or two...

If you read the article, it says how:

"...No extra funding would be required for the $50.5 million Vision 2025 project, officials said.

The money would come from not having to demolish the arena seating bowl and scrapping a $4 million glass entrance planned to face Fifth Street.

All of the other major components of the renovation -- including the addition of the state's largest ballroom, escalators, extra meeting space and new finishes throughout -- would still be in the plan. ..."

I believe it's your reading comprehension that needs examination.

The article does not say that we're getting the new ballroom and an arena overhaul for the same amount of money as was budgeted for the new ballroom alone. It says they believe that they can build a ballroom addition onto the convention center for the same amount of money as it would cost to convert the arena to a ballroom.

So you did nothing to answer the question of how we're going to pay for an overhaul to the arena. Once they spend the $50 million of Vision 2025 money to build the new ballroom addition, there will be nothing left to renovate the arena.

After the BOK Center opens (give it maybe a year) they'll come crying to the taxpayers, "Aw shucks, this old arena is in such bad shape we need to renovate or we just won't be able to land any business. Can we have tens of millions of dollars, please?" I imagine they'll even act all surprised at their "recent" discovery that the old arena is a major dump that scares off business.

[Renaissance]

First, I think you're exaggerating how bad the Cox Arena is.  Pretty it ain't, but serviceable?  Yes.

Second, there is simply no way to know what the current plan will entail until the evaluation is over.  Thinking about what it might take to update an arena, I come up with the following:
1) concourse/concesssion/restrooom area
2) arena bowl seating and aesthetics
3) facility physical plant maintainance/upgrades
4) production/staging area upgrades.
Seems likely that a revised plan that allows for the continued existence of the Maxwell House would take into consideration all of the above plus more.  But no one knows just yet what will happen, so until we do, there's no reason to disparage the current state of the current arena.

[chlfan]

quote:Originally posted by AVERAGE JOE

quote:Originally posted by chlfan

quote:Originally posted by AVERAGE JOE

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

The arena clearly needs work, I agree that it is in a neglected condition.  But it is marketable now, so it will be so then.  It NEEDS work, that doesn't mean it is worthless.  Will it serve us better as is, or as a rubble pile?

Two arena's nearby are more important that you think.  Many events (NCAA or conference tournaments among them) do not like playing on other school's courts.  In fact, C-USA simply will not do it (unless its Memphis... which plays at a city facility).  

But I digress.  The real question is simple, is Tulsa better served by a single monster arena downtown, or by a pair of arena's like every major destination city has?  And are we better off trying to reuse the arena or bulldozing it and replacing it with a huge empty space?

I think we are better being able to attract conference tournaments, NCAA games, and smaller venue attractions downtown while adding to the asset base of the city.

I'm afraid you continue to miss the real question. How are we going to pay for the necessary renovations to the old arena?

I'm not arguing against the value of having 2 arenas, which is what you keep defaulting to. But to realize the value of that arrangement, both arenas have to be in good shape. Having 2 cars in the driveway is great if they both run. But if one's up on blocks, it's not doing you much good. The potential is there, but you won't benefit from it until you fix it up.

So again, how are we going to pay for it? My guess is that this subject won't be mentioned by public officials anytime soon, but it will in a year or two...

If you read the article, it says how:

"...No extra funding would be required for the $50.5 million Vision 2025 project, officials said.

The money would come from not having to demolish the arena seating bowl and scrapping a $4 million glass entrance planned to face Fifth Street.

All of the other major components of the renovation -- including the addition of the state's largest ballroom, escalators, extra meeting space and new finishes throughout -- would still be in the plan. ..."

I believe it's your reading comprehension that needs examination.

The article does not say that we're getting the new ballroom and an arena overhaul for the same amount of money as was budgeted for the new ballroom alone. It says they believe that they can build a ballroom addition onto the convention center for the same amount of money as it would cost to convert the arena to a ballroom.

So you did nothing to answer the question of how we're going to pay for an overhaul to the arena. Once they spend the $50 million of Vision 2025 money to build the new ballroom addition, there will be nothing left to renovate the arena.

After the BOK Center opens (give it maybe a year) they'll come crying to the taxpayers, "Aw shucks, this old arena is in such bad shape we need to renovate or we just won't be able to land any business. Can we have tens of millions of dollars, please?" I imagine they'll even act all surprised at their "recent" discovery that the old arena is a major dump that scares off business.

Examine this:

Attacking my "reading comprehension" is a bit over the top! Maybe you have additional info that this article isn't specific about?; maybe you're reading between the lines!!??- At any rate, the fact that someone might interpret an article differently that you shouldn't elicit a response like yours. Lighten up Frances!

Your slant / interpretation may be dead on but your tone towards other posters is what I take exception with. You aren't inviting good dialog when you fail to entertain or just flat out dismiss other points of view.

If you think you know the facts, try sharing or clarifying them in a way that isn't so smug.

Thanks!

[AVERAGE JOE]

quote:Originally posted by Floyd

First, I think you're exaggerating how bad the Cox Arena is.  Pretty it ain't, but serviceable?  Yes.

Second, there is simply no way to know what the current plan will entail until the evaluation is over.  Thinking about what it might take to update an arena, I come up with the following:
1) concourse/concesssion/restrooom area
2) arena bowl seating and aesthetics
3) facility physical plant maintainance/upgrades
4) production/staging area upgrades.
Seems likely that a revised plan that allows for the continued existence of the Maxwell House would take into consideration all of the above plus more.  But no one knows just yet what will happen, so until we do, there's no reason to disparage the current state of the current arena.

Well, one would think these things have been taken into consideration, but they have not. The items you listed could very likely eat up half of the $50 million budget for the convention center project. Wouldn't leave much for the construction of the new ballroom and improvements to the other exhibit halls as promised the taxpayers in the Vision 2025 package.

Again, mark my words... there will be a push for more money to renovate the old arena at some point in the not-too-distant future. It has to be renovated, it cannot be left as is.