http://tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070721_1_A1_hByno80804
- expand existing ballroom space to fill need as opposed to building new ballroom
- lets the old arena stay put
- costs no more money
- would help in bidding for events like the NCAA tournament that wanted 2 arenas
- removes some surface parking
I think this is actually a much better idea than demolishing the current arena, and as noted, it provides no transition period concerns for the Talons or Oilers. It also would allow for us to go after those elusive sporting events that require two arenas so close to each other.
This could prove to be one of the smarter decisions made concerning downtown!
Wow...I hadn't heard this. Out of the box thinking? Say it ain't so!
[}:)]
Really, if it can be done for the same amount of $$$, it's great. I suspect it also gives a new hotel more options for physical connections to the convention center. Far easier to connect to a new building ahead of construction than to retrofit a new connection to an old building.
That old arena needs renovation badly. It's extremely ugly.
But maybe, after downtown has some more hotels/bars/restaurants, it will help us land the Big 12 tournament.
quote:
Originally posted by pfox
Wow...I hadn't heard this. Out of the box thinking? Say it ain't so!
[}:)]
Really, if it can be done for the same amount of $$$, it's great. I suspect it also gives a new hotel more options for physical connections to the convention center. Far easier to connect to a new building ahead of construction than to retrofit a new connection to an old building.
A number of problems... As the previous post said, the existing arena needs a bunch of money spent on it to make it marketable. No mention of that in the story, and I can't imagine that's in the budget along with a new structure.
Secondly, the location of the proposed new addition is not adjacent to or near the imginary new hotel. Any new hotel would still have to attach to the existing structure.
Also, this proposal eliminates the new entry on the east side of the convention center, which was supposed to tie it in with the new arena, and in my opinion, is a needed change.
This will also lead to higher operating and MAINTENANCE costs, something this city seems to habitually forget about.
It MAY be a better plan than Plan A, but it does not strike me as a slam dunk. And for goodness sake, couldn't they have thought this through a little bit before bids were due on the Plan A remodeling? "City tells contractors bidding on Convention Center remodel: Never mind." ;-)
Good points OC.
For sure better than plan A. I always wondered why replacing a functioning arena with a large ballroom was a good idea.
1) Saves the arena for the Talon's before the arena is done
2) provides another venue for tournaments (maybe learned from their failed basketball bid)
3) Expands the convention center for any events that require such a thing (I'm not in the business of thinking of what would need an arena AND a ballroom, but such a thing probably exists?)
but:
4) Losing the "tie in" entrance hurts. But is it worth $4mil for cosmetics over function?
5) I hope there is some money for arena renovation as it needs it. It functions as is, but really needs work to be presentable.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Good points OC.
For sure better than plan A. I always wondered why replacing a functioning arena with a large ballroom was a good idea.
1) Saves the arena for the Talon's before the arena is done
2) provides another venue for tournaments (maybe learned from their failed basketball bid)
3) Expands the convention center for any events that require such a thing (I'm not in the business of thinking of what would need an arena AND a ballroom, but such a thing probably exists?)
but:
4) Losing the "tie in" entrance hurts. But is it worth $4mil for cosmetics over function?
5) I hope there is some money for arena renovation as it needs it. It functions as is, but really needs work to be presentable.
Funny how
NOT spending money to gut the Arena and
NOT adding a new $5 million glass entrance will STILL end up costing the same as adding a tiny addition........
Ain't it funny?
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Good points OC.
For sure better than plan A. I always wondered why replacing a functioning arena with a large ballroom was a good idea.
1) Saves the arena for the Talon's before the arena is done
2) provides another venue for tournaments (maybe learned from their failed basketball bid)
3) Expands the convention center for any events that require such a thing (I'm not in the business of thinking of what would need an arena AND a ballroom, but such a thing probably exists?)
but:
4) Losing the "tie in" entrance hurts. But is it worth $4mil for cosmetics over function?
5) I hope there is some money for arena renovation as it needs it. It functions as is, but really needs work to be presentable.
My hope is that Tulsa will do what OKC did and sell the naming rights to this building. Maybe even to a hotel that builds next door. It's possible a hotel will now want to build directly onto the side of the convention center (instead of a skybridge) and thus have "The Tulsa Westin Hotel and Convention Center" or something like that.
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
Funny how NOT spending money to gut the Arena and NOT adding a new $5 million glass entrance will STILL end up costing the same as adding a tiny addition........
Ain't it funny?
The addition is 40,000+ square feet. Not an insignificant area.
Entrance was 4mil, demolition was 2 million. Lets round the change up and say $6.5 million. Its easy to see how the new construction could eat $6.5mil. I hope it works out, its better for the Tallons, the Oilers, AND to draw larger events (NCAA, conference Tourni's Etc.)
Are there any updates on this? Wasn't there supposed to be a city council vote?
Per the article they were "reviewing the plans" but did not say if it required a formal vote.
I'll echo what others have said. Without a major overhaul, the current arena is useless (after it transitions the Talons and Oilers to the new building). It's a depressing dump with absolutely no amenities. If they think the Big XII is going to look favorably at the prospect of having the women play in that dive while the men are in the BOK Center, the powers that be are completely delusional. Whoever said "unmarketable" said it best. Like parking a double-wide in front of the Skelly Mansion and saying you have two residences for sale.
Expect that the arena overhaul will eat up the rest of the Vision 2025 surplus, or that another tax will be proposed. Maybe they could float a bond for it. Who knows, but they have no choice but to throw money at it now.
I disagree that it is useless. I have been to several events in the arena. It was used, it is used. It has ticket stands, air conditioning, a sound system, beer stands, concession stands and bathrooms - amenities.
It is not flashy. And yes, it certainly needs some work to be up to modern standards. But it is not worthless.
What's more, without the Cox Arena - the BOk center is worth a lot less.
quote:
Originally posted by AVERAGE JOE
I'll echo what others have said. Without a major overhaul, the current arena is useless (after it transitions the Talons and Oilers to the new building). It's a depressing dump with absolutely no amenities. If they think the Big XII is going to look favorably at the prospect of having the women play in that dive while the men are in the BOK Center, the powers that be are completely delusional. Whoever said "unmarketable" said it best. Like parking a double-wide in front of the Skelly Mansion and saying you have two residences for sale.
