Sunset Amphitheater

[bison34]

I just don't get this love for a downtown amphitheater. There are so very, very few large-scale amphitheaters in downtown areas, for a reason. I can't think of any. Maybe one in Indianapolis. Other than that, I can't think of any in downtown/urban areas. Maybe the Woodlands, but that is a weird thing.

They don't work in downtown areas. I hate the idea, and I hope no one ever tries to build one downtown.

There is a reason they are almost always in suburban areas.

[Urbanized]

[Jake]

Why don't they work in downtowns?

[irishtate]

response from the developer seems to indicate they are willing to pursue other cites in the city/metro that may be a better fit.

Perhaps there's a way to impress on them the value of having this venue in the downtown area, creating a true entertainment district along with the arena, MLS stadium, Legends Tower/Boardwalk, and so on. ..

I agree with this.
I'm not a huge concert person, but I thought it was a little out of the way for your average OKC GenPop, to be developed where it was. . . . Coop area, near the riversport district, chisolm creek area (over in that huge empty area by Freddy's frozen custard), even somewhere out by Flix/Chicken n pickle, makes a WHOLE lot more sense to me. But what do I know.

[Pete]

As with any concert venue, it would be darn nice to have restaurants and bars within walking distance for both before and after options.

We'll see if Chisholm Creek can get them interested once again. I suspect the only reason they were looking at the previous site were incentives from the developer.

[jn1780]

Why don't they work in downtowns?

Maybe the better question is why do amphitheaters seem to be all in the suburbs? I bet you anything the reasons didn't really apply to the west OKC/Yukon site. I think amphitheater sites are picked either to due to the site being scenic(in the mountains, hills, ocean, etc.). Away from areas where sound would be a concern, or close to a wealthy demographic.

There is a neighborhood directly south Chisholm Creek. So there will be a fight there too.

[bison34]

Why don't they work in downtowns?

Mostly due to finding space for a 10 to 12k amphitheater. And land is more expensive downtown, so the cost, rather than $120 million will be $180 million.

And if you want to have residents downtown, then you will still have the nimby issues.

There are exceptions, but that is all they are, exceptions. Boston doesn't have one, Austin doesn't have one, Houston doesn't have one, Kansas City doesn't, Portland, SLC, I can keep going.

OKC needs a true amphitheater. I won't go into the economics of why a 7k seat amphitheater doesn't work for most concert tours. Just look at the past few years lineups versus Rogers AMP or Albuquerque's Isleta Amp. It isn't fair. Rogers is only 2 or 3k more than the Zoo, but it gets 2x or more thr shows.

[BDP]

Why don't they work in downtowns?

Well, the one mentioned works well:

https://www.livenation.com/venue/Kov...te-park-events

That's probably about 40 shows this year. It's 6,000k too. It's size and location don't prevent it from booking major tours.



Also, Dos Equis in Dallas isn't exactly suburban.

[BDP]

Maybe the better question is why do amphitheaters seem to be all in the suburbs?

I think mostly just cheap land in large chunks, sometimes subsidized by exurb municipalities. I'm sure noise ordinances have played a part. I lot of the older ones were built before the area around them had much going on.

It's definitely not because of convenience.

[Pete]

Milwaukee has a huge amphitheater right downtown with a capacity of 23,000, 9,200 of the seats covered. Plus several other live music stages on the same Summerfest grounds.

Other than having access to lots of other amenities, downtowns also offer tons of existing parking that is generally empty when concerts are staged, as well as great infrastructure for ingress and egress.

There are dozens of huge ballparks, stadiums, and arenas in downtown areas and in fact the cores of cities are now generally preferred for all the reasons mentioned above.

[bison34]

You guys are proving my point. The exceptions, not the rule. Look at the summer tours, and the amphitheaters they go to. I would say 90% or more are in suburbs or outside of downtown areas.

And people have always viewed outdoor concert venues as burdens that are more trouble than they are worth. Hence why they get built in areas where there are no residents to raise cane (like we just saw).

I just want OKC to get a venue where my favorite modern rock or metal artists, who normally tour in groups of 2 or 3 and play in large amphitheaters, will come to OKC, rather than skipping us entirely over the summer because there is no venue that can make the economics work.

I never meant to say that a downtown one won't work, but it would be expensive, and would likely end up getting TIF funds. Nor do I think the Notes venue was the perfect option. But it is the first one proposed in OKC in decades, and all these other developers will see is that people in OKC were vehemently against it. I would prefer my tax dollars not benefit Rogers, AR or Albuquerque or KC all summer (I go to 4-5 shows a summer, usually). I would go to double if OKC could get the shows.

[Pete]

You guys are proving my point. The exceptions, not the rule. Look at the summer tours, and the amphitheaters they go to. I would say 90% or more are in suburbs or outside of downtown areas.

If downtowns are superior places for people to gather -- and they very much are -- then the lack of amphitheaters in other downtowns would give OKC a booking advantage.

Would be a bigger draw because it's centrally located in terms of population, with great interstate access, excellent ingress and egress and tons of things to do before and after. Sure beats a soulless venue in the middle of a suburban parking lot far from the population center.

[bison34]

If downtowns are superior places for people to gather -- and they very much are -- then the lack of amphitheaters in other downtowns would give OKC a booking advantage.

Would be a bigger draw because it's centrally located in terms of population, with great interstate access, excellent ingress and egress and tons of things to do before and after. Sure beats a soulless venue in the middle of a suburban parking lot far from the population center.

I agree with you on that, for sure. But OKC developers are notorious for not wanting to pay a premium, so we would be subsidizing it majorly in a downtown situation. Notes, at least as of now, was asking for no public funding (they may have later, but who knows).

