I fear the window of opportunity for a minor league baseball stadium in downtown Tulsa is rapidly closing, if it is not already gone. While downtown developers play power games, Jenks is moving forward to steal our hometown team. Fellow forumers, I don't trust our city leadership to make the push necessary to keep the Drillers in Tulsa, so it is up to us. I addressed the following email to Tim Kissler at Global Development Partners: tkissler@globaldevelopmentpartners.com. I urge you to do something similar. It may already be too late, but if we don't make noise about this, no one will.
quote:
Dear Tim,
I found your email on the Global Development Partners website. I had been following the Global "East End" proposal for downtown Tulsa with much interest, and was dismayed when the Wal-Mart development on the Nordam property appeared to win out over your plans for a baseball stadium.
Now the Wal-Mart development is offline, and it would appear the property is open once again. I just wanted to make sure your group was aware of this fact: http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=071109_238_A1_hAdow60366
Meanwhile, a suburban development threatens to lure the Drillers away from Tulsa, meaning the window of development is closing: http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectID=11&articleID=071114_1_A9_hSome68134
As you can see, citizens of Tulsa would very much prefer that our baseball team stay in Tulsa, and would be supportive of a site downtown: http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=071012_238_A1_spanc10332
Now is the time for your group to vocally emerge and reassert your vision for the east end of downtown. I don't know what goes on behind the scenes, and I like to assume the best, but I fear the worst--that nothing will be made of this opportunity and the Drillers will be lost. Good luck with GDP's endeavors, and please don't give up on Tulsa just yet.
Best,
***Floyd***
Concerned Tulsan
How else can we help our city avoid losing one more treasure?
Floyd,
I think you did one of the best things you could along with links to supporting articles. Thanks for the effort and initiative.
I'll craft an email of my own this afternoon.
In case there's anyone left who doesn't think a new ballpark can help revive a struggling downtown, please read the following Tulsa Business Journal article. It has excellent references to successes in Little Rock, Memphis, and Springfield, MO.: http://www.tulsabusiness.com/article.asp?aID=66148376.33783202.597116.3286816.74959102.384&aID2=45923
I've said it before and I'll say it again: if our leadership allows Jenks to steal the Drillers, it will be a colossal blunder--a civic tragedy of the first order. I'll go futher and say that if this occurs, just go ahead and write off downtown as a "destination" for the next generation or two. It will be a pleasant place to see Celine Dion, but not much more.
If you are in favor of downtown Tulsa's true revitalization, getting a ballpark should be your number one priority.
More at KOTV (//%22http://www.kotv.com/news/local/story/?id=139710%22)
quote:
Jenks moves one step closer to bringing a billion dollar development to the banks of the Arkansas River. A city committee on Tuesday night approved a plan to create a special tax district to spur the development. The News On 6's Ashli Sims reports there's one major employer in Jenks which voted against the plan.
Jenks Public Schools cast one of the three votes against the plan. The tax increment financing or TIF district passed anyway. The school district says it's in favor of development, but against The Jenks River District, a billion dollar development set along the Arkansas River, just south of the Creek Turnpike.
I found this tidbit (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectID=11&articleID=071114_1_A9_hSome68134%22) in today's world very interesting:
quote:
Other recommendations approved by the committee would:
Limit the TIF to 18 or fewer years if the $294 million in revenues is collected by the developer.
Limit the TIF district to land owned by the developers.
Strike the city's option to buy a new baseball stadium under consideration at the site and ensure that it is owned by no entity that would be exempt from taxes.
(emphasis mine)
This would appear to take the prospect of a municipally-owned stadium off the table. If the developers are okay with owning and managing a stadium, then I don't suppose that this is a problem. But it does seem to limit the developer's options.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
I found this tidbit (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectID=11&articleID=071114_1_A9_hSome68134%22) in today's world very interesting:
quote:
Other recommendations approved by the committee would:
Limit the TIF to 18 or fewer years if the $294 million in revenues is collected by the developer.
Limit the TIF district to land owned by the developers.
Strike the city's option to buy a new baseball stadium under consideration at the site and ensure that it is owned by no entity that would be exempt from taxes.
(emphasis mine)
This would appear to take the prospect of a municipally-owned stadium off the table. If the developers are okay with owning and managing a stadium, then I don't suppose that this is a problem. But it does seem to limit the developer's options.
They can also give the stadium to the team. Just not to an entity that would remove the stadium from the tax rolls.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
I found this tidbit (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectID=11&articleID=071114_1_A9_hSome68134%22) in today's world very interesting:
quote:
Other recommendations approved by the committee would:
Limit the TIF to 18 or fewer years if the $294 million in revenues is collected by the developer.
Limit the TIF district to land owned by the developers.
Strike the city's option to buy a new baseball stadium under consideration at the site and ensure that it is owned by no entity that would be exempt from taxes.
(emphasis mine)
This would appear to take the prospect of a municipally-owned stadium off the table. If the developers are okay with owning and managing a stadium, then I don't suppose that this is a problem. But it does seem to limit the developer's options.
Something tells me a private developer isn't going to be happy with $18,000 per year in rent and no shared revenues.
Yep, it's all about those overpriced hot dogs and nachos...
Not sure if Tim Kissler's going to be the decision-maker on Global's end..... more likely, Global's future in the East End/East Village will be in the hands of Adwon...
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
Not sure if Tim Kissler's going to be the decision-maker on Global's end..... more likely, Global's future in the East End/East Village will be in the hands of Adwon...
Yeah, Kissler was the contact on the site, though, so I was hoping he'd pass along.
Sent a note as well. Think I'll send one to Himelfarb too.
quote:
Originally posted by carltonplace
Sent a note as well. Think I'll send one to Himelfarb too.
What's Himmelfarb's email? PM me if you don't want to post it.
dhimelfarb@cityoftulsa.org
Response:
Thanks for the e mail. I can promise you that while the city has no ownership interest in these properties we are hard at work trying to bring this area alive in a responsible fashion. I can assure you the Global people are aware of the circumstances, and in fact own a piece of property adjacent to this area. Stay tuned.
time is running out? it is way past that. as soon as the jenks city council passes the TIF, look for a drillers announcement the same week stating they are moving to Jenks.
Its over.
I'm afraid (I never thought I would say this) Inteller is right.
TDA is still trying to figure out if hiring a consultant on development is a good idea. By the time Tulsa comes up with a plan and starts to talk to developers Jenks will be pushing dirt. By the time Tulsa has a deal in place with financing and an agreement on a TIF Jenks will be holding opening night in a new stadium.
Maybe that's right. But I'm not convinced the deal is done.
I received a response from Mr. Kissler while the forum was down and just remembered to post it:
quote:
***Floyd***, thanks for your interest. However, the Wal-mart developer still has the land under contract. City really wasn't behind our concept anyway.
-Tim
So that's where the East End is at. In other words, nobody's moving any time soon.
It seems pretty clear that the Chicago consulting company Himmelfarb found will come in and recommend that a new Driller's Stadium be built on the city's Hartford Building land. For whatever reason, that appears to be what Taylor's administration wants, or at least thinks is feasible. Just about the time City of Tulsa gets around to putting out a Request for Proposals, the Jenks TIF will pass. Just about the time Tulsa gets an interested developer, Jenks will move their stadium from the concept phase to the drawing board. Just about the time that Tulsa has a pretty drawing ready to go, Jenks will be ready to break ground. And the rest will hinge on Lamson. Ultimately, he will decide between two options. The Drillers will play in a 6500 seat ballpark and be a small suburban AA team that anchors a shopping mall, or they will play in an 11,000 seat stadium and be a big urban AA team with potential for expansion, anchoring a downtown resurgence. The pasture land development would probably be ready two seasons earlier, say by spring 2010, where the downtown option would be more like 2012, given the current pace of things.
I worry that Lamson might get impatient and move to the stadium that would be finished first. But, one heartening tidbit is that he has made arrangements with the County to go year-to-year on his lease through the end of 2012 (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=071120_1_A9_hTheb66224%22). In other words, the Drillers appear willing to give City of Tulsa a little bit more time to prepare an alternative to prevent them from leaving the city. And so it seems likely, Inteller and Swake, that there won't be an announcement any time soon. This probably won't be resolved until at least the end of 2008.
Both the urban and suburban models work, as far as the economics of running a minor league club are concerned. A downtown ballpark is much more favorable for the Tulsa metro area. I hope City of Tulsa gets their act together and at least provides the Drillers the option of staying home.
One thing I think you have wrong is the urban suburban thing. Once the River District is done it will be more busy and urban than downtown Tulsa. A bunch of tall, essentially empty buildings, surface parking lots, vacant small buildings and run down areas around that, do NOT make an urban area. Those buildings might as well be rocks in a field. It may well "look" urban but as anyone who will tell you who goes down there after work hours or on weekends, those buildings are simply an illusion of urban.
I think to deny the reality of the situation is to hamper any solution to changing it. If you cant really see what the situation is, your not likely to be able to come up with best way to progress. That perspecitve is causing more harm than good imo.
I hate to be a downer, but it's much worse than what you have in your scenario.
The Jenks TIF is scheduled to be approved on December 17th, in three weeks. I don't think the city will even have a signed contract with the consulant by then. The River District is then supposed to break ground in the spring, I doubt the consultants report will even be done by then, much less be ready to put the sites out for an RFP.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
I hate to be a downer, but it's much worse than what you have in your scenario.
The Jenks TIF is scheduled to be approved on December 17th, in three weeks. I don't think the city will even have a signed contract with the consulant by then. The River District is then supposed to break ground in the spring, I doubt the consultants report will even be done by then, much less be ready to put the sites out for an RFP.
Yeah, but what I don't get is why Lamson would negotiate for the year-to-year option through 2012, if not to keep his options open? If it was a done deal already, that November 20th story would have read, "Drillers decline to extend lease" rather than "Drillers keep options open."
It seems to me that, no matter the pace of Jenks' plans, this is still a wait and see situation that hinges on Tulsa's ability to get a plan together in time to have a stadium superior to the Jenks plan open for the 2012 or 2013 season.
But, no amount of ineptitude by Tulsa "leaders" would surprise me at this point. It's completely possible that I'm misreading the situation, and the lease extension option is just to give Jenks construction flexibility. We'll find out after the TIF is approved, because there's no way they'll go forward without a binding letter of intent.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
One thing I think you have wrong is the urban suburban thing. Once the River District is done it will be more busy and urban than downtown Tulsa. A bunch of tall, essentially empty buildings, surface parking lots, vacant small buildings and run down areas around that, do NOT make an urban area. Those buildings might as well be rocks in a field. It may well "look" urban but as anyone who will tell you who goes down there after work hours or on weekends, those buildings are simply an illusion of urban.
I think to deny the reality of the situation is to hamper any solution to changing it. If you cant really see what the situation is, your not likely to be able to come up with best way to progress. That perspecitve is causing more harm than good imo.
It just depends on what your perspective and values are regarding the city fabric. Fundamentally, if you think it's okay to sprawl outward and leave history and former density behind, then I can't help you. It may be dense, but it's outside the urban core and thus definitively suburban.
Artist, I usually read and respect what you write here, and I understand you're excited about the river district. But you need to come to terms with the fact that it is simply another instance of the suburbs bribing developers out of Tulsa using cheaper land and lower tax rates. You may like the design, but it's not, and will never be, "urban," in the sense of sustaining the vitality of the city. The design elements are nothing more than a marketing device to make you this development attractive to you. There's nothing inherently wrong with this, but don't pretend that it's the equivalent of a revitalized downtown.
