Posted today...
Ballpark's financing arranged
The Tulsa Community Foundation will buy a $25 million bond from the stadium trust.
By P.J. LASSEK World Staff Writer
Published: 12/5/2008 12:00 AM
Last Modified: 12/5/2008 2:29 AM
The Tulsa Community Foundation will take on a second role in the development of the downtown ballpark by financing $25 million of the $39.2 million needed to build the stadium.
"Tulsa Community Foundation's investment into this downtown stadium helps assure quality civic and economic enhancement in the core of our city," Phil Lakin, the foundation's executive director, told the Tulsa World on Thursday.
Lakin said the foundation, a tax-exempt public charity, agreed to provide the financing after the Tulsa Stadium Trust did not receive any bids from 27 prospective lenders.
The trust is to vote Friday to approve the financing and the sole construction bid — which it also received from the foundation.
The foundation submitted the construction bid under the name Tulsa Stadium Construction Co. LLC, a limited liability company composed of the foundation and Manhattan Construction Co.
The foundation's 26-member board makes up the membership of the limited liability company, with Lakin and Bob Jack of Manhattan as its managers. Manhattan also is a donor to the ballpark project.
The Stadium Trust is overseeing the $60 million project, which includes construction of a 6,200-seat stadium for the city's Double A baseball team, the Tulsa Drillers, and the purchase of nearby land for development.
The $60 million will come partially from $30 million in private donations and $5 million from the Drillers' lease.
For the rest, the Tulsa Community Foundation will purchase a $25 million bond from the trust with a loan from Bank of Oklahoma. The bond will be repaid over 30 years through fees collected from a downtown property assessment.
Lakin said the foundation didn't need to borrow the money but that it didn't want to take $25 million out of its capital because that might curtail some of its other charitable activities in the Tulsa area.
Stan Lybarger, the trust chairman and the president of the Bank of Oklahoma, said the bank's involvement is merely to facilitate the bond purchase because nobody else would.
Although the bank will earn interest from the loan, Lybarger said, the bank is donating $2 million to the ballpark, and "the loan isn't going to provide that kind of benefit to us."
The financing would have been possible by other lenders six months ago, before the international credit crunch, "but people aren't doing municipal-type financing" now, he said. "It's just evaporated."
Lybarger said that the group began two months ago to anticipate the need for alternative financing if the trust received no bids. The trust received approval from the City Council last month to turn to a foundation for financing if necessary.
With the $30 million in private donations committed, "to drop this project at this stage would be foolishness and a missed opportunity," Lybarger said.
"People tend to think that when tough times are upon you, that is when you stop doing things, and that is precisely the time when you should be doing things," he said.
"That allows you to get things in place so when the recovery occurs you're in a position to take advantage of it."
What the public needs to remember, Lybarger said, is that the downtown property owners — by virtue of their assessment fees — and private donors "are giving this whole thing to the city for free, and you just don't see that around the country."
Although many of the project's players are interconnected, no one is personally profiting from it, he said.
Four of the trust's nine members also sit on the Tulsa Community Foundation's board. They are Lybarger, Mayor Kathy Taylor, James Adelson and John-Kelly Warren. These foundation members and others also are donors to the project.
George Kaiser is the chairman of BOK Financial Corp., which owns Bank of Oklahoma. He and other philanthropists created the Tulsa Community Foundation. Lakin said Kaiser was not directly involved in the ballpark project.
"People should worry less about any interrelationships, because we have a charitable organization that has put up the money to do this. There can be no private benefit through the foundation," Lakin said.
Those who support the project think that it is more important to get it done than to worry about criticism over who's involved, he said.
Lybarger said that the donors believe that this project is "very critical to the long-term health of Tulsa. It's all about redeveloping downtown."
"Our determination is that we're going to do everything prudent and appropriate to get to the goal line, and that's why we're pushing it so hard," he said.
"It won't get done if we don't do it."
The trust hopes to break ground before the end of the month. It has a contract with the Drillers to have the stadium ready by the 2010 season.
First let me stipulate that I am all for downtown redevelopment but as a citizens that has been watching this things transpire over the last 8 months, I see an overwhelming Conflict of Interest involved here. Don't tell me this hasn't been planned for quite some time for it to fall into place like this. First we don't know when an RFP went out for bids to construct the stadium, next we get a Trust pushed down the Council's throat on the pretext 'this must happen now' and then the Trust sits and waits, the Trust stipulated the terms under which it would issue bonds and received no offers BUT remember, according to the Tulsa World, one bank said had the terms for the bonds been structured differently they would have put a bid. The Trust manipulated the situation so that only a foundation could purchase the bonds. Stan Lybarger knew this would happen and even pushed Council for authority to do this and got it. BOK/Stan Lybarger and his helpers know the standard terms and conditions a typical lending institution would use to determine its ability to bid on purchasing bonds and I'm sure the Trust stipulations were tailored to make it difficult for any other lender to perform, especially in light that the only recourse a lender would have is to attach Trust assets should there be a default, with no liability available on the City's part as directed by Council.
And don't tell me there is no financial benefit to the donors. If their money is given to the Foundation, a charitable organization, it is a tax deductible donation. If this is on the up and up, make sure that the contributions from donors go to the Trust, therefore no tax deduction and it's truly philanthropic. If that money goes to the charitable Tulsa Foundation then there is an even greater conflict as the Tulsa Stadium Trust members are now "city official" and as such fall under the City's Ethics Ordinance. That Ordinance states a City official may not have a direct or perceived conflict of interest in an issue in which they have a personal, financial or organizational conflict. Their contribution becoming tax deductible is a financial benefit and therefore should fall under the personal and financial conflict of interest. Let's also not forget that BOK/Kaiser and other members of the Trust that are land owners in the immediate area have a considerable amount to gain from this development. It will, according to their own words, increase property values. In economics, the closer your property is to a venue such as this, the greater your potential appreciation in value. Not only is Kaiser interested for this development but it will go a long way to push his other developments (and their value appreciation) being planned in Brady area.
I'm all for developing downtown but the way this is being done scares away other potential developers when a small group are allowed to wield this much power. Add to that the intermingled and not fully transparent way all of this has been done and I cry FOUL! This needs to be looked into.
hopefully Rick Westcott (who is a member of this forum and was openly critical of the trust during its formation) will pick this up for additional scrutiny at the next UED meeting.
