Widgets Magazine
Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 678910111213 LastLast
Results 251 to 275 of 320

Thread: Aquarium

  1. #251

    Default Re: Aquarium

    There is something very wrong with dressing up opinion as news -- or intermixing the two -- and that's not what was done with the original article, which I didn't even write; nor did I influence any way.

    My comments in the forum are just discussion, not journalism.

    So, regardless of your intent, I take great issue with your characterization and couldn't let it stand without addressing.

  2. #252

    Default Re: Aquarium

    What other project sparked 11 pages of discussion on here in 2 days? While I agree OKCTalk is not the city’s barometer, it is still relevant in the fact that this proposal does have a spark none of the others have. It should be given a chance.

  3. #253

    Default Re: Aquarium

    Quote Originally Posted by catch22 View Post
    What other project sparked 11 pages of discussion on here in 2 days? While I agree OKCTalk is not the city’s barometer, it is still relevant in the fact that this proposal does have a spark none of the others have. It should be given a chance.
    ^^^^ This

  4. #254

    Default Re: Aquarium

    Quote Originally Posted by Pete View Post
    I take great issue with your characterization and couldn't let it stand without addressing.
    You still haven't explicitly stated what characterization I made that you take issue with, though I'll assume I guessed correctly in my previous post. Regardless and to stop what could be endless back and forth on this topic, this will be my last post in the thread.

    We're in complete agreement regarding the dangers of calling opinions facts and I'm glad it's something that you, and I'll assume your writers, take very seriously and I wish more people communicating on the internet would follow suit.

    However, I would encourage you to re-read my comments. Nowhere did I say you (or whomever wrote the article I suppose) was stating opinion as fact. Instead, I stated that my opinion was that the article, and the timing of its distribution, was intended to advocate for a position and/or to spur a discussion of something that you advocate for quite often and not solely to provide information regarding the zoo's desire to include an aquarium in MAPS4 and that my preference (which I'll freely acknowledge is worth zero as it relates to how you run your business) is that, if OKCTalk is going to advocate for something it should say it's doing so to make the reader's life easier, especially when it's not completely clear. If you say I'm wrong, that's fine, I don't really care. But this is very very very different than me asserting that the author was presenting opinion as fact, which the author could do in either a news report or an editorial.


    P.S. As I've said completely agree with Catch22 that the city council should re-consider this (due to their illuminati-like nature we of course don't know how much consideration it was initially given) and still think the aquarium and stadium on the COOP would be awesome.

  5. #255

    Default Re: Aquarium

    Quote Originally Posted by jn1780 View Post
    Hopefully this is obvious to most, but dolphins are mammals not fish. The dolphin exhibit failed because it was a mammal exhibit that was built under the "sea world" and old zoo way of doing the things. The "aquarium" aspect was really just thrown in there with no real thought which is why it is closed now. The zoo has spent the past 20+ years making better habitats that doesn't just put animals in a concrete cage. The relics of the cat cages still sit behide the fence over there by the aquatics center. The sea lions will get their new habitat within the next 5 to 6 years.
    I agree that the zoo has come a long way in improving their practices and their image in the last 20 years, and I like the zoo. But, to me I still see no reason that we need to pay to build them a new facility downtown for them to run with city funds. The zoo is nice, it is attractive, seemingly well run and a nice attraction, and IMO an aquarium is not an essential capital improvement for the city center and could easily turn out to be a disaster.

  6. #256

    MAPS3 Re: Aquarium

    Much like Urban Pioneer's wife, my first impressions were why is this being proposed downtown.

    More I look at this project downtown, it makes a lot of sense. You could allow zoo goers with passes (free admission) or ticket stubs to enter the Aquarium on a discounted rate.

    Of all the projects proposed for MAPS 4, this could be a real game-changer for Oklahoma City.

  7. #257

    Default Re: Aquarium

    I've read 0 of the previous posts. Just wanted to chime in: Canal Extension. Aquarium. TAKE MY MONEY NOW, MAPS 4.

  8. #258

    Default Re: Aquarium

    Quote Originally Posted by EBAH View Post
    I agree that the zoo has come a long way in improving their practices and their image in the last 20 years, and I like the zoo. But, to me I still see no reason that we need to pay to build them a new facility downtown for them to run with city funds. The zoo is nice, it is attractive, seemingly well run and a nice attraction, and IMO an aquarium is not an essential capital improvement for the city center and could easily turn out to be a disaster.
    Fair enough. That's a legitimate argument. I just don't really hold much weight in the argument that the current aquatics center at the zoo is evidence that a downtown aquarium would be a failure. They showed that they have learned their lessons from past.

