This was originally a response I was writing for another thread, yet I decided a new discussion topic would be more appropriate:


Spartan, I hear what you're saying. I think the main problem is that we don't maintain things around here. They fall into disrepair. Then, they cost too much to refurbish. And we just demolish them. It won't happen, but I'd still like to see the Cox Center refurbished instead of demolished. I mean, we already spent millions of dollars adding onto it and fixing up certain parts of it. Why turn right around and demolish it? It's a complete waste of resources. And, I agree with the consultants original opinions that it's in a perfect location....close to all of the existing hotels, close to the Myriad Gardens, and close to Bricktown. Why demolish it? Why not just refurbish and expand it? Sure, taking out the arena would be cost prohibitive. But, why not just close the streets around it, create a more walkable environment, and use the street space for expansion? Add more exhibit space to the west....you could double your exhibit space with an expansion to the west. Add another ballroom and meeting room addition on the south side to match that on the north side. If you need more space, just go vertical with the expansions. Build the convention hotel on EK Gaylord on the east side. I still don't see why this can't happen.

Well, as for the Cox, I can see the writing on the wall, and I'm personally debating whether to bother or not with this one. I don't mean though that the arena should be removed, because a fairly clear majority of people believe that the city still needs the arena, including myself.

I do think that the building shell could be valuable, and when I say repurposed, that pretty much excludes sole use as a convention center in the future. I think the Cox has incredible future value as auxiliary space to the Union Station (although I recognize that instead the station will be built over new land, big surprise there), and there could be interesting opportunities to be pursued with some (but NOT 100,000 sf worth) convention space attached to a transit hub, and I like how that sets up because the exhibition floor (which mostly takes up the space along the blank western wall of the facility) can be completely replaced with some kind of hotel attached to the transit hub, which also presents interesting opportunities. And of course then there is the arena still there, requiring zero renovation, because the point is to have a cheaper, bare-bones arena across the street.

So at the end of the day, the important thing is you could have your facility for the new transit hub already. There is an enormous amount of virtually needless linear space that now exists in the form of E.K. Gaylord, which also happens to be right along the proposed streetcar routes. So think hub first, with auxiliary meeting space, a transit hub hotel, and the arena attached as well.

The point is to overcome the fatal flaws of the Cox site. Perhaps break it up, but definitely solve the problem of the blank walls facing east and west. Keep the good thing, for instance all of the meeting rooms aside from the exhibition space could probably still find a valuable use in the future. Those are good meetings rooms right in the heart of the city, and at the very least, it is great potential banquet space or a good venue for city events. It would be a shame to get rid of those rooms and then to see the Sheraton Hotel have a monopoly on convention-type banquet space, or form something like that with another hotel. It could be valuable that these meeting rooms be attached to a transit hub, as well.

This site needs mre threads with bold in the title...

...and more posts from metro. Wink! lol

The problem with a transit hub is that if you're trying to maintain parts of the building, then you just killed that idea. Where exactlly would the busses go? You'll have to rip something out. And for most of the site, if you want to maintain the arena, you have to maintain the lobby around it as well, and if you want to keep exhibit space, then you're also keeping more. So the whole conversation tells me you don't want to take out the building. So where does transit fit into that? There is no room for ticketing, bus parking, a rail stop, etc. That's the trouble when you try to make totally disperate things work together...sometimes it works out, but usually not.

We've still got green space very close that we can use instead of the Myriad though. If you're looking for multi-modal, you're FAAAAAR better off designing that one from the ground up somewhere. From every aspect of the system, you'll be happier if it's done that way. We're not talking about converting a 100 year old train station in to a multi-modal, we're talking converting a sports arena....come on now.

Not to mention the fact that we WANT to keep this site for an arena. If you want to maintain that "across the street" status, then this site and the Ford Center site will forever more be reserved for arenas. And the city already has the land paid for so future construction will cost far less. When they chose the Ford Center site, they made a HUGELY smart decision that will pay off time and time again. And when I-40 is moved, that plot will have more room for the arena that will go there in another 50 years. Plan on a 25 year rotation on arenas if you want to keep a pro team here guys. It's gonna happen....or we won't keep a team.