I'll do ya one better Inteller, I'll send it to him right now and hopefully he will.
Why bother with it?
Great, we will have a new ball park in downtown. A pefect catalyst for even more development. DT is coming alive again.
I cant follow all the stuff going on, so for someone like me who wants to see the stadium happen... as long as I dont see anyone getting hurt, no laws broken, and do see an abundance of positive benefits, I am glad its a go. As far as conflicts of interest. If you have money, you usually have your finger in many things, have a couple of businesses or ways of making income, investments, charitable organizations, know other people, are connected to other businesses, boards, etc. etc. and no matter what you do someone can find some connection and holler conflict of interest.
I started noticing a pattern with many of my clients when I asked them what they do. Its not like us "working class" peeps who have a job. They do many things and know a lot of people. Most of them really want the best for Tulsa and contribute to stuff here. Yea there may be some sneaky b@stards and bad apples in the bunch. Yes they can have a tendancy to think they know whats best, often they really do. They do after all know how to make money and if Tulsa does well, they make even more money. Its the times when they still think they know whats best, but dont that gets everyone and it can be really hard for them to tell the difference between when someone is legitimately pointing that your doing something wrong because people raise just as much cain when they are doing the right things. If you DO anything, someone gripes and tries to stop you, so they just start to ignore the griping and finger pointing all together and try to find ways to do things in a manner that will get as little public scrutiny and avoid all the "blocking" maneuvers that the gripers will throw at just about anything you do.
Its a shame that this kind of situation exists. But perhaps its just part of the way things are. One group is going to want to do something, another is going to not want it to happen... and there ya go. People start "being creative". lol And then the lines can tend to slowly shift and blur.
But Artist ,it's also the reason alot hasn't happened here....
Maybe TheArtist should change his name to TheEnabler.
I suppose there MIGHT be a good reason the construction of our new ballpark is substantially higher than any other minor league park ever built (and, yes, that is accounting for inflation), but nobody has been able to divine what that reason might be.
quote:
Originally posted by MDepr2007
But Artist ,it's also the reason alot hasn't happened here....
Oh, I know that. There is pleeeenty of blame to go around on BOTH sides.
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
Maybe TheArtist should change his name to TheEnabler.
I suppose there MIGHT be a good reason the construction of our new ballpark is substantially higher than any other minor league park ever built (and, yes, that is accounting for inflation), but nobody has been able to divine what that reason might be.
C'mon... man, the Ballpark will just be the beginning of something Great for Downtown......!
No matter what the price.
just imagine(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y179/rico2/QTpark.jpg)
That Mercedes parked right up next to the door will be me in 2010.
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
Maybe TheArtist should change his name to TheEnabler.
I suppose there MIGHT be a good reason the construction of our new ballpark is substantially higher than any other minor league park ever built (and, yes, that is accounting for inflation), but nobody has been able to divine what that reason might be.
Do you research stuff or just make it up? They are almost done with one in Ohio right now for $55M. I don't know what the land purchase price is, but the construction costs on ours are only $39.2M.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
Maybe TheArtist should change his name to TheEnabler.
I suppose there MIGHT be a good reason the construction of our new ballpark is substantially higher than any other minor league park ever built (and, yes, that is accounting for inflation), but nobody has been able to divine what that reason might be.
Do you research stuff or just make it up? They are almost done with one in Ohio right now for $55M. I don't know what the land purchase price is, but the construction costs on ours are only $39.2M.
The sock's only frame of reference is what Oklahoma City has ever done or spent.
Perhaps SGRIZZLE you could provide the name of the ballpark you are referring to?
I know Michael Bates did some extensive research when the issue was first raised months ago on surrounding area ballparks and found that for similar sized (seats) and simmilar teams, the $30 million mark was prevalent. No doubt we could go and build a $40 million ballpark but do we really need it? Would $30 million not suffice?
No one has yet to address that the projected cost has risen from $30 million that was the original projection starting with the Nordam site to the $40 million now projected. No one has provided the breakdown of services to be rendered to all of the downtown IDL area and their contracted costs over the next 10 years so that we can make sure we are budgeting appropriately and ensuring that those services for the property owners (that are bearing a significant brunt of this ballpark cost) will in fact benefit them and not have to worry about a shortfall 6 years down the road and a cut back in services.
It seems logical that those costs be worked out first, and whatever is left is the budget from which to work for a ballpark development. Let's also not forget that they are expensing the purchase of surrounding properties for private development within that projected $60 million.
Is it going to be: Ballpark $40 million, IDL Services $10 million, therefore $10 million for surrounding property purchases and improvements?
I'm fine with building a ballpark, dont think we need it and it hasnt been proven in Tulsa that new development of a public facility such as this encourages significant business, residential development (see the area around the BOK Center) but if thats what they want to do, then stick to their ideals that development of such a facility will encourage private reinvestment and development in the area and build just a ballpark, dont convolute it with the surrounding property development if the intent is to promote further development.
If they feel that development of the ballpark is not enough to spur ecnomic growth and further development without their own assistance, then what is the point?
And to answer SGRIZZLE your land cost question, out of approximately 7 acres of land for the ballpark itself, 5 acres is being conveyed free and clear to the Trust by Tulsa Development Authority, the other 2 acres is being purchased by the Trust for approximately $726,000 since those 2 acres were purchased using HUD CDBG funds and therefore must be purchased for a determined fair market value as required.
The Greenwood Chamber swapped land with whom? ( city?) Why would there be a cost for the swapped land?
Gary, Indiana...has a fairly new stadium that seats 6,100. It opened in 2003 and cost $45 million to build.
Allentown, Pennsylvania opened a new ballpark in 2008 that cost $48 million to build.
Columbus, Ohio's new park (Huntington Park)opens next year and current building estimates are at $56 Million.
Gwinnett Stadium is just north of Atlanta and opens next year and estimates are at $59 million.
Michael Bates does good research but he is also on the hunt for some sort of midtown based conspiracy where philanthropists giving away millions is all for their benefit.
