Sunset Amphitheater

[Pete]

It doesn't seem the renderings begin to show the reality of building on that particular site and the images have to be distorted.

Look at these two renderings. The stage (which is supposed to be much lower) is above the trucks and then the road and everything behind it is a the current grade (everything around there is very flat).

And then the rear – which should be much higher – has oceans of parking at the same level of the back of the seating, save maybe a few feet. You can't see any sort of raised plateau by the buildings in the distance on the same grade.

So the actual grade change from the stage to the last seats has to be quite small.

The grade change number comes from comparing the floor level at Paycom to the highest seats, which is a little over 100' (130' from floor to roof). So if the Sunset grade change is significantly less -- and it would very much have to be -- that means the back of this facility would be way farther away from the stage.

I think these renderings are strongly distorted (remember, they've used them for proposed projects in other cities) to make the facility look far more compact than simple math would allow.

[chssooner]

I mean, I get that most on here are basically counting this project dwad before it starts, and think everything about it is low-brow, dirty, and feels wrong, but someone said they have seen civil plans already, and they show plenty of elevation change.

I am not bashing you at all, or anyone on here. Just seems the site wants this to fail, and has basically ruled it out before it has a chance. Another amphitheater is already being built by this company, so that lends some credence to their words.

It could fail completely, sure. But I truly think this has the potential to be a game-changer for, so I am hoping it succeeds.

[Pete]

I'm just pointing out these renderings have to be strongly distorted.

It may get built but that section with more than half of the seats is going to be very far from the stage.

There is simply no way to create enough slope on a flat property to bring that number of seats anywhere near the stage, especially with two very large areas of low-density seats mixed in.


If there are civil plans, post them then we'll know for sure. But I would absolutely not trust pretty renderings that are being used to solicit investors.

Not at all saying this project won't happen and I haven't seen anyone say this is "low-brow". Just trying to look past the marketing hype and a couple of pretty pictures.

[shavethewhales]

I can believe this development will happen, and that it can be successful. What is hard to believe is the renderings, like Pete said.

You have to admit that this company has gone about all of this in a completely suspicious way. You can't just wave off all the red flags by being optimistic.

I mean, one of the people involved in the project is straight up lying on facebook trying to rustle up some investors and ODOT had to issue a statement shooting their claims down. After stuff like that, everything is subject to question in regards to this development. I can be hopeful, but I'm damn sure not going to invest or even expect much from this group.

[chssooner]

I will agree the Hefner stuff is frustrating. I'll grant you that part.

[Pete]

I can believe this development will happen, and that it can be successful. What is hard to believe is the renderings, like Pete said.

You have to admit that this company has gone about all of this in a completely suspicious way. You can't just wave off all the red flags by being optimistic.

I mean, one of the people involved in the project is straight up lying on facebook trying to rustle up some investors and ODOT had to issue a statement shooting their claims down. After stuff like that, everything is subject to question in regards to this development. I can be hopeful, but I'm damn sure not going to invest or even expect much from this group.

The fact this same group is trying to build about 10 more of these facilities before they have even opened one is very concerning.

I'm not at all saying those involved are dishonest but when you are taking money from thousands of people across many huge construction projects which are notorious for going way over budget, it's incredibly risky. And the CEO has declared bankruptcy in the past as have at least two of his companies.

Plus there is simply no way those renderings are close to reality for all the reasons I've mentioned.

[mugofbeer]

Personally, l wish they would locate a piece of suitable property closer to the N l-35 zone where there ARE hills and trees to provide a more picturesque location. Thats part of what makes the zoo amp. a memorable place.

[HOT ROD]

202 suites, $7 per owner sounds very sustainable to me. Not sure why the negativity on here. I mean, they’re not even seeking TIF for once and people still complaining. Jeez

[mugofbeer]

As with many things, it just seems it could have been proposed for a better location - especially seeing the riverside proposal for Tulsa and the site in Colorado Springs.

[unfundedrick]

As with many things, it just seems it could have been proposed for a better location - especially seeing the riverside proposal for Tulsa and the site in Colorado Springs.

The riverside proposal for Tulsa got scrapped for Broken Arrow.

[Pete]

202 suites, $7 per owner sounds very sustainable to me. Not sure why the negativity on here. I mean, they’re not even seeking TIF for once and people still complaining. Jeez

Q. How would anyone know if there was a big fraud happening in OKC?

A. You wouldn't.


That's because of this twisted local mentality that everyone has to be positive about everything, even when they know something very bad is happening. Lots of examples, such as the craziness at Chesapeake (outted by national media), TEEMCO, Farmer's Bank, Relax Park and several others. In all cases, tons of people knew exactly what was going on (I personally interviewed a bunch for all of these situations) but said nothing and the end result was that a lot of people were defrauded. OKC has a serious case of Emporer's New Clothes. Behind the scenes and in private conversations most people with any exposure know what exactly is going on and say nothing.