Further, you talk about parking lots and empty buildings, but you don't acknowledge that the answer is staring you in the face. Build a stadium on top of the parking lots and decrepit buildings in the East End, and development will follow. I've gone over the examples too often to repeat them, but American cities have shown this to be true. Austin and Dallas both have suburban minor league teams that are successful, which was my point in saying that both models work. But unlike those cities, Tulsa needs help downtown, not in a cow pasture. If this community had a coherent vision and leadership (not saying we don't, but it appears addicted to backroom dealing) then there wouldn't be any argument about where the best place for the ballpark would be.
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
quote:
Originally posted by swake
I hate to be a downer, but it's much worse than what you have in your scenario.
The Jenks TIF is scheduled to be approved on December 17th, in three weeks. I don't think the city will even have a signed contract with the consulant by then. The River District is then supposed to break ground in the spring, I doubt the consultants report will even be done by then, much less be ready to put the sites out for an RFP.
Yeah, but what I don't get is why Lamson would negotiate for the year-to-year option through 2012, if not to keep his options open? If it was a done deal already, that November 20th story would have read, "Drillers decline to extend lease" rather than "Drillers keep options open."
It seems to me that, no matter the pace of Jenks' plans, this is still a wait and see situation that hinges on Tulsa's ability to get a plan together in time to have a stadium superior to the Jenks plan open for the 2012 or 2013 season.
But, no amount of ineptitude by Tulsa "leaders" would surprise me at this point. It's completely possible that I'm misreading the situation, and the lease extension option is just to give Jenks construction flexibility. We'll find out after the TIF is approved, because there's no way they'll go forward without a binding letter of intent.
Well, the River District TIF was not approved at the time he negotiated the year to year deal, it's still not formally approved even though as of last week it's a foregone conclusion. What if it had been denied? What if even now there are construction delays or financing delays? These things happen. Like you say, It's just good business to have a safety net.
I do think that if something happens downtown really fast he would listen. But you are also correct that he is going to have to make a real and final decision on Jenks in just a matter of a few weeks. Most likely it would not even be possible to have a firm downtown proposal with an approved TIF for at least a year, and there may never be one, there currently is no good option for a developer to make it happen downtown, at all. That's why the city has gone the outside consultant route.
Global is not the right group, at least not now. With regard to the statement from Global that the city wasn't "behind our concept", I don't know that the city of Tulsa should put forth too much effort helping Global until they show that they have the money to get the project done, which to date they have not. I like their pictures and what they say, but what they have shown so far is that they can't raise the cash to actually buy the major pieces of land they have under contract. They had the Nordam site under contract and couldn't even raise a couple of hundred grand to keep the site under contract. Some of their projects in other cities have now fallen through as well. There are two developers interested in the east end, one doesn't seem to have any money and the other only builds Wal-Marts and they aren't expanding right now. Finding a new developer with money and a plan will take time, a lot more time than three or four weeks.
Jenks is having a hearing tonight on the TIF. Will be interesting to see what the tenor of the meeting is like. I don't doubt that it will be granted, but I can imagine a scenario where the revenue requirements for occupying a Jenks stadium are less than favorable, giving Tulsa a chance to bring a deal to the table that's more financially advantageous to the Drillers. A win-win, so to speak, where the River District happens sans stadium, Tulsa keeps its team, and the Drillers keep making money.
Meanwhile, while we pretend our team isn't getting stolen out from under us, here's a glowing article on downtown Des Moines, a Tulsa-type town (but smaller) with a new downtown ballpark. Anybody who thinks we're not behind the curve on core revitalization needs to perk up and pay attention--Tulsa has fallen behind her peer cities, and losing the Drillers to the suburbs will push us futher towards the back of the pack.
http://travel.nytimes.com/2007/12/02/travel/02journeys.html
quote:
A walk back across the Des Moines River offered a glimpse at the illuminated Beaux-Arts municipal buildings that line the riverfront. Downriver was Principal Park, a handsome Triple A ballpark for the Chicago Cubs farm team; the abandoned buildings that once surrounded the ballpark have been converted into condominiums. Downtown, the Kirkwood Corner, a legendary greasy spoon, is now a sushi restaurant. And — get this — the Rockettes are coming to town later this month for what is being advertised as their first performance in Des Moines.
I'm not sure I would go so far as to say that Des Moines has become a vacation destination. But it has most certainly become cool. More than that, if you have any desire to witness presidential candidates in the most close-up and intimate of settings, there is arguably no place better to go than Des Moines. If the city itself was once a reason not to come, it has now in fact become an added draw.
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
Jenks is having a hearing tonight on the TIF. Will be interesting to see what the tenor of the meeting is like. I don't doubt that it will be granted, but I can imagine a scenario where the revenue requirements for occupying a Jenks stadium are less than favorable, giving Tulsa a chance to bring a deal to the table that's more financially advantageous to the Drillers. A win-win, so to speak, where the River District happens sans stadium, Tulsa keeps its team, and the Drillers keep making money.
Meanwhile, while we pretend our team isn't getting stolen out from under us, here's a glowing article on downtown Des Moines, a Tulsa-type town (but smaller) with a new downtown ballpark. Anybody who thinks we're not behind the curve on core revitalization needs to perk up and pay attention--Tulsa has fallen behind her peer cities, and losing the Drillers to the suburbs will push us futher towards the back of the pack.
http://travel.nytimes.com/2007/12/02/travel/02journeys.html
quote:
A walk back across the Des Moines River offered a glimpse at the illuminated Beaux-Arts municipal buildings that line the riverfront. Downriver was Principal Park, a handsome Triple A ballpark for the Chicago Cubs farm team; the abandoned buildings that once surrounded the ballpark have been converted into condominiums. Downtown, the Kirkwood Corner, a legendary greasy spoon, is now a sushi restaurant. And — get this — the Rockettes are coming to town later this month for what is being advertised as their first performance in Des Moines.
I'm not sure I would go so far as to say that Des Moines has become a vacation destination. But it has most certainly become cool. More than that, if you have any desire to witness presidential candidates in the most close-up and intimate of settings, there is arguably no place better to go than Des Moines. If the city itself was once a reason not to come, it has now in fact become an added draw.
Agreed. I sure hope the mayor is working fast and furious behind the scenes on a plan to get the Drillers to move downtown instead of out to Jenks.
[EDITED]
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
[EDITED]
USRufnex, would you mind explaining your continued off-topic potshots at Oil Capital? I've gone back in the archives to try to figure out what he's said that has offended you so, and I can't see where he's dumped on Tulsa, on you, or on soccer.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelBates
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
[EDITED]
USRufnex, would you mind explaining your continued off-topic potshots at Oil Capital? I've gone back in the archives to try to figure out what he's said that has offended you so, and I can't see where he's dumped on Tulsa, on you, or on soccer.
explain to me why you deserve an explanation?
drillers, forget that? where's my money for the dams that you promised?
Moving on from the threadjackers (let's be civil here, people, there's a downtown on the line) . . .
This article was noted in the other thread but it is apropos here. Looks like there will at least be spirited discussion of the Jenks TIF, and possibily a citywide vote.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=071204_1_A1_hScho30735
quote:
The Jenks school board sent Superintendent Kirby Lehman to City Hall on Monday night to inform the City Council that the school district intends to lead an effort to bring to a public vote a plan that would divert millions of dollars in property taxes from the schools.
I haven't the foggiest idea what's involved in such a vote--procedure, timeline, etc.--but I do know that it would buy Tulsa more time to get its act together.
quote:
About an equal number of people spoke at the public hearing in favor of the TIF as spoke against it.
Jenks resident Danny Christner said The River District is a golden opportunity to become a premiere community.
"The time is ripe to upstage Tulsa," he said.
Steve Murphy, a Tulsa-area developer, said The River District is a wonderful opportunity for Jenks.
"They're taking a risk that no one else is willing to take on that hay field," Murphy said. "They're not going to be able to do this by themselves.
Just to recap--Jenks developers want to build a very nice, new, faux-urban sprawl center, and they want to steal the Drillers from Tulsa as the crown jewel of this suburban development. This "upstage Tulsa" stuff shows that it's an explicitly adversarial situation, like it or not. "Regionalism" is out the window, and so it's time for our MAYOR to step up and use her bully pulpit.
To the Taylor Administration (Himmelfarb, et al.):
I KNOW YOU PEOPLE READ THIS FORUM. LISTEN TO ME NOW. THERE IS NO TIME TO WASTE. GET ON THE PHONE AND FIND SOMEONE TO MAKE A CONCEPTUAL DRAWING OF A STADIUM IN THE EAST END OF TULSA'S DOWNTOWN. ANY STADIUM. ANYWHERE. ANYTHING TO AVOID LOSING THE PUBLIC RELATIONS BATTLE WITHOUT A FIGHT.Okay, hyperventilation over.
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
Moving on from the threadjackers (let's be civil here, people, there's a downtown on the line) . . .
This article was noted in the other thread but it is apropos here. Looks like there will at least be spirited discussion of the Jenks TIF, and possibily a citywide vote.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=071204_1_A1_hScho30735
quote:
The Jenks school board sent Superintendent Kirby Lehman to City Hall on Monday night to inform the City Council that the school district intends to lead an effort to bring to a public vote a plan that would divert millions of dollars in property taxes from the schools.
I haven't the foggiest idea what's involved in such a vote--procedure, timeline, etc.--but I do know that it would buy Tulsa more time to get its act together.
quote:
About an equal number of people spoke at the public hearing in favor of the TIF as spoke against it.
Jenks resident Danny Christner said The River District is a golden opportunity to become a premiere community.
"The time is ripe to upstage Tulsa," he said.
Steve Murphy, a Tulsa-area developer, said The River District is a wonderful opportunity for Jenks.
"They're taking a risk that no one else is willing to take on that hay field," Murphy said. "They're not going to be able to do this by themselves.
Just to recap--Jenks developers want to build a very nice, new, faux-urban sprawl center, and they want to steal the Drillers from Tulsa as the crown jewel of this suburban development. This "upstage Tulsa" stuff shows that it's an explicitly adversarial situation, like it or not. "Regionalism" is out the window, and so it's time for our MAYOR to step up and use her bully pulpit.
To the Taylor Administration (Himmelfarb, et al.):
I KNOW YOU PEOPLE READ THIS FORUM. LISTEN TO ME NOW. THERE IS NO TIME TO WASTE. GET ON THE PHONE AND FIND SOMEONE TO MAKE A CONCEPTUAL DRAWING OF A STADIUM IN THE EAST END OF TULSA'S DOWNTOWN. ANY STADIUM. ANYWHERE. ANYTHING TO AVOID LOSING THE PUBLIC RELATIONS BATTLE WITHOUT A FIGHT.
Okay, hyperventilation over.
:-) I share your frustration. I can't think of any development possibilities for downtown Tulsa that are (a) as possible and (b) as important as a Drillers Stadium. That absolutely needs to happen.
I appreciate your sentiment. It just seems like there's this general longing for baseball in our downtown, but we've been dawdling along too long and now the possibility is going to disappear for twenty years. To use a foobtall metaphor for the baseball situation: We're losing the game and time is running out, but we're still punting on fourth down instead of going for it.