Here is the park I was referring to and I refer to it since I believe it is the only minor league park currently under construction:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huntington_Park_(Columbus,_Ohio)
As for the downtown services, we are about 2-3 weeks away from the consultant's report listing the recommendations for the services DTU (or it's replacement) should perform.
Yes, the estimate of the ballpark went up but the design has changed from a very plain field to a year-round event facility. I'm hoping more plans come out with the groundbreaking because it's definitely an impressive facility.
As to the surrounding development, they are spending money on streetscaping, fountains, etc. $10M will not redevelop the whole area around the park.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
Maybe TheArtist should change his name to TheEnabler.
I suppose there MIGHT be a good reason the construction of our new ballpark is substantially higher than any other minor league park ever built (and, yes, that is accounting for inflation), but nobody has been able to divine what that reason might be.
Do you research stuff or just make it up? They are almost done with one in Ohio right now for $55M. I don't know what the land purchase price is, but the construction costs on ours are only $39.2M.
The sock's only frame of reference is what Oklahoma City has ever done or spent.
Nice to see the Kool-Aid drinkers are alive and well. No comparison at all to OKC. I've compared to other Double A ballparks, particularly those built by/for teams in the same league as the Drillers. If doing research and reading actual facts doesn't make your head explode, go read Bates' detailed report on the costs of ballparks. Here, you don't have to do the research or even a web search:
http://www.batesline.com/archives/2008/08/how-much-should-a-ballpark-cost.html
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
Michael Bates does good research but he is also on the hunt for some sort of midtown based conspiracy where philanthropists giving away millions is all for their benefit.
Here is the park I was referring to and I refer to it since I believe it is the only minor league park currently under construction:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huntington_Park_(Columbus,_Ohio)
LOL Well done. Just a few problems with your "research".
(1) That's a Triple A stadium, not Double A
(2) It will seat 10,000, not 6,000.
(3) The information I can find on it quickly indicates a total design/construction cost of just under $50 Million. Let's see... Which is a better deal... a AAA ballpark seating 10,000 for $50 Million or a AA ballpark seating 6,000 for $40 Million?
I'll let you do the math... The cost of the Columbus park is much more in line with the other recently-built minor league parks, taking into account its larger size, leaving Tulsa's as perhaps, the most expensive minor league park ever built.
As I said in my first post, perhaps there is a reason for these higher costs, but nothing has been revealed thus far to that effect.
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
Michael Bates does good research but he is also on the hunt for some sort of midtown based conspiracy where philanthropists giving away millions is all for their benefit.
Here is the park I was referring to and I refer to it since I believe it is the only minor league park currently under construction:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huntington_Park_(Columbus,_Ohio)
LOL Well done. Just a few problems with your "research".
(1) That's a Triple A stadium, not Double A
(2) It will seat 10,000, not 6,000.
(3) The information I can find on it quickly indicates a total design/construction cost of just under $50 Million. Let's see... Which is a better deal... a AAA ballpark seating 10,000 for $50 Million or a AA ballpark seating 6,000 for $40 Million?
I'll let you do the math.
1. You said "minor league" and didn't specify which one. Go edit your post if you want to change your argument.
2. The seating size is a minor part of the overall stadium. The Driller's stadium is intentionally downsized in standard seating methods and I believe actually has the same or equivalent premium and club seating.
3. Why would we spend $10M to add 4,000 seats we don't want?
OK wiseguys...stop bashing the Tulsa project while not providing any proof other than mentioning a Michael Bates column.
Here is the proof.
http://www.baseballparks.com/NWA-1.asp
It is the nearest park to Tulsa (Springdale, Arkansas). It is in the same league as Tulsa (doubleA Texas League). It was designed by the same architect as ours (HOK)...it is built for 6,800 seats.
It opened last year and cost $41 million. The entire development cost $50 million.
Very similar to Tulsa in every way.
Why do Oil Capital and DowntownNow oppose this project so much?
Springdale spent $33 million on a stadium out in the sticks just recently. I can't help but think that a) the new Drillers stadium will be better and b) it costs more to build something in the downtown core rather than out in a field where nothing else is around.
They spent a total of $50 million on the stadium and road improvements related to the stadium.
Or..on preview, what Michael said.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
OK wiseguys...stop bashing the Tulsa project while not providing any proof other than mentioning a Michael Bates column.
Here is the proof.
http://www.baseballparks.com/NWA-1.asp
It is the nearest park to Tulsa (Springdale, Arkansas). It is in the same league as Tulsa (doubleA Texas League). It was designed by the same architect as ours (HOK)...it is built for 6,800 seats.
It opened last year and cost $41 million. The entire development cost $50 million.
Very similar to Tulsa in every way.
Why do Oil Capital and DowntownNow oppose this project so much?
I do not oppose the project AT ALL. I oppose the way the project is being handled. I am completely totally in favor of a downtown ballpark and have never posted anything to the contrary.
Nice try with your so-called "proof". But that was either woefully ignorant or dishonest.
First, you even concede that the supposed $41 million got them more than a stadium (in addition to the fact that the stadium it got them is larger than we are gotting.) Parking lots are not cheap, my friend and we aren't getting any for our $40 Million (at least nothing to speak of...)
Bates cites multiple sources, with links, showing the construction cost of the Arkansas stadium to have been $32 Million (again for a stadium approximately 13% larger than our proposed stadium).
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
Michael Bates does good research but he is also on the hunt for some sort of midtown based conspiracy where philanthropists giving away millions is all for their benefit.
Here is the park I was referring to and I refer to it since I believe it is the only minor league park currently under construction:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huntington_Park_(Columbus,_Ohio)
LOL Well done. Just a few problems with your "research".
(1) That's a Triple A stadium, not Double A
(2) It will seat 10,000, not 6,000.
(3) The information I can find on it quickly indicates a total design/construction cost of just under $50 Million. Let's see... Which is a better deal... a AAA ballpark seating 10,000 for $50 Million or a AA ballpark seating 6,000 for $40 Million?
I'll let you do the math.
1. You said "minor league" and didn't specify which one. Go edit your post if you want to change your argument.
2. The seating size is a minor part of the overall stadium. The Driller's stadium is intentionally downsized in standard seating methods and I believe actually has the same or equivalent premium and club seating.
