The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

In the mood to help fund a Downtown Soccer Stadium?

Out of state developers are working hard to place a ‘Major-League Soccer’ (‘MLS’) stadium in Downtown Tulsa’s East Village, the 115-acre, Downtown tract within 7th St., I244, Detroit and Highway 75.  The developer also plans a 40-acre development of homes and stores nearby.  Bring on the homes and stores, says TulsaNow, a grass-roots, citizens’ group. But locate the soccer stadium in North Tulsa as part of a regional development strategy.

The Downtown project is supported by Mayor LaFortune.  Public funds are likely to be required to leverage it.  A close associate of the Mayor is representing the developer, Global Development Partners, and would presumably stand to make a tidy profit if the project went through.  ‘Star Bonds’ – a sales-tax-driven device that does not require a popular vote on the matter – are apparently also under consideration.  

Why should ‘TulsaNow’ care about this, and why should you?  Why is Downtown important in the first place?  If Downtown does matter, what makes a successful Downtown?  Would the walkable, urban neighborhood advocated by TulsaNow be any better than a soccer stadium (and are the two mutually exclusive?).  What makes the most sense for the City’s limited resources and monetary funds?  How will this project benefit tax-payers?  How will this add more value for existing Downtown property owners?  Is MLS soccer a viable business model upon which to bet public money, infrastructure and the long-term future of a sizeable chunk of Downtown?  Would it not effect prospects for the Arena we recently agreed to pay for?  Would a soccer stadium enhance our city’s attractiveness to new businesses more than the pot-pourri of homes, stores, cafes and entertainment offered by other cities’ downtowns?   Are there more deserving candidates for funding than a soccer stadium?  If soccer is a good, strategic business for tax-payers to help fund, is there a better location that offers tax-payers more bang for our buck?

These are important and urgent questions.  Not least because Mayor and Council are currently jockeying for positions on next Spring’s, 3rd-penny tax package, which may coincide with the Mayoral election.  Here are some answers – and a strategic solution.

Why is TulsaNow even concerned about it?  Tax-payers’ money is involved; and because, like it or not, Downtown is the economic and marketing engine for the region’s economy.  It’s in all our interests to care about it.

We are concerned because the City of Tulsa is in trouble:  we’re losing population; our sales tax base is static at best.  We’re losing market share to surrounding municipalities and to cities nationally - and internationally.  

Why is Downtown so important anyway?  Downtown embodies our community’s history, identity and pride: it’s everybody’s neighborhood.  If we don’t sustain it, we shall damage our hopes of attracting new, creative industries.  Without a vital Downtown we shall continue to lose many of our qualified, young people, weakening our chances of long-term prosperity.  TulsaNow thinks there’s a huge, un-met demand for a vibrant downtown: just ask the members of Sustainable Tulsa, or YPTulsa - the young professionals who are among the driving force for urgent, enlightened change.  And let’s not forget that billions of our tax-dollars have created Downtown Tulsa and the infrastructure that makes it the center of the region.

What’s the key to a successful Downtown?  Christopher Leinberger, a recognized expert sums it up neatly in two words: ‘walkable urbanity’. In other words, a strong sense of place.  People living Downtown.  People meeting on the streets.  Different things to do.  Restaurants.  Arts and entertainment venues.  A place where chance meetings lead to new ideas, new friends, new directions, new industries.  A place where the unexpected can – and should - happen.

Make no mistake: Tulsa is on the brink of the Downtown renaissance that has already transformed many other city centers nationwide.  We’re well behind the curve.  But the good news is that Tulsa’s potential has motivated the recent flurry of Downtown building purchases.  Downtown investors understand the revitalization strategies learned from other cities; they understand that Tulsa’s future depends on the ability of people to mingle in a distinctive, stimulating, diverse, walkable, urban setting.  Downtown Tulsa was described as 'the next Portland, Oregon' by the co-owner of one such company. They also know that thriving Downtowns depend on an intricate web of activities, not on a single ‘fix’, be it a soccer stadium, an arena or convention center.  So now is not the time to screw things up.

Diversity
Diversity is the underlying soul of a thriving Downtown – and probably of any community.  Diversity of buildings and architecture.  Diversity of people – children, seniors, singles, couples.  Black, white, Hispanic, Asian; affluent and lower-income.

Diversity has an economic dimension.  A healthy Downtown must provide a range of activities to attract the widest possible variety of users.  This reduces Downtown’s dependence on any one particular business.  