I'll be interested to see what Jones-Lang-LaSalle has up their sleeve. The problem is that they'll also be tasked with solving the development deadlock in the Arena District, and I'll bet the mayor's office has asked them to prioritize that over finding a stadium developer.
But gosh, I'm just grasping at straws here. Maybe the Tulsa World should start asking questions about how exactly our leaders downtown are seeking to offset the massive attempts by the suburbs to leach off the resources of Tulsa proper. Or perhaps City Hall could issue a release stating specific goals with a timeline, instead of sending Himmelfarb around with vague promises of "things to come."
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
I appreciate your sentiment. It just seems like there's this general longing for baseball in our downtown, but we've been dawdling along too long and now the possibility is going to disappear for twenty years. To use a foobtall metaphor for the baseball situation: We're losing the game and time is running out, but we're still punting on fourth down instead of going for it.
I'll be interested to see what Jones-Lang-LaSalle has up their sleeve. The problem is that they'll also be tasked with solving the development deadlock in the Arena District, and I'll bet the mayor's office has asked them to prioritize that over finding a stadium developer.
But gosh, I'm just grasping at straws here. Maybe the Tulsa World should start asking questions about how exactly our leaders downtown are seeking to offset the massive attempts by the suburbs to leach off the resources of Tulsa proper. Or perhaps City Hall could issue a release stating specific goals with a timeline, instead of sending Himmelfarb around with vague promises of "things to come."
The Tulsa World asking questions of Tulsa city leaders... Do you suppose any of us will live so long?
Floyd, this is one of the reasons the aquarium is down in Jenks and not at 71st & Riverside. The city at times shows a total lack of enthusiasm for cultural enrichment unless it involves a bar. It seems to have been consistent through every mayoral administration.
The Drillers are an asset, AA ball or not.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelBates
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
[EDITED]
USRufnex, would you mind explaining your continued off-topic potshots at Oil Capital? I've gone back in the archives to try to figure out what he's said that has offended you so, and I can't see where he's dumped on Tulsa, on you, or on soccer.
I find a hidden bias. It's a subtle bias. It's really crafty, IMHO. Certainly more crafty than the days a year ago when this poster went on and on and on defending DAVAZ's umpteenth sockpuppet... I'd characterize it as "gently trashing Tulsa"...
It's the kind of thing that as long as what Tulsa's doing doesn't upstage OKC (who already has a AAA downtown ballpark), it's perfectly fine with him...
Won't happen again... got OC on ignore... [:P]
Back on topic, I haven't really posted on this thread, because I just don't have strong opinions on the Drillers moving to Jenks versus downtown...
I mean, they've been at the Fairgrounds for the last 75 years or so... if they want to move to a state-of-the-art stadium, I like the idea of a mixed-use TIF district whether it's in Tulsa (BTW, there's plenty of land by Hwy51 & Garnett off 169) or Jenks or BA... and it sounds like the Drillers don't want to be part of the possible Tulsa Landing project.
I mean, it's not like the Drillers would be moving to Claremore... or Muskogee... or Topeka...
But I do think downtown needs attraction... the arena will be part of that and a few other things need to go there too... Children's Museum? Omnimax Theatre? Ampatheatre? Ballpark?
The problem here is that downtown doesn't seem to get anything except a buncha unfulfilled plans... while BA gets Bass Pro and Jenks gets the Aquarium... something's gotta give...
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
Back on topic, I haven't really posted on this thread, because I just don't have strong opinions on the Drillers moving to Jenks versus downtown...
I mean, they've been at the Fairgrounds for the last 75 years or so... if they want to move to a state-of-the-art stadium, I like the idea of a mixed-use TIF district whether it's in Tulsa (BTW, there's plenty of land by Hwy51 & Garnett off 169) or Jenks or BA... and it sounds like the Drillers don't want to be part of the possible Tulsa Landing project.
I mean, it's not like the Drillers would be moving to Claremore... or Muskogee... or Topeka...
But I do think downtown needs attraction... the arena will be part of that and a few other things need to go there too... Children's Museum? Omnimax Theatre? Ampatheatre? Ballpark?
The problem here is that downtown doesn't seem to get anything except a buncha unfulfilled plans... while BA gets Bass Pro and Jenks gets the Aquarium... something's gotta give...
You don't just "get" stuff. Bass Pro courted Tulsa in 2001 but Tulsa refused to make the concessions necessary for the complex to be built. Broken Arrow assembled a group to work with them and coax the project to BA.
Susan Branch tried to get the Aquarium built in tulsa for 6 or 7 years. Again, Tulsa refused to step up. I have a few more that you don't even know about that fell apart because they either got resistance from the city or feared resistance.
We have gained the reputation of a city that is hard to work with, while Jenks and Broken Arrow are seen as growth friendly and far less political. Wow! all of the advantages of the Tulsa demographic without the pain of dealing with Tulsa.
We had the opportunity for a huge festival complex and House of Blues in 04' only to be shut down by the city because they feared it would put the arena project in jeopardy.
If you want to "get" attractions, it's time to look for elected officials that make that a strong part of their platform, and have the ability to make the concessions necessary for those companies to come to town. Some times those concessions will be distasteful to certain members of city government, but the people have to make it clear that it's time for Tulsa to "play ball" (no pun intended).
Unfortunately, I fear that Tulsa will have to kiss a lot of butts and heal a lot of wounds before they can be seen as a city ready for a project like that.
Oh, yeah. . .and fix some roads! But if it means increasing property tax, we're $cre#ed.
It's Susan Bramsch, not Branch.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
It's Susan Bramsch, not Branch.
Yeah, sorry, I always get her name wrong.
spoonbill..."You don't just "get" stuff."
Exactly. Now you're preachin' to the choir... [:D]
My perspective, naturally, is of an ex-Tulsan who loved his Roughnecks back in the day and has seen MLS soccer games in several cities... I moved back to Tulsa for family reasons in 2001 and was pleasantly surprised to find out Major League Soccer officials were still interested in Tulsa in 2002... over literally dozens of other larger markets...
I ended up shaking my head in amazement as Tulsans went nuts over LaFortune attempting to use $100k in funds to do a feasability study requested by MLS to see if interest was still there. It was as if Lamar Hunt believed in Tulsa when nobody else did (Hunt coined the term "Super Bowl" and was known in soccer circles as "Uncle Lamar"... he passed away last year)...
I believe there's a toxic negativism in this city... something I don't recognize compared to the years when I was growing up here.
People in this city seem determined to make the perfect the enemy of the good.
Frankly, I hope Jenks passes this TIF and "upstages Tulsa." Tulsa deserves to be upstaged at this point. Approximately 30% of the city of Chicago is now made up of TIF districts... it's my opinion that Tulsa's TIFs have been on too small a scale to be really effective...
As posted in the thread on the River District: http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=071218_1_A19_hAfte02577
Time's up. Seems almost certain that Lamson takes the Drillers out of the city. What has Tulsa done to hand him a viable option? Nothing. Sad day for downtown. We see what happens in a leadership vacuum. This sickens me.
Don Himmelfarb: don't let the door hit you on the way out. Take your vague, empty promises elsewhere.
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
As posted in the thread on the River District: http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=071218_1_A19_hAfte02577
Time's up. Seems almost certain that Lamson takes the Drillers out of the city. What has Tulsa done to hand him a viable option? Nothing. Sad day for downtown. We see what happens in a leadership vacuum. This sickens me.
Don Himmelfarb: don't let the door hit you on the way out. Take your vague, empty promises elsewhere.
Should it become necessary for you to eat those words, which I think will happen, would you prefer mustard or mayo?
I'll take them with some horseradish on rye.
I certainly hope I'm wrong. But I'm trying to avoid being a starry-eyed optimist on this one. I would like to believe that there are active machinations behind the scenes that involve a beautiful new stadium on 2nd Street. Without knowing any inside information, and given what I've seen this administration produce thus far, though, I'll be happily surprised if so much as a new rendering for an East End/Blue Dome stadium is shown publicly in the next 90 days.
EDIT: All I need to give Himmelfarb and Taylor the benefit of the doubt is a statement to the effect of: "The City of Tulsa is actively working on alternative stadium plans that will keep the Drillers in Tulsa and will present them publicly when they are ready." Just let us, and Chuck, know that the City is trying, so we can continue to keep up the public pressure. I'm not going to keep writing emails if Tulsa isn't going to give the team a viable option.
When they decided to hire a firm to do an over all development strategy for downtown and the area around the river, it seemed to me that was a punt. Its safer and easier to say, "we are doing studies" versus actually making any descisions or doing any work. I get the feeling that any large developments along the river in Tulsa or in downtown are dead for the forseable future.
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
I'll take them with some horseradish on rye.
Well, you got good taste, I'll give you that. [:P]
quote:
Originally posted by AVERAGE JOE
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
As posted in the thread on the River District: http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=071218_1_A19_hAfte02577
Time's up. Seems almost certain that Lamson takes the Drillers out of the city. What has Tulsa done to hand him a viable option? Nothing. Sad day for downtown. We see what happens in a leadership vacuum. This sickens me.
Don Himmelfarb: don't let the door hit you on the way out. Take your vague, empty promises elsewhere.
Should it become necessary for you to eat those words, which I think will happen, would you prefer mustard or mayo?
Joe, what do you know? Can you divulge? GDP is obviously done as per the response Floyd and I received from them. Here is what I got back:
"when this came in, I was unsure as to how to respond. I appreciate your interest and I also agree with your thoughts regarding our proposal. I further agree that a Wal-mart would destroy any chance of revitalization of the Downtown.
However, the land is still under contract with the Wal-mart developer, so there is not much we can do. We bought one city block and are trying to figure out what to do with it.
Feel free to follow up, but I think the current administration is going to have to step up to something regarding this."
Tulsa has two things to add to the incentive pot.
Jack
and
Squat.
Welcome your new Jenks Drillers....or maybe they will rename them the Jenks Riverwalkers....or Jenks Antiquers.
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
Tulsa has two things to add to the incentive pot.
Jack
and
Squat.
Welcome your new Jenks Drillers....or maybe they will rename them the Jenks Riverwalkers....or Jenks Antiquers.
Wrong.
Tulsa can offer the Drillers lower rent and better digs.
First, lower rent: the Jenks TIF is going to require that the stadium be under the ownership of a tax-paying entity, either the Drillers themselves or Lynn Mitchell's ownership group. This means that the team will be facing a substantial hike in rent if they move to the suburbs. Tulsa is already in the real estate business and in this case could place the stadium under city ownership, just as current Drillers Stadium is owned by the county. Then they could set up a deal just like the current county, where the City would ask for cheap rent and a cut of concessions. Hell, they could even place the land under County ownership for a pittance and ensure that it is sales tax free in perpetuity. So put THAT in your incentive pot, bro.
Second, the Jenks stadium is going to be small and semi-isolated. I don't know what size stadium the (hypothetical) Tulsa baseball developers would consider, but it would be more than 7,000, considering the downtown draw and alternative venue potential (see, e.g., the Willie Nelson/Bob Dylan show in 2004). If I'm not mistaken, the Global plan was for 8500, and a more ambitious builder might shoot for Triple-A capacity in case a club opens up in the future. Further, all the access infrastructure is in place (that underutilized Inner Dispersal Loop). More seats + more access = more revenue. So, um, add that to your incentive list as well, my man.