3. Why would we spend $10M to add 4,000 seats we don't want?
1. Okay, so assume AAA and AA stadiums are equivalent in all ways. Whatever suits your fancy.
2. Seating size is a minor part of the overall stadium? Give it a rest man. You are talking complete and utter nonsense now. If you have facts showing that the Ohio and Tulsa stadiums have comparable premium and club seating areas, by all means, let's see them. As someone said earlier in this thread, "Do you research stuff or just make it up?"
3. ROFL. There is no way anyone could have read my posts and reasonably come away with the conclusion that I was suggesting we pay MORE for our ballpark or add seats to it. I am suggesting we pay closer to the $5,000 per seat that Columbus and pretty much every other town is paying, rather than the $6,666 per seat we're paying.
quote:
Originally posted by nathanm
Springdale spent $33 million on a stadium out in the sticks just recently. I can't help but think that a) the new Drillers stadium will be better and b) it costs more to build something in the downtown core rather than out in a field where nothing else is around.
They spent a total of $50 million on the stadium and road improvements related to the stadium.
Or..on preview, what Michael said.
Thanks for supporting my post showing that Springdale constructed their stadium for $33 Million rather than the $40 Million Michael falsely posted.
The only reason construction would be more in the city than in a smaller area is land cost and that is not included in the price of either stadium.
If the new Drillers stadium is indeed better, and if it is indeed better to the extent of the extra money being spent on it, then bravo, that would answer the question. But, as I have said in several of these posts, we've seen and heard NOTHING to show us how or in what ways it might be better. I'm all ears and eyes.
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by nathanm
Springdale spent $33 million on a stadium out in the sticks just recently. I can't help but think that a) the new Drillers stadium will be better and b) it costs more to build something in the downtown core rather than out in a field where nothing else is around.
They spent a total of $50 million on the stadium and road improvements related to the stadium.
Or..on preview, what Michael said.
Thanks for supporting my post showing that Springdale constructed their stadium for $33 Million rather than the $40 Million Michael falsely posted.
The only reason construction would be more in the city than in a smaller area is land cost and that is not included in the price of either stadium.
If the new Drillers stadium is indeed better, and if it is indeed better to the extent of the extra money being spent on it, then bravo, that would answer the question. But, as I have said in several of these posts, we've seen and heard NOTHING to show us how or in what ways it might be better. I'm all ears and eyes.
Don't get on your high horse yet. Michael's $41 million figure includes the parking lots and other site improvements beyond the stadium itself.
Northwest Arkansas voters approved an increase in tax dollars to build their ballpark. They did it with a dedicated one penny sales tax throughout the city in place long enough to raise $50 million
Tulsa has only asked the property owners in the inner dispersal loop to pay one million dollars a year for twenty five years.
Which way would you rather pay for a ballpark?
This was the proposal that the Springdale chamber of commerce brought before the voters to pass the sales tax to pay for the new stadium.
http://www.grandslamforspringdale.com/economic_impact
It shows itemized construction costs of $41 million, excluding land costs.
1. Yes , I'm sure AA and AAA baseball stadium are hugely different. The differences in stadium and rules are so vast that I can find.. well none. None whatsoever.
2. As far as premium seating, from the looks of the columbus stadium I believe they actually have less as there is only one floor above the risers. They also have no right-outfield seating at all as there is a road there. (other than the weird wall they borrowed from "Laugh-in")
There is also no attention being paid for soccer capability in the Ohio design due to the fact they have an MLS stadium in the same city.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
This was the proposal that the Springdale chamber of commerce brought before the voters to pass the sales tax to pay for the new stadium.
http://www.grandslamforspringdale.com/economic_impact
It shows itemized construction costs of $41 million, excluding land costs.
Odd then, that they signed a construction contract for approximately $32 Million.
You seem to be intentionally impervious to facts. I have already reminded you, Nathan has posted it, and most strikingly, you yourself mentioned in your earlier post,
the $41 Million Dollar number included parking lots and other development outside of the stadium! Are we getting parking lots for our $40 Million?
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
1. Yes , I'm sure AA and AAA baseball stadium are hugely different. The differences in stadium and rules are so vast that I can find.. well none. None whatsoever.
2. As far as premium seating, from the looks of the columbus stadium I believe they actually have less as there is only one floor above the risers. They also have no right-outfield seating at all as there is a road there. (other than the weird wall they borrowed from "Laugh-in")
There is also no attention being paid for soccer capability in the Ohio design due to the fact they have an MLS stadium in the same city.
Read more carefully, I already granted you that there may be no AAA/AA distinction.
And, again, "Do you research stuff or just make it up?" Post again when you have some actual facts supporting your assumptions that our stadium will have more premium seating and be more capable of hosting soccer, and why and by how much soccer capability would raise the costs of construction.
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
1. Yes , I'm sure AA and AAA baseball stadium are hugely different. The differences in stadium and rules are so vast that I can find.. well none. None whatsoever.
2. As far as premium seating, from the looks of the columbus stadium I believe they actually have less as there is only one floor above the risers. They also have no right-outfield seating at all as there is a road there. (other than the weird wall they borrowed from "Laugh-in")
There is also no attention being paid for soccer capability in the Ohio design due to the fact they have an MLS stadium in the same city.
Read more carefully, I already granted you that there may be no AAA/AA distinction.
And, again, "Do you research stuff or just make it up?" Post again when you have some actual facts supporting your assumptions that our stadium will have more premium seating and be more capable of hosting soccer, and why and by how much soccer capability would raise the costs of construction.
I am basing that on the fact that public diagrams have shown a soccer layout in our stadium. As stated before I am basing the premium seating statement based on the fact the columbus stadium is shorter.
Old image showing the soccer field:
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2087/2657181159_dfd27f52de.jpg?v=1215755243)
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
1. Yes , I'm sure AA and AAA baseball stadium are hugely different. The differences in stadium and rules are so vast that I can find.. well none. None whatsoever.
2. As far as premium seating, from the looks of the columbus stadium I believe they actually have less as there is only one floor above the risers. They also have no right-outfield seating at all as there is a road there. (other than the weird wall they borrowed from "Laugh-in")
There is also no attention being paid for soccer capability in the Ohio design due to the fact they have an MLS stadium in the same city.
Read more carefully, I already granted you that there may be no AAA/AA distinction.
