Ideas 4 MAPS

[okatty]

This has likely been posted somewhere in this long thread but if not, here is the link that is being used for support regarding the outdoor venue:

http://www.aplacetobringustogether.com

[Urban Pioneer]

Not sure if this posted back but the animal shelter is-

www.pawsformaps4.com


I posted an invite to the transit forum on the Facebook OKC Streetcar Initiative page-

https://www.facebook.com/okcstreetca...?ref=bookmarks


It looks like the upcoming July 31st 9am meeting at City Hall has the following via James Cooper-


A. Transit
B. Homelessness
C. Chesapeake Arena & NBA Enhancements
D. Diversion Hub

[okccowan]

UrbanPioneer - Where is the July 29th meeting you mentioned above? City hall?

[Urban Pioneer]

UrbanPioneer - Where is the July 29th meeting you mentioned above? City hall?

It is the 31st. Apologies, I couldn’t edit it because too much time had passed.

[HOT ROD]

I hope Transit becomes the central project for Maps 4, perhaps Mobility in OKC moreso, as you also have sidewalks, lighting, and bike lanes that go hand-in-hand with transit.

One thing that very much concerns me about OKC is that leadership often see things mutually exclusive. In the last meeting, Cooper brought up the idea that we look to implement storm drainage design into all new sidewalks. He was immediately challenged by city manager that - it would eat up the sidewalk budget so we wouldn't get as much. However, there are other funds for street improvements and likely will need to be funds available for storm/sewer rebuild. Why couldn't the sidewalks piggy on those existing and future initiatives; so you kill both at the same time?

I believe this was Jame's point, we have dollars for sidewalks and more coming, we also have dollars for streets and a need/future dollars for storm and sewer replacement. There are new methods of sidewalks that sequester rain water and debris, sending less to the storm drain. Why couldn't we adopt this technology as the benchmark for all sidewalks? I disagree that it would give us less sidewalks because you would implement while rebuilding the street or storm drain anyway. Also, you wouldn't need the same LEVEL of sidewalk everywhere, but the benchmark should be at flood prone areas and where residential/pedestrian and pedestrian/vehicular density is highest.

OKC could really stretch dollars if we considered projects more globally and have synergy where there's overlap. I bring up P180 and the Streetcar as a HUGE example - rail should have been installed at the same time as streets/sidewalks were torn up for P180. Definitely would not have decreased the rail dollars (actually, might have added more rail) and overall could have saved $$ for the city.

Sometimes, business ideas (LEAN/6-Sigma) do make $$ sense even in government; this is what I believe Cooper was suggesting. ...

[jedicurt]

I hope Transit becomes the central project for Maps 4, perhaps Mobility in OKC moreso, as you also have sidewalks, lighting, and bike lanes that go hand-in-hand with transit.

One thing that very much concerns me about OKC is that leadership often see things mutually exclusive. In the last meeting, Cooper brought up the idea that we look to implement storm drainage design into all new sidewalks. He was immediately challenged by city manager that - it would eat up the sidewalk budget so we wouldn't get as much. However, there are other funds for street improvements and likely will need to be funds available for storm/sewer rebuild. Why couldn't the sidewalks piggy on those existing and future initiatives; so you kill both at the same time?

I believe this was Jame's point, we have dollars for sidewalks and more coming, we also have dollars for streets and a need/future dollars for storm and sewer replacement. There are new methods of sidewalks that sequester rain water and debris, sending less to the storm drain. Why couldn't we adopt this technology as the benchmark for all sidewalks? I disagree that it would give us less sidewalks because you would implement while rebuilding the street or storm drain anyway. Also, you wouldn't need the same LEVEL of sidewalk everywhere, but the benchmark should be at flood prone areas and where residential/pedestrian and pedestrian/vehicular density is highest.

OKC could really stretch dollars if we considered projects more globally and have synergy where there's overlap. I bring up P180 and the Streetcar as a HUGE example - rail should have been installed at the same time as streets/sidewalks were torn up for P180. Definitely would not have decreased the rail dollars (actually, might have added more rail) and overall could have saved $$ for the city.

Sometimes, business ideas (LEAN/6-Sigma) do make $$ sense even in government; this is what I believe Cooper was suggesting. ...

Maps 4 Mobility... i like it...

[Urban Pioneer]

The city has had a pretty bad history of integrating systems together on individual improvements that affect pedestrians and create placemaking. The few "complete streets" that we have in this city are large scale street redevelopment projects with innovation typically driven by consultants and 3rd party engineers. Arguably, the city has evolved a little bit. The reality though is that very little thinking occurs on small projects that are relevant to actual human scale that pedestrians require.