At this point it is self-evident that a downtown ballpark is more desirable than a suburban location. The only question is whether Tulsa cares to give Drillers ownership that option. Don't pretend, all things being equal, that the Drillers would choose the suburbs over downtown. My complaint is that we aren't giving them that choice.
hahahaha.....I laugh at the futile grasping of straws.
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
hahahaha.....I laugh at the futile grasping of straws.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Ignorance is bliss, so I can see why you're giddy.
This from today's Tulsa World...
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectID=11&articleID=071222_1_A1_spanc70268
Drillers noncommittal despite Jenks TIF
'Downtown puts them near an awful lot of population. Over 30,000 people work downtown. It's a high-profile location, given the arena.' Don Himelfarb on the Drillers and downtown Tulsa
By SUSAN HYLTON World Staff Writer
12/22/2007
The future home of the Tulsa Drillers is undetermined despite approval of a tax increment financing district that advances plans for a $1 billion attraction in Jenks, which includes plans for a baseball stadium. River District Development Group President Lynn Mitchell said there is nothing to announce yet regarding the Drillers. He said negotiations with the minor-league team are ongoing.
Meanwhile, the city of Tulsa wants to see the Drillers stay in Tulsa and move from their Expo Square location to downtown. Economic Development Director Don Himelfarb said the city has been negotiating with the team for nearly a year. "Downtown puts them near an awful lot of population. Over 30,000 people work downtown. It's a high-profile location, given the arena. We think it speaks to the vibrancy and the well-being of the city," Himelfarb said. He would not discuss possible downtown locations. "We have looked at every square inch of property that exists within the Inner Dispersal Loop," Himelfarb said.
Tulsa has hired a national firm to help market several potential development sites downtown. Two of the sites being marketed by the firm are large enough to house a stadium. One site encompasses 11 acres in the East Village. The other site is the 22-acre Evans-Fintube property, which is north of Archer Street between Oklahoma State University-Tulsa and U.S. 75. That site, however, is connected to Community Development Block Grant funding and may have development restrictions.
The Drillers signed a nonbinding letter of intent with the River District Development Group in August to create a 7,000-seat ballpark within the 300-acre, multifaceted venue in Jenks. Drillers President Chuck Lamson said after that announcement was made that the letter did not prohibit the team from looking at other opportunities. Lamson did not return phone calls this week.
The Tulsa City Council in August passed a resolution in support of keeping the team in Tulsa, and Tulsa Mayor Kathy Taylor has vowed to do everything she can to make that happen.
Mitchell previously has said his research shows that the largest number of attendees to Drillers games share the River District's 74037 ZIP code in Jenks. The second-largest group has a Broken Arrow ZIP code, he said. Mitchell thinks a Jenks location would double the team's attendance. The Drillers are on a year-to-year contract at the fairgrounds, with the option of staying through 2012.
The Jenks City Council approved an 18-year TIF district for the River District Development Group on Monday. It diverts as much as $294 million in property and sales taxes earned within the district to pay for infrastructure costs of the development. In addition to a baseball stadium, plans call for 852,000 square feet of retail space, condominiums, hotels, offices, restaurants and a lake the size of a football field. No retailers have been announced, but Mitchell said developers want to draw companies that would be new to the region, such as Nordstrom's or Crate and Barrel. Mitchell said the group plans to break ground in March.
Why do we want the baseball stadium downtown? I would rather spend the time, money and effort on creating a wonderful urban neighborhood where people live, work, shop, enjoy the arts and other entertainment options. A huge baseball stadium and its requisite parking would take up a lot of space. Now if it were just off to the north in the Fintube property, fine. But to plop it right down in the middle of where a liveable, walkable, urban district could be made would be a waste for that part of downtown imo. The NW corner of downtown was a great place to put the arena for instance, its off in the corner where there are lots of other large, pedestrian unfriendly structures are. Yet you simply exit the building and in front of you is the start of what can become a more pedestrian friendly are. People dont like walking past large parking lots, parking garages, prisons, etc., or even an arena. Nor do they want to walk past a baseball stadium and its parking to get from one place to another, one shop or restaurant to another. We talk about how the IDL breaks up the streetscape and connectivity. Placing a stadium and its parking in the wrong spot can be even worse. Many complained about the Wal-Mart and how it would destroy the walkable fabric and the urban neighborhood we are trying to create in that area. Wouldnt a baseball stadium and its parking be even larger and worse? At least with the Wal-Mart there would be more people at more times than just the few times a year, in the evenings when a baseball game or some other rare event is going on.
Do we want to create a downtown that relies on spillover before and after a few games to go to shops and restaurants? Or do we want a sustainable, liveable, "urban village" with lots of people living in the area that support the local businesses naturally? Then including within and around that an arts district, college campuses, offices, parks, etc.
Even in the River District and the proposed Tulsa Landing developments they placed the baseball stadium, wisely imo, off to the side away from where you want the pedestrian friendly, living, part. Close enough to walk to and from each, but not bisecting or creating a gap in the middle.
What kind of downtown do we want? A place thats primarily visited by office dwellers then empties? A place that is visited by people going to the clubs and events at the arena, then empties? Or a place that is lively, beautiful, walkable and liveable all of the time? The more things that draw people downtown the better of course. But something that large that will be used so little put in the wrong place can do more harm than good IF you want to create a real urban neighborhood downtown where people will want to live, and not just a grouping of "attractions".
Is this a place thats visited by suburbanites? Or lived in by people who want that city lifestyle? It can have both, but the balance of how much of each is important. I want it to be more of a real liveable, city than a place that is visited. And where we place the mix of those different things is also important.
I frankly think that baseball stadiums are "middle America" tacky right along with truck pulls, gun shows, and car racing. Though popular to many people, I dont think those are the kinds of things the typical urban city dwellers are crying out for, and I wouldnt want it in the middle of my downtown neighborhood. But I guess its going to boil down to what kind of vision each of us has for downtown? Is it the people who want to live in a city/urban environment who are wanting this baseball stadium downtown? Or is it the suburban family types idea for what they imagine a downtown as having? Do we want to spend our time and treasure creating a downtown that has things downtown living people would want so we can attract more of them, or what suburban type people who dont have an urban lifestyle mindset and priorities, want?
Whose voices are we going to give more weight to when considering what to do in downtown, those that live there and would like to live there, or those who do not live there and would never want to live there? Are these voices for a baseball stadium, urbanites or suburbanites, pushing their desires and perspectives for a downtown that will be attractive to them? Each different group may have very different priorities on what they want or what would make an attractive downtown.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
Why do we want the baseball stadium downtown? I would rather spend the time, money and effort on creating a wonderful urban neighborhood where people live, work, shop, enjoy the arts and other entertainment options. A huge baseball stadium and its requisite parking would take up a lot of space. Now if it were just off to the north in the Fintube property, fine. But to plop it right down in the middle of where a liveable, walkable, urban district could be made would be a waste for that part of downtown imo. The NW corner of downtown was a great place to put the arena for instance, its off in the corner where there are lots of other large, pedestrian unfriendly structures are. Yet you simply exit the building and in front of you is the start of what can become a more pedestrian friendly are. People dont like walking past large parking lots, parking garages, prisons, etc., or even an arena. Nor do they want to walk past a baseball stadium and its parking to get from one place to another, one shop or restaurant to another. We talk about how the IDL breaks up the streetscape and connectivity. Placing a stadium and its parking in the wrong spot can be even worse. Many complained about the Wal-Mart and how it would destroy the walkable fabric and the urban neighborhood we are trying to create in that area. Wouldnt a baseball stadium and its parking be even larger and worse? At least with the Wal-Mart there would be more people at more times than just the few times a year, in the evenings when a baseball game or some other rare event is going on.
Do we want to create a downtown that relies on spillover before and after a few games to go to shops and restaurants? Or do we want a sustainable, liveable, "urban village" with lots of people living in the area that support the local businesses naturally? Then including within and around that an arts district, college campuses, offices, parks, etc.
Even in the River District and the proposed Tulsa Landing developments they placed the baseball stadium, wisely imo, off to the side away from where you want the pedestrian friendly, living, part. Close enough to walk to and from each, but not bisecting or creating a gap in the middle.
What kind of downtown do we want? A place thats primarily visited by office dwellers then empties? A place that is visited by people going to the clubs and events at the arena, then empties? Or a place that is lively, beautiful, walkable and liveable all of the time? The more things that draw people downtown the better of course. But something that large that will be used so little put in the wrong place can do more harm than good IF you want to create a real urban neighborhood downtown where people will want to live, and not just a grouping of "attractions".
Is this a place thats visited by suburbanites? Or lived in by people who want that city lifestyle? It can have both, but the balance of how much of each is important. I want it to be more of a real liveable, city than a place that is visited. And where we place the mix of those different things is also important.
I frankly think that baseball stadiums are "middle America" tacky right along with truck pulls, gun shows, and car racing. Though popular to many people, I dont think those are the kinds of things the typical urban city dwellers are crying out for, and I wouldnt want it in the middle of my downtown neighborhood. But I guess its going to boil down to what kind of vision each of us has for downtown? Is it the people who want to live in a city/urban environment who are wanting this baseball stadium downtown? Or is it the suburban family types idea for what they imagine a downtown as having? Do we want to spend our time and treasure creating a downtown that has things downtown living people would want so we can attract more of them, or what suburban type people who dont have an urban lifestyle mindset and priorities, want?
Whose voices are we going to give more weight to when considering what to do in downtown, those that live there and would like to live there, or those who do not live there and would never want to live there? Are these voices for a baseball stadium, urbanites or suburbanites, pushing their desires and perspectives for a downtown that will be attractive to them? Each different group may have very different priorities on what they want or what would make an attractive downtown.
Dang, you're wordy! But you make some very astute remarks. I'm not sure the answers are going to be forthcoming as these things seem to be decided without much public input. In the big picture, the Drillers would be comfy and successful in either location as their baseline support will endure reasonable travel to enjoy. Much like someone who wants a Maytag washer will bypass more convenient areas to find one.
Given that, it seems like a decision that will be made over cocktails, around lowcut dresses, amid lots of cigar smoke. The best offer takes them and I think Jenks has more to regret if they lose the team than we do.
We want the Drillers downtown because we want people downtown.
We want people downtown because we want downtown to be healthy and vibrant.
We want downtown to be healthy and vibrant because that directly reflects on the city as a whole.
The better question is, why are you trying to build a whole new fake city in a hay field, 12 miles from the real thing?
I know why Lynn Mitchell is doing it: to get rich. More individuals make more money when the land is cheap and the government picks up the infrastructure tab. That is the driving force behind American sprawl. I only have a problem with sprawl when it sucks the life out of the urban core. Why are you buying into Mitchell's suburban greed at the expense of the region?
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
hahahaha.....I laugh at the futile grasping of straws.
Giggle all you want. And then go flunk Business 101. These are real concerns, and, as you see, the Drillers is still waiting on the city to present a plan.
Lamson signing a non-binding letter of intent to move to Jenks, as we all said from the start, is leverage on Tulsa. We shall see soon if any crowbar is big enough to break development deadlock in downtown.
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
We want the Drillers downtown because we want people downtown.
We want people downtown because we want downtown to be healthy and vibrant.
We want downtown to be healthy and vibrant because that directly reflects on the city as a whole.
The better question is, why are you trying to build a whole new fake city in a hay field, 12 miles from the real thing?
I know why Lynn Mitchell is doing it: to get rich. More individuals make more money when the land is cheap and the government picks up the infrastructure tab. That is the driving force behind American sprawl. I only have a problem with sprawl when it sucks the life out of the urban core. Why are you buying into Mitchell's suburban greed at the expense of the region?