And, again, "Do you research stuff or just make it up?" Post again when you have some actual facts supporting your assumptions that our stadium will have more premium seating and be more capable of hosting soccer, and why and by how much soccer capability would raise the costs of construction.
I am basing that on the fact that public diagrams have shown a soccer layout in our stadium. As stated before I am basing the premium seating statement based on the fact the columbus stadium is shorter.
Old image showing the soccer field:
LOL
And the reason you couldn't draw a soccer pitch on the Columbus ballpark's outfield is...??
And the added construction costs of the ability to draw a soccer pitch on the ballpark's field is... Here let me do the math for you. ZERO.
Again, save your assumptions and try doing some fact-finding (rather than just making stuff up), I'm all eyes.
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
LOL
And the reason you couldn't draw a soccer pitch on the Columbus ballpark's outfield is...??
And the added construction costs of the ability to draw a soccer pitch on the ballpark's field is... Here let me do the math for you. ZERO.
Again, save your assumptions and try doing some fact-finding (rather than just making stuff up), I'm all eyes.
The Tulsa field has a right outfield and left outfield roughly squared off to better accommodate soccer. Columbus's setup is not like that.
Name something I made up. Find a lie on this thread. Oh wait, here it is:
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
I suppose there MIGHT be a good reason the construction of our new ballpark is substantially higher than any other minor league park ever built (and, yes, that is accounting for inflation)...
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
LOL
And the reason you couldn't draw a soccer pitch on the Columbus ballpark's outfield is...??
And the added construction costs of the ability to draw a soccer pitch on the ballpark's field is... Here let me do the math for you. ZERO.
Again, save your assumptions and try doing some fact-finding (rather than just making stuff up), I'm all eyes.
The Tulsa field has a right outfield and left outfield roughly squared off to better accommodate soccer. Columbus's setup is not like that.
Name something I made up. Find a lie on this thread. Oh wait, here it is:
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
I suppose there MIGHT be a good reason the construction of our new ballpark is substantially higher than any other minor league park ever built (and, yes, that is accounting for inflation)...
LOL So you think the wider outfield (which, so far as we know is only something you have made up, since, as usual, you have provided us with exactly zero evidence) accounts for our 33% per seat higher construction cost?
Now, now... How, exactly, was my first post a lie or made up? What in that post is not true? Facts that are contrary to the way you want them to be are not lies. You have presented nothing, NOTHING remotely showing my post to be a lie or untrue. Go to Bates' post and follow his links, if you can stand that many facts. You will see costs for construction of the most comparable ballparks: AA parks of similar size and in this part of the country.
You, on the other hand have "made stuff up" (I don't think I ever used the word "lie.") by assuming that the Tulsa park will have more premium seating and assuming both that the Columbus park could not handle a soccer pitch and that the capability of handling a soccer pitch adds significant (or ANY) costs to the construction of the project.
Yes. Columbus, Ohio added parking lots and it ran up their cost. They built their stadium out at the intersection of two highways on the outside of town. Are you so upset with the cost of this stadium because they are not building parking lots?
Driller Park is going to have lots of other features that most parks do not have. They include baseball specific items like underground batting cages and non-baseball items like infrastructure for other events like soccer and concerts.
Overall, the costs seem very much in-line with other recent stadiums yet you keep complaining about the price.
Columbus built their park with sales tax dollars. The new Driller Park is being financed with $30 million in private dollars and $5 million in rent from the team. The only public dollars are $1 million a year from downtown property owners.
Which way would you rather have?
OC: Tulsa's stadium is by far the most expensive ever built.
SG: Tulsa's cost $39M while Columbus is spending $55M, that makes ours $16M cheaper.
OC: You don't have any facts to disprove my point.
?????
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
OC: Tulsa's stadium is by far the most expensive ever built.
SG: Tulsa's cost $39M while Columbus is spending $55M, that makes ours $16M cheaper.
OC: You don't have any facts to disprove my point.
?????
Wow, you get more dishonest with every post. Try including the context of my post about Tulsa's stadium being the most expensive minor league stadium ever built. TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THEIR SIZES.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
Yes. Columbus, Ohio added parking lots and it ran up their cost. They built their stadium out at the intersection of two highways on the outside of town. Are you so upset with the cost of this stadium because they are not building parking lots?
Driller Park is going to have lots of other features that most parks do not have. They include baseball specific items like underground batting cages and non-baseball items like infrastructure for other events like soccer and concerts.
Overall, the costs seem very much in-line with other recent stadiums yet you keep complaining about the price.
Columbus built their park with sales tax dollars. The new Driller Park is being financed with $30 million in private dollars and $5 million in rent from the team. The only public dollars are $1 million a year from downtown property owners.
Which way would you rather have?
Try to focus, man. You were discussing the Springdale park, not Columbus. You repeatedly posted the Springdale park's $40+ cost as being comparable to Tulsa's $40 Million cost, when your own post told us it was not a comparable number (because Springdale's $40 Million includes parking lots (and perhaps some other development) while Tulsa's is strictly stadium construction. And, anybody with a fifth-grade reading comprehension can see that my concern is not that we are not getting parking lots. Obviously, my concern is that we are overpaying for the stadium we are getting.
There are red flags all over the place with this project, but the kool-aid drinkers want to wish them away.
The second paragraph, you finally address my initial post, where I surmised that there might be a reason for the higher costs. At least you are for the moment implicitly admitting that Tulsa's park is costing more than other similarly-situated ballparks. But, underground batting cages?? And I question how much extra is being spent on making the ballpark capable of hosting concerts and soccer games, especially when compared to other stadiums. Most, if not all, stadiums are built with the idea of hosting an occasional concert. What extra infrastructure does that really require? Likewise, what extra infrastructure is required to host a soccer game?
As to your third paragraph, that is just plain false. The costs of this stadium are not "very much in-line with other recent stadiums." Repeating your preferred answer over and over does not make it so. Again, go look at Bates' research on the topic.
As to your final two paragraphs, I am glad this is not being financed with sales taxes, but that is clearly a different topic altogether. Just because it's not financed with sales taxes, are just supposed to accept anything they do?