The problem with a transit hub is that if you're trying to maintain parts of the building, then you just killed that idea. Where exactlly would the busses go? You'll have to rip something out. And for most of the site, if you want to maintain the arena, you have to maintain the lobby around it as well, and if you want to keep exhibit space, then you're also keeping more. So the whole conversation tells me you don't want to take out the building. So where does transit fit into that? There is no room for ticketing, bus parking, a rail stop, etc.

Simple. E.K. Gaylord. It's not needed for traffic, especially not 6-lanes with turning lanes as well. That's a HUGE right of way that you can whittle away at.


Not to mention the fact that we WANT to keep this site for an arena. If you want to maintain that "across the street" status, then this site and the Ford Center site will forever more be reserved for arenas. And the city already has the land paid for so future construction will cost far less. When they chose the Ford Center site, they made a HUGELY smart decision that will pay off time and time again. And when I-40 is moved, that plot will have more room for the arena that will go there in another 50 years. Plan on a 25 year rotation on arenas if you want to keep a pro team here guys. It's gonna happen....or we won't keep a team.

There has been no public deliberation about where the next arena will be, or even whether we're going to replace the Ford Center. That's another instance of us just building these mega expensive things only to last for 20-30 years, then just tearing it down and putting up a new mega expensive thing. It is utterly senseless. OKC needs to figure out something sustainable with arenas, because I can tell you that this kind of thing is not going to fly 20 years from now.

Not that I don't acknowledge that I know what you're talking about.. so yes, I understand what you're saying is just the prevailing idea right now, so it's not like I blame the messenger.

It has been discussed, (won't get into the details of it here) but the Mayor stated before the remodel scheme that the Ford would need to be replaced to get a permanent team and the idea of a 25 year "rotation" of arena is probably being optimistic as well. The Mayor said the reno Arena should last 10 to 15.


(5/3/06) David Stern, NBA Commissioner, testified before the Washington State Senate, Ways & Means Committee, that public officials should not expect stadium facilities to last more than eleven or twelve years.
That means they will probably last fewer than that.

More importantly, Bennett hasn't put a timeframe on it at all, only stating it would meet their needs for the "foreseeable future" (whatever that means).

Complete waste of resources replacing arenas every 10 years just to keep up with the Joneses.

It has been discussed, (won't get into the details of it here) but the Mayor stated before the remodel scheme that the Ford would need to be replaced to get a permanent team and the idea of a 25 year "rotation" of arena is probably being optimistic as well. The Mayor said the reno Arena should last 10 to 15.

Yeah, but there are two separate and highly distinct versions here. There's what the real city planners say, and what common sense may gravitate toward, and then there's the Mayor Mick version. I too have heard the mayor's speaking about replacing the arenas every blue moon, which I am only ok with if we're building those things out of LEGOs. To me it's the same thing as the OG+E substation debacle.

Simply put, we have this guy in the mayor's office who likes to make huge-money decisions regarding downtown all on his own, and then doesn't understand why it stirs a public outrage and why he doesn't always get what he wants. For instance, it seems very plausible that he won't get his way on $30 M earmarked to OG+E. At the end of the day, there is no way people are going to let him get away with "Oklahoma City Boulevard" give me a break. He also said we would have a hub-and-spoke streetcar system. Well, surprise.

So when Mayor Mick says that something will happen further down the line regarding downtown, not only do I not take it as the gospel truth, but my reaction is generally, "Oh really? Well we'll see about that..."

But Spartan, there was a bit of resistance to the Alliance (didn't hear any citizens speaking in favor of it), yet it easily passed. there was much debate on the Council when it came to using the Use Tax for Public Safety (which they claimed that they never promised), yet they voted for it. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the Council votes to approve OKC Boulevard by a large margin. About the only thing that can give us any hope is the failure of the Grand Prix vote. But now that revenue has come steadily come back, if that vote was held today, it too would probably pass by a wide margin. My point is even though Council members protest, discuss and debate rather strongly on so many issues, when it comes down to the actual vote, it isn't even close. Witness the Alliance and even back when they were negotiating the Thunder lease, same thing happened. I won't be at all surprised if the Council goes along with the $30M/OG&E thing (but it may be moot when they vote to place it on the Mayor's preferred C2S site).