Expect that the arena overhaul will eat up the rest of the Vision 2025 surplus, or that another tax will be proposed. Maybe they could float a bond for it. Who knows, but they have no choice but to throw money at it now.
You are absolutely right. And once again the city seems to be playing fast and loose with the numbers (or the Whirled is not bothering to, or capable of, accurate complete reporting).
Not only have they not addressed the rather large amount of money that will be required to completely remodel the current arena (remember, part of the story we were told to sell the BOK Center was that the current arena was in a dismal state of disrepair). They also have not addressed the eventual cost of adding the front entrance (which still needs to be done, whether it's in connection with the fantasy hotel or otherwise). Also not addressed is the cost of remodeling part of the current exhibit hall into the "state's largest ballroom". (I noticed on their drawings that the new plan is to add new exhibit hall and convert part of the current exhibit hall into the "state's largest ballroom". And on that note, I'm a little surprised they haven't started calling it the state's largest
and most iconic ballroom... they do seem to love that word "iconic". ;-) )
And can they really build this addition for only $6,000,000?
Having said that, I think this is overall perhaps a better plan (although I question how many events the old arena, even if remodeled, will be able to draw... even with 2 nearby arenas, downtown Tulsa is still a long ways from getting the Big XII Tournament, IMO). I just wish they would show us the numbers and explain how all of the costs are going to be covered.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
I disagree that it is useless. I have been to several events in the arena. It was used, it is used. It has ticket stands, air conditioning, a sound system, beer stands, concession stands and bathrooms - amenities.
It is not flashy. And yes, it certainly needs some work to be up to modern standards. But it is not worthless.
Oooooh.... bathrooms! Air conditioning! Such amenities!!! Do you consider a car with seats, tires and a steering wheel to be loaded with "amenities"?
Let's cut to the chase:
From a pure definition standpoint, the old arena is a large, clear-span building with a seating bowl, so it is a building "with use".
In the real world, it is useless once the BOK center opens - unless it is comprehensively renovated. It's unmarketable in its present condition. That's the party line from the CVB to justify building the new arena. It's a bland cinder-block cave with 8900 cramped seats that hasn't been improved in any significant fashion since it opened in 1964.
Therefore:
1) Who is going to rent it when the glitzy new BOK center is next door? Only those who can't afford the BOK center or don't need that many seats. Which brings us to #2.
2) The old arena is not a marketable stand-alone property. If you need an arena that size and no convention facilities, you'd be better served with the Reynolds Center, the Mabee Center, or (dropping down to the 5,000 seat level) the Pavilion or UMAC, or even (dropping below 2,000) the PAC, Brady Theater or TCC southeast facility. It doesn't compete favorably with the other product in town. The only marketable asset about it is that it's attached to the convention halls. So...
3) If you need an arena that size and/or can't afford the BOK Center AND you need convention hall space... it still sucks. It's the same craphole that has supposedly caused us to lose convention business for the past 10 years. Now it's all of a sudden an asset? Not in its current condition.
4) the added twist of having 2 arenas next door is only relevant for highly specialized events like the Big XII tournament, which we'd only host every few years at best. But even in that light, the old arena in its current condition isn't an asset, it's a deterrent. It would drag the BOK center down like cement shoes. If you need two proximate arenas and you've got bids from Dallas, KC, and OKC, you're not going to accept the craptacular 1964 arena in its current condition as acceptable, no matter how nice the BOK Center is. Just doesn't compete with the other towns' product.
Hopefully, you've gotten the point that all this is tied to the current condition of the old arena. If it were comprehensively renovated into a modern, clean, attractive 8,000 seat arena with even a smattering of modern amenities, then it would be a major asset. But just keeping it as is and pretending it's an asset is a joke.
So again, the point is that if we're keeping the old arena we're going to have to pay for a major overhaul. Until that happens, it's all but useless from a marketing standpoint once the BOK center opens. And that's going to cost $$$$. Where is that going to come from?
quote:
Originally posted by AVERAGE JOE
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
I disagree that it is useless. I have been to several events in the arena. It was used, it is used. It has ticket stands, air conditioning, a sound system, beer stands, concession stands and bathrooms - amenities.
It is not flashy. And yes, it certainly needs some work to be up to modern standards. But it is not worthless.
Oooooh.... bathrooms! Air conditioning! Such amenities!!! Do you consider a car with seats, tires and a steering wheel to be loaded with "amenities"?
Let's cut to the chase:
From a pure definition standpoint, the old arena is a large, clear-span building with a seating bowl, so it is a building "with use".
In the real world, it is useless once the BOK center opens - unless it is comprehensively renovated. It's unmarketable in its present condition. That's the party line from the CVB to justify building the new arena. It's a bland cinder-block cave with 8900 cramped seats that hasn't been improved in any significant fashion since it opened in 1964.
Therefore:
1) Who is going to rent it when the glitzy new BOK center is next door? Only those who can't afford the BOK center or don't need that many seats. Which brings us to #2.
2) The old arena is not a marketable stand-alone property. If you need an arena that size and no convention facilities, you'd be better served with the Reynolds Center, the Mabee Center, or (dropping down to the 5,000 seat level) the Pavilion or UMAC, or even (dropping below 2,000) the PAC, Brady Theater or TCC southeast facility. It doesn't compete favorably with the other product in town. The only marketable asset about it is that it's attached to the convention halls. So...
3) If you need an arena that size and/or can't afford the BOK Center AND you need convention hall space... it still sucks. It's the same craphole that has supposedly caused us to lose convention business for the past 10 years. Now it's all of a sudden an asset? Not in its current condition.
4) the added twist of having 2 arenas next door is only relevant for highly specialized events like the Big XII tournament, which we'd only host every few years at best. But even in that light, the old arena in its current condition isn't an asset, it's a deterrent. It would drag the BOK center down like cement shoes. If you need two proximate arenas and you've got bids from Dallas, KC, and OKC, you're not going to accept the craptacular 1964 arena in its current condition as acceptable, no matter how nice the BOK Center is. Just doesn't compete with the other towns' product.
Hopefully, you've gotten the point that all this is tied to the current condition of the old arena. If it were comprehensively renovated into a modern, clean, attractive 8,000 seat arena with even a smattering of modern amenities, then it would be a major asset. But just keeping it as is and pretending it's an asset is a joke.