I understand your desire to see downtown flourish, I want Tulsa to have a great downtown as well. But I think we have some differences in perspective on some things. So here is another wordy response, but just trying to get a point across that doesnt seem to be registering. Its like arguing with those people who complain that downtown doesnt have enough parking. They dont get "urban" places.
For one, sprawl does not suck the life out of the urban core. Some people want to live in the suburbs and have a suburban lifestyle, some people want to live in a dense urban area. They are different types of people with different likes and preferences. People who want to live in a city environment are not the ones flocking to the suburbs away from downtown.
When I look at places that have real, urban districts and central cores, those places are bustling because lots of people want to linger in those areas, live in those areas. An area can have attractions, but attractions do not make an urban environment. Lots of people do not an urban district make. Six Flags is lively but it is not urban. We have tens of thousands of people that already go downtown to work, but then they leave. Lots of people working in an area do not make it a real urban environment. Perhaps for an hour before and after work, and during lunch it has that "alive" feel to it. Adding a few more hours in the evening on the few evenings something would be going on at the ballpark would not really do anything either. How many people would that baseball stadium have brought to do downtown this month? last month? next month? Having a bunch of people hopping in their cars going to a game then hopping in their cars and going home, perhaps a number of them going to a restaurant or club before or after does not create an urban environment. A real lively urban environment doesnt just have people popping in and out on occasion.
I was looking at a photo someone on another forum posted of a new library, in OKC I believe. They were all proud of how it looked. I thought it looked horrible, not because it was an ugly building per say, but because it was so pedestrian unfriendly. Much of the building at street level was a stark, boring wall, the entrance was boring, the streetscaping around it looked stark and uninviting. Next to it was a large parking garage, again nothing you or anyone else would want to walk past or that would entice someone to "stay and linger" for a while. You know how you hear suburbanites complain about how there is no parking downtown in Tulsa? Yet people who live in a "normal" city think thats absurd and that there is pleeeenty of parking? That downtown library was designed by a "suburban thinker". The suburban person wants and expects to drive up and park right next to a place, go inside, then go back outside to their car and drive someplace else. That downtown library was not urban in design, it was essentially suburbanity done BIG. The person drives up and parkes in a BIG parking lot/garage, then goes in a BIG building, then gets back in their car and drives away. BIG does not equal urban.
Lively urban places and streets are pedestrian oriented not car oriented. Lively urban places are filled with people walking to and from places not driving to and from work, shopping, school, cafes and restaurants, entertainment, parks, church, friends, the barber, home, the library... etc. Lively urban places are NEIGHBORHOODS, urban main streets where people live. They live their lives on those streets.
Again, the people who want to live in a city environment are not the ones flocking to the suburbs away from downtown. If we want people to live in our downtown we need to do things that will make it a place those urban dwellers want to live in and can live in. A baseball stadium will not do that, nor will a mall, or a theme park or any number of things that I can think of that would get people to "visit" our downtown. The best thing we are doing and that we need more of is to keep turning those large buildings into lofts and condos. We have seen that a huge number of offices and work places do not make a lively downtown, adding a bunch more things that will only attract people to "visit" will also not create a true urban environment. By adding more places for people to live, other businesses will begin to follow and urban dwellers will begin to see downtown as the kind of real urban environment they want and then the city will begin to grow that way. A baseball stadium will not entice me to live there. Focusing on things like a baseball stadium misses the point. Its like that library I talked about, it wont create an urban environment where people want to live. A person who would see that library as a great addition to a downtown shows that they do not understand what creates a bustling street or urban core. Not only are they doing the wrong thing, they are not able to see, and thus working towards, what should be done instead. If your thinking a baseball stadium will help downtown, it shows me that you dont know what makes a real downtown and thus you will not be pushing for the things that do.
Lets not waste our thought, time and treasure on gimmicky crap. Lets build a real city, with real streets, a real urban core. Look at cities that have the kind of density and walkable, lively areas we want downtown to be like. Even in a place like Paris there are areas that work and areas that do not. Many of the old areas that follow tried and true types of growth have bustling sidewalks. But if you look at areas that follow the contemporary fads, they are desolate and devoid of life. Look at why one street is always bustling and another is not. That "fake city" River District will have busier sidewalks than downtown Tulsa will have, even without the Baseball Stadium. The Baseball stadium will not make that development a lively place with lots of people out and about, the "main street" design and mix of shops, businesses, offices, living, etc. will. Downtown Tulsa can and should be more real and urban and bustling than that. Panicking over a baseball stadium is missing the mark.
Downtown Tulsa should not even be considering worrying about competing with places like the River District or a Tulsa Landing. Downtown Tulsa should be shooting for a completely different demographic, offering something so very different. Let those places attract the people they will. Steady progress in the right direction is fine. Once a beautiful, proper downtown is created, it will be bustling and cherished for ages.
I was away from computers for a little while, but I'm back now.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
Quote
sprawl does not suck the life out of the urban core.
Except when it steals the minor league franchise from a city.
Look man, I agree with your basic points, although you're far too wordy in making them. :) But your denial of the fact that baseball stadiums spur downtown development borders on the absurd. Have you not been to McNellie's? Do you not the see the vast swaths of NOTHING down there? It's NEVER getting filled in unless major, subsidized commercial development occurs. NEVER. GETTING. FILLED. IN. Why can't you see that? Why do you think downtown doesn't need baseball, and that it could be a negative?
This is why there is a sense of urgency regarding the stadium. The Drillers could be the PERFECT filler. It worked in OKC. Worked in Little Rock. Worked freaking EVERYWHERE. BASEBALL TEAMS ALWAYS HELP DOWNTOWNS AND DOWNTOWNS ALWAYS HELP BASEBALL TEAMS. Yes, those caps mean I'm raising my voice, because as much as I respect you and others who don't get the urgency of the situation, you're being very dense on this, so let me once again make the very basic points . . .
1) There is lots of space downtown that will never be filled without major, TIF-subsidized, mixed-use commercial development.
2) A baseball stadium is a proven way to spur major mixed-use commercial development. It works everywhere it is tried.
3) There just so HAPPENS to be a minor league team in this town looking to relocate to a new stadium. Soon. They might rather move downtown, but will probably move to the suburbs because that appears to be their only option.
PERFECT MIX OF NEED AND OPPORTUNITY.
AND YET IT IS GOING AWAY.
There are only two reasons this might not bother you. You're either ignoring urban development realities, or you just don't care about the development of downtown. I think you're so excited about this little suburban playground they're going to build out in a hay field that you're rationalizing the fact that it's going to occur to the direct detriment of downtown Tulsa. But that's just a guess.
The downtown baseball stadium in San Francisco spurred development in an area that was struggling. Same with Denver and St. Louis and Baltimore and Pittsburgh.
I have walked back to my downtown hotel in each of these cities with hundreds of fans through an area of clubs and restaurants and new development.
Downtown baseball works.
Might I just add.....
"Beisbol been very very good to me" spoken by a famous retired player from somewhere in the southern hemisphere.
p.s.
For those that have noticed (http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y179/rico2/sprawl.jpg)
sucks.....!
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
I was away from computers for a little while, but I'm back now.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
Quote
sprawl does not suck the life out of the urban core.
Except when it steals the minor league franchise from a city.
Look man, I agree with your basic points, although you're far too wordy in making them. :) But your denial of the fact that baseball stadiums spur downtown development borders on the absurd. Have you not been to McNellie's? Do you not the see the vast swaths of NOTHING down there? It's NEVER getting filled in unless major, subsidized commercial development occurs. NEVER. GETTING. FILLED. IN. Why can't you see that? Why do you think downtown doesn't need baseball, and that it could be a negative?
This is why there is a sense of urgency regarding the stadium. The Drillers could be the PERFECT filler. It worked in OKC. Worked in Little Rock. Worked freaking EVERYWHERE. BASEBALL TEAMS ALWAYS HELP DOWNTOWNS AND DOWNTOWNS ALWAYS HELP BASEBALL TEAMS. Yes, those caps mean I'm raising my voice, because as much as I respect you and others who don't get the urgency of the situation, you're being very dense on this, so let me once again make the very basic points . . .
1) There is lots of space downtown that will never be filled without major, TIF-subsidized, mixed-use commercial development.
2) A baseball stadium is a proven way to spur major mixed-use commercial development. It works everywhere it is tried.
3) There just so HAPPENS to be a minor league team in this town looking to relocate to a new stadium. Soon. They might rather move downtown, but will probably move to the suburbs because that appears to be their only option.
PERFECT MIX OF NEED AND OPPORTUNITY.
AND YET IT IS GOING AWAY.
There are only two reasons this might not bother you. You're either ignoring urban development realities, or you just don't care about the development of downtown. I think you're so excited about this little suburban playground they're going to build out in a hay field that you're rationalizing the fact that it's going to occur to the direct detriment of downtown Tulsa. But that's just a guess.
I bet that development in Jenks will do perfecly well without the baseball stadium. It would do well in downtown, though not as well because of the demographics.
You stated "major, TIF-subsidized, mixed-use commercial development" I agree that we need mixed use development. A baseball stadium by itself is not a major mixed use development.
You say that a baseball stadium spurs mixed use development wherever it is tried. I dont see it spurring anything of the kind where it is at now?
Why would it be any different there?
I see more people steadily going to the small Target over there than to the baseball games. We need a grocery store downtown. Yet the same people that were against the Wal-Mart, apartments, structured parking, possible other shops are now for a baseball stadium?
Are we also going to have structured parking for the stadium? If we are to have a baseball stadium I would prefer to pay for structured parking along with it so that you dont end up with an even larger swath of land thats not used most of the time. At least structured parking can be used during the day and months of the year when there are no baseball games and not leave a sea of desolation the rest of the time. And please let it look nice and have businesses or something around it or at ground level. Honestly the only cities I have ever been to the baseball stadium and the area immediately around it was like a graveyard, including OKC, or there was no baseball stadium that I ever saw.
Anyone know what Jamie Jamesons opinion is on this matter?
Ok. I decided to see what could be creatively done to make a ballpark part of what I want downtown to be like. An urban walkable neighborhood. I have to head to dinner here in a bit but I have already run across some very interesting designs.
I do NOT want anything like this...
http://z.about.com/d/architecture/1/7/h/i/DolphinStadium.jpg
However... I would become excited about something along these lines.
http://greensboring.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1890
http://www.newurbannews.com/MeriamBallparkMar05.html
http://www.ballparkwatch.com/stadiums/new/frisco.htm
http://www.livelyomaha.org/Civic_Omaha/NorthDowntown.html
will do some more searching
"You say that a baseball stadium spurs mixed use development wherever it is tried. I dont see it spurring anything of the kind where it is at now?
Why would it be any different there? " < The Artist
Have you considered the zoning and the amount of residential property around the existing field?
Then their is the County/City Fairgrounds property...
Makes me wonder......
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
The downtown baseball stadium in San Francisco spurred development in an area that was struggling. Same with Denver and St. Louis and Baltimore and Pittsburgh.
I have walked back to my downtown hotel in each of these cities with hundreds of fans through an area of clubs and restaurants and new development.
Downtown baseball works.