Given that (at least when it comes to the NBA, Bennett is clearly in the driving seat), his determination is going to be the one that matters. And he made sure that it is in the lease that OKC is required to keep making upgrades and/or a replacement arena if/when he decides he wants/needs one. I personally think talk of replacing the Ford will begin under either of the following scenarios

The team is doing badly and/or the honeymoon period has passed and attendance has fallen by the established threshold, leading up to his 1st opt out clause (which is about half of the time frame given by the Mayor & Stern)

Or
The team continues to do well (consistently in the playoffs etc) and demand rises back to the 1st year 20,000+ season ticket requests, where we would actually need a new/bigger arena (never mind that it is already one of the smallest NBA arenas, dangerously close to the spot formally occupied by Seattle's Key Arena).

I just don't see any scenario where they don't "request" a new arena and in a relatively short time frame.

But to get back to your thread subject, that brings us back to the Cox. By then the new Convention Center should be close to opening and the natural inclination will be to build the replacement arena on the Cox site (leaving us with side-by-side arenas).

Well, that is an interesting point. There's definitely a category of things that the mayor has been wrong on, and then there's a category of things that the mayor perhaps has been able to shove through the pipeline even against public dissent. This is an interesting dichotomy, but not necessarily a contradiction. I've also made a lot of posts in the last few days, especially in the wake of the Alliance, on how the "powers that be" shove whatever they want through the pipeline anyway, nothing makes a difference.

I'm referring more to the plutocratic "Momentum" type interests, such as Tom Ward, Larry Nichols, Aubrey McClendon, and so on. There is no way of stopping them from getting something that they want because they have stacked OKC's governmental structure in their favor. Just look at the BoA committee which no longer has any kind of architectural or design experience on it, it's all energy people, who are apparently experts on development and city ordinance matters.

That's different from the mayor. I doubt Mick Cornett is part of that plutocratic group, but he certainly has their support because he does not stand in the way, and knows how to give credit when its due, and knows how to also take credit for the plutocratic successes whenever it's acceptable (i.e., it was obviously Clay Bennett not Mick Cornett who brought the NBA to OKC). And, despite being a Shadid progressive type of thinker, I am still totally fine with the plutocratic interests about 70% of the time, with the only notable exceptions being the SR cluster%$@ and possibly OCURA takeover further down the line.

But that doesn't take away from my doubts every time Mayor Mick opens his mouth on anything planning related. The man doesn't know what he is talking about, but I suppose he got his degree in urban planning at the same time he got his degree (and "significant experience") in marketing and branding issues. And I know in hindsight apparently he got some award for being a marketing genius, except there are two very suspicious caveats I'd add to that: 1, he's the mayor, what organization wouldn't want to give an award to the mayor; and 2, if Oklahoma City Boulevard is what OKC's best ad man can come up, then we're all screwed. So all of these things add up to me seeing Mick Cornett as being full of crap.

Also, Jane Jenkins alluded to restoring the original street grid on the site of the Cox Center, although she too has shown a low degree of savvy when it comes to staying on top of the latest downtown ideas and developments. But I am also familiar with that idea, which is certainly also out there being discussed at the higher levels.

Spartan, its all good...

So far I'm seeing that we all seem to agree that the Myriad will simply serve as the site of the next arena. The only question is when.

i think the when is around 2030 opening .. which would put it on the MAPS4 ballot and make it the last project to be completed ......

I am rapidly becoming a proponent for tearing it down after I saw Hans Butzer's student's model. They propose restoring the grid N/S on Broadway and the E/W street as a pedestrian corridor connecting the "line of sight" between Myriad Gardens and Santa Fe

The Hub Committee has determined the technical feasibility of reusing Santa Fe Station with areas behind on the Bricktown side. Therefore, the existing Cox is unlikely to be considered a "hub" site now.

A great deal of improvement will be done to EK Gaylord as part of P180 that will slow traffic down and make the street much more reasonable in width.

I agree with the motives for brainstorming, but a plan is emerging. I think a better debate would be what would you do with four restored square blocks? Extend Bricktown towards the core?

I think a better debate would be what would you do with four restored square blocks? Extend Bricktown towards the core?

Create a multi-story retail/hotel complex with national retail chains.