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
Yes. Columbus, Ohio added parking lots and it ran up their cost. They built their stadium out at the intersection of two highways on the outside of town. Are you so upset with the cost of this stadium because they are not building parking lots?
Driller Park is going to have lots of other features that most parks do not have. They include baseball specific items like underground batting cages and non-baseball items like infrastructure for other events like soccer and concerts.
Overall, the costs seem very much in-line with other recent stadiums yet you keep complaining about the price.
Columbus built their park with sales tax dollars. The new Driller Park is being financed with $30 million in private dollars and $5 million in rent from the team. The only public dollars are $1 million a year from downtown property owners.
Which way would you rather have?
Try to focus, man. You were discussing the Springdale park, not Columbus. You repeatedly posted the Springdale park's $40+ cost as being comparable to Tulsa's $40 Million cost, when your own post told us it was not a comparable number (because Springdale's $40 Million includes parking lots (and perhaps some other development) while Tulsa's is strictly stadium construction. And, anybody with a fifth-grade reading comprehension can see that my concern is not that we are not getting parking lots. Obviously, my concern is that we are overpaying for the stadium we are getting.
There are red flags all over the place with this project, but the kool-aid drinkers want to wish them away.
The second paragraph, you finally address my initial post, where I surmised that there might be a reason for the higher costs. At least you are for the moment implicitly admitting that Tulsa's park is costing more than other similarly-situated ballparks. But, underground batting cages?? And I question how much extra is being spent on making the ballpark capable of hosting concerts and soccer games, especially when compared to other stadiums. Most, if not all, stadiums are built with the idea of hosting an occasional concert. What extra infrastructure does that really require? Likewise, what extra infrastructure is required to host a soccer game?
As to your third paragraph, that is just plain false. The costs of this stadium are not "very much in-line with other recent stadiums." Repeating your preferred answer over and over does not make it so. Again, go look at Bates' research on the topic.
As to your final two paragraphs, I am glad this is not being financed with sales taxes, but that is clearly a different topic altogether. Just because it's not financed with sales taxes, are just supposed to accept anything they do?
Springdale's stadium is useful only for baseball, and doesn't have some of the features talked about for the new Drillers stadium. Obviously it's going to be less expensive.
Add to that the decreased expense in building anything on the edge of town rather than in a downtown core, Drillers stadium is in line with others on construction cost.
And that's not even counting the significant inflation in the cost of materials since Arvest Ballpark was built.
Sorry, Oil Capitol. I fail to see your argument.
You say that "we" are paying too much, yet, more than half the cost is being donated. Please explain how much of "your" personal money is being spent to build this ballpark.
It seems to me that Tulsa is getting a $40 million ballpark for the low, low price of $1 million a year for 25 years. Again, that $1 million is being paid for by the owners of property within the three miles of downtown through higher property taxes. My east Tulsa property taxes won't change at all.
You keep trying to find fault and quote a story written by another blogger that is now dated and only covered nearby parks. Every construction job is different and this one has unique aspects.
I ask you again, why are you obsessed with the costs and won't comment on the financing? Why do you think everybody who disagrees with you is a kool-aid drinker? Your obsession on this issue disturbs me.
Gentlemen Please..............
The cost of the stadium is sorta a moot point..
We get the "return on the investment."
Sorta like the BOK.
Maybe... the "Stadium" is the return on the BOK investment.
Maybe there is a fifth or sixth leg of the chair that will be the return on the "Stadium".?
Be positive.
I'm positive I will be able to afford a Hot Dog at the sure to be built Quik Trip near the "Stadium"..
In any event... The trickling is still underway. We have to be patient for it to trickle down.
Wouldnt the design, quality, materials etc. have an impact on the cost? I dont see how anyone can compare or complain about the cost until those things are known. I would rather have high quality, nice design, good materials etc. and it cost more, than something cheap and crappy just so its in line with what others spent. Until we know more about just what we are getting, its a bit premature to complain.
Hopefully we will get some more details at the time of the ground breaking.
quote:
Originally posted by nathanm
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
Yes. Columbus, Ohio added parking lots and it ran up their cost. They built their stadium out at the intersection of two highways on the outside of town. Are you so upset with the cost of this stadium because they are not building parking lots?
Driller Park is going to have lots of other features that most parks do not have. They include baseball specific items like underground batting cages and non-baseball items like infrastructure for other events like soccer and concerts.
Overall, the costs seem very much in-line with other recent stadiums yet you keep complaining about the price.
Columbus built their park with sales tax dollars. The new Driller Park is being financed with $30 million in private dollars and $5 million in rent from the team. The only public dollars are $1 million a year from downtown property owners.
Which way would you rather have?
Try to focus, man. You were discussing the Springdale park, not Columbus. You repeatedly posted the Springdale park's $40+ cost as being comparable to Tulsa's $40 Million cost, when your own post told us it was not a comparable number (because Springdale's $40 Million includes parking lots (and perhaps some other development) while Tulsa's is strictly stadium construction. And, anybody with a fifth-grade reading comprehension can see that my concern is not that we are not getting parking lots. Obviously, my concern is that we are overpaying for the stadium we are getting.
There are red flags all over the place with this project, but the kool-aid drinkers want to wish them away.
The second paragraph, you finally address my initial post, where I surmised that there might be a reason for the higher costs. At least you are for the moment implicitly admitting that Tulsa's park is costing more than other similarly-situated ballparks. But, underground batting cages?? And I question how much extra is being spent on making the ballpark capable of hosting concerts and soccer games, especially when compared to other stadiums. Most, if not all, stadiums are built with the idea of hosting an occasional concert. What extra infrastructure does that really require? Likewise, what extra infrastructure is required to host a soccer game?
As to your third paragraph, that is just plain false. The costs of this stadium are not "very much in-line with other recent stadiums." Repeating your preferred answer over and over does not make it so. Again, go look at Bates' research on the topic.
As to your final two paragraphs, I am glad this is not being financed with sales taxes, but that is clearly a different topic altogether. Just because it's not financed with sales taxes, are just supposed to accept anything they do?
Springdale's stadium is useful only for baseball, and doesn't have some of the features talked about for the new Drillers stadium. Obviously it's going to be less expensive.
Add to that the decreased expense in building anything on the edge of town rather than in a downtown core, Drillers stadium is in line with others on construction cost.