Dont forget San Diego. Petco park is beautiful, not to mention the weather there is amazing. San Diego definitely did it right. One of the best baseball stadiums I have been too. (and I have been to over 15).
quote:
Originally posted by TUalum0982
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
The downtown baseball stadium in San Francisco spurred development in an area that was struggling. Same with Denver and St. Louis and Baltimore and Pittsburgh.
I have walked back to my downtown hotel in each of these cities with hundreds of fans through an area of clubs and restaurants and new development.
Downtown baseball works.
Dont forget San Diego. Petco park is beautiful, not to mention the weather there is amazing. San Diego definitely did it right. One of the best baseball stadiums I have been too. (and I have been to over 15).
Goodness, that ballpark is exactly the kind of design I am afraid we will get in that area of downtown.
Let me state something here, IF the ballpark were just north of downtown where that factory is now... Great, I dont care what kind of design it is. IF the ballpark were to be placed somewhere in the NW part of downtown... Great, I do not care what kind of design it is. HOWEVER, if your going to put it where the East End development was to be or where the Hartford building is, Then it would need to be designed so that it will fit into a pedestrian friendly urban area.
Say you put shopping around a stadium and put it where the factory is or in the NW part of downtown. The shopping would tank because nobody would go over there just for those few shops when there was not a game, it wouldnt be able to be part of or near any other walkable area. The arena is ok because its main entrance faces away from the parking garages, prison, convention center,etc. There is property to its "front" that can be developed, "like the Heavenly Hospitality hotel design" into a pedestrian friendly area and leads to Main Street, Boston Ave, etc.
The area in the East End or where the Hartford Building is, is one of the best areas for development of a pedestrian friendly urban neighborhood. It sits right in the middle of the 6th street corridor area, Blue Dome district and the rest of central downtown, and the hoped for renewal of the Greenwood Historical district.
People fought vehemently against the Wal-Mart and one of the main reasons was because of its size and importantly because it would destroy the potential of that area to become a walkable, pedestrian friendly place to live.
Now that I have seen that a ballpark can be designed to be incorporated into the urban fabric of a walkable district, I would not at all be against a ballpark there, as long as it fit with what so many people have been pushing for in that area.
In a nutshell..
Downtown ballpark great... BUT, the design must pay attention to what it is near and what is wanted in that area.
Even if the city were to put in another structured parking garage somewhere. In some places it would be stupid to put in ground floor retail, but in some places it would be incredibly important in order to not create a gap in a walkable area or a hoped for walkable area.
Something like these would be fine north of downtown where the old factory is or in NW downtown were there is already so many "pedestrian unfriendly" structures it would be practically impossible to ever turn that area into one.
(http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/5705/dolphinstadiumuu3.jpg)
(http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/386/petco1ze7.jpg)
(http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/6351/stadiumscomiskeyparkphoab8.jpg)
If you were to place a stadium in the East End or where the Hartfor building is, then it should be designed with the expectation that it will fit in with a walkable urban village.
Look at this design for a California Ballpark.
"The ballpark's signature feature would be its enclosure on all sides by three- and four-story buildings that would house some combination of offices, retail shops and attached residences (town houses and row houses)." "The grandstands would be backed by retail and office buildings that would open on to Main Street." "Home or office buildings would be located in center and right-center fields and would have unique views of the ball park from the rear windows on the second and/or third floors." " In order to prevent the ballpark from impeding pedestrian traffic in and around the Town Center, designers have proposed a concourse beyond the center-field fence (at the base of the town houses) that would be open for public passage."The buildings surrounding the outfield would create a sense of urban enclosure similar to that prevailing at Camden Yards and legendary Wrigley Field in Chicago. This is not surprising as two of the major contributors to the ballpark designs are New Urban architects Seth Harry (of Baltimore) and Philip Bess (who has spent most of his recent life within walking distance of the Cubs' home in North Chicago). Bess is a professor of architecture at Notre Dame who began his crusade for more intimate, city-centered ball parks.." http://www.tndwest.com/id40.html
(http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/9173/towncenter2wg2.jpg)
(http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/3816/interiorcfterracebx7.jpg)
(http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/1878/colorfacadejpgw300h204bl0.jpg)
Here is one for Winston Salem in which surrounding storefronts are integrated into the ballpark.
(http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/2711/winstonsalemballparkni3.jpg)
Here is one designed for Omaha
(http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/4930/omahaperspectiveballparkr4.jpg)
From the Omaha website... http://www.livelyomaha.org/Civic_Omaha/NorthDowntown.html
The plan is the result of an 18-month study, commissioned by the City of Omaha and the Greater Omaha Chamber of Commerce, designed to establish a redevelopment plan for Omaha...The area will be transformed into a lively, mixed-use, PEDESTRIAN-ORIENTED URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD. Sixteenth Street will evolve into a major north-south WALKABLE CORRIDOR, and Webster Street, between Creighton University and the Riverfront, will evolve into a major east-west PEDESTRIAN ROUTE.
I guess what I am essentially trying to get at is that for the East End area we should have a "Form Based Code" ballpark. In other words, it doesnt matter what is in the building or what it is, as long as it does not disrupt the urban fabric and helps create a pleasing, walkable, pedestrian friendly, environment. If its off in some corner somewhere or out of the way, then it doesn't really matter what the design is.
quote:
Originally posted by TUalum0982
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
The downtown baseball stadium in San Francisco spurred development in an area that was struggling. Same with Denver and St. Louis and Baltimore and Pittsburgh.
I have walked back to my downtown hotel in each of these cities with hundreds of fans through an area of clubs and restaurants and new development.
Downtown baseball works.
Dont forget San Diego. Petco park is beautiful, not to mention the weather there is amazing. San Diego definitely did it right. One of the best baseball stadiums I have been too. (and I have been to over 15).
I could build a ****ing outhouse in downtown San Diego and it would be the best outhouse ever built because it is in San Diego.
Tulsa != San Diego. Apples to oranges yadda yadda.
And BTW, the weather in San Diego is not all the great....too cold from the ocean and too sunny.
I love how all the ballparks people like have absolutely no parking anywhere else on the page.
Unless of course they are insinuating that no one cares to watch the Drillers play.
in the case of petco park, the parking garage is across the street and is a huge structure shared by the convention center and several hotels.
quote:
Originally posted by TeeDub
I love how all the ballparks people like have absolutely no parking anywhere else on the page.
Unless of course they are insinuating that no one cares to watch the Drillers play.
Thats exactly the point. The parking is there, its often just hidden. Most of the ones I have seen that I like have parking garages that have retail and office buildings wrapped around them so they are hidden and do not disturb the walkability and appearance of an area. Some parking garages can be really large but have condos or apartments wrapped around the outside. I believe the River District will have some structured parking, not for the ballpark since its off to the side, but a lot of the parking will be hidden.
Parking concerns are a red herring. Downtown baseball works, and Tulsa needs it. Now it's time to push the momentum.
Missed this during my vacation, but now Dave Sittler's on board:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/sports/article.aspx?articleID=071223_2_B1_spanc55567
quote:
Wishing for downtown Drillers, hoops
by: DAVE SITTLER World Sports Columnist
12/23/2007 12:00 AM
ALL I want for Christmas is my two front seats.
Topping my wish list this holiday season is the fervent hope two press conferences will be held in 2008 for announcements that will have a dramatic impact on Tulsa's sports landscape.
I want to be in the front row when Chuck Lamson confirms that he's moving the Tulsa Drillers downtown instead of out of town. And I'll be front and center when the Tulsa Sports Commission reveals it has put together a dynamite basketball tournament for the new BOK Center.
The hope for the hoops event probably has the best chance of coming true. Call me greedy, but granting just one of those wishes won't cut it.
Mayor Kathy Taylor and Economic Development Director Don Himelfarb simply cannot fail in their attempt to convince Lamson to move his minor-league franchise to the heart of the city instead of Jenks.
Lamson has to play ball, too.
Four months ago, I joined the fence-sitting crowd when I wrote that while I desperately want the Drillers to stay within the city limits, I understood Lamson has to make the best long-term business decision for his team.
To heck with that weak-kneed stance. I've now jumped off the fence and stand squarely and firmly alongside those who want Lamson to make the best long-term decision for this city. My stance changed when developers scrapped plans to build a Wal-Mart Supercenter in the eastern part of downtown as part of a proposal to redevelop the East Village.
Lamson has acknowledged that the site where Wal-Mart planned to build was the spot where he had long hoped the city would build a new stadium for the Drillers.
Well, that piece of property is once again available. And building a baseball stadium on it would be an absolute home run in the city's efforts to revitalize downtown.
In a recent e-mail, Lamson said: "Things are progressing with both stadium groups and are starting to heat up. It should be an interesting January."
That heat will be on Taylor and Himelfarb in January to find a way to make Lamson an offer he can't refuse. The mayor and her top aide absolutely cannot lose this showdown with the developers who want to build a stadium for the Drillers in Jenks.
The January heat's also on Lamson to opt out of that nonbinding agreement he has the Jenks developers. The time has come for him to do the right thing by a city that has supported the Drillers for years and sign a binding agreement to relocate his franchise downtown.
From Lamson's comments in Sittler's article, there are obvious behind-the-scenes machinations occurring. Those of us that weren't convinced it was a done deal were right--Chuck Lamson and the Drillers are giving Tulsa a small window of opportunity to come up with a winning plan. I assume we will see something go public in January, and then it will be time to try to rally public support in Tulsa for the team to stay put. There's already a Facebook group.
I believe, if a viable plan is unveiled, Tulsa Now and every other civic development organization should get behind it and pressure Lamson not to leave. Of course, that's still an "if," but it's worth preparing for now.
Well, why don't Lorton just throw up a wad of cash and he can have Tulsa World Stadium.
All over the country the public is getting out of the sports business. i'd say primarily because the public is not seeing the ROI while the teams bank tons of cash. Then you take something mediocre like a AA ball team and want the public to build a stadium. Puh-leeeze!
Inteller is wrong. All over the country cities are looking at sports stadiums as anchors for new development.
Again I ask, why is OK to fund buildings for Opera and Ballet but not baseball?
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
Inteller is wrong. All over the country cities are looking at sports stadiums as anchors for new development.
Again I ask, why is OK to fund buildings for Opera and Ballet but not baseball?
cities may be looking but people aren't voting. What you DO get is things like Jenks TIF, but that isn't directly affecting the taxpayer's pocketbook.
National trends aside, Tulsa voters hate voting for taxes. I would expect that any downtown stadium plan unveiled in January will, like the Jenks plan, be TIF-based, considering the abject failure of the river sales tax and upcoming street bond issue.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
Inteller is wrong. All over the country cities are looking at sports stadiums as anchors for new development.
Again I ask, why is OK to fund buildings for Opera and Ballet but not baseball?
Good question. Do you think under the current atmosphere that we would publicly fund the PAC today? It took some leadership skills and a more sheepish public to accomplish that feat.
And, in the arts, there is no single owner or club of owners with restrictive membership like there is in baseball. That is an important distinction as anyone can assemble an act, negotiate with the PAC and put on a show. Maybe they make money, maybe they don't. But the overhead on the building is paid up front by the promoter so the public's interest is at least somewhat met. The baseball stadium is primarily for the use of its private owner for his private profit. The public paid for the opportunity for him to provide entertainment but only he and his fellow club members may participate.
My frustration with the setup is that only the few are being served the public's largesse yet the public has no input as to how and what they are served. The free market system is more efficient at the process. To be fair we would need to fund practically anything that will gather a few thousand people at a time. Or we codify exactly what will be publicly funded and under what circumstances.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
Inteller is wrong. All over the country cities are looking at sports stadiums as anchors for new development.