So again, the point is that if we're keeping the old arena we're going to have to pay for a major overhaul. Until that happens, it's all but useless from a marketing standpoint once the BOK center opens. And that's going to cost $$$$. Where is that going to come from?
Bravo! You are exactly right, AJ.
OKC built the Ford Center right across the street from the Cox Center and they haven't torn down the old Cox Center yet? In fact, I was there for the Red Earth Festival. So I do not understand your line of thought. IF OKC can do it, why can't we?
quote:
Originally posted by joiei
OKC built the Ford Center right across the street from the Cox Center and they haven't torn down the old Cox Center yet? In fact, I was there for the Red Earth Festival. So I do not understand your line of thought. IF OKC can do it, why can't we?
What's not to understand? OKC put money into the old Cox Center so that it's not a sh!thole. Our old arena is a major sh!thole. If we spend tens of millions of dollars to give it a major overhaul so that it's no longer a sh!thole, then we're in good shape. Until we spend the $$$, having a sh!thole arena across the street from the BOK center ain't much of a selling point.
And where is the money going to come from? Another tax increase? Cancelling other Vision 2025 projects to canibalize the available tax dollars? Issue a bond? Sell the entire facility to a private firm with the stipulation they have to renovate it?
Everyone's quite giddy about keeping the old arena now, but when the decision makers come crying that it's in such bad shape that we need to come up with $15 - 25 million to renovate it and your taxes are going up... people won't be so giddy anymore.
And where did Oklahoma City get the money to upgrade their old Cox Center, taxes from the citizens who live there. And now they all benefit and get first class entertainment acts that we have to go there to see instead of being able to have it happen in our own downtown. As for the needed renovation, any building needs an occasional rehab to keep it current and appealing for events. And for properties of this size, it takes more than just a bit of bailing wire and some paint. If you do not stay current with the needs of the people using the facility, then you will not be able to sell the facility to anyone who might want to use it.
quote:
Originally posted by joiei
And where did Oklahoma City get the money to upgrade their old Cox Center, taxes from the citizens who live there. And now they all benefit and get first class entertainment acts that we have to go there to see instead of being able to have it happen in our own downtown. As for the needed renovation, any building needs an occasional rehab to keep it current and appealing for events. And for properties of this size, it takes more than just a bit of bailing wire and some paint. If you do not stay current with the needs of the people using the facility, then you will not be able to sell the facility to anyone who might want to use it.
So the $178 million in taxes we're paying to build the BOK Center aren't enough for you? I voted for the project and I support it. However, now we're likely to be asked to pony up even more tax dollars dedicated toward an arena project, right on the heels of the $178 million investment we haven't even finished building yet. Enough is enough.
And the new arena was supposed to replace the old one, which factored into the decision of whether to vote yes to build the new one. If they'd said "Let's increase taxes and spend $178 million to build
another arena downtown right next to the old one so we have
two arenas to maintain... and oh, by the way, we'll need to ask you for millions more in tax dollars at some later date so we can refurb the old one"... I doubt the arena portion of Vision 2025 would've passed.
quote:
Originally posted by AVERAGE JOE
quote:
Originally posted by joiei
And where did Oklahoma City get the money to upgrade their old Cox Center, taxes from the citizens who live there. And now they all benefit and get first class entertainment acts that we have to go there to see instead of being able to have it happen in our own downtown. As for the needed renovation, any building needs an occasional rehab to keep it current and appealing for events. And for properties of this size, it takes more than just a bit of bailing wire and some paint. If you do not stay current with the needs of the people using the facility, then you will not be able to sell the facility to anyone who might want to use it.
So the $178 million in taxes we're paying to build the BOK Center aren't enough for you? I voted for the project and I support it. However, now we're likely to be asked to pony up even more tax dollars dedicated toward an arena project, right on the heels of the $178 million investment we haven't even finished building yet. Enough is enough.
And the new arena was supposed to replace the old one, which factored into the decision of whether to vote yes to build the new one. If they'd said "Let's increase taxes and spend $178 million to build another arena downtown right next to the old one so we have two arenas to maintain... and oh, by the way, we'll need to ask you for millions more in tax dollars at some later date so we can refurb the old one"... I doubt the arena portion of Vision 2025 would've passed.
Maybe they're going to use some of Michael Bates $120M overage from Vision2025 to put towards the convention center.
quote:
Originally posted by joiei
And where did Oklahoma City get the money to upgrade their old Cox Center, taxes from the citizens who live there. And now they all benefit and get first class entertainment acts that we have to go there to see instead of being able to have it happen in our own downtown. As for the needed renovation, any building needs an occasional rehab to keep it current and appealing for events. And for properties of this size, it takes more than just a bit of bailing wire and some paint. If you do not stay current with the needs of the people using the facility, then you will not be able to sell the facility to anyone who might want to use it.
Actually, I don't think OKC had to spend much on their old arena because it was never a ****hole like the current Tulsa arena. What they did spend on the remodeling the Cox Center was included in the original MAPS proposal, approved by the voters.
The problem with the Tulsa proposal is that they are not being honest and open about it. They are presenting it as if we can just keep the current arena, as is, and then we'll be able to get the Big XII Tournament. They are either woefully ignorant or dishonest. If that arena is going to serve ANY purpose whatsoever, it is going to require the expenditure of some major money, and they seem intent on pretending that is not the case.
The arena clearly needs work, I agree that it is in a neglected condition. But it is marketable now, so it will be so then. It NEEDS work, that doesn't mean it is worthless. Will it serve us better as is, or as a rubble pile?
Two arena's nearby are more important that you think. Many events (NCAA or conference tournaments among them) do not like playing on other school's courts. In fact, C-USA simply will not do it (unless its Memphis... which plays at a city facility).
But I digress. The real question is simple, is Tulsa better served by a single monster arena downtown, or by a pair of arena's like every major destination city has? And are we better off trying to reuse the arena or bulldozing it and replacing it with a huge empty space?
I think we are better being able to attract conference tournaments, NCAA games, and smaller venue attractions downtown while adding to the asset base of the city.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
The arena clearly needs work, I agree that it is in a neglected condition. But it is marketable now, so it will be so then. It NEEDS work, that doesn't mean it is worthless. Will it serve us better as is, or as a rubble pile?