I think the part we're missing here is the need for 2 arenas across the street from each other. Demolishing Cox takes that out of the equation, and I don't think this is a reasonable option. Also, I don't think the public is too keen on tearing down a building that we've poured millions into with MAPS 1 and the improvements made to get the OKC Barons.

To be clear, I don't go to council meetings to express my views. I write letters. I have been in favor and expressed that favor on some of the above projects. I know you know this, but just because you don't see people at 9am on a work day expressing their opinions, doesn't mean they haven't been given to their council person.

Again, you are not new to all this. I just feel like a reminder was in order.

Sid, did you mean to quote someone else???

By the way, I am with you on means of communication...not much of a public speaker and my work schedule would make it difficult....that said, I have great respect for those that chose to subject themselves to Council (on those instances where they get chastised). Council can ask questions of the speaker but when a citizen dares to ask questions of the Council (and expect answers)...

Gotchya...its all good

Here's something I'd like to bring up. It's not 100% the same thing, but it's as close as you can get if you're looking for a comparison.

Anyone remember Kansas City and how often they hosted the big 12 tourney? Kemper, Municipal, now Sprint arenas. We were able to steal that away because of the "across-the-street" status of the Myriad and Ford Center. Showing how well it worked also got us some NCAA time. Now you do anything that involved taking the Myriad out, and you're right back to being just like any other city in the country. We no longer have something that makes here unique. Why not send the tourney to Omaha (well not now...lol)...it's a city that's very similar to OKC in many ways...but it does not have the two arenas.

So there's the question. How important is it for OKC that we have the ability there? For the foreseeable future, it's staying no matter what we think. They didn't dump millions into it yet again (for the Barons) to doze it. But what it does offer is a secondary arena for the minor league events like the Barons, at a significantly cheaper rent. No it's not attracting big concerts or whatever, but it also doesn't sit busy all that often. Heck, even State Fair Arena (which was the father of the Myriad) still has crap going on at it as well as money going into it. Even with 3 large arenas, we still keep them busy. Each has it's own niche and serves a purpose that the others can't. You won't see events like the OSSAA baskbetall tourney at the Myriad, and for sure not at Ford Center. The only alternative to SFA is Lloyd Noble, and it's freaking expensive too.

So here's the timeline I'm seeing happening:
Ford Center is open after the renovations are complete - we get another 10 years out of it before the Thunder asks for something to be done. Nothing on the building-replacing level, but some renovations for project X. The city figures out a bond or something to do some work and we'll get another few years out of it.

It's a few years down the line and the Thunder start asking about a new arena. The Myriad is really really showing it's age...even has that old smell to it. The new convention center has been built and the Myriad doesn't have nearly as much traffic in it as it once did....events at the Rennaisance have moved to the new hotel attached to the CC.

The city decides it's time for another Maps system and puts a new arena as project 1. The pick the site of the Myriad....the city already owns the land, the building is old and there's plenty land on the site. It also doesn't involve disrupting anything to get it done. Events like the Barons simply move to the Ford for a while.

The new arena opens and Ford Center gets downgraded to arena #2. A good amount of the shops inside are closed or repurposed into office space for the Barons and other activities.

I think the part we're missing here is the need for 2 arenas across the street from each other.

The OKC Arena and Myriad have been across the street from each other for 9 years and only 1 event has identified the proximity of the two arenas as a factor and that organization no longer exist.

Last I checked, the Big 12 did still exist, even if it's not 12 teams. The Big 10 hasn't had 10 teams in it either.

But let me ask you this then. We currently use 2 arenas for very different purposes...as described above. If you remove the need for them to be across the street, where would you put the new one? My point would be, why spend money to aquire land when the city already owns a huge block capable of putting an arena on and it happens to be across the street from the one it's replacing? Once the Ford Center was built, the plan sort of solved itself for the future. Once I-40 is gone, then the plot Ford Center is on will have even more room to expand as well.

The sucker would go downtown no matter what. So where would you put it? Sure as hell isn't going in C2S. Maybe 3 arenas from now when we actually have some development down there, but we're talking 50 years. C2S isn't going to be much of anything for at least 25, and then won't really be developed for another 25 after that. It's been said from day 1 that C2S is a generational project, not your typical Maps build-it-out plan. So what, are we gonna stick an arena a mile away from anything in the middle of an empty area and make everyone walk to Bricktown to eat? Or are they supposed to ride that magic fairy trolly (yes I said trolly...it's no freaking commuter line until it goes out of downtown).