This economic diversity translates into the public good also by generating sales tax, raising property value and property tax and increasing the opportunities for a healthy, walkable environment.  (And there is a demand for such environments:  witness the startling success on a small scale of Jenks’ Riverwalk; and of Oklahoma City’s Bricktown, of Austin, Chicago, Chattanooga, Charlotte, Dallas, Denver, etc. etc.  

To direct Downtown's future into becoming a low-density 'Events Complex’ (Arena, Convention Center, Civic Center, soccer stadium, hotels…) with a smattering of entertainment and homes would be a grave, strategic mistake.  It’s also somewhat of an affront to local residents, investors and professionals who have dedicated their money, professional skills, time and personal commitment to reviving Downtown, including members of TulsaNow.  To date we’ve generated real, funded projects and ideas that include Centennial Walk, pocket parks, University Boulevard, the Tulsa Tablets, the 6th St. Task Force's flood mitigation plan and canal system, an East Village location for a new ‘Grand Central Library’, ideas for a Downtown magnet school, and major residential projects that local investors are currently working on.  All these projects will help to generate year-round pedestrian traffic, stimulate tourist revenues, and collectively weave Downtown back into the vital, shared, community resource we can all benefit from.  

So far in this article we’ve made the case for strategic, public investment.  We’ve summarized the case for Downtown.   We’ve made the case for diverse, ‘walkable urbanity’.

So, now we have a framework for evaluating (i) a 20-acre MLS soccer stadium, compared to (ii) the opportunity for a distinctive, urban neighborhood of homes, stores, coffee bars, entertainment, galleries, studios, etc.

Mutually Exclusive?
Wait a minute: isn’t the developer proposing a stadium and an urban neighborhood into the East Village?   Can’t we squeeze both in?

In a word: No, - not without removing a number of other people’s buildings that are economically productive and part of Downtown’s character.  The 20 acres apparently required for the stadium, seating, concessions (and probably) structured parking will effectively remove the chance to deliver the scale necessary to provide a true sense of neighborhood.  It denies the opportunity for other, more productive uses on those 20 acres.  And the proposed stadium location, apparently between 4th and 7th St., east of Elgin, would effectively cut off the 6th St. neighborhood from Downtown.

What makes the most sense for Downtown’s (and therefore the City’s) economy?  

Option 1: Create a walkable, urban environment.  The neighborhood would be multi-functional – it should have homes to own and homes for rent; stores; a school; pocket parks; a ‘Grand Central Library’.   It would be densely-developed, making good use of land and enhancing retail viability.  It would be economically active every day of the week, year-round.  It would require a variety of jobs and a good number of them.  Its offerings would be relevant to all Tulsa residents.  It would be an attraction to Arena-users.  Infrastructure improvements should be focused on maximizing the existing infrastructure and buildings cost-effectively, and avoid disrupting access to or from nearby neighborhoods.  It’s a business model proven in many other cities - and is advocated by every expert that has visited Tulsa in recent memory.

Option 2: Install A soccer stadium.  It’s a single-purpose enterprise.  Its core business would be economically active for around 45 hours a year (i.e. 15 home games per year).  It’s very land-greedy in relation to its actual turnover.  It’s likely to be in competition with the new Arena.  It employs few people.    Its fan base is narrow.  It apparently requires dedicated, publicly-funded infrastructure changes.  It will not generate much in the way of ancillary sales tax, since sports fans tend to drive in and drive away after the game.  The additional people-traffic that it brings naturally show up all at once – in the thousands - which surrounding businesses can’t handle (just ask Bricktown’s business-owners).  Much of the time the facility would lie empty, resulting in deserted streets and under-utilized parking-lots.

Which benefits tax-payers the most?  This one’s easy:  That which provides services to the broadest range of people – not just to soccer fans.  Do we really need to help pay for a stadium that will compete with that other ‘stadium’ – the arena which isn’t even completed, and whose business model itself looks a tad shaky?

Which will add more value to existing Downtown property-owners?  Downtown doesn’t need more office space.  But Downtown building owners recognize the need for homes and people – in part to benefit their employees.  There would be streets teeming with people on weekdays and weekends, - not just for a few, brief hours on a few weekends a year.

Which would make the best neighbor?  The adjacent 6th St. neighborhood’s vision – approved unanimously by the Metropolitan Planning Commission in early November – focuses on diversity and walkability.  It’s hard to see how the likelihood of street closures into Downtown and occasional invasions by weekend soccer fans hunting for free parking will add value.  Not to mention the fact that the neighborhood’s public-safety-driven plan for flood mitigation and revitalization requires funding which risks being nixed by the soccer stadium.

