Sunset Amphitheater

[warreng88]

I would love for it to be a part of the CO-OP redevelopment and have it situated with the audience to the SE where you are looking at DT OKC, but I don't know from a level standpoint if that would work. They would have to dig pretty deep to get that and I am sure it would impede on the outdoor soccer facility footprint.

[OkieBerto]

I think Wheeler should add an amphitheater next to the Ferris Wheel.

[PhiAlpha]

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

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

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

Dallas has a huge one in the fairgrounds right outside of downtown. Dos Equis Pavillion is constantly booked. It's similar to if one was stuck in the old airpark where the temporary one was a few years ago.

You make some wild statements as if they are fact that can easily be disproved by a google search.

[PhiAlpha]

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

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

Again, what are you talking about? What evidence do you have to back the bolded statement up?

[bison34]

Dallas has a huge one in the fairgrounds right outside of downtown. Dos Equis Pavillion is constantly booked. It's similar to if one was stuck in the old airpark where the temporary one was a few years ago.

You make some wild statements as if they are fact that can easily be disproved by a google search.

Dallas' is at the fairgrounds. If OKC wants to put it there, I'm ok with that. Other than that, it isn't in downtown. Nice try, though. Lol

On edit: this was not a good choice by you to compare. It's at the fairgrounds in Dallas. I'm ok with it being at OKC fairgrounds. But don't ever, ever say that Fair Park is in a downtown skyscraper area. That's what we are talking about, not somewhere with houses around it.

[bison34]

Again, what are you talking about? What evidence do you have to back the bolded statement up?

See ask the TIF requests we see in more expensive areas. Not one large project is ever proposed without them. Or multiple requests asking for more.

[HOT ROD]

bison, i don't think anyone is advocating for the amp to be in the downtown skyscraper area. Im not sure if there's any examples of this other than in Chicago, which is extremely successful btw.

I think OKC's downtown options are s of lower bricktown, either the lumberyard or the coop lands. The awesome thing about this, IMO, is that if we were to locate the amp here it could help connect the city core to the boathouse/riversports district. Also, with the (I call MLS) stadium and Boardwalk/Legends going in the same area, we have a natural extension of the urban core.

Pete makes a GREAT point in that yes land is more expensive downtown but you don't need to develop as much AND you can develop other, ancillary uses such as additional housing (with appropriate sound proofing of course - which you'd do anyway in a downtown). And I think the main thing that's being missed is the opportunity to USE transit not just ride sharing.

[bison34]

bison, i don't think anyone is advocating for the amp to be in the downtown skyscraper area. Im not sure if there's any examples of this other than in Chicago, which is extremely successful btw.

I think OKC's downtown options are s of lower bricktown, either the lumberyard or the coop lands. The awesome thing about this, IMO, is that if we were to locate the amp here it could help connect the city core to the boathouse/riversports district. Also, with the (I call MLS) stadium and Boardwalk/Legends going in the same area, we have a natural extension of the urban core.

Pete makes a GREAT point in that yes land is more expensive downtown but you don't need to develop as much AND you can develop other, ancillary uses such as additional housing (with appropriate sound proofing of course - which you'd do anyway in a downtown). And I think the main thing that's being missed is the opportunity to USE transit not just ride sharing.

I would be ok with the fairgrounds, honestly.

I just don't know how you will get past the NIMBY issue if you build at the Coop area or Lumberyard. There will still be residents, and now the City Council has set a precedent that any NIMBY opposition to an amphitheater will be met with a successful challenge. I know it may be slightly different in an entertainment area, but residents will still want their peace and privacy. Something had to have with 12k people at an amphitheater nearby.

I do agree, that a central area would be amazing. Just not sure where it makes sense, cost-benefit standpoint. We shall see. Just hard to see another group trying after this, if Notes decides to back out of OKC completely.

[Bill Robertson]

The mention of Dallas's fairgrounds amphitheater is worlds different from considering OKC fairgrounds. Dallas FG is surrounded by museums and other cultural venues. And it's not far east of downtown. OKC fairgrounds needs TONS of development around it to be considered an entertainment district.

[soonerguru]

See ask the TIF requests we see in more expensive areas. Not one large project is ever proposed without them. Or multiple requests asking for more.

Surely you don't think TIF financing and other development incentives are limited to OKC, right?

[PhiAlpha]

Dallas' is at the fairgrounds. If OKC wants to put it there, I'm ok with that. Other than that, it isn't in downtown. Nice try, though. Lol

On edit: this was not a good choice by you to compare. It's at the fairgrounds in Dallas. I'm ok with it being at OKC fairgrounds. But don't ever, ever say that Fair Park is in a downtown skyscraper area. That's what we are talking about, not somewhere with houses around it.

Clearly you haven’t spent much time in Dallas. The fair grounds in Dallas are the same distance away from downtown Dallas as wheeler is from OKC and is directly connected to downtown by a contiguous urban area. Comparing Dos Equis pavilion to something being located near our fairgrounds is a terrible comparison.

No one is suggesting that we drop an amphitheater in the middle of the core of downtown.

[PhiAlpha]

See ask the TIF requests we see in more expensive areas. Not one large project is ever proposed without them. Or multiple requests asking for more.

Yes, because if essentially free money from the city is available and historically easy to obtain… what developer would be dumb enough not to apply for it when planning huge project?

[mugofbeer]

Just asking but what NIMBY issue would there be in a COOP location? There is little residential anywhere near it. If a soccer stadium were built there l don't see who would oppose an amphitheater.

[bombermwc]

I'm not sure where you could build in the metro and not have some element of NIMBY. There are areas at 50th and Grand in the museum district, but there are also neighborhoods there. Lincoln, a little west, more neighborhoods. There is a lot of land at the fairgrounds that is not used. Mostly on the Reno side because if you go to the north end, you're near houses again. Right at Reno and 44 would be a great spot honestly. It gives them access to parking too.

[jn1780]

There is also a difference between property owner NIMBYs and renter NIMBYs. The condo owners downtown would have the greatest voice. If we're talking about bricktown area.

[BDP]

Just asking but what NIMBY issue would there be in a COOP location? There is little residential anywhere near it. If a soccer stadium were built there l don't see who would oppose an amphitheater.

Agree.

If it's based on noise, I don't think anyone in and around downtown would have much to complain about. Most everything around it is in a zone that allows for 100 times greater SPL than in residential areas. There are festivals and live music downtown all the time. It's been a long time, but there were a few concerts at Bricktown Ballpark and, like you said, there's most likely going to be a multi-purpose stadium built there that has already stated concerts will be part of the mix.

If there's any legitimate resistance, it would most likely come from south of the river where there are R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods. The Mustang Creek site, while not currently zoned residential itself, seems to be surrounded by more R-1 overall than the COOP location.

People will always find a way to complain and sometimes those complaints are warranted. NIMBY is always tossed around as a pejorative on the site, but trust me, almost every single one that does has opinions on what they think should and shouldn't be built by their home. I just think it's fairly intuitive to expect more complaints about a major entertainment venue from people choosing to live 10 miles from the city center than from those who chose to live within blocks of the biggest entertainment district in the state.

[HOT ROD]

^ Exactly. They chose to live 10 miles out for a reason. In OKC, you have that choice - to be away from the noise and traffic that IS at the city center.

So, it makes sense for this types of development to be in the city center. Not in the skyscraper districts but in/nearby away from R1/R2 zoning that will complain.

There is a BIG difference in expectations living IN downtown vs 10 miles away. Those living IN downtown 'may' have a complaint from time to time, but they should also know and expect there to be noise and traffic being in THE bright lights, big city part of the metro. ....