Two arena's nearby are more important that you think. Many events (NCAA or conference tournaments among them) do not like playing on other school's courts. In fact, C-USA simply will not do it (unless its Memphis... which plays at a city facility).
But I digress. The real question is simple, is Tulsa better served by a single monster arena downtown, or by a pair of arena's like every major destination city has? And are we better off trying to reuse the arena or bulldozing it and replacing it with a huge empty space?
I think we are better being able to attract conference tournaments, NCAA games, and smaller venue attractions downtown while adding to the asset base of the city.
I'm afraid you continue to miss the real question. How are we going to pay for the necessary renovations to the old arena?
I'm not arguing against the value of having 2 arenas, which is what you keep defaulting to. But to realize the value of that arrangement, both arenas have to be in good shape. Having 2 cars in the driveway is great if they both run. But if one's up on blocks, it's not doing you much good. The potential is there, but you won't benefit from it until you fix it up.
So again, how are we going to pay for it? My guess is that this subject won't be mentioned by public officials anytime soon, but it will in a year or two...
Now Joe, THATS a good question.
Selling the naming rights should being in a few million. Leaving a couple million more to figure out. Bake sale?
Hopefully, and wow I HOPE, it could be done with operating revenue from the arena(s). Or perhaps the new hotel that is going to be built at some point would have an interest in it. Avoiding ANOTHER tax would be great.
But I believe it is important to keep the second arena. The revenue the Tallon's pay to rent it can be a start (not to mention just keeping them in town!).
quote:
Originally posted by AVERAGE JOE
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
The arena clearly needs work, I agree that it is in a neglected condition. But it is marketable now, so it will be so then. It NEEDS work, that doesn't mean it is worthless. Will it serve us better as is, or as a rubble pile?
Two arena's nearby are more important that you think. Many events (NCAA or conference tournaments among them) do not like playing on other school's courts. In fact, C-USA simply will not do it (unless its Memphis... which plays at a city facility).
But I digress. The real question is simple, is Tulsa better served by a single monster arena downtown, or by a pair of arena's like every major destination city has? And are we better off trying to reuse the arena or bulldozing it and replacing it with a huge empty space?
I think we are better being able to attract conference tournaments, NCAA games, and smaller venue attractions downtown while adding to the asset base of the city.
I'm afraid you continue to miss the real question. How are we going to pay for the necessary renovations to the old arena?
I'm not arguing against the value of having 2 arenas, which is what you keep defaulting to. But to realize the value of that arrangement, both arenas have to be in good shape. Having 2 cars in the driveway is great if they both run. But if one's up on blocks, it's not doing you much good. The potential is there, but you won't benefit from it until you fix it up.
So again, how are we going to pay for it? My guess is that this subject won't be mentioned by public officials anytime soon, but it will in a year or two...
If you read the article, it says how:
"...No extra funding would be required for the $50.5 million Vision 2025 project, officials said.
The money would come from not having to demolish the arena seating bowl and scrapping a $4 million glass entrance planned to face Fifth Street.
All of the other major components of the renovation -- including the addition of the state's largest ballroom, escalators, extra meeting space and new finishes throughout -- would still be in the plan. ..."
quote:
Originally posted by chlfan
quote:
Originally posted by AVERAGE JOE
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
The arena clearly needs work, I agree that it is in a neglected condition. But it is marketable now, so it will be so then. It NEEDS work, that doesn't mean it is worthless. Will it serve us better as is, or as a rubble pile?
Two arena's nearby are more important that you think. Many events (NCAA or conference tournaments among them) do not like playing on other school's courts. In fact, C-USA simply will not do it (unless its Memphis... which plays at a city facility).
But I digress. The real question is simple, is Tulsa better served by a single monster arena downtown, or by a pair of arena's like every major destination city has? And are we better off trying to reuse the arena or bulldozing it and replacing it with a huge empty space?
I think we are better being able to attract conference tournaments, NCAA games, and smaller venue attractions downtown while adding to the asset base of the city.
I'm afraid you continue to miss the real question. How are we going to pay for the necessary renovations to the old arena?
I'm not arguing against the value of having 2 arenas, which is what you keep defaulting to. But to realize the value of that arrangement, both arenas have to be in good shape. Having 2 cars in the driveway is great if they both run. But if one's up on blocks, it's not doing you much good. The potential is there, but you won't benefit from it until you fix it up.
So again, how are we going to pay for it? My guess is that this subject won't be mentioned by public officials anytime soon, but it will in a year or two...
If you read the article, it says how:
"...No extra funding would be required for the $50.5 million Vision 2025 project, officials said.
The money would come from not having to demolish the arena seating bowl and scrapping a $4 million glass entrance planned to face Fifth Street.
All of the other major components of the renovation -- including the addition of the state's largest ballroom, escalators, extra meeting space and new finishes throughout -- would still be in the plan. ..."
I believe it's your reading comprehension that needs examination.
The article does not say that we're getting the new ballroom
and an arena overhaul for the same amount of money as was budgeted for the new ballroom alone. It says they believe that they can build a ballroom addition onto the convention center for the same amount of money as it would cost to convert the arena to a ballroom.
So you did nothing to answer the question of how we're going to pay for an overhaul to the arena. Once they spend the $50 million of Vision 2025 money to build the new ballroom addition, there will be nothing left to renovate the arena.
After the BOK Center opens (give it maybe a year) they'll come crying to the taxpayers, "Aw shucks, this old arena is in such bad shape we need to renovate or we just won't be able to land any business. Can we have tens of millions of dollars, please?" I imagine they'll even act all surprised at their "recent" discovery that the old arena is a major dump that scares off business.
First, I think you're exaggerating how bad the Cox Arena is. Pretty it ain't, but serviceable? Yes.
Second, there is simply no way to know what the current plan will entail until the evaluation is over. Thinking about what it might take to update an arena, I come up with the following:
1) concourse/concesssion/restrooom area
2) arena bowl seating and aesthetics
3) facility physical plant maintainance/upgrades
4) production/staging area upgrades.