Bomber, it's the magic fairy streetcar. The "trolley" is that damned rubber tired, wood clad bus.

If a new arena is built in the next 15 years it is going to be a basketball only facility which will have a much smaller footprint than the Ford Center. We won't need 2 NHL size arenas. It can go along the river with the soccer-specific stadium.

Let's compare to our neighbor to the south...Dallas' Reunion Arena built in 1980, demo'd in 2008. Cox Convention Center (nee The Incomparable Myriad) built in 1972, still operating.

If Dallas didn't see a need to keep a 2nd large arena open, how are we justifying keeping our older and smaller one??

The OKC Arena and Myriad have been across the street from each other for 9 years and only 1 event has identified the proximity of the two arenas as a factor and that organization no longer exist.

Even in it's current state, the Big XII tournament will be in Kansas City for the next three years with no guarantee it will ever come back to OKC.

Keeping the arena for the possibility of a one-week event every 5-10 years certainly doesn't make sense.

If a new arena is built in the next 15 years it is going to be a basketball only facility which will have a much smaller footprint than the Ford Center. We won't need 2 NHL size arenas. It can go along the river with the soccer-specific stadium.

what are you talking about .. our next "new" arena will most likey have a larger footprint that the OKC arena .. concources will be big with more seats and high dollar seats .. with extra bars and food service areas .. in will be multi purpose and be huge

what are you talking about .. our next "new" arena will most likey have a larger footprint that the OKC arena .. concources will be big with more seats and high dollar seats .. with extra bars and food service areas .. in will be multi purpose and be huge

I don't think so. I think it will be a pupose-built stadium for basketball. No single MAPS style project is going to cost north of $400 million. That is a $100 million more than the entire convention center is supposed to cost and 3X more than the streetcar.

I don't think so. I think it will be a pupose-built stadium for basketball. No single MAPS style project is going to cost north of $400 million. That is a $100 million more than the entire convention center is supposed to cost and 3X more than the streetcar.

i agree it will be a multi use building built for basketball .... that makes it the same size or larger than the okc arena

Let's compare to our neighbor to the south...Dallas' Reunion Arena built in 1980, demo'd in 2008. Cox Convention Center (nee The Incomparable Myriad) built in 1972, still operating.

If Dallas didn't see a need to keep a 2nd large arena open, how are we justifying keeping our older and smaller one??

Well, there are some advantages to it being smaller. It's a great venue for minor league hockey, which doesn't need a larger facility like the OKC Arena.

If a new arena is built in the next 15 years it is going to be a basketball only facility which will have a much smaller footprint than the Ford Center. We won't need 2 NHL size arenas. It can go along the river with the soccer-specific stadium.

Wrong, Kerry. The NBA would not accept a smaller footprint. That was the main problem in Seattle if you remember. A new arena next to the river is very unlikely.

I don't think so. I think it will be a pupose-built stadium for basketball. No single MAPS style project is going to cost north of $400 million. That is a $100 million more than the entire convention center is supposed to cost and 3X more than the streetcar.

Notice how MAPS projects got significantly more expensive from MAPS 1 to MAPS 3? The most expensive public project to date was the MAPS Arena (just under $90M). As sold to the voters, all 9 of the original MAPS projects were supposed to have cost less ($238M) than just Phase 1 of the MAPS 3 Convention Center. With MAPS 3, we have 3 projects that have far exceeded the $90M ceiling:
$130M Park
$120M Streetcars
$250-$280M Convention Center (actual cost exceeds $400M, see below)

The convention center is $400M (if it was all built today). But they decided to break it up into Phase 1 (MAPS 3, $250-$280M) and Phase 2 to be funded at a later date. The $400M doesn't take into account the unfunded Convention Center hotel which is probably in the $100M area).

Bennett was demanding a $500M (mol) new arena in Seattle (some reports had it as little as $250M). He stated his idea was modeled after the Denver Arena (which only had 3% public financing). He wanted it to host the NBA & NHL (with him owning both). While bigger than the Key, it would have had slightly less seating than the Ford. Am sure Betts can come up with more recent figures for other NBA arenas.