Is MLS soccer even a viable business model?  This particular point wouldn’t be TulsaNow’s worry if Downtown and public funds were not involved.  But they are involved.  The ‘opportunity cost’ of a downtown soccer stadium – up to 20 acres of it - is huge.  The business model seems to be dependent on tax-hand-outs and infrastructure gifts.  Tax Increment Finance districts are coming under increasing scrutiny, since they take money away from public schools.  MLS soccer rules require a majority ownership by local investors (locals pick up the tab for the team); and the tax-payers pick up the tab for infrastructure, including, we understand, the cost of the stadium.  The developer, meanwhile, owns land which will have increased in value if they quit town before the project is completed.  The financial model may work for the developer.  Does it work for the City’s residents?  We would need to be certain that it would deliver what its proponents promise.    Trouble is, we can’t be sure that proponents will be either (a) in power or (b) in town when we find out.

Would a downtown MLS stadium attract new businesses to Tulsa?  Why would it?  Many young creative types are leaving to find an urban lifestyle with variety and diversity.  Newcomers would not be choosing Tulsa for its soccer offering.

Is Soccer a good business to get involved in?  Soccer is the world’s most popular sport, and is gaining ground in the USA.  Both girls and boys play it.  The US women’s team is the best on the planet (and the men are catching up too).  TulsaNow wishes every success to Major League Soccer.  Tulsa is a small market, and lacks a strong following for the game; but its past failure here isn’t necessarily a guide to the future.

Is there a better location?  Yes, there is.  Tulsa’s Parks department (probably the most under-invested of Tulsa’s civic amenities), has an ambitious and strategic plan for the region’s unsung jewel - Mohawk Park, the Zoo and Oxley Nature Reserve.  To the west of those is Lake Yahola.  To the west of that are tracts available and large enough either side of Highway 75 for development as a regional, soccer facility.  Why not encourage MLS to place a stadium at the heart of such a facility?  Then surround it with soccer and football pitches for regional competitions; and promote it as a neighborhood amenity too.  Most MLS stadiums are surrounded by soccer practice fields (not possible in Downtown).  Why not weave bicycle trails from Downtown to the new ‘soccer center’, and through it on to Mohawk Park and the Zoo?  Use the new facility as the anchor to spur commercial and residential development in north Tulsa neighborhoods, accompanying this with forward-thinking, neighborhood-focused urban planning techniques. Bike-trails can provide healthy, viable alternatives to car-ownership for downtown workers commuting from north Tulsa.  Provide a tax-generating balance to the relentless, south-ward march beyond the reach of Tulsa’s sales tax.

(There is already a regional soccer facility near Catoosa; this can take 45 minutes to reach when competitions are taking place.  It makes no contribution to Tulsa’s tax-base.)

So… what next?

TulsaNow welcomes reasoned responses to any and all of the above points – especially from the City’s Administration.  The civic benefits certainly seem meager.  That the project smacks of cronyism does not inspire us either.  We ask the Administration to think deeply before approaching voters to pay for a soccer stadium Downtown.  We ask Councilors and candidates to conduct their due diligence too.  We look forward to the public Hearings on upcoming 3rd penny tax funding.  We ask that other candidate investments, including those relating to public safety and revitalization be given priority.  And as soon as we hear those well-worn refrains of ‘Naysayers!’ ‘Nimbies’ and/or ‘If you’re not with us, you’re against us!’ - we’ll know we’re onto something.

Let your elected representative know what you think.  Reach your Councilor by visiting www.tulsacouncil.org.  And join the conversation at www.tulsanow.org .

If you would like to be better-informed about Downtown revitalization, google Christopher Leinberger’s article ‘Twelve Steps to Downtown Revitalization’; David Sucher’s ‘City Comforts’ and James Kunstler’s ‘Home From Nowhere’.

http://www.recklesschallenge.net/tulsa-soccer-show-episode-9-stadium-news-and-lexus-tulsa-cup/ (http://www.recklesschallenge.net/tulsa-soccer-show-episode-9-stadium-news-and-lexus-tulsa-cup/)

I completely disagree with a lot in the original post from ten years ago.

I'm a young professional and so are my friends. We are extremely excited about a potential soccer stadium in Downtown. You can't tell me a bunch of random parking lots are a better option. Also, stadiums can often times make a neighborhood. Fenway Park and Wrigley Field, for example.

Or Oneok Field.

Remember how Oneok was a waste of time and money?  Look at how it finally helped spur the east end of the Brady into high gear.  Probably hasn’t hurt movement in the Blue Dome, and by extension, East End.