It's healthy to ask questions, discuss things that seem contrary to common sense, and have skepticism. In fact, the first job of any real journalist is to do their own research and ask informed and direct questions. That simply does not happen in this market and instead, you get the Oklahoman and everyone else doing these ridiculous puff pieces, as they did for all the scandals I mentioned.

Strawberry Fields fits in this category as well. It's very odd, they have proposed many things and done nothing, and then lo and behold they get sued by the majority of their investors. If it wasn't for research and discussion on OKCTalk, all you'd have are ridiculous PR pieces by the Oklahoman. Absolutely everyone wants SF to succeed, but at the same time, it's healthy to ask questions and do research (such as delinquent property taxes and missed City-mandated development deadlines).


Nobody is bashing anyone unfairly. There are merely a lot of good questions around this development and plenty of red flags. We are merely discussing them in a pretty respectful way, and it seems to me that people want this venue to be successful.

[Rover]

Q. How would anyone know if there was a big fraud happening in OKC?

A. You wouldn't.


That's because of this twisted local mentality that everyone has to be positive about everything, even when they know something very bad is happening. Lots of examples, such as the craziness at Chesapeake (outted by national media), TEEMCO, Farmer's Bank, Relax Park and several others. In all cases, tons of people knew exactly what was going on (I personally interviewed a bunch for all of these situations) but said nothing and the end result was that a lot of people were defrauded. OKC has a serious case of Emporer's New Clothes. Behind the scenes and in private conversations most people with any exposure know what exactly is going on and say nothing.

It's healthy to ask questions, discuss things that seem contrary to common sense, and have skepticism. In fact, the first job of any real journalist is to do their own research and ask informed and direct questions. That simply does not happen in this market and instead, you get the Oklahoman and everyone else doing these ridiculous puff pieces, as they did for all the scandals I mentioned.

Strawberry Fields fits in this category as well. It's very odd, they have proposed many things and done nothing, and then lo and behold they get sued by the majority of their investors. If it wasn't for research and discussion on OKCTalk, all you'd have are ridiculous PR pieces by the Oklahoman.


Nobody is bashing anyone unfairly. There are merely a lot of good questions around this development and plenty of red flags. We are merely discussing them in a pretty respectful way, and it seems to me that people want this venue to be successful.

Is it possible for you to have someone do direct interviews with the parties and provide direct information to us? Seems like that would be a great way to address lack of true information in real time. Real news in real time.

[Pete]

Is it possible for you to have someone do direct interviews with the parties and provide direct information to us? Seems like that would be a great way to address lack of true information in real time. Real news in real time.

I report when I feel like I have hard information. I've done so with every topic I mentioned, often over the course of an extended period.

And at other times, I point things out that look unusual (like delinquent property taxes, previous bankruptcies, progress of lawsuits) that lead up to the fuller, bigger story.


Most people I interview in regard to any of this do not want to be named.

Not sure what else I can do.

[HOT ROD]

Pete, Im not discounting OKC Talk or the wonderful work tthat you and your team do in serving as the best investigative jounalistic source in the OKC Metropolitan Region. There's no doubt you provide the best coverage and don't just fall for the PR antics.

I was only pointing out that most on here don't seem to want to give this one a chance. Many of the things we complain about (use of TIF, for example) aren't being implemented here yet people are still complaining. While I can agree that the lcoation could be better - the developer appears to have his ducks in a row and his primary funding model may or may not be successful - but why all of the skepticism? Why not let the market dictate.

If he starts in January, will it negatively impact OKC? There's no TIF, there's work the city was going to do anyway and this development might accelerate that (ala how the Olympics might for other OKC projects). Again, I'm not saying anything against you Pete or OKC Talk, just that it appears to be a theme on here where people complain endlessly over and over about projects yet we have one here that isn't asking for assistance that should be given a chance in my opinion.

[Pete]

^

There have been about 10 different issues that have been raised about this development, all documented upthread, hence the skepticism.

It's not 'complaining', it's a healthy discussion especially when the developer is actively seeking investors in the local newspaper.

[baralheia]

It doesn't seem the renderings begin to show the reality of building on that particular site and the images have to be distorted.

Look at these two renderings. The stage (which is supposed to be much lower) is above the trucks and then the road and everything behind it is a the current grade (everything around there is very flat).

And then the rear – which should be much higher – has oceans of parking at the same level of the back of the seating, save maybe a few feet. You can't see any sort of raised plateau by the buildings in the distance on the same grade.

So the actual grade change from the stage to the last seats has to be quite small.

The grade change number comes from comparing the floor level at Paycom to the highest seats, which is a little over 100' (130' from floor to roof). So if the Sunset grade change is significantly less -- and it would very much have to be -- that means the back of this facility would be way farther away from the stage.

I think these renderings are strongly distorted (remember, they've used them for proposed projects in other cities) to make the facility look far more compact than simple math would allow.

I don't think that's what these renderings show. Visual cues suggest that the highest elevation shown here is along the back row of seating (private suites?). The amphitheater seating area slopes downward from the high point down to the stage - but crucially, the parking lot also slopes downward away from the high point in the opposite direction (albiet at a more gentle angle). You can see the retaining walls on the side of the facility showing this slope. The other parking lots shown in the rendering are at true ground level.