Again I ask, why is OK to fund buildings for Opera and Ballet but not baseball?
Good question. Do you think under the current atmosphere that we would publicly fund the PAC today? It took some leadership skills and a more sheepish public to accomplish that feat.
And, in the arts, there is no single owner or club of owners with restrictive membership like there is in baseball. That is an important distinction as anyone can assemble an act, negotiate with the PAC and put on a show. Maybe they make money, maybe they don't. But the overhead on the building is paid up front by the promoter so the public's interest is at least somewhat met. The baseball stadium is primarily for the use of its private owner for his private profit. The public paid for the opportunity for him to provide entertainment but only he and his fellow club members may participate.
My frustration with the setup is that only the few are being served the public's largesse yet the public has no input as to how and what they are served. The free market system is more efficient at the process. To be fair we would need to fund practically anything that will gather a few thousand people at a time. Or we codify exactly what will be publicly funded and under what circumstances.
Or we could just vote on it.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
quote:
Originally posted by TUalum0982
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
The downtown baseball stadium in San Francisco spurred development in an area that was struggling. Same with Denver and St. Louis and Baltimore and Pittsburgh.
I have walked back to my downtown hotel in each of these cities with hundreds of fans through an area of clubs and restaurants and new development.
Downtown baseball works.
Dont forget San Diego. Petco park is beautiful, not to mention the weather there is amazing. San Diego definitely did it right. One of the best baseball stadiums I have been too. (and I have been to over 15).
Goodness, that ballpark is exactly the kind of design I am afraid we will get in that area of downtown.
what is wrong with Petco Park? Petco park is beautiful inside and out. Have you ever been there? Gaslamp quarter, with the convention center and nice hotels is perfect. The people that shop and stay there, its busy everynight of the week.
(http://www.baseball.ch/WBC/SanDiego/Petco/Petco%20Park.jpg)
(http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/local/images3/CAN03301b.jpg)
quote:
I could build a ****ing outhouse in downtown San Diego and it would be the best outhouse ever built because it is in San Diego.Tulsa != San Diego. Apples to oranges yadda yadda.
And BTW, the weather in San Diego is not all the great....too cold from the ocean and too sunny.
I was simply adding a ballpark the list mentioned earlier where cities that built ballparks downtown had pretty good success at it. In centerfield, they have a big grassy area for families to come out and I think for 4.50 a person, you can bring a blanket, food, etc and watch the game from there.
I never once compared Tulsa to San Diego, but since we are on the subject....I dont know your history, but every time I have been to San Diego (and it has been many) the weather has always been great. From times going in Jan, March, June, July, Sept, etc. I would take San Diego weather over Tulsa weather every time. Guess we will agree to disagree.
Thanks for all the pretty pictures, folks.
However, let's try to remember we're talking about a AA ballclub in a football market.
The existing ballpark seats, what, 7,500 when it's full up, a rarity in itself.
Any new park is not going to look anything like the pics provided.
Since those promoting this thing have oft stated something of the order of "Witchita has a new stadium", HERE (//%22http://www.nmnathletics.com/fls/7500/virtualtours.html?SPSID=61175&SPID=2844&DB_OEM_ID=7500#%22), take a virtual tour of Eck Stadium as more similar to what we may get.
Here is a website that has pictures of all size ballparks in all size cities.
http://www.digitalballparks.com/
There are many good-looking AA ballparks to pick from. I particularly like the AA stadium in Jacksonville (click on southern League).
I think the right design will be a nice addition to downtown Tulsa.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Thanks for all the pretty pictures, folks.
However, let's try to remember we're talking about a AA ballclub in a football market.
The existing ballpark seats, what, 7,500 when it's full up, a rarity in itself.
Any new park is not going to look anything like the pics provided.
Since those promoting this thing have oft stated something of the order of "Witchita has a new stadium", HERE (//%22http://www.nmnathletics.com/fls/7500/virtualtours.html?SPSID=61175&SPID=2844&DB_OEM_ID=7500#%22), take a virtual tour of Eck Stadium as more similar to what we may get.
Appreciate your contribution to the discussion, but both your premises are wrong.
Wichita's Lawrence DuMont Stadium is downtown, yes, but was built in 1934, renovated in 1990, and has a capacity of 6000. No one is holding up Wichita as an example of a new ballpark revitalizing downtown, merely as another city with a ballpark in the city center.
Further, Drillers Stadium has a capacity of 11000. When I worked there pitching peanuts, we had full capacity games around ten times per season, as well as several big crowds that didn't quite fill the place up but still filled my pockets with change (I made $0.25 per item sold, plus tips).
The franchise is very successful, and will be even more successful in a new location. The idea that the Drillers don't attract enough people is another red herring. Don't let it distract you from the bottom line: Downtown baseball works. Jenks is stealing Tulsa's opportunity to get baseball downtown. We need to try to make enough noise so that they don't succeed, and Tulsa does.
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Thanks for all the pretty pictures, folks.
However, let's try to remember we're talking about a AA ballclub in a football market.
The existing ballpark seats, what, 7,500 when it's full up, a rarity in itself.
Any new park is not going to look anything like the pics provided.
Since those promoting this thing have oft stated something of the order of "Witchita has a new stadium", HERE (//%22http://www.nmnathletics.com/fls/7500/virtualtours.html?SPSID=61175&SPID=2844&DB_OEM_ID=7500#%22), take a virtual tour of Eck Stadium as more similar to what we may get.
Appreciate your contribution to the discussion, but both your premises are wrong.
Wichita's Lawrence DuMont Stadium is downtown, yes, but was built in 1934, renovated in 1990, and has a capacity of 6000. No one is holding up Wichita as an example of a new ballpark revitalizing downtown, merely as another city with a ballpark in the city center.
Further, Drillers Stadium has a capacity of 11000. When I worked there pitching peanuts, we had full capacity games around ten times per season, as well as several big crowds that didn't quite fill the place up but still filled my pockets with change (I made $0.25 per item sold, plus tips).
The franchise is very successful, and will be even more successful in a new location. The idea that the Drillers don't attract enough people is another red herring. Don't let it distract you from the bottom line: Downtown baseball works. Jenks is stealing Tulsa's opportunity to get baseball downtown. We need to try to make enough noise so that they don't succeed, and Tulsa does.
Somehow, I find your "Downtown Baseball Works" and "No one is holding up Wichita as an example of a new ballpark revitalizing downtown, merely as another city with a ballpark in the city center." comments contradictory.
So, does it work, or just sometimes?
If just sometimes, what is it that makes it work sometimes and not others?
And finally, the hard one, why are we to believe Tulsa is one of those places where it will work?
I might also ask, "What is working?" and how will we know in advance that it will?
No contradiction. If you read the whole thread, "downtown baseball works" is my attempt to be brief after having spelled things out clearly for months in various threads.
"Downtown baseball works" is a shorthand observation of the trend over the last 15 years of cities supporting the building of aesthetically pleasing, pedestrian friendly minor league ballparks, in or adjacent to their downtowns. Not only have these stadiums universally increased attendance, helping the franchise and making games more fun, but they have spurred surrounding development and helped revitalize declining city centers.
I don't have time to compile a comprehensive list here, but I defy you to find an example of an unsuccessful downtown baseball stadium development since 1990. These ballparks are built to tap into nostalgia and neighborliness. They have idiosyncratic designs that address the neighborhood and provide a focal point for visitors to an otherwise featureless, deserted urban district. Above all, they bring baseball back to the heart of the city and thus the heart of the populace. People flock to them, and thus flock to downtown.
They work. Downtown baseball works, and downtown baseball will work for Tulsa. We must lend our voices to make it happen.
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
No contradiction. If you read the whole thread, "downtown baseball works" is my attempt to be brief after having spelled things out clearly for months in various threads.
"Downtown baseball works" is a shorthand observation of the trend over the last 15 years of cities supporting the building of aesthetically pleasing, pedestrian friendly minor league ballparks, in or adjacent to their downtowns. Not only have these stadiums universally increased attendance, helping the franchise and making games more fun, but they have spurred surrounding development and helped revitalize declining city centers.
I don't have time to compile a comprehensive list here, but I defy you to find an example of an unsuccessful downtown baseball stadium development since 1990. These ballparks are built to tap into nostalgia and neighborliness. They have idiosyncratic designs that address the neighborhood and provide a focal point for visitors to an otherwise featureless, deserted urban district. Above all, they bring baseball back to the heart of the city and thus the heart of the populace. People flock to them, and thus flock to downtown.
They work. Downtown baseball works, and downtown baseball will work for Tulsa. We must lend our voices to make it happen.
It doesnt really matter to me where the Drillers move. Jenks is about 12 miles from 15th and Yale?? Its not like they are moving to Bentonville or anything!
I think it would be good for downtown, but I dont understand why so many people make it seem like it would be the end of the world if they moved out to Jenks. Either way, I think a new baseball stadium would attract more people to come out and see a game and if they liked it, would probably come to see games regularly.
I understand OKC is AAA and Tulsa is AA but their stadium and atmosphere is amazing. You have bricktown, lots of bars, restaurants, to enjoy after the game. Last time I went to a game there, I made the mistake of parking in the garage that overlooks the stadium, took us almost an hour to get down 4 stories.
Anyways, hopefully they come up with a solution soon either way they decide to go.
USR....
One Team Gets 26,000 Owners
-- All With a Vote on Who Plays
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119922623784960703.html?mod=todays_us_nonsub_marketplace
Fifth-Tier English Soccer Side Set to Become First Pro Team Run by an Online Community
By MAX COLCHESTER
January 2, 2008; Page B1
The question of who's the boss of England's small Ebbsfleet United soccer team is about to get interesting. If all goes as expected, the answer will soon be 26,000 people with Internet connections.
This month, via a Web site called myfootballclub.co.uk, those soccer fans are slated to take control of the minor-league team in southeast England. Members of the group, including some 1,500 people in the U.S., built up their takeover offer by each pledging $70.50. If the deal goes through as expected, a professional soccer team will be run by an online community for the first time
The probable new owners will manage the club, voting online to choose match lineups and buying new players. To help run the team, the fans will be able to view all the matches online and, after the game, receive statistics on how each player has performed. They will also get weekly updates from the team's head coach on how each player is doing during practice.
"Supporters can really get involved in the club. That's why they have joined us," says Roly Edwards, team secretary of Ebbsfleet United. Mr. Edwards says that with fresh funds Ebbsfleet will also be able to pay off its debts.
The online bid for Ebbsfleet comes as many soccer fans are feeling out of touch with a professional sport that has become a money-spinning machine of dizzying sponsorship deals and player transfer fees.
Last year, English first-division team Liverpool paid a club record of about $39.7 million for striker Fernando Torres. English player David Beckham is paid an estimated $10 million a year to play for the Los Angeles Galaxy, and makes an additional $20 million to $25 million a year in marketing deals.
Scandal hasn't helped. In 2006 in Italy, where soccer is the national sport, several teams were caught rigging matches in order to ensure lucrative television deals.
"As football gets bigger and as the sums of money get larger, fans are increasingly being marginalized," says Jon Keen, deputy chairman of the London-based Football Supporters' Federation, an organization of fans in England.