\

Can we get a summary of what they said?

10,000 seat stadium. (with room to expand)
Horseshoe shape.
Removable sod to help with other events.
2 sites in the running downtown.

Do any soccer stadiums go with turf?

Seems like it would open the stadium up to be an outdoor venue for a lot of other things with less hassle and risk of screwing up the main purpose. You can roll turf up quickly and have monster truck rallies, concerts, track meets, whatever... and play soccer the next day. The new turf looks nearly as good as grass and you rarely hear baseball or football players complain about it anymore.

To be successful, I'd think the the stadium would need to find alternate uses beyond 15 soccer games a year.  AA baseball has ~70 home games. So even giving a day on either side, the soccer stadium sits empty 88% of the time. I'm sure there are industry standards on how much use one wants out of such an asset (most NFL stadiums being the best examples of a waste of public money).  But we don't really have a nice outdoor venue that is readily available (TU is stingy with Skelly Field, during the spring and summer the Drillers use the hell out of ONEOK - plus natural grass is protected by grounds crews!, otherwise...).

I'd be a big fan of a soccer specific stadium downtown. I hope it happens and I hope it is successful. I think the BOK Center and OneOK field have been great successes. But I don't want my enthusiasm to over run my sense of pragmatism. Even if 10,000 rapid fans pack the stadium for all 15 home games - that is not a very good use. To build a quility stadium, downtown, that seats ~10k and has the infrastructure to expand ... it is likely ~$20-25 million.  At least, that's what it look like San Antonio paid (some say up to $35mil) for the same thing [theirs was privately funded, so true cost is known].

San Antonio stadium:
http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/scorpions/article/Scorpions-finally-have-their-8-000-seat-field-of-4429684.php

Nowhere NC built a 7k stadium and added 3l, for a total cost of $21mil (not in a downtown area):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WakeMed_Soccer_Park#2011_Expansion

Sacramento built a no-frills stadium seating 10k for a reported $3mil?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonney_Field

They seem to occupy ~5 acres.

The podcast mentioned that they were going to try to use it as an outdoor venue for concerts, which I think is a good idea.

I agree that the stadium would have to bring in things other than soccer. They mentioned Tulsa Rugby using it, maybe some high school lacrosse games, but I'm not sure if those will bring enough people/make enough money for the stadium to bother.

They also floated the idea of high school football championship games, which could be cool.

That was 2005. It was a different town.

I hope the inside info isn't just what Ruf posted here a couple of weeks ago with a bad Paint job editing up a google maps view of downtown to show two locations possible sites for a horseshoe stadium seating about 10,000 downtown.

Maybe. That's what the dudes on the podcast said. They said the source was "reliable" so take that for what you will.

Wrigley was not downtown when it was built.  Maybe 4 miles north or so...

Fenway - way out in the suburbs.

So the soccer place needs to be further out than the Admin notes talk about, if that's the comparison made.

Lots of good stuff there.  I would take the "brink" comment a step or two further - visiting downtown very regularly for the last many decades, I say we are already over the brink.  Behind the curve in our renaissance, but making excellent progress.  The place is very pleasantly surprising to us now!!

Jenks Riverwalk seems to still be a "work in progress".  We are hoping it gets better.

Soccer business model still seems to be very dicey for Oklahoma.  Today past experience does predict today's results.  Rufnex is the generation that is gonna get their kids to be a sustaining fan base, but those kids are still 10 to 20 years from being a viable market to support it in the way it should be supported.  davideinstein is probably at the leading edge of that generation that will support the sport - one of the "early adopters".

The highway 75 location may actually be a little 'close in' compared to places like Wrigley and Fenway mentioned elsewhere.

Unfortunately, the accompanying conversations to the 2005 thread have been deleted -- the thread was originally started in "Development" at top of the subforum (with a sticky).
I was told the first post of this thread did not represent the views of Tulsa Now, the organization... reading it again, you coulda fooled me (and evidently did, as TN did not have an official position).  The most frustrating part of the discussion was to see how so many people were treating the East Village/East End like a traditional historic neighborhood that simply needed to be revitalized with a few good, gut rehabs.  In short, I felt these folks were acting as NIMBY's for a non-existent neighborhood with little more than a handful of unremarkable buildings.