And that's not even counting the significant inflation in the cost of materials since Arvest Ballpark was built.
Which features, precisely will Tulsa's ballpark have that Springdale's lacks? What design features, and more particularly extra costs are included in Tulsa's stadium to allow for these "features talked about for Tulsa's stadium"?
Where do you get the idea that suburban construction is inherently less expensive than construction on a site such as our new stadium? Other than higher land costs (which are not included in these numbers) I'm not seeing it. Can you quantify that all or provide sources, or in the words of Sgrizzle are you just making stuff up?
And can you attempt to quantify the "significant inflation" in construction costs since the Springdale stadium was bid and constructed? Sorry, pal, but building materials have mostly come down in price since then and, given that very few new construction projects are being started these days, one would expect that for a competitive, openly bid project, the contractor costs would be down (or at least up very little).
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
Wow, you get more dishonest with every post. Try including the context of my post about Tulsa's stadium being the most expensive minor league stadium ever built. TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THEIR SIZES.
pancakes? Reread your post dingleberry. You didn't say that.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
Wouldnt the design, quality, materials etc. have an impact on the cost? I dont see how anyone can compare or complain about the cost until those things are known. I would rather have high quality, nice design, good materials etc. and it cost more, than something cheap and crappy just so its in line with what others spent. Until we know more about just what we are getting, its a bit premature to complain.
Hopefully we will get some more details at the time of the ground breaking.
But hardly premature to question... As I said in my first post on the topic, There MIGHT be reasons for the extra costs. But of course, as per usual on this board, no questioning of the powers to be is to be allowed. Instead of doing any research into possible explanations, it's all denial, obfuscation and attack the messenger.
I look forward to the designs and finishes they have chosen for us, and learning why our stadium is costing so much more than other minor league stadiums.
QuoteOriginally posted by Oil Capital
But of course, as per usual on this board, no questioning of the powers to be is to be allowed. Instead of doing any research into possible explanations, it's all denial, obfuscation and attack the messenger.
/quote]
Quit with all the "powers that be" nonsense. Everyody else on this thread gives you answers and you act like this is some spy novel. That annoying "attack the messenger" line is also lame.
You jumped in this thread by calling a poster a name...made a ridiculous claim, then when exposed, go back and try to add other words to your quote.
You quote a local author and act like every other source isn't credible, then continually claim that everyone else can't comprehend the truth.
We've given you enough other resources, explanations, and theories as to why costs on this project might be different. We've discussed other parks, yet you only want to count other Texas League parks that were quoted by Michael Bates.
If we attack the messenger, it is because the messenger won't listen and thinks he is the only one who is right. Put that in your kool-aid.
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
Which features, precisely will Tulsa's ballpark have that Springdale's lacks? What design features, and more particularly extra costs are included in Tulsa's stadium to allow for these "features talked about for Tulsa's stadium"?
[/quote]
If you can't bother to read what other people have written, I'm not going to bother to enumerate those things once again.
As far as urban vs. suburban construction costs, you're being deliberately dense if you're arguing that point.
And materials costs? Still high, thanks to natural disasters. You're right that the labor costs should have decreased some since the Springdale park was built. Otherwise you're out to lunch.
In response to various points that have been made about Arvest Ballpark in Springdale, Ark., etc.:
In 1991, Minor League Baseball (the National Association as it was then known) imposed Facility Standards )embedded in this very large PDF (//%22http://www.billingsgazette.net/m/extras/2006/10/15/cobb.pdf%22)) on all teams. The only difference between AAA and AA is in minimum capacity -- a AA park must seat at least 6,000, a AAA park must seat at least 10,000.
Arvest Ballpark seats 6,500 and has 25 luxury suites. Picnic areas and berms can hold an extra 1,000 fans. Opening night this year drew 7,820.
This article by the team's GM, Eric Edelstein (//%22http://nwanews.com/nwat/Sports/56398/%22), in the Northwest Arkansas Times, explains some of the special features of the park, including a field drainage system identical to that being used in the new Yankee Stadium and a full-sized stage that can be used for concerts and pre-game festivities.
The stadium was designed by HOK and constructed by Crossland in 2007 and 2008 (post-Katrina). BaseballParks.com named it 2008 Ballpark of the Year (//%22http://www.baseballparks.com/NWA-1.asp%22) and commended it for its "green" features, including motion-controlled lighting and special lighting for use by the cleanup crew, so that the big field lights can be turned off right after the game.
From the photos and articles I've seen I don't think it's fair to suggest that Arvest Ballpark is in any sense a substandard or no-frills park.
Regarding the cost of the park: Springdale's
Morning News ran several articles in the spring and summer of 2007, as bids were received, contracts were awarded, and budgets were adjusted. This story from June 8, 2007, reports on changes to the budget after the construction contract was awarded to Crossland (//%22http://www.nwaonline.net/articles/2007/06/08/news/060907szstadcontract.txt%22), the low bidder of only two bids submitted. Here is the City of Springdale's summary of the budget, as published in the newspaper:
quote:
City Costs with contingencies
Site preparation $1.7 million
Parking lot pavement $2.8 million
Stadium construction $33.2 million
Separate purchases $1.4 million
Land purchase $3.8 million
Design fees $2.0 million
Street improvements $3.6 million
Street engineering $0.5 million
Sewer and water $0.8 million
miscellaneous $0.3 million
bond costs $0.7 million
Total costs $50.9 million
I've highlighted the numbers that seem to me to provide an apples-to-apples comparison with what has been proposed for Tulsa. It adds up to $36.3 million, including (according to the story) $1 million for contingencies. The rest of the Springdale money went to a land acquisition, parking lot, four-laning an access road to connect the stadium to the main highway two miles north, and water and sewer connections to a previously undeveloped area.
Thanks Michael.
Tulsa's stadium project is two and a half years later and eight percent more costly than the one built in Arkansas. Sounds like a reasonable apples to apples comparison.
Ours probably costs more because we have a mascot (Hornsby) and they don't.
What kind of name is the "Naturals"? They sound like a group just completely opposed to breast augmentation.
quote:
What kind of name is the "Naturals"? They sound like a group just completely opposed to breast augmentation.
And shaving.