Hard to say how much more expensive things are going to be 8 years or so when we are talking about MAPS 4 projects.

Kerry - you're totally wrong on that one. In case you missed it, the Ford Center has INCREASED it's footprint since it was built. And if you look at other arenas being built these days, they are on the LARGER side. Ford Center is one of the smaller houses. Now the next arena may not take up as much land as the plot the Myriad is on, but it will be bigger than Ford Center's. Heck, they had to rotate Ford Center so they could even squeeze it in the land they bought....and it barely fit there because of I-40....oh wait, when I-40 is gone they are expanding out....hmm.

And arenas are by nature, multipurpose. That's why Lloyd Noble at OU is built the way it is versus Gallagher-Iba. You don't anything other than basketball in Gallagher, but you see alllll kinds of stuff in Noble. So why would we want to shoot ourselves in the foot like that? When the next arena is built and Ford Center takes the 2nd class spot, you'll see things like the Barons move in. That requires a larger floor space than basketball. So do concerts and basically anything besides basketball. Not to mention the fact that if you have a larger floor space, you get all that extra space at the ends for seating.

And go look at the places that use stinking football stadiums for their basketball arenas....come on....hello, Alamo Dome.

Notice how MAPS projects got significantly more expensive from MAPS 1 to MAPS 3? The most expensive public project to date was the MAPS Arena (just under $90M). As sold to the voters, all 9 of the original MAPS projects were supposed to have cost less ($238M) than just Phase 1 of the MAPS 3 Convention Center. With MAPS 3, we have 3 projects that have far exceeded the $90M ceiling:
$130M Park
$120M Streetcars
$250-$280M Convention Center (actual cost exceeds $400M, see below)

The convention center is $400M (if it was all built today). But they decided to break it up into Phase 1 (MAPS 3, $250-$280M) and Phase 2 to be funded at a later date. The $400M doesn't take into account the unfunded Convention Center hotel which is probably in the $100M area).

Hard to say how much more expensive things are going to be 8 years or so when we are talking about MAPS 4 projects.

Well, you have to remember, the MAPS 1 projects were paid for in the 90's. That's 10-15 years ago. Think of how much prices have gone up on everything since then. The price of gasoline in the late 90's was close to or under a dollar. It's now over 3 dollars. Postage stamps in 1998 when the ballpark was completed were 32 cents. They're now 44 cents. The average car in the late 1990's was around $12,000. You'll pay $20,000 for that same car today. So, it just isn't MAPS. Everything has gone up in price.

Wrong, Kerry. The NBA would not accept a smaller footprint. That was the main problem in Seattle if you remember. A new arena next to the river is very unlikely.

The square footage of Key Arean had nothing to do with why the Sonics left Seattle - nothing. It had to do with the City of Seattle breaching their contract with the Sonics that required them to provide an economically viable arean. Key Arena only had a handful of luxury suites while the City of Seattle paid for 2 new stadiums (baseball and football) that had hundreds of luxury suites.

Anyhow, we are arguing about something that won't even come to pass for another 15 years - at the earliest, and my money says there won't be a MAPS IV anyhow so if you think a new arena is going to be built with 800,000 sq feet then so be it, we'll know in 2026.

Well, although I do agree with what you're saying bomber, I will point out that the Spurs don't play in the Alamo Dome anymore, because they considered it too large for basketball, so they built the smaller AT&T Center where the Spurs now play.

Well, you have to remember, the MAPS 1 projects were paid for in the 90's. That's 10-15 years ago. Think of how much prices have gone up on everything since then. The price of gasoline in the late 90's was close to or under a dollar. It's now over 3 dollars. Postage stamps in 1998 when the ballpark was completed were 32 cents. They're now 44 cents. The average car in the late 1990's was around $12,000. You'll pay $20,000 for that same car today. So, it just isn't MAPS. Everything has gone up in price.

i agree and that was part of my point, to suggest as Kerry did, that a new arena won't cost as much isn't looking at the history of the price increases. Granted the time frame between MAPS & MAPS 3 passage was about 16 years and the time frame between MAPS 3 & 4 will be half of that, or 8 years. So doing the quick-n-dirty math and extrapolating it out, not hard at all to see a new MAPS 4 Arena easily being significantly higher than what we are talking about now.