    I don't really know what the zoo's motivation to propose an aquarium or if they were directed to look in that direction by some members of the city's leadership. I think they got feedback from zoo visitors and started looking into building one at the zoo and realized the economics wouldn't work there. The idea sounded good enough by enough people to bring it up now for a site outside the zoo.

    If this came from people other than the zoo, the city would still turn towards the zoo to run it.

  9. #259

    Default Re: Aquarium

    Since this wasn't included in the proposal is this project officially dead for MAPS 4? Officially dead in general?

  10. #260

    Default Re: Aquarium

    Quote Originally Posted by cappa View Post
    Since this wasn't included in the proposal is this project officially dead for MAPS 4? Officially dead in general?
    Effectively, yes, but the official vote isn't until Tuesday.

  11. #261

    Default Re: Aquarium

    Quote Originally Posted by EBAH View Post
    I agree that the zoo has come a long way in improving their practices and their image in the last 20 years, and I like the zoo. But, to me I still see no reason that we need to pay to build them a new facility downtown for them to run with city funds. The zoo is nice, it is attractive, seemingly well run and a nice attraction, and IMO an aquarium is not an essential capital improvement for the city center and could easily turn out to be a disaster.
    So check this out

    http://oki-park.jp/sp/kaiyohaku/en/

    Ocean Expo Park is in Okinawa and was the largest aquarium in the world until Atlanta built theirs. It opened right in the middle of November of 2002. By mid 2010, it had already eclipsed 10 million total visitors.

    So, some background here. Okinawa is roughly a 2 hours flight from most mainland Japan. Maybe an hour flight from Yokohama and about 5 or 6 hours from Sapporo. Also, Okinawa is an island. It's not exactly super accessible. Ocean Expo Park and it's aquarium has become a massive tourist spot in Okinawa AND it's a solid 2 hour drive or more from downtown Naha (where the Okinawa Airport is, also the central hub of the island).

    Point being, it's made Okinawa tremendous money and given them a ton of exposure. They had the whale shark exhibit before Atlanta did. If people would flock to Okinawa for an aquarium, people would certainly come here as well.

  12. Default Re: Aquarium

    Quote Originally Posted by cappa View Post
    Since this wasn't included in the proposal is this project officially dead for MAPS 4? Officially dead in general?
    I have a friend that used to work for the Zoo, and he was told that the Aquarium's exclusion from MAPS 4 *completely* killed the project. Reading between the lines of what he's told me, it sounds like this proposal was excluded from consideration very early in the MAPS 4 selection process.

  13. #263

    Default Re: Aquarium

    Hmmm. After reading all the posts, can't we just make MAPS 4 a little longer and do everything we've got now, plus the aquarium? If MAPS 3 collected ~$800MM for 7 years, 9 months that's about $9MM a month. (During the Great Recession and an oil price collapse, mind you). Would it really be THAT big of a deal to just start with an extra year for MAPS 4? The synergy I see with the aquarium is that if it helps drive traffic and create more value for the canal/Bricktown area, further increasing returns on our original MAPS investment.

  14. #264

    Default Re: Aquarium

    It’s a shame since an aquarium would benefit many more adults and kids than a damn fair coliseum or soccer stadium.

  15. #265

    Default Re: Aquarium

    ok, I've read everything in this forum and I must agree with several posters on here who are making sense.

    1) the aquarium didn't get a fair shake with MAPS 4. For whatever reason (which the Mayor and Chamber should be put on the spot to answer), it didn't make the "official list" of projects for presentation. However,

    2) that doesn't mean the aquarium isn't viable or shouldn't be included. It would represent a great project for the canal (with an extension) having a destination at the other end for private development to in-fill. That and the design seems like a no brainer, and if presented I'm sure would have garnered public support in those presentations.

    3) even if the "polls" say they are anti-downtown for this MAPS, there's no reason to think that we couldn't have ONE downtown attraction and all the others. It appears to me that EVERYTHING that was presented will make this maps, did anything get left off? Since this is the case, why not include the aquarium as well and just make it a 10-year $1.3B venture.