I was in that presentation by Cooper. I think what he was trying to communicate is that there is an opportunity to intertwine beautification, stormwater management, street separation for the sidewalk with an aesthetically pleasing barrier, and ADA ramp compliance all through a multi-disciplinary approach. It is placemaking without having to do a multi-million dollar street redevelopment project simply by rethinking how we address neighborhood intersections.

[catch22]

Since Soccer seems to be a hot topic, here’s what’s happening where I live.

Seems like the stadium itself is $20 million, with the entire development (mixed use) coming in at $60 million. The City is kicking in $13.5 million in TIF, with private contributions footing the rest of the bill.

https://www.krdo.com/news/top-storie...town/773004654

[Laramie]

Colorado Switchbacks proposed USL soccer stadium.

The cost of the outdoor stadium is estimated at $20 million plus a mixed-use development project costing approximately $40 million for a total of $60 million. State tourism revenue will provide a $10 million bond towards the stadium, the Colorado Springs Switchbacks will be contributing another $10 million and Weidner Apartment Homes $40 million.

Colorado Springs wants to maintain its USL agreement status.

Oklahoma City proposed USL soccer-American Football Stadium.

Under plans submitted to Oklahoma City mayor David Holt on Thursday, USL Championship‘s OKC Energy could build a new soccer-specific stadium in the city’s downtown area. The facility would cost an estimated $65 to $80 million for construction–plus an additional $6 to $12 million for land acquisition–and be built with an initial seating capacity of 10,000. It would be designed to have the ability to host events such as concerts, rugby, lacrosse, and football in addition to professional soccer.

Nice to see that OKC will have an expandable stadium of what appears to be good quality ($65 to $80 million for construction). IMO if this project is approved (MAPS 4) and bids come in under the total $92 million construction & land acquisition price tag; there may an option to add more seats in the infield (lower bowl) with an initial capacity of 14k.

Built for the future; the differential between the two stadiums (Colorado Springs vs. Oklahoma City) is obviously the premium upper deck seating and bowl rounded stadium. OKC's future aspiration is to get to the MLS. City should maintain control of naming-rights until an MLS franchise is obtained with Energy FC being the anchor tenant (lease agreement) responsible for maintenance & upkeep.

[OKC Guy]

The one problem with that OKC rendering is most of seats are in end zones. And if expanded on sides would cut off the “connectedness” of buildings/entertainment venues (building stadium up).

[Laramie]

The one problem with that OKC rendering is most of seats are in end zones. And if expanded on sides would cut off the “connectedness” of buildings/entertainment venues (building stadium up).

Why would the visual "connectedness" of buildings/entertainment be of any value from inside or outside the stadium?

The stadium itself would be the centerpiece. The development venues we hope to attract would be as a result of the stadium.

[Laramie]

What Oklahoma City will have provided for its sports franchises:

2008-10: Major league NBA basketball: Oklahoma City Thunder: Chesapeake Energy Arena ($190 million Arena includes ) & INTEGRIS Health Thunder Development Center ($11 million). Arena used for multiple events.

1998: AAA minor league baseball Oklahoma City Dodgers: Chickasaw Bricktown Ballpark ($34 million). Stadium used primarily for baseball.

202?: AAA minor league soccer Oklahoma City Energy FC: MAPS 4 soccer stadium (proposed $65-80 million). Energy FC built the $6 million multi-field training facility at the Northeast Regional Health and Wellness Campus at 2810 NE 63rd in Oklahoma City. Included on site is a new restroom, concession building, outdoor basketball courts and two MLS size soccer fields.

[OKC Guy]

Why would the visual "connectedness" of buildings/entertainment be of any value from inside or outside the stadium?

The stadium itself would be the centerpiece.

Soccer has pre-parties I assume? Also, imagine buildings on side come to enjoy the view and then 5-10 years up goes stadium expansion and poof, view is gone. All I’m saying is from renderings they should consider how it blends with other development. Once you block it off its a dead end so maybe if they factor in how they do sides to keep it blended if they build up later.

[Laramie]

Soccer has pre-parties I assume?

Downtown's environment would provide more, add to that pre & post game atmosphere; something that doesn't exist with Taft Stadium's location. Taft Stadium was never intended to be a permanent home for AAA minor league soccer. Its historical value played more into the renovation efforts.