Seems likely that a revised plan that allows for the continued existence of the Maxwell House would take into consideration all of the above plus more. But no one knows just yet what will happen, so until we do, there's no reason to disparage the current state of the current arena.
quote:
Originally posted by AVERAGE JOE
quote:
Originally posted by chlfan
quote:
Originally posted by AVERAGE JOE
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
The arena clearly needs work, I agree that it is in a neglected condition. But it is marketable now, so it will be so then. It NEEDS work, that doesn't mean it is worthless. Will it serve us better as is, or as a rubble pile?
Two arena's nearby are more important that you think. Many events (NCAA or conference tournaments among them) do not like playing on other school's courts. In fact, C-USA simply will not do it (unless its Memphis... which plays at a city facility).
But I digress. The real question is simple, is Tulsa better served by a single monster arena downtown, or by a pair of arena's like every major destination city has? And are we better off trying to reuse the arena or bulldozing it and replacing it with a huge empty space?
I think we are better being able to attract conference tournaments, NCAA games, and smaller venue attractions downtown while adding to the asset base of the city.
I'm afraid you continue to miss the real question. How are we going to pay for the necessary renovations to the old arena?
I'm not arguing against the value of having 2 arenas, which is what you keep defaulting to. But to realize the value of that arrangement, both arenas have to be in good shape. Having 2 cars in the driveway is great if they both run. But if one's up on blocks, it's not doing you much good. The potential is there, but you won't benefit from it until you fix it up.
So again, how are we going to pay for it? My guess is that this subject won't be mentioned by public officials anytime soon, but it will in a year or two...
If you read the article, it says how:
"...No extra funding would be required for the $50.5 million Vision 2025 project, officials said.
The money would come from not having to demolish the arena seating bowl and scrapping a $4 million glass entrance planned to face Fifth Street.
All of the other major components of the renovation -- including the addition of the state's largest ballroom, escalators, extra meeting space and new finishes throughout -- would still be in the plan. ..."
I believe it's your reading comprehension that needs examination.
The article does not say that we're getting the new ballroom and an arena overhaul for the same amount of money as was budgeted for the new ballroom alone. It says they believe that they can build a ballroom addition onto the convention center for the same amount of money as it would cost to convert the arena to a ballroom.
So you did nothing to answer the question of how we're going to pay for an overhaul to the arena. Once they spend the $50 million of Vision 2025 money to build the new ballroom addition, there will be nothing left to renovate the arena.
After the BOK Center opens (give it maybe a year) they'll come crying to the taxpayers, "Aw shucks, this old arena is in such bad shape we need to renovate or we just won't be able to land any business. Can we have tens of millions of dollars, please?" I imagine they'll even act all surprised at their "recent" discovery that the old arena is a major dump that scares off business.
Examine this:
Attacking my "reading comprehension" is a bit over the top! Maybe you have additional info that this article isn't specific about?; maybe you're reading between the lines!!??- At any rate, the fact that someone might interpret an article differently that you shouldn't elicit a response like yours. Lighten up Frances!
Your slant / interpretation may be dead on but your tone towards other posters is what I take exception with. You aren't inviting good dialog when you fail to entertain or just flat out dismiss other points of view.
If you think you know the facts, try sharing or clarifying them in a way that isn't so smug.
Thanks!
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
First, I think you're exaggerating how bad the Cox Arena is. Pretty it ain't, but serviceable? Yes.
Second, there is simply no way to know what the current plan will entail until the evaluation is over. Thinking about what it might take to update an arena, I come up with the following:
1) concourse/concesssion/restrooom area
2) arena bowl seating and aesthetics
3) facility physical plant maintainance/upgrades
4) production/staging area upgrades.
Seems likely that a revised plan that allows for the continued existence of the Maxwell House would take into consideration all of the above plus more. But no one knows just yet what will happen, so until we do, there's no reason to disparage the current state of the current arena.
Well, one would think these things have been taken into consideration, but they have not. The items you listed could very likely eat up half of the $50 million budget for the convention center project. Wouldn't leave much for the construction of the new ballroom and improvements to the other exhibit halls as promised the taxpayers in the Vision 2025 package.
Again, mark my words... there will be a push for more money to renovate the old arena at some point in the not-too-distant future. It has to be renovated, it cannot be left as is.
quote:
Originally posted by chlfan
quote:
Originally posted by AVERAGE JOE
quote:
Originally posted by chlfan
quote:
Originally posted by AVERAGE JOE
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
The arena clearly needs work, I agree that it is in a neglected condition. But it is marketable now, so it will be so then. It NEEDS work, that doesn't mean it is worthless. Will it serve us better as is, or as a rubble pile?
Two arena's nearby are more important that you think. Many events (NCAA or conference tournaments among them) do not like playing on other school's courts. In fact, C-USA simply will not do it (unless its Memphis... which plays at a city facility).
But I digress. The real question is simple, is Tulsa better served by a single monster arena downtown, or by a pair of arena's like every major destination city has? And are we better off trying to reuse the arena or bulldozing it and replacing it with a huge empty space?
I think we are better being able to attract conference tournaments, NCAA games, and smaller venue attractions downtown while adding to the asset base of the city.
I'm afraid you continue to miss the real question. How are we going to pay for the necessary renovations to the old arena?
I'm not arguing against the value of having 2 arenas, which is what you keep defaulting to. But to realize the value of that arrangement, both arenas have to be in good shape. Having 2 cars in the driveway is great if they both run. But if one's up on blocks, it's not doing you much good. The potential is there, but you won't benefit from it until you fix it up.
So again, how are we going to pay for it? My guess is that this subject won't be mentioned by public officials anytime soon, but it will in a year or two...
If you read the article, it says how:
"...No extra funding would be required for the $50.5 million Vision 2025 project, officials said.
The money would come from not having to demolish the arena seating bowl and scrapping a $4 million glass entrance planned to face Fifth Street.
All of the other major components of the renovation -- including the addition of the state's largest ballroom, escalators, extra meeting space and new finishes throughout -- would still be in the plan. ..."
I believe it's your reading comprehension that needs examination.
The article does not say that we're getting the new ballroom and an arena overhaul for the same amount of money as was budgeted for the new ballroom alone. It says they believe that they can build a ballroom addition onto the convention center for the same amount of money as it would cost to convert the arena to a ballroom.
So you did nothing to answer the question of how we're going to pay for an overhaul to the arena. Once they spend the $50 million of Vision 2025 money to build the new ballroom addition, there will be nothing left to renovate the arena.