IMHO, a multi-purpose stadium (soccer/HS football/rugby/lacrosse/Aussie rules? lol) that can also host outdoor concerts has a great deal of potential to connect Blue Dome and the East End to the Pearl District.  If we're talking about "historical significance," why is saving the dilapidated and relatively isolated Coliseum Apts at 7th & Elgin inherently good?, yet building a multi-purpose stadium at the site of the old Coliseum the apts were named after = bad?   A few short blocks south of the Tulsa Coliseum was the old McNulty ballpark which also hosted TU football (Kendall College) from 1919-1930... and is now surface parking for Home Depot.   :(
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_Coliseum
http://www.baseball-reference.com/minors/park.cgi?id=OK060


Yes.   The new Taft Stadium in OKC went with artificial turf.  
The St Louis soccer stadium in Fenton, MO has fake turf that probably needs to be replaced.
The football field at Finlay Stadium in Chattanooga is being replaced with a new version of turf that can go back and forth from football to soccer.
http://www.chattanoogafc.com/news/new-turf-a-big-win-for-cfc


No.  That was simply a fan mockup of the soccer stadium pic from Columbus, Ohio placed (twice) on a google map of the area.
I was informed confidentially about the 10k stadium plans by the Lunds more than a year ago.
No location has been set in stone... however, IMO, the same downtown "superblock" mentioned would be a much better use than adding another park (when Centennial Park is right down the street?) and another church (no problems with the Unitarians but do we really need another downtown church? just to take up space?)


How come the "soccer business" doesn't seem to be "dicey" for OKC and their plans to become a future candidate for Major League Soccer expansion when Tulsa has 99 of the top 100 crowds in Oklahoma soccer history?

Why do Tulsans who grew up with the old Roughnecks and dream of taking our kids and grandkids to games have to wait 10 to 20 more years based on the future of a demographic that will make Tulsa less important (if we continue to do nothing) compared to other cities?  Do we really have to wait until all the former Roughnecks players who lived their lives here in Tulsa and contributed to our community die of old age?  Jeebus.

Every year we wait represents a year of diminishing returns and a lesser chance to take full advantage of what makes Tulsa unique compared to other cities when it comes to soccer.
 

Oh god, the Lunds??

Project is doomed.

Thankfully, not anymore.   ;D

The Lunds involvement in a potential expansion Tulsa NASL club ended when their OKC NASL lead investor defected to OKC Energy FC.
http://www.recklesschallenge.net/naslusl-pro-battle-for-okc-not-quite-finished/
http://www.tulsaworld.com/sportsextra/john-klein-lund-is-hopeful-soccer-crazed-tulsa-can-get/article_7e301e19-ba72-59d7-9bf9-54a73706b386.html

Although, truth be told, Funk Jr's OKC group ain't a whole lot better, and the entire "Tulsa Roughnecks 3 - Men in Orange" enterprise will still have alot of potential conflicts of interest for years to come.

Minority owners don't matter. You need to just put on the orange Modelo sponsored jersey and pull for us at this point.

Let me know when the Drillers allow the Roughnecks to play the Athletics... then we can talk.
Until then... https://itkt.choicecrm.net/templates/EXPO/?prod=NPAH

(https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/10424305_845400385495132_4343215610971965260_n.jpg?oh=9c73e8d5a05f8935f01bb32577dffeee&oe=55C80FED&__gda__=1443441749_967a33b0a4693f2a2a849ae1a8cb7fd1)

Win your US Open matches and you might get that opportunity.

Athletics lose on the road. Winner of the next round plays the Roughnecks if they win. So there's that.

Earn it on the field...what a concept.

Or you can just challenge the other team to play you in the middle of the season and then act like babies when they don't immediately agree.

Oh, and my son and his friends just challenged the New York Yankees to a baseball game tomorrow night. Let me know when the Steinbrenner's allow it.

The challenge was at the behest of fans. It played out in social media. Basically a publicity stunt from my perspective. But if the Roughnecks can play the University of Tulsa, I'm sure they can fit the Athletics into their schedule at some point. The "little guy" has to have a chip on his shoulders, or he fades away.

More akin to the Tulsa Drillers challenging the OKC Dodgers (really, changed their name to the Dodgers?), than High School challenging the Yankees. The Roughnecks are one division higher than the Athletics (NPSL to USL). I know your boy is a good athlete, but I'm not sure he's at AAA level just yet. By my count, he's 7 levels of play from there. So, when the Rouchnecks are challenging Barcelona, let me know (NPSL, USL, NASL, MLS, US National Team, Various other pro-leagues I don't want to debate [English, Spanish, Italian, German), Champions League caliber teams... figure that's about 7 steps).

(I know you were saying that in jest, just felt like looking into the leagues)

There's literally no reason for the Roughnecks to play the Athletics.