Mr. Keen also says rising prices for match tickets in the United Kingdom are forcing many fans to stay home and watch the games on television. As a result, attendance for some lower-division clubs in Britain is falling. It is important for these clubs not to disappear, says Mr. Keen, because they play an important part in developing young players and bringing local communities together.
The concept of fans owning soccer teams isn't new. Spanish soccer giants Real Madrid and Barcelona are owned by fans who pay to be members. In return the members can vote to appoint club presidents. However, only a few major soccer clubs are run this way, and fans don't actually have direct say in the way the teams are managed day-to-day.
Many soccer fans in Britain and elsewhere are taking their cue from myfootballclub.co.uk. In Denmark, some 3,000 people have signed up to the Web site Mitsuperligahold.dk and are considering taking over an amateur club in the Danish third-division league. In the U.S., mysoccerclubusa.com is trying to create a team from scratch using money raised online. The site hopes to have a team that can compete in the American fourth-tier league by 2009. Each fan must pay $50 to join and, again, fans will have a direct say in how the club is run.
In 2007, Israeli entrepreneur Moshe Hogeg bought Tel Aviv soccer team Hapoel Kiryat Shalom. Although fans don't own the team, they can go to a Website set up by Mr. Hogeg -- web2sport.com -- and vote for free on team selection and formation. Fans can then watch the game online and vote on substitutions during the match. So far 11,500 fans regularly log on to watch the matches. (In 2006, the Schaumburg Flyers, an independent minor-league baseball team near Chicago, allowed fans as part of an interactive online series to vote on lineups -- which left, on occasion, outfielders playing the infield.)
For Mr. Hogeg's soccer team, there have been a few glitches along the way, as well. During a recent match, fans from rival teams went onto the Web site and voted off Shalom's star striker. This cost the team the match. Another problem: Since fans like to stay home and watch the match interactively on their computers, stadium attendance has fallen. Web2sport is now planning to implement a voting system via text message, and Mr. Hogeg says he hopes to buy a club in England this year.
In some countries, the online effort hasn't taken off at all. In France, for example, Web site footballpro.fr started in September, hoping to imitate myfootballclub.co.uk's business model and raise $3.7 million from fans so it could buy a team. But not enough people were interested.
"We had 4,000 members, but the project was stagnating," says Vincent Legrand, one of the site's founders. "I think English fans are more passionate."
Dan Jones, a partner in the sports business group at accounting firm Deloitte & Touche, says Internet fans will never be able to match takeovers such as the roughly $1.6 billion purchase of Manchester United PLC in 2005.
Even for smaller teams, he says, long-term viability of Web-based ownership depends on whether fans are prepared to renew their annual membership once the novelty has worn off.
Ebbsfleet United, until last year known as Gravesend & Northfleet, has been a small-time team since it was founded in 1946. Yet in 2005, the club turned fully professional and competes in the fifth-tier league -- the highest level of what is called "nonleague football" in England. The team, which plays at its Stonebridge Road stadium, has a loyal following of about 1,000 fans who regularly attend home matches.
But the company recently ran into financial trouble. Mr. Edwards declined to give details, but said the team has a "significant" debt. That has made it difficult lately to come up with the $3 million he estimates it takes to operate the team every year. Some $600,000 to $800,000 a year goes toward wages.
The team makes about $12,000 to $16,000 per match in gate receipts, and has some sponsorship deals as well. "We needed a millionaire to come along or we would have dropped down in the league," he says.
Mr. Edwards says he was listening to the radio one day when he heard about myfootballclub.co.uk, which was offering to help fans take over a club.
Ebbsfleet United and eight other teams put their names forward as potential takeover targets. Myfootballclub.co.uk officials say they chose Ebbsfleet because the team had good transport links and a manageable debt.
Though some are skeptical about Internet ownership, most Ebbsfleet supporters are delighted. "As long as it helps keep the club full-time professional, then I think it can only do good," says Shaun Crisp, a former Ebbsfleet player who has supported the team since 1960.
Team manager Liam Daish -- a former center-back player for the Irish national team -- is a little nervous, however. "I just hope the members are going to trust my judgment."
Fine... still trying to get the soccer site up online... now this...
just for that FOTD... send me massive sums of money, and you'll get an autographed print of... circa 1978...
(edit: deleted a really large pic of Chris Lincoln and Bob Carpenter from KTUL broadcast of Tulsa vs. Minnesota)
http://www.active.com/soccer/Articles/Drew_Carey_Wants_Fans_Making_Decisions.htm
Q: And which city, in 1994, came up with more season ticket deposits for a potential Major League Soccer team, Seattle or Tulsa???
A: Tulsa.
---- oops. sorry to thread jack...
hey, I'm glad the Drillers have a plan B...
but accusing Jenks of "stealing the Drillers" is disingenuous... if Tulsa comes up with a better plan, mo' power to 'em... then Jenks can host a team that isn't playing minor league ball against Texas League division rivals Springdale, Springfield and Little Rock umpteen times per year...
Wichita lost their team because they had poor fan support, but WSU's college baseball team has good support... the Drillers will be fine... especially with MLB paying their salaries...
quote:
Originally posted by AVERAGE JOE
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
hahahaha.....I laugh at the futile grasping of straws.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Ignorance is bliss, so I can see why you're giddy.
Still laughing, inteller?
https://tulsanow.org/wp/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=8582 (//%22https://tulsanow.org/wp/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=8582%22)
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
quote:
Originally posted by AVERAGE JOE
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
As posted in the thread on the River District: http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=071218_1_A19_hAfte02577
Time's up. Seems almost certain that Lamson takes the Drillers out of the city. What has Tulsa done to hand him a viable option? Nothing. Sad day for downtown. We see what happens in a leadership vacuum. This sickens me.
Don Himmelfarb: don't let the door hit you on the way out. Take your vague, empty promises elsewhere.
Should it become necessary for you to eat those words, which I think will happen, would you prefer mustard or mayo?
I'll take them with some horseradish on rye.
I certainly hope I'm wrong. But I'm trying to avoid being a starry-eyed optimist on this one. I would like to believe that there are active machinations behind the scenes that involve a beautiful new stadium on 2nd Street. Without knowing any inside information, and given what I've seen this administration produce thus far, though, I'll be happily surprised if so much as a new rendering for an East End/Blue Dome stadium is shown publicly in the next 90 days.
EDIT: All I need to give Himmelfarb and Taylor the benefit of the doubt is a statement to the effect of: "The City of Tulsa is actively working on alternative stadium plans that will keep the Drillers in Tulsa and will present them publicly when they are ready." Just let us, and Chuck, know that the City is trying, so we can continue to keep up the public pressure. I'm not going to keep writing emails if Tulsa isn't going to give the team a viable option.
Delicious. I love eating my words, especially with horseradish.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectID=11&articleID=20080122_1__Mayor23086
The minimum I begged for is exactly what they gave us. No plans yet, but a public guarantee that the city is doing their best. Plus, to show that they mean it, the City now has an exclusive purchase option on the best possible stadium parcel and exclusive negotiating rights with the team for the next four months.
It's kind of like a punt, but a damn good one, like down to the other team's 1 yard line. City of Tulsa now has as much momentum as they could gather, and it's public. The hue and cry from a small group of us managed to get Lamson's attention, and he is giving downtown one last chance. I'm going to get behind it 100%.
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
quote:
Originally posted by AVERAGE JOE
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
As posted in the thread on the River District: http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=071218_1_A19_hAfte02577
Time's up. Seems almost certain that Lamson takes the Drillers out of the city. What has Tulsa done to hand him a viable option? Nothing. Sad day for downtown. We see what happens in a leadership vacuum. This sickens me.
Don Himmelfarb: don't let the door hit you on the way out. Take your vague, empty promises elsewhere.
Should it become necessary for you to eat those words, which I think will happen, would you prefer mustard or mayo?
I'll take them with some horseradish on rye.
I certainly hope I'm wrong. But I'm trying to avoid being a starry-eyed optimist on this one. I would like to believe that there are active machinations behind the scenes that involve a beautiful new stadium on 2nd Street. Without knowing any inside information, and given what I've seen this administration produce thus far, though, I'll be happily surprised if so much as a new rendering for an East End/Blue Dome stadium is shown publicly in the next 90 days.
EDIT: All I need to give Himmelfarb and Taylor the benefit of the doubt is a statement to the effect of: "The City of Tulsa is actively working on alternative stadium plans that will keep the Drillers in Tulsa and will present them publicly when they are ready." Just let us, and Chuck, know that the City is trying, so we can continue to keep up the public pressure. I'm not going to keep writing emails if Tulsa isn't going to give the team a viable option.
Delicious. I love eating my words, especially with horseradish.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectID=11&articleID=20080122_1__Mayor23086
The minimum I begged for is exactly what they gave us. No plans yet, but a public guarantee that the city is doing their best. Plus, to show that they mean it, the City now has an exclusive purchase option on the best possible stadium parcel and exclusive negotiating rights with the team for the next four months.
It's kind of like a punt, but a damn good one, like down to the other team's 1 yard line. City of Tulsa now has as much momentum as they could gather, and it's public. The hue and cry from a small group of us managed to get Lamson's attention, and he is giving downtown one last chance. I'm going to get behind it 100%.
Floyd, you're a great poster and I enjoy your comments a lot, so I wasn't going to dredge this up... [;)]
But let the record show you have a great deal of integrity to bring this back up yourself. You're alright, man. [:D]
What can I say. I never stopped being a cheerleader for downtown baseball--I just stopped believing Taylor and Himmelfarb could make it happen. I'm quite pleased to be wrong.
Actually, both Taylor and Himmelfarb have made some very strong statements on behalf of keeping the Drillers in the city of Tulsa.
It was never a matter of "if" the city would have a proposal... it has been a matter of "when."
Right now, this looks like a proposal for a proposal... so this announcement is that Tulsa's gonna have a proposal of some sort in the next four months...??? [}:)]
I don't even really CARE about the Drillers, but you have admit that letting the team get sucked away to Jenks would just be a sad, sad day for Tulsa. Jenks, Broken Arrow, 71st and 169 area and other parts of town can take care of themselves with smaller developments. To let downtown Tulsa fall any further into disrepair and despair would be to completely give in to this suburban crap and what used to be a really cool downtown area. Tulsa's suburbs don't need revitalization and more money, they will always be where people live and shop.. downtown needs something more.
quote:
Originally posted by EricP
I don't even really CARE about the Drillers, but you have admit that letting the team get sucked away to Jenks would just be a sad, sad day for Tulsa. Jenks, Broken Arrow, 71st and 169 area and other parts of town can take care of themselves with smaller developments. To let downtown Tulsa fall any further into disrepair and despair would be to completely give in to this suburban crap and what used to be a really cool downtown area. Tulsa's suburbs don't need revitalization and more money, they will always be where people live and shop.. downtown needs something more.
Aaactually the next generation may very well thank us for revitalizing downtown. Suburbs fall into decay and arent always the "nice" places to live. Look at older places back east or in Europe. Especially Paris where you hear about the suburban riots and poverty while the wealthy live in the cities. Plus older cities back east have the bad "inner ring of suburbs", then the "good outer rings". All our current suburbs are the first generation or ring of growth that will then be followed by the next ring. That first ring, our current suburbs, will turn into the future "bad areas". Its up to us to start the rebirth of growth in the center that will then radiate outwards once again. It seems to be an inevitable, repeating cycle.
Our children or grandchildren may be thankful one day that they have a beautiful city to go to and get away from the nasty, crime ridden suburbs.