I think the elevation change isn't as obvious as it would otherwise be due to the viewing angle in both of these renderings.

[Pete]

^

The grade change as shown or anything remotely close to it is completely impossible on the proposed site.

The rear of the seating and stage (and everything beyond both areas) are at ground level on a completely flat property. So how is the seating sloped?

[baralheia]

^

The grade change as shown or anything remotely close to it is completely impossible on the proposed site.

The rear of the seating and stage (and everything beyond both areas) are at ground level on a completely flat property.[...]

Please forgive the crude drawing, but hopefully this helps to illustrate what I'm talking about. I'm making assumptions here because I'm only a layman, but based on the visual cues in the image, this is what it appears the elevation will be like. I am also assuming that they would need to build that hill, which would involve bringing in a massive amount of fill dirt.

[Pete]

Please forgive the crude drawing, but hopefully this helps to illustrate what I'm talking about. I'm making assumptions here because I'm only a layman, but based on the visual cues in the image, this is what it appears the elevation will be like. I am also assuming that they would need to build that hill, which would involve bringing in a massive amount of fill dirt.

For your theory to be true, the downward grade change from the 'Top of Hill' across the parking lot behind would have to be equal to that of the seating area, and the pitch of the slope probably greater given what seems to be a shorter (maybe significantly shorter) distance.

The elevation changes have to be equal to match up with ground level all around. And there is no way that is 1) what is shown here and 2) even possible. No parking lot has anything like the slope of the seating area depicted. Imagine getting into your car at the back of the seating and driving straight down to the stage -- that's what you are suggesting, just the other direction.


My central point is that this amphitheater will be much more spread out and flatter than these renderings show, which means the images are highly distorted.

[Pete]

Look at this Notes Live facility planned for Tennesee.

Way smaller than the OKC venue yet the rear of the facility is lifted way off the ground to provide the proper slope.




Similarly, the proposed DFW facility shows a big structure at the rear.

[shavethewhales]

That Tennessee facility looks way better. The pits don't stand out nearly as much (though I still think they are garish) and it looks like the real fans have more room to actually experience the show. The Texas one looks horrible. Again I have to wonder what kind of show makes the fans happy in a place where it feels like most of the space is dedicated to high rollers.

I don't think we should worry too much about the accuracy of concept art in regards to things like elevations though. I'm sure the civils/architects will figure it out somehow, lol, or it wouldn't get built.

[onthestrip]

The fact this same group is trying to build about 10 more of these facilities before they have even opened one is very concerning.

I'm not at all saying those involved are dishonest but when you are taking money from thousands of people across many huge construction projects which are notorious for going way over budget, it's incredibly risky. And the CEO has declared bankruptcy in the past as have at least two of his companies.

Plus there is simply no way those renderings are close to reality for all the reasons I've mentioned.

This and the fact they mentioned in the Oklahoman article that fire pit suite buyers will earn 19% on their investment. Rrrrright.

[Pete]

^

They will figure out the engineering by building it much flatter than is shown in the renderings, which means most of the seats are very far removed from the stage.

That's a hugely important point because I've been to amphitheaters with that type of layout and most of the area feels like you are miles away and you end up watching the entire show on the big screens with half the people completely distracted.

This is exactly why they are using heavily distorted renderings, which is itself intentionally misleading.

[Swake]

This and the fact they mentioned in the Oklahoman article that fire pit suite buyers will earn 19% on their investment. Rrrrright.

And get a discount on cheese fries

[baralheia]

Look at this Notes Live facility planned for Tennesee.

Way, way smaller than the OKC venue yet the rear of the facility is lifted way off the ground to provide the proper slope. So, extrapolated by 5 and you have a ton of elevation gain at the size of the Mustang facility, yet somehow that all levels out to the surrounding roads? [...]

Respectfully, it doesn't. The main parking lot behind the rows of seating is NOT at ground level. When you look at the contextual clues in these renderings, the parking spots closest to the back rows of seating are definitely depicted as being elevated to the same level as the entry walkway into the facility - which you can tell is also elevated above ground level due to the presence of the retaining wall shown in the rendering. The peak of the hill is under the private suites at the back of the amphitheater, and the parking lot is sloped downward from there toward the rear of the property. The only thing elevated over the peak of the hill are the private suites. All of the other parking lots shown in the rendering are on flat ground at ground level - only the main parking lot behind the seating would be sloped like this.

Here's an even more crude drawing that absolutely isn't to scale! But if you were to stand at ground level and look at this thing from the side, this is what the rendering suggests to me that the elevation would look like:


Now, that said - I'm 100% on board with the idea that this is a generic concept image and not specific to what's planned for OKC. None of the surrounding background elements in the rendering match the area around the amphitheater on Mustang Creek Crossing's development plans. The scale of the facility in these renderings also doesn't appear to fit with the actual space earmarked for the amphitheater. I hope they release some new renderings that are actually specific to OKC soon so we can get a better idea of what this will *actually* look like!