After the BOK Center opens (give it maybe a year) they'll come crying to the taxpayers, "Aw shucks, this old arena is in such bad shape we need to renovate or we just won't be able to land any business. Can we have tens of millions of dollars, please?" I imagine they'll even act all surprised at their "recent" discovery that the old arena is a major dump that scares off business.
Examine this:
Attacking my "reading comprehension" is a bit over the top! Maybe you have additional info that this article isn't specific about?; maybe you're reading between the lines!!??- At any rate, the fact that someone might interpret an article differently that you shouldn't elicit a response like yours. Lighten up Frances!
Your slant / interpretation may be dead on but your tone towards other posters is what I take exception with. You aren't inviting good dialog when you fail to entertain or just flat out dismiss other points of view.
If you think you know the facts, try sharing or clarifying them in a way that isn't so smug.
Thanks!
I was replying in kind. Your statement, "if you read the article it says how:" was a more subtle way of saying I hadn't even read up on the facts. If my lack of subtlety offends you, I apologize.
My tone is a direct response to a lot of people's reaction here, happily chomping down on the bait and swallowing the hook. Yes, I'm putting a damper on this, but only because it doesn't seem the plan has been thought through, or more likely, has been thought through and "they" simply aren't giving the public the full story -- our change of plans is going to result in millions more in arena costs for the taxpayers. I can see why they'd want to keep that little nugget quiet, but it's there.
So an objective conversation would be -- is it worth it to expend additional money to renovate our old arena so that we have two downtown? What will the costs be? How will we pay for it? What's the projected payback? How many events would use the smaller arena? How will the city pay for the maintenance and staffing for two arenas, when all this time we've only planned on having one?
There are benefits to having a second arena, but they should be weighed against the costs in an objective manner. That's the discussion I hope to spark here.
I still can not understand how they figure this complies with what the V2025 ballot stated...
Maybe it is just me; but when they said they were moving seats from the old arena to the new arena because the cost were so far over projections....
One has to wonder what the long term plan on this Arena Business really is...
I don't have a clue...
"Cash Cow"...... not!
"Stepping Stone"....... I hope so!
"Overwhelming Demand".... no freaking way...
Why not wait and see how it goes for the first year in operation.
Or does the "steering committee" not steer towards actual achievable goals......?
More Pie in the Sky... and it ain't Key Lime.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Good points OC.
For sure better than plan A. I always wondered why replacing a functioning arena with a large ballroom was a good idea.
1) Saves the arena for the Talon's before the arena is done
2) provides another venue for tournaments (maybe learned from their failed basketball bid)
3) Expands the convention center for any events that require such a thing (I'm not in the business of thinking of what would need an arena AND a ballroom, but such a thing probably exists?)
but:
4) Losing the "tie in" entrance hurts. But is it worth $4mil for cosmetics over function?
5) I hope there is some money for arena renovation as it needs it. It functions as is, but really needs work to be presentable.
My hope is that Tulsa will do what OKC did and sell the naming rights to this building. Maybe even to a hotel that builds next door. It's possible a hotel will now want to build directly onto the side of the convention center (instead of a skybridge) and thus have "The Tulsa Westin Hotel and Convention Center" or something like that.
Why not the "Tulsa Smackdown Raw Bull Riders Ballroom" for The name....Complete with mountain oysters as Hors Douvres....
By the way I guess this plan would save us from having to replace the "seating" transferred to the New Arena....
Me thinks Katy and Company could benefit from a few Xanax and a "chill out session"
Everyone keeps bringing up the seating moving but as I remember that was just a suggestion and not feasible as the convention center and arena seats are different sizes.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
Everyone keeps bringing up the seating moving but as I remember that was just a suggestion and not feasible as the convention center and arena seats are different sizes.
A thousand pardons Maestro.... You are younger and far more clear of mind than I..
[|)]
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
Everyone keeps bringing up the seating moving but as I remember that was just a suggestion and not feasible as the convention center and arena seats are different sizes.
Darn it,
Grizzle and this goes for you too,
Floyd... Stop posting facts.
We'd rather read into something in the TW that's clearly not there, than actually stop and realize the city needs flexibility so the downtown arena/convention center can be utilized to its full potential. The original Vision2025 proposal didn't have a psychic available to envision the increased construction costs after Hurricane Katrina and Rita... or the other options that are opening up with city hall moving to
One Technology Center... Bad LaFortune, bad dog...
I'd betcha that the
Tulsa Sports Commission knows better than we do about whether using the Mabee Center for the women's Big XII games cost Tulsa a bid...
OIL CAPITAL--
"Actually, I don't think OKC had to spend much on their old arena because it was never a ****hole like the current Tulsa arena.Do you ever quit with your backhanded OKC-centric Tulsa bashing?... did you EVER go to the old Myriad? I did back in my OCU days... also went to see TU basketball at the Maxwell Center (Assembly Center). I know what Bricktown AND the Myriad looked like back in the 80s... And the only difference between the pre-MAPS Myriad (now Cox) and the Maxwell Center was seating capacity... heck, the seats were the same color/size and the bathrooms/concessions were practically identical. The old Myriad was always bigger than the Assembly Center, but never better.
Heck, if there's ever been a ****hole arena in Tulsa, that honor would go to the Expo Square Pavillion. That's where the Ice Oilers would play next year if this plan isn't approved. And the Talons? Goodbye, next year... and for any minor league club, re-locating to a different city and/or skipping an entire season could be "goodbye," permanently...
---Councilor Bill Christiansen, who has been involved in the discussions, is a supporter of the changes, adding that he wouldn't be if they involved more money.
"I think this would help attract more events," he said. "The public has invested a lot of money in these venues, and we want them to be successful."Sorry, but that kinda says it all for me... next subject...
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
Everyone keeps bringing up the seating moving but as I remember that was just a suggestion and not feasible as the convention center and arena seats are different sizes.
Darn it, Grizzle and this goes for you too, Floyd... Stop posting facts.
OIL CAPITAL-- "Actually, I don't think OKC had to spend much on their old arena because it was never a ****hole like the current Tulsa arena.