    4) I've mentioned in other posts, but we I feel we could do without creating endowments to run city operations. Seems to prop up the banking industry under the guise of running the city. I'd argue a lawsuit could be intruduced if such endowments were made by taxes when that endowment itself could run city services for the period the tax is collected and then some. Why not just raise taxes or apply other funds for city maintenance and operations and use MAPS for capital projects like it has been intended.

    5) I also am not bying the argument that the Zoo is funded so they don't deserve a shot with the aquarium. The fairgrounds is fully funded even moreso than the zoo, yet have come for project after project from MAPS whereas this is the FIRST the project the Zoo is. And since it's downtown and not at the Zoo complex; why shouldn't it be a MAPS project?

    6) The argument from zoo subscribers about it being downtown - think of it this way, you want a world class experience for your city. You have a synergy developing of projects, hotels, attractions that exist downtown. This synergy creates critical mass where tourists can experience the best of OKC in one shot. Think of having the world class American Indian Cultural Center, the Boathouse District and Rapids, Bricktown and the canal extension, cc and Scissortail park, and eventual infill all as neighbors to this world class aquarium. Surely, the zoo will implement shuttles and/or this can help push for the Adventure District heritage rail line service.

    7) also not sure why they have to vote on this Tuesday when the original deadline was September. .. Maybe Holt and chamber can provide answers to this as well as why the Zoo Aquarium was purposefully left off yet the very unpopular fairgrounds (and their pork barrel horse arena) must be on the list. ....

    To sum things up. I don't see this as a mutually exclusive argument for MAPS, there's no reason why those who are against downtown development would vote no for this if the aquarium is included since most if not all of those projects will be implemented. However, I do see this MAPS being approved with flying colors if the aquarium IS included regardless of less/not popular items (fairgrounds arena, soccer stadium, etc) that I'd personally want excluded.

    Why not go big, get another world class attraction. Zoo wants it downtown and I can see why with the synergy it would create linking everything together as a world class Oklahoma City experience.

    People often complain about there being 'nothing to do in Oklahoma City', Even after visiting, and it's because there isn't an area of synergy or critical mass - this aquarium builds just that and if built as presented can be that WOW factor forever changing people's opinion of OKC as a destination.
    Oklahoma City, the RENAISSANCE CITY!

  16. #266

    Default Re: Aquarium

    Oh, and this time I would keep the name as "Oklahoma City Aquarium". This definitely should have the city's name on it.
    Oklahoma City, the RENAISSANCE CITY!

  17. Default Re: Aquarium

    Quote Originally Posted by HOT ROD View Post
    ok, I've read everything in this forum and I must agree with several posters on here who are making sense.

    1) the aquarium didn't get a fair shake with MAPS 4. For whatever reason (which the Mayor and Chamber should be put on the spot to answer), it didn't make the "official list" of projects for presentation. However,

    2) that doesn't mean the aquarium isn't viable or shouldn't be included. It would represent a great project for the canal (with an extension) having a destination at the other end for private development to in-fill. That and the design seems like a no brainer, and if presented I'm sure would have garnered public support in those presentations.

    3) even if the "polls" say they are anti-downtown for this MAPS, there's no reason to think that we couldn't have ONE downtown attraction and all the others. It appears to me that EVERYTHING that was presented will make this maps, did anything get left off? Since this is the case, why not include the aquarium as well and just make it a 10-year $1.3B venture.

    4) I've mentioned in other posts, but we I feel we could do without creating endowments to run city operations. Seems to prop up the banking industry under the guise of running the city. I'd argue a lawsuit could be intruduced if such endowments were made by taxes when that endowment itself could run city services for the period the tax is collected and then some. Why not just raise taxes or apply other funds for city maintenance and operations and use MAPS for capital projects like it has been intended.

    5) I also am not bying the argument that the Zoo is funded so they don't deserve a shot with the aquarium. The fairgrounds is fully funded even moreso than the zoo, yet have come for project after project from MAPS whereas this is the FIRST the project the Zoo is. And since it's downtown and not at the Zoo complex; why shouldn't it be a MAPS project?

    6) The argument from zoo subscribers about it being downtown - think of it this way, you want a world class experience for your city. You have a synergy developing of projects, hotels, attractions that exist downtown. This synergy creates critical mass where tourists can experience the best of OKC in one shot. Think of having the world class American Indian Cultural Center, the Boathouse District and Rapids, Bricktown and the canal extension, cc and Scissortail park, and eventual infill all as neighbors to this world class aquarium. Surely, the zoo will implement shuttles and/or this can help push for the Adventure District heritage rail line service.