It would give a booking advantage, yes. But it is just a 50% or more premium versus a soulless venue in suburbia. So I agree with you on that. How much space is needed for a 12k amphitheater? Just acres-wise. I am curious. 100 acres? 70? 50? I am not sure where that exists in downtown, as of now.

[Colbafone]

I mean, they're headlining Red Rocks on July 4. Not just any act gets to headline at Red Rocks. I'm guessing the venue is expecting to sell at least a FEW tickets to that show. I no longer subscribe to Pollstar, so can't access the data piece, but after a quick Google search I found that as recently as 2021 they were consistently a top 10 touring act that summer. Big Head Todd has a pretty solid live following too. I'd guess the show will be pretty full.

Blues Traveler has played/headlined Red Rocks on July 4th every year since something like 1994. It's a VERY BIG event.

[Sonicthunder]

The amphitheater in Milwaukee that Pete mentioned I read that it sits on 12.5 acres of land

[mugofbeer]

I agree with you on that, for sure. But OKC developers are notorious for not wanting to pay a premium, so we would be subsidizing it majorly in a downtown situation. Notes, at least as of now, was asking for no public funding (they may have later, but who knows).

It would give a booking advantage, yes. But it is just a 50% or more premium versus a soulless venue in suburbia. So I agree with you on that. How much space is needed for a 12k amphitheater? Just acres-wise. I am curious. 100 acres? 70? 50? I am not sure where that exists in downtown, as of now.

Fiddlers Green in Denver (Greenwood Village) holds about 18,000 and is on half a city block in a suburban office area. It uses office building and some retail parking.

[HOT ROD]

I think that’s the key, if you’re in a dense suburban area then be sure it’s office and not residential; if it can’t be in a designated entertainment district. To me, the only location in west metro that might work would be near the OKC outlets if the space exists. Chisholm is another location since it’s an entertainment district.

but downtown is the best to me. It’s the prime entertainment center of the state, central and dare I say convenient to the entire OKC metro; with transit existing and much more on the way.

If land is available (which it is) then it could make sense to go along with the other prime entertainment venues, downtown. There should be no nimby downtown since bright lights big city downtowns ARE where the action is supposed to be. If you chose to live there, you know this. Just like your view may not always be guaranteed downtown, for similar reasoning.

for me, I’d love somehow if it could be built incorporating the river. But lumberyard or coop next to the mls stadium is also a good spot.

[soonerguru]

Yes, only Stonecipher and Cooper voted for it.

I wonder where this will go from here; that's a strong 'no' vote.

Cooper did not vote for it. Carter and Stonecipher did.

[barrettd]

I mean, they're headlining Red Rocks on July 4. Not just any act gets to headline at Red Rocks. I'm guessing the venue is expecting to sell at least a FEW tickets to that show. I no longer subscribe to Pollstar, so can't access the data piece, but after a quick Google search I found that as recently as 2021 they were consistently a top 10 touring act that summer. Big Head Todd has a pretty solid live following too. I'd guess the show will be pretty full.

It seems like Blues Traveler and Big Head Todd have pretty decent, long-standing fans that do show up for them. I'm not one of them, but I've got many friends who will follow those bands. I guess since they blew up when we were in college?

[jn1780]

I think that’s the key, if you’re in a dense suburban area then be sure it’s office and not residential; if it can’t be in a designated entertainment district. To me, the only location in west metro that might work would be near the OKC outlets if the space exists. Chisholm is another location since it’s an entertainment district.

but downtown is the best to me. It’s the prime entertainment center of the state, central and dare I say convenient to the entire OKC metro; with transit existing and much more on the way.

If land is available (which it is) then it could make sense to go along with the other prime entertainment venues, downtown. There should be no nimby downtown since bright lights big city downtowns ARE where the action is supposed to be. If you chose to live there, you know this. Just like your view may not always be guaranteed downtown, for similar reasoning.

for me, I’d love somehow if it could be built incorporating the river. But lumberyard or coop next to the mls stadium is also a good spot.

Chisholm Creek would work if they put it as far North on the property as they can. I also never got the argument about downtown noise complaints, the residents haven't in the past and they kind of expect it. Downtown is just more expensive land wise, but it is also going to be easier to attract guests.

[Snowman]

Chisholm Creek would work if they put it as far North on the property as they can. I also never got the argument about downtown noise complaints, the residents haven't in the past and they kind of expect it. Downtown is just more expensive land wise, but it is also going to be easier to attract guests.

The only things in downtown that might generate even close to those levels of noise were the ballpark and stage in the new central park, which hardly had that many home residences nearby when either went in.

[BoulderSooner]

Chisholm Creek would work if they put it as far North on the property as they can. I also never got the argument about downtown noise complaints, the residents haven't in the past and they kind of expect it. Downtown is just more expensive land wise, but it is also going to be easier to attract guests.

there is no good reason for any neighbors to have complaints about the zoo amp either but it happens .. (it was open before anyone alive (and most peoples parents were alive) that live near by)

[BDP]

You guys are proving my point.

Not really, because the ones in urban areas do work. To prove your point you'd have to show examples of amphitheaters in urban areas that have failed to work and not just by some subjective "but they don't get the bands that I want to see!" measure. The ones that have been mentioned work very well and are booked as much as the suburban ones.

Of course, that may not work for a developer looking for cheap land, but it is definitely much better for the fans and the overall experience in general. I know I wouldn't be very motivated to go to where this was originally planned, unless there was no other options for live music. The best part though is there are already other options in OKC to see touring bands.

[Pete]

^

The land would be more expensive downtown but they would need less of it because they wouldn't have to build out acres of surface parking.

[BDP]

^

The land would be more expensive downtown but they would need less of it because they wouldn't have to build out acres of surface parking.

Good point. The cars often take up more room than the people. And in a denser areas, using ride share would make more sense, reducing the need for parking to begin with.