Do you ever quit with your backhanded OKC-centric Tulsa bashing?... did you EVER go to the old Myriad? I did back in my OCU days... also went to see TU basketball at the Maxwell Center (Assembly Center). I know what Bricktown AND the Myriad looked like back in the 80s... And the only difference between the pre-MAPS Myriad (now Cox) and the Maxwell Center was seating capacity... heck, the seats were the same color/size and the bathrooms/concessions were practically identical. The old Myriad was always bigger than the Assembly Center, but never better.
Good grief. First of all, I'm not the one who coined the term ****hole" for the Convention Center Arena. And yes, I've been in the old Myriad, many times. Only someone seriously delusional (or with a seriously bad memory) could think that the Myriad Arena EVER looked as bad as the current Maxwell Arena. It just did not.
I quoted someone else's description of the Convention Center arena as a ****hole and merely made the point that OKC did not have to do much to their old arena to make it marketable. (Yes, they remodeled the rest of the Myriad Convention Center, but I don't think they've had to do much to the arena.) And for that I get attacked? Wow.
I'll trust
chlfan on that before I would someone who's consistently shown an OKC-bias, all the while going by the screen name,
"Oil Capital"....
For some crazy reason, the Ice Oilers like the idea...
quote:
The Tulsa Oilers hockey team, which had been scouting the Expo Square Pavilion to play next season, also could continue in the Convention Center until the BOK Center is ready.
"We'd absolutely love to stay put at the Convention Center," Oilers owner Jeff Lund said. "It's been our home now for 15 years and it's very accommodating to our needs."
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
I'll trust chlfan on that before I would someone who's consistently shown an OKC-bias, all the while going by the screen name, "Oil Capital"....
For some crazy reason, the Ice Oilers like the idea...
quote:
The Tulsa Oilers hockey team, which had been scouting the Expo Square Pavilion to play next season, also could continue in the Convention Center until the BOK Center is ready.
"We'd absolutely love to stay put at the Convention Center," Oilers owner Jeff Lund said. "It's been our home now for 15 years and it's very accommodating to our needs."
So you're in favor of leaving the current Maxwell Convention Center arena alone completely and taking our chances marketing it as an event facility in its present condition? Because that's not part of the funded project. The Vision 2025 money only gets us a ballroom wing added to the north side of the building, no major arena overhaul.
Well, if your previous descriptions of conditions at Driller Park match your descriptions of the current conditions at the Maxwell Center, I don't think the place is in bad shape at all... I went to a gathering where I could see the inside of that arena... didn't see the problem... it must be reasonably well-maintained in order to host the Ice Oilers and Talons on a yearly basis...
If hockey or arenaball fans would like to chime in on this, feel free... and 66ers fans can give me an update and tell us if the Pavillion is no longer the dump I remember it being in the 90s...
Once again, I'll defer to fans and management of the Ice Oilers and the Talons as to the current condition of the facility, but I don't think it would take much renovation and may be a midsized option...
I was always puzzled at OKC's decision to keep the old Myriad open, but hey... they've hosted the Big XII basketball championships before and they will again in 2009. However, the Maxwell Center doesn't hold 8,992 for basketball... that capacity is for concerts... I don't think it'd seat much more than 7,700 for basketball...
But I'll still support Bill Christiansen's views on the situation over the perpetual sour grapes we're guaranteed to read over at Urban Tulsa with another one of Mister Bates' sky-is-falling, anti-arena, anti-Vision2025 tirades...
Imagine if the Drillers had to skip town for a season while a new ballpark was being built...
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
I'll trust chlfan on that before I would someone who's consistently shown an OKC-bias, all the while going by the screen name, "Oil Capital"....
For some crazy reason, the Ice Oilers like the idea...
quote:
The Tulsa Oilers hockey team, which had been scouting the Expo Square Pavilion to play next season, also could continue in the Convention Center until the BOK Center is ready.
"We'd absolutely love to stay put at the Convention Center," Oilers owner Jeff Lund said. "It's been our home now for 15 years and it's very accommodating to our needs."
Nothing crazy at all. It's no secret that the Oilers like the idea because it allows them to have a place to play for the upcoming season, rather than being homeless.
I like the idea too, and have said so.
But our city "leaders" need to be honest about it and tell us the real costs. And the real costs of keeping that arena (if it is to be useful in attracting events) includes a complete update/remodel. Recall that when the city was promoting the vote for the new arena, they told us the old arena needed to be replaced not just because it was small, but also because it was in such a dismal state of repair.
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
Well, if your previous descriptions of conditions at Driller Park match your descriptions of the current conditions at the Maxwell Center, I don't think the place is in bad shape at all... I went to a gathering where I could see the inside of that arena... didn't see the problem... it must be reasonably well-maintained in order to host the Ice Oilers and Talons on a yearly basis...
If hockey or arenaball fans would like to chime in on this, feel free... and 66ers fans can give me an update and tell us if the Pavillion is no longer the dump I remember it being in the 90s...
Once again, I'll defer to fans and management of the Ice Oilers and the Talons as to the current condition of the facility, but I don't think it would take much renovation and may be a midsized option...
I was always puzzled at OKC's decision to keep the old Myriad open, but hey... they've hosted the Big XII basketball championships before and they will again in 2009. However, the Maxwell Center doesn't hold 8,992 for basketball... that capacity is for concerts... I don't think it'd seat much more than 7,700 for basketball...
But I'll still support Bill Christiansen's views on the situation over the perpetual sour grapes we're guaranteed to read over at Urban Tulsa with another one of Mister Bates' sky-is-falling, anti-arena, anti-Vision2025 tirades...
Imagine if the Drillers had to skip town for a season while a new ballpark was being built...
To be very honest, the convention center arena is a complete hole. It's really bad. But, it's nothing that can't be fixed. Redo the restrooms, clean and paint the place, install a new ceiling, lighting and better scoreboards and it would be fine. It does not need big structural changes or new seats so I don't think the cost to redo the old arena would be huge.
As for the Pavilion, it has had just such a remodel and it's looking very nice actually. I don't know what the cost was for remodel of the Pavilion, but I would think the convention center arena would be less money as there is no exterior in need of restoration like there was at the pavilion.
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
But I'll still support Bill Christiansen's views on the situation over the perpetual sour grapes we're guaranteed to read over at Urban Tulsa with another one of Mister Bates' sky-is-falling, anti-arena, anti-Vision2025 tirades...