The square footage of Key Arean had nothing to do with why the Sonics left Seattle - nothing. It had to do with the City of Seattle breaching their contract with the Sonics that required them to provide an economically viable arean. Key Arena only had a handful of luxury suites while the City of Seattle paid for 2 new stadiums (baseball and football) that had hundreds of luxury suites.

Wrong again, Kerry

http://theworldlink.com/sports/article_04285718-7f1d-5c66-a614-1ba47eebccfd.html

Please read the fourth and fifth paragraphs.

It certainly was not the only reason the Sonics left for OKC but to say it had nothing to do with it is absolutely incorrect.

Kerry - you're totally wrong on that one. In case you missed it, the Ford Center has INCREASED it's footprint since it was built. And if you look at other arenas being built these days, they are on the LARGER side. Ford Center is one of the smaller houses. Now the next arena may not take up as much land as the plot the Myriad is on, but it will be bigger than Ford Center's. Heck, they had to rotate Ford Center so they could even squeeze it in the land they bought....and it barely fit there because of I-40....oh wait, when I-40 is gone they are expanding out....hmm.

...

This is part of the dichotomy. It is true that the sf of the Arena and its footprint are being made larger (leading to the claim that after the renovations, the Arena will be one of the largest NBA arenas). Yet we took out nearly 1,000 seats (960), dropping the Ford from #14 all the way down to #28 (in seating capacity).

Sort of along the lines that OKC is one of the largest cities in the country (by land area), but not so much when population & density are taken into account.

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but the "expansion" of the Arena has nothing to do with the relocating of I-40 (it isn't expanding across the roadway is it). The Boulevard is taking the Crosstown's place? One of the reasons Bennett gave for the Practice Facility NOT being located at the Arena was there wasn't enough space available (by the time they added the NBA office space and the new South entrance). If the building was expanding etc from the relocation, that wouldn't be an issue, would it? Plus isn't the MAPS 3 Park in the way?

[QUOTE=Larry OKC;427360]Someone correct me if I am wrong, but the "expansion" of the Arena has nothing to do with the relocating of I-40 (it isn't expanding across the roadway is it). The Boulevard is taking the Crosstown's place? /QUOTE]

You're correct, Larry. The ground work for the expansion on the south side of the arena has already started. It should be completed before the current I-40 is relocated and will not use any of that space.

Yes, but they had to make room for it with the Robinson exit. My point was that I-40, like in so many cases, served as a barrier in preventing the original plan from being "square" and limited the footprint options at the site. When that entrance is done, and you can reach out your car window and touch the wall of the arena, then tell me it wasn't an issue to have to deal with.

I understand the Alamo Dome isn't the Spurs' home now, but it was for quite a long time in terms of arenas. Obviously football stadiums aren't ideal (i hate it when people mix football/baseball too). But the point I was making was that arenas aren't always little fellers. Look at the new arena for the Nets! Holy crap! It's a whole economic district.

i agree and that was part of my point, to suggest as Kerry did, that a new arena won't cost as much isn't looking at the history of the price increases. Granted the time frame between MAPS & MAPS 3 passage was about 16 years and the time frame between MAPS 3 & 4 will be half of that, or 8 years. So doing the quick-n-dirty math and extrapolating it out, not hard at all to see a new MAPS 4 Arena easily being significantly higher than what we are talking about now.

Thinking 8-10 years down the line, I can completely see a new state of the art NBA arena costing upwards of $400-500 million. Some may say, "well, the Ford Center only cost $90 million". Well, that's true, but that was in a different time when prices were lower, it was way under-bid by the contractor, and it was built bare bones. Seeing all of the improvements that we've made and are making to our bare-bones arena, the final price of the Ford Center/OKC Arena is more like $200-300 million, and that's for just about an average NBA arena, not bad, but definitely not the most elite in the nation by any stretch of the imagination.

We ought to retitle these "bold ideas..." threads to "crackpot ideas."

--we ought to just follow the Sandridge example and build a much-needed plaza in the space.