Just how much development will encroach upon the stadium project has yet to be determined. The initial video of the MAPS 4 soccer stadium gave you a glimpse of potential:

[OKC Guy]

Soccer has pre-parties I assume?

Downtown's environment would provide more, add to that pre & post game atmosphere; something that doesn't exist with Taft Stadium's location. Taft Stadium was never intended to be a permanent home for AAA minor league soccer. Its historical value played more into the renovation efforts.

Just how much development will encroach upon the stadium project has yet to be determined. The initial video of the MAPS 4 soccer stadium gave you a glimpse of potential:

All I’m saying is why show rendering with most seats in end zones vice on sides? Because it makes the rest of that proposed area look better. The sides (if expanded) will then be higher than surrounding buildings versus renderings almost make neighbors look to be part of stadium, thus more inviting. If they are putting most fans in end zones thats a big fail. And if on sides then show what it looks like built up and how tall.

I like soccer and would be for a 2 year MAPS cycle of just this complex and a few others ($200m/2 years). I just want the rendering to better show the stadium un relation to rest of that proposed district is all. No reason to hide the sides and no reason to put most fans in end zones

[d-usa]

Where to put the seats depends on many things: multipurpose use plans, capacity, and the sun. Keeping people out of the sun is gonna to be a big part of that plan, many places suffer because seats are baking in the sun.

From the video, it seems like it’s just that one side that will have fewer seats, and that both ends and the other side will have more to begin with.

[d-usa]

Where to put the seats depends on many things: multipurpose use plans, capacity, and the sun. Keeping people out of the sun is gonna to be a big part of that plan, many places suffer because seats are baking in the sun.

From the video, it seems like it’s just that one side that will have fewer seats, and that both ends and the other side will have more to begin with.

[Laramie]

Where to put the seats depends on many things: multipurpose use plans, capacity, and the sun. Keeping people out of the sun is gonna to be a big part of that plan, many places suffer because seats are baking in the sun.

From the video, it seems like it’s just that one side that will have fewer seats, and that both ends and the other side will have more to begin with.

Good explanation d-usa:

Approximately 4,000 seats tarped off; several sections of good upper deck seats--did anyone envision the affects of the sun...

Does OKC repeat its errors with a new MAPS 4 Soccer-American football stadium.

[SoonersFan12]

Is it me or the soccer field looks plain? The Colorado soccer field looks nicer...

[jonny d]

Is it me or the soccer field looks plain? The Colorado soccer field looks nicer...

It's a ridiculously early rendering for possible planning purposes only. Don't lose sleep over this...

[OKC Guy]

Where to put the seats depends on many things: multipurpose use plans, capacity, and the sun. Keeping people out of the sun is gonna to be a big part of that plan, many places suffer because seats are baking in the sun.

From the video, it seems like it’s just that one side that will have fewer seats, and that both ends and the other side will have more to begin with.

If true then I would hope they make the west stands much taller than any other side.

Even tho its an rendering it shows their vision. I would think this is a big deal eventually, why lose early momentum by creating a bad rendering when its the first exposure people have with project.

1. If most seats are in end zone its a failure

2. If they don’t make west side tallest to block out sun its a failure.

3. If west side will be tallest this matters for projects just west of stadium

If fans seating placement and sun exposure are key components of project they completely failed in expressing their vision. Who paid for the renderings and did city have any input?

[d-usa]

The west side wouldn’t have to be the tallest, because people aren’t sitting in the middle of the field. Covering the regular seats on each side accomplishes the desired shading from the evening sun.

The sideline that will suffer the most from the sun and heat would be the north-side of the stadium. And from the renderings it seems that this is the section with the fewest seats so far. There is a good picture of the proposed layout here:


The West-End will have shade for afternoon and evening games, and the south side looks like it should be shaded as well. The other horrible section will be the east goal-line stands, similar to FC Dallas. Stick the drunk supporters there and make those the cheap seats, and that section will fill up anyway.

[OKC Guy]

^^^

So the sides are north/south?

[SEMIweather]

Can almost guarantee that if the Energy get funding for a stadium at some point, they will be cognizant of the need to protect as many people from the sun as possible. The east side of Taft has zero shading and it noticeably impacts attendance in those sections. They've also pushed all kickoffs between June 1st and August 31st back from 7:30 to 8:00 starting this season, so they are definitely aware of the sunlight/temperature issues.

[SoonersFan12]

It's a ridiculously early rendering for possible planning purposes only. Don't lose sleep over this...

Haha, I hate soccer so I am not losing sleep over it