For what it's worth, I suggested this approach to building a convention center ballroom (expanding to the north of the exhibit hall) before the Vision 2025 election. Voters could have been given the option of updating and expanding the convention center without having had to approve an 18,000 seat arena.
For what it's worth, I can't wait to see performers at the new 18,000 seat arena who wouldn't have come to Tulsa to play the Maxwell, renovated or not.
Not to mention the NCAA postseason events we'll now get.
Out of curiosity, just what is wrong with the old arena at Maxwell Convention Center? Be specific, talking in generic terms like it is a ****hole is not helpful. I have been there and yes, it is visually outdated in the reception hall area, but that is a matter of updating. I am sure that in the 60s and 70s, all those old buildings downtown were considered outdated and needed to be replaced. So they were leveled and the replacement was never built. Now people wax poetic about what was lost. Is the building structurally falling apart?
quote:
Originally posted by joiei
Out of curiosity, just what is wrong with the old arena at Maxwell Convention Center? Be specific, talking in generic terms like it is a ****hole is not helpful. I have been there and yes, it is visually outdated in the reception hall area, but that is a matter of updating. I am sure that in the 60s and 70s, all those old buildings downtown were considered outdated and needed to be replaced. So they were leveled and the replacement was never built. Now people wax poetic about what was lost. Is the building structurally falling apart?
Structurally sound but the arena floor is too small (we have to have an exemption for the talons to play) and the seats are small by today's standard. Everything wrong with it seems size related to me.
Depends on which seats your talking about....The ones in the lower bowl are larger than the ones above the catwalk......
I think the arena is serviceable, but for sure there are problems:
1) Bathrooms - start with the basics. The bathrooms need to be redone as they are nasty, inefficient, and old school.. They function, but do not impress.
2) Concessions - need way more concession stands. Having to wait to pay $4 for nachos is a bad idea.
3) Size - the arena floor is too small for regulation hockey or Arena football (as I understand it).
4) Ceilings - the ceiling is yellowed and cracked. Structurally it is sound, but it looks a little like death.
5) General Appearance - it looks like an old arena. Spartan and run down, older design elements. A few coats of paint, some neon or something else to add an element or two... just make it look like it was made to be used sometime after the year 1975.
Another idea I have in my little head is making an entrance for it. Neither the outside nor the inside entrance to the arena floor signal to anyone that you are entering an arena of any kind. The entrance to the arena is the same as entering any other room in the building. The library has a more exciting entrance.
The bathrooms, entrance, and sprucing up could be done for a few million ($5? Really no solid idea, but nothing too expensive involved). Making the floor larger would add significant cost and would lose seats unless something interesting was done - steeper seating, second narrow deck? Adding concession stands and redoing the ceiling are other elements that by themselves wouldn't be too much.
Just my uneducated in this area thoughts...
quote:
Originally posted by joiei
Out of curiosity, just what is wrong with the old arena at Maxwell Convention Center? Be specific, talking in generic terms like it is a ****hole is not helpful. I have been there and yes, it is visually outdated in the reception hall area, but that is a matter of updating. I am sure that in the 60s and 70s, all those old buildings downtown were considered outdated and needed to be replaced. So they were leveled and the replacement was never built. Now people wax poetic about what was lost. Is the building structurally falling apart?
Have you been in there? It looks like something from a prison movie or one of those..."This is what is left after the end of the world, Mad Max" movies. Its dark, dank, dreary and unwelcoming. Unless your goth and into that sort of thing. You walk in there and have the urge to slit your wrists, curl up in some cold little corner and slowly die. Its hardly a bright, uplifting, facility where you would want to have an event. I remember going there as a little kid over 30 years ago and feeling that I didnt like it then and was happy to get out of there as soon as possible. Who needs specifics? Just use your eyes and feelings. How does that space make you feel when your in it?
quote:
Originally posted by joiei
Out of curiosity, just what is wrong with the old arena at Maxwell Convention Center? Be specific, talking in generic terms like it is a ****hole is not helpful. I have been there and yes, it is visually outdated in the reception hall area, but that is a matter of updating. I am sure that in the 60s and 70s, all those old buildings downtown were considered outdated and needed to be replaced. So they were leveled and the replacement was never built. Now people wax poetic about what was lost. Is the building structurally falling apart?
Being a patron of countless Oilers games since 1996, I can tell you, in visiting other CHL teams venues that Tulsa's, for a city and metro area our size, has a sh*thole of an arena. It seats for in the round events about 9000, and for AF2 football and hockey, it seats around 7100. I've been to arenas in cities far smaller that make ours look like a rodeo barn.
I can count on numerous occasions during hockey games, when parts of the ceiling would just fall out. Several instances of having to wait 10 minutes or more while the lights warmed up. The sound system stinks. The icemaking plant is the original one that was put in it in 1964. The building is dated.
I had friends come to town to watch hockey and were amazed, for a city of our size, how small and old the arena we currently have is. They went on to mention how nice the Mabee Center looked; I had to explain to them that the city did not own that, so there was pretty much no say in what came to that arena past what the Roberts would approve of.
For me, getting the arena is something I've been hoping for since before the turn of the millenium. But it's not just for hockey; it will be for concerts that I will no longer have to drive to OKC or Little Rock or Dallas or KC for, because now, those venues will come to Tulsa when they see we have a building that will seat 18000. It will be for NCAA events, exhibition NHL and NBA events and the like that would never have come here to begin with.
I always wondered why so many people were against progress. The building won't be just for the people that live in this county, but the entire metro area, and I would expect people as far away as Independence KS and Joplin MO would make the journey here for an event or two.
Face it. We were losing events to places with newer and larger facilities, like Omaha, OKC, Little Rock. And that's just to name a few.
I'm off in the morning with camera in hand to take some photos of the new versus the old. I've seen recent photos of the progress, and knowing that the grand opening of the arena is in a little less than 13 months has me excited. The Oilers will be the first full time tenants of that building. I doubt they'll draw consistently enough to fill the arena, but most arenas are designed to block the upper deck off. OKC does it with the Blazers in the Ford Center.
I'm tired of friends coming here and asking me why I stay in Tulsa outside of other obvious situational reasons. I lived in Houston for three years and liked it for the most part, but it wasn't Tulsa. I hate having to try and rationalize it. Tulsa is my home. No matter where I live further in life, Tulsa will always be my home.