    7) also not sure why they have to vote on this Tuesday when the original deadline was September. .. Maybe Holt and chamber can provide answers to this as well as why the Zoo Aquarium was purposefully left off yet the very unpopular fairgrounds (and their pork barrel horse arena) must be on the list. ....

    To sum things up. I don't see this as a mutually exclusive argument for MAPS, there's no reason why those who are against downtown development would vote no for this if the aquarium is included since most if not all of those projects will be implemented. However, I do see this MAPS being approved with flying colors if the aquarium IS included regardless of less/not popular items (fairgrounds arena, soccer stadium, etc) that I'd personally want excluded.

    Why not go big, get another world class attraction. Zoo wants it downtown and I can see why with the synergy it would create linking everything together as a world class Oklahoma City experience.

    People often complain about there being 'nothing to do in Oklahoma City', Even after visiting, and it's because there isn't an area of synergy or critical mass - this aquarium builds just that and if built as presented can be that WOW factor forever changing people's opinion of OKC as a destination.

  18. #268

    Default Re: Aquarium

    FYI, since Friday we've had a call into Mayor Holt to question him about how, when and why the aquarium was eliminated (at least in his mind) early in the process (his words on Twitter).

    Just trying to find out what happened here and I hope he'll call us back before the vote on Tuesday.

  19. #269

    Default Re: Aquarium

    I would not put that shiny blue light on the edge, it would distract drivers from being too bright and could hurt their eyes

  20. #270

    Default Re: Aquarium

    Quote Originally Posted by SoonersFan12 View Post
    I would not put that shiny blue light on the edge, it would distract drivers from being too bright and could hurt their eyes
    Yes prob best to make sure all lights are turned off on all downtown buildings and the bridge after dark.

  21. #271

    Default Re: Aquarium

    Definitely voting a hard no until the Hall Capital Crew decides to include an actual BLC project for our consideration.

  22. #272

    MAPS3 Re: Aquarium

    You can still do the Aquarium. The Zoo receives 1/8 cent permanent sales tax funds which IIRC equates to $12.4 million a year, a figure that excludes donations.

    If the Zoo were to build on city-own land off north of I-40 overlooking the expressway or south of Oklahoma River near the AICCM, they could build an $80 million Aquarium, probably save an estimated $6 - $10 million on land acquisition, set up to pay off in 20 years or less. Factor in admission fee collections, discounts to annual pass holders this is doable.

    Also there's 2028 MAPS 5, success of the Aquarium lead to ultimate expansion and early payoff with passage of a MAPS 5 initiative to include a larger Aquarium.

    Article on the Zoo's funding back in 2012 (7 years ago):
    Oklahoma City councilman questions dedicated zoo funding - https://oklahoman.com/article/368922...ed-zoo-funding

  23. #273

    Default Re: Aquarium

    I love the people degrading the idea of an aquarium here as a "shiny thing" as if this shiny thing wouldn't be the absolute most popular overall destination on all of the downtown area.

  24. Default Re: Aquarium

    Quote Originally Posted by Colbafone View Post
    I love the people degrading the idea of an aquarium here as a "shiny thing" as if this shiny thing wouldn't be the absolute most popular overall destination on all of the downtown area.
    *And* exactly what MAPS was formulated to build.

  25. #275

    Default Re: Aquarium

    Quote Originally Posted by Pete View Post
    FYI, since Friday we've had a call into Mayor Holt to question him about how, when and why the aquarium was eliminated (at least in his mind) early in the process (his words on Twitter).

    Just trying to find out what happened here and I hope he'll call us back before the vote on Tuesday.
    I would use the OKCTalk twitter and quote tweet his tweet about how this was eliminated early and ask him how, when and why it was eliminated that way. Having 13,000+ people see that question would hopefully get him to answer.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. oklahoma aquarium
    By Jesseda in forum Tulsa & Suburbs
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 06-23-2011, 11:29 AM
  2. Downtown Aquarium
    By king183 in forum General Civic Issues
    Replies: 56
    Last Post: 07-27-2009, 10:39 AM
  3. Aquarium in downtown....
    By CrueJones in forum General Civic Issues
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 01-07-2008, 09:49 PM
  4. Will OKC ever get an aquarium? I want one SO bad!!!!
    By ETL in forum General Civic Issues
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 08-27-2006, 02:32 PM
  5. Aquarium Heaters
    By Leon in forum Current Events & Open Topic
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-11-2006, 12:04 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO