Producers Coop

[hfry]

No, I think it would be a good area for a stadium or anything large of sorts because it would allow you to start from stratch. The access issue to me is almost a good thing because it would hopefully prevent any developer from thinking "hey let just out parking around it." If it's a stadium it needs to be a neighborhood style that would almost guarantee people had to walk to it from parking garages blocks away( pedestrian bridge over the river) ( bass pro shop garage type places) the only parking in the area should be underground. When I was in France when we went to the center of the city for a rugby match we parked underground and walked about 5 mins to get there and there is no reason it couldn't happen here except for the obvious extra cost but there will come a time when cost won't be the most important issue.

[Rover]

Hold on, are people thinking this will be a good location because of the prospect of ample parking?

No, we know that the 30,000 people living downtown will be the only ones to attend and will all walk, bike, bus or rail down to the stadium. We don't need any parking. Or, longing for the good ole days, they can just ride their horses...so we need hitchin posts.

[Rover]

This whole area is semi-isolated, but with the river sport area can become an active sport zone. Generalized training facilities, affordable dorms, sports medicine facilities, etc., can all locate there. Structured parking backing up to elevated Shields on the west would somewhat hide and visually reduce the "barrier".

[Just the facts]

No, I think it would be a good area for a stadium or anything large of sorts because it would allow you to start from stratch. The access issue to me is almost a good thing because it would hopefully prevent any developer from thinking "hey let just out parking around it." If it's a stadium it needs to be a neighborhood style that would almost guarantee people had to walk to it from parking garages blocks away( pedestrian bridge over the river) ( bass pro shop garage type places) the only parking in the area should be underground. When I was in France when we went to the center of the city for a rugby match we parked underground and walked about 5 mins to get there and there is no reason it couldn't happen here except for the obvious extra cost but there will come a time when cost won't be the most important issue.

I like the idea of a "neighborhood" stadium. Downtown already has parking for 25,000 people that can be utilized. We don't need parking for 25,000 M-F and then a whole different set of lots for 25,000 on Saturday.

Personally, I would prefer the stadium go along the railroad near Automobile Alley (maybe even on the east side of the track - block bounded by NE5, NE6, Oklahoma Ave, and the railroad).

[baralheia]

One reason I personally would enjoy seeing an MLS stadium on that spot is because it's right next to I-40 and the BNSF rail viaduct, and if the stadium is architecturally interesting, it would look really cool from the highway and from anyone riding passenger or commuter rail. Access to the site is currently an issue, I would agree, but changes could be made to accomodate the traffic. There are two existing portals from Shields/E.K. Gaylord going through the rail viaduct into this site: one on SW 4th St, and one on SW 7th St. If thoughtfully designed, access from the Boulevard could be implemented as well.

[Just the facts]

You lost me at 'intersting architecture for people in cars to look at'.

[hoya]

I think putting a new stadium near the Capitol Hill area would be best. Our best bet for a new pro team would probably be MLS. Put it in a Hispanic heavy area and you'll fill it up regularly. People in the area could walk there. It would be the centerpiece of new development in that neighborhood. It could coincide with the extension of the streetcar to the area.

[baralheia]

You lost me at 'intersting architecture for people in cars to look at'.

I get you, but the fact of the matter is there will be people driving by this spot for decades to come - whether it's in their own personal vehicles, carpooling, riding a bus, whatever. Having something that is visually interesting next to an interstate like this can break up the monotony of a long trip and create a lasting memory. One example of this for me is the (now demolished) gasometer structure that used to be along I-44 in St Louis, or the really neat color-changing LED accent lighting that is used along the highway in Phoenix. There are many, many more examples of this - that's just what jumps out at me.

If you build something that is visually and architecturally interesting, you want to show it off to as many people as possible. A stadium built in that spot would be visible to multiple modes of transportation (including pedestrians and visitors) and leave an impression on a LOT of people, regardless of the origin or destination of those people. And if people remember "that neat looking building along the highway in Oklahoma City" or "that awesome building I saw from the train" - and want to find out more about it - then they're more likely to have a good impression of our city.

In my mind, it's all about placemaking.

[Just the facts]

We already gave the cross-country traveler Skydance Bridge.

[Just the facts]

I think putting a new stadium near the Capitol Hill area would be best. Our best bet for a new pro team would probably be MLS. Put it in a Hispanic heavy area and you'll fill it up regularly. People in the area could walk there. It would be the centerpiece of new development in that neighborhood. It could coincide with the extension of the streetcar to the area.

Like convention centers, stadiums aren't exactly a catalyst for growth. They take up a lot of room and are built outside the human scale.

[Urbanized]

Like convention centers, stadiums aren't exactly a catalyst for growth. They take up a lot of room and are built outside the human scale.

Bricktown stands in direct contrast to the points you are feebly attempting to adhere to. The fact that you are unaware of the growth impact the district enjoyed courtesy the Bricktown Ballpark, events at the Cox Center, and the placement/development/programming of the Chesapeake Arena shows how little time you have spent in downtown OKC over the past 15 years. In fact, it can be argued that the location/success of these buildings was a major catalyst for the success of ALL of downtown.

If you want to talk about larger stadiums, ask the people in Indianapolis how they feel about the downtown location of the Hoosier/RCA Dome when it was built in the late 80s. They hated what it did for their city so much that when it came time to replace it, they built Lucas Oil Stadium right across the street. Oh, by the way, there is a convention center across the street too.

You are so desperately locked in on the narrative that the convention industry is dead, that convention centers are bad/unneeded, that stadiums don't really add anything to cities, that you fail to think critically and objectively on the topic. Some of these buildings DO fail from an economic development standpoint, but some of these types of public buildings are also runaway successes; game changers for their communities. Have you ever taken the time to try and figure out WHY?

When MAPS first passed, there was pressure from the I-40/Meridian hoteliers to build the proposed arena at the fairgrounds. There were people who wanted the ballpark to be re-built on the site of All Sports Stadium. Others wanted the ballpark to be built south of where Bass Pro is today. In fact that location was on the marketing materials for the MAPS campaign. Do you honestly think Bricktown would have been any type of success without those buildings? Would there be a couple dozen hotels built or underway in downtown right now? Would the public buildings themselves have been successful in those other locations? Would we have the Thunder?

The success/failure of these types of projects, and their impact on a community boils down to one thing; location. Without a good location, contiguous to hospitality offerings, those buildings DO struggle to impact their surroundings. WITH good location, they can create synergistic growth, and both the buildings AND their surroundings can thrive.

[David]

*Like*

[Just the facts]

Urbanized, are you kidding me?

Where was the All-Sports Stadium oriented development? For the first 45 of the Myraid where was the convention center oriented development? Where is the Peak oriented development. I was talking about the ability of these facilities to kick-start development around them. It rarely happens that way.

[mkjeeves]

We don't need any more public financed "game changers" in the center of the city.

Been there. Did that. The game changed and is still changing. Time for free enterprise to run with the baton unassisted there for awhile.

[Just the facts]

We don't need any more public financed "game changers" in the center of the city.

Been there. Did that. The game changed and is still changing. Time for free enterprise to run with the baton unassisted there for awhile.

The private sector has proven itself incapable of supporting itself. Don't believe me? Just ask them.

[Urbanized]

Urbanized, are you kidding me?

Where was the All-Sports Stadium oriented development? For the first 45 of the Myraid where was the convention center oriented development? Where is the Peak oriented development. I was talking about the ability of these facilities to kick-start development around them. It rarely happens that way.

OMG it's like arguing sights and sounds with a blind and deaf person.

[bradh]

OMG it's like arguing sights and sounds with a blind and deaf person.

if it doesn't meet whatever some book he read said is good development then he's right and you're wrong

[Rover]

OMG it's like arguing sights and sounds with a blind and deaf person.

Understanding development requires understanding context. If your only context is rigid dogma and selective "truths" then you are driven to only one conclusion. Some people drive only those facts that support their already arrived at conclusions. You cannot argue with those types of people.

(Edit) You CAN argue with them, but you cannot have meaningful and productive discussions with them. They will just argue, pile up meaningless facts, and then keep going until they wear you down.

[Just the facts]

Urbanized - it's simple. People have suggested moving the convention center outside the pedestrian shed of Bricktown and downtown hotels, to which YOU said would be a mistake. Their reply was that businesses catering to convention goers would spring up around it.

So which is it? Will the new convention center stimulate growth around it or does it need to tap into existing resources. Stop trying to have it both ways and pick one.

If you think a cc will generate its own adjacent growth then why did you oppose East Park, West Park, and CoOp locations? If you don't think that will happen then what are we arguing about?

[Urbanized]

You answered your own question when you pointed out that the Cox had little impact on its surroundings for the first two decades of its existence. Why? Because there were virtually no walkable amenities nearby. As soon as Bricktown began to emerge, the Cox Center began to thrive, and vice-versa. Additional hotels began to make sense, and the market responded. They all fed off of one another, supported one another, made one another more marketable, and continue to do so.

Convention centers and centers of hospitality require one another's presence within walkable proximity to thrive. It is a delicate balance. It requires a thoughtful, holistic approach. Mess with that formula in the cavalier manner you espouse and you're looking at years if not decades before the scales once again are balanced. Is that REALLY the appropriate approach for a quarter billion dollar publicly-funded building?

Put the CC (or a stadium) where survival/success is guaranteed, and it will bring EVEN MORE success. Place them where they will struggle (or even fail) to succeed, no success. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

[betts]

I'm not sure one can say success is guaranteed. It depends on your definition of success. I think it's a stretch to say conventions have had that much to do with the success of Bricktown and the increase in hotels. I think MAPS, the Thunder and Oklahoma residents finally figuring out that downtown offers a lot for leisure time entertainment have had as much impact as anything. And if we do see an increase in conventions here, it too has as much to do with MAPS and the Thunder bringing focus to the downtown, which in turn has led to the increase in food and entertainment options that convention goers look for.

[Just the facts]

It requires a thoughtful, holistic approach. Mess with that formula in the cavalier manner you espouse and you're looking at years if not decades before the scales once again are balanced. Is that REALLY the appropriate approach for a quarter billion dollar publicly-funded building?

Exactly what kind of approach am I espousing? I said don't build the CC too far from existing amenities because the CC won't be a catalyst for adjacent growth of those amenities. Are you disagreeing with that?

[ljbab728]

Exactly what kind of approach am I espousing? I said don't build the CC too far from existing amenities because the CC won't be a catalyst for adjacent growth of those amenities. Are you disagreeing with that?

Kerry, I'm thinking that you're talking around each other and really aren't that far from agreeing.

[Urbanized]

...I think it's a stretch to say conventions have had that much to do with the success of Bricktown and the increase in hotels...

Well, all I can say is that you are completely in the dark regarding this issue. I'm telling you that the Cox Center and Bricktown both have had a tremendous impact on one another's success. I've been intimately involved with this industry for fifteen years, and I've seen it with my own eyes. I've worked closely with CVB staff on bookings, I've met with meeting planners when they were considering OKC, I know and work with the management of downtown hotels, I've compared notes with the owners and managers of restaurants and attractions both downtown and throughout the metro, and I seek out and ask questions of convention attendees when they are here. I've done these things FOR YEARS.

You stroll around downtown, occasionally have a meal in Bricktown, go to a few medical conferences in cities like Chicago, and you magically have the entire convention business and downtown OKC hospitality industry ecosystem figured out. It's breathtaking. And insulting.

In the past on this forum you have repeatedly ripped Councilman Shadid for (your words) reading a book or attending a conference and becoming an instant expert on a topic. YOU haven't even bothered to read the book. Tell you what: you stop pretending that you have all of the answers regarding the convention business and I'll stop pretending that I know a bunch about pediatrics just because I've stayed overnight in a hospital. Oh, that's right, I already don't do that.

[Urbanized]

Exactly what kind of approach am I espousing? I said don't build the CC too far from existing amenities because the CC won't be a catalyst for adjacent growth of those amenities. Are you disagreeing with that?

In the past you've repeatedly stated that the CC (and now a stadium) would be waste of money, won't have much economic impact, will ruin the pedestrian environment, should be tucked away in some corner away from everything else if built, won't drive ancillary development...then sometimes you say it will. Often your opinion changes from page to page. Let me know when you finally land on a position and I will let you know whether we agree or disagree. It won't be difficult to determine, since I've been nothing if not consistent in years of posting on the topic.