At least they didn't pick Thunder Chickens. (yes, that name was in fact on the table)
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelBates
In response to various points that have been made about Arvest Ballpark in Springdale, Ark., etc.:
In 1991, Minor League Baseball (the National Association as it was then known) imposed Facility Standards )embedded in this very large PDF (//%22http://www.billingsgazette.net/m/extras/2006/10/15/cobb.pdf%22)) on all teams. The only difference between AAA and AA is in minimum capacity -- a AA park must seat at least 6,000, a AAA park must seat at least 10,000.
Arvest Ballpark seats 6,500 and has 25 luxury suites. Picnic areas and berms can hold an extra 1,000 fans. Opening night this year drew 7,820.
This article by the team's GM, Eric Edelstein (//%22http://nwanews.com/nwat/Sports/56398/%22), in the Northwest Arkansas Times, explains some of the special features of the park, including a field drainage system identical to that being used in the new Yankee Stadium and a full-sized stage that can be used for concerts and pre-game festivities.
The stadium was designed by HOK and constructed by Crossland in 2007 and 2008 (post-Katrina). BaseballParks.com named it 2008 Ballpark of the Year (//%22http://www.baseballparks.com/NWA-1.asp%22) and commended it for its "green" features, including motion-controlled lighting and special lighting for use by the cleanup crew, so that the big field lights can be turned off right after the game.
From the photos and articles I've seen I don't think it's fair to suggest that Arvest Ballpark is in any sense a substandard or no-frills park.
Regarding the cost of the park: Springdale's Morning News ran several articles in the spring and summer of 2007, as bids were received, contracts were awarded, and budgets were adjusted. This story from June 8, 2007, reports on changes to the budget after the construction contract was awarded to Crossland (//%22http://www.nwaonline.net/articles/2007/06/08/news/060907szstadcontract.txt%22), the low bidder of only two bids submitted. Here is the City of Springdale's summary of the budget, as published in the newspaper:
quote:
City Costs with contingencies
Site preparation $1.7 million
Parking lot pavement $2.8 million
Stadium construction $33.2 million
Separate purchases $1.4 million
Land purchase $3.8 million
Design fees $2.0 million
Street improvements $3.6 million
Street engineering $0.5 million
Sewer and water $0.8 million
miscellaneous $0.3 million
bond costs $0.7 million
Total costs $50.9 million
I've highlighted the numbers that seem to me to provide an apples-to-apples comparison with what has been proposed for Tulsa. It adds up to $36.3 million, including (according to the story) $1 million for contingencies. The rest of the Springdale money went to a land acquisition, parking lot, four-laning an access road to connect the stadium to the main highway two miles north, and water and sewer connections to a previously undeveloped area.
The Springdale Ballpark was also "hard bid" vs. a negotiated design-build. This is very different. Have you seen the Springdale Ballpark up close? I have. The quality of the work at Springdale is substandard. Many items were not put in that were needed, but were not on the drawings. That is what you get with a hard bid - tough luck-go talk to your architect. With design-build there is no finger pointing, it is not adversarial, the architect and builder are contractually the same entity - nothing will be missed.
The Springdale Ballpark also had just 25 suites compared to the proposed 30 suites for the Drillers, plus the Drillers Ballpark will also have 2 premium level party decks of over 5,000 sf with seating for over 500, which are not as expensive per seat as the suites themselves, but are much more expensive than standard seats. Springdale had no party decks.
Furthermore the Springdale site is 11 rural acres vs. just over 7 urban acres with massive utilities running through it. In fact The 39.2 budget includes $2 million just to relocate these utilities. That is a cost Springdale never had to incur. Whoever said it doesn't cost more to build urban vs. suburban or rural doesn't know what there talking about. Think shoehorn.
I don't believe the $33.2 million cost included contingency because I know the bid cost was $32,998,562. At any rate, it does not include the $2 million contingency that is part of the $39.2 budget for the Drillers. The contingency would have been substantially less because for Springdale because they had 100% completed documents. And the owner carried that cost separately.
So if you want to get really apples to apples do this:
Springdale - $33 construction bid + $2 million design + $1.7 million site prep + $1.4 separate purchases = $38.1 plus add $2 million for utility relocation $200,000 for the 5 additional suites, and $250,000 premium for the party decks. That is a $40.55 comparable number to the Drillers budget.
Finally you have to consider the added value of having a design build situation vs. a hard-bid project.
Example 1: 5th Inning, pitcher is getting tired, time to call up the bullpen. Oh, wait what's that? No phone? Guess we'll have to use smoke signals. Actually they have to use cell phones because yes, the telephones lines and phones were left off the prints from the dugouts to the bullpens, so the contractor did not install them.
Example 2: They have a pretty cool small baseball diamond on the concourse area for the kids to play wiffle ball. Better bring a change of clothes though, because there was no drainage done. Not on the drawings, so you don't get drainage. Now one of the neat features of the Springdale Park is not useable most of the time because it is a natural low spot for about a 1/4 acre worth of site and is muddy 90% of the time. In fact drainage is a huge issue at Springdale. The Field had good drainage, but much of the hard surface drainage and surrounding greenscape drainage is inadequate or entirely missing in many cases because it was not on the drawings. The Visitor's dugout tunnel for example has over 5" of standing water after rains because there was no drain placed there on the drawings. They have to use buckets to bale out the water.
Example 3: The design did not consider that the suite holders might actually open their doors during a game. Once they got into summer games, they realized that upon opening the doors the suites' hvac systems were inadequate to the tune of 300%! They had to spend over $300,000 or replace the hvac equipment only a few months after the park had opened.
I object to the soccer field...
The drawing also shows the 120 Lofts and Retail. Clearly it is a purely fictional rendering. [B)]
Thank you Stymied.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
I object to the soccer field...
The drawing also shows the 120 Lofts and Retail. Clearly it is a purely fictional rendering. [B)]
C'mon, throw USR a bone.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
Thank you Stymied.
One more thing: According to RS Means Building Construction Cost Data, the Springdale construction market location factor is 77.1 vs. 80.3 for Tulsa. This basically means that construction costs are about 4% more in Tulsa than in Springdale, which makes sense because it is more rural there.
Also the current Building Cost Index from Engineering News Record is 4847 vs. 4340 in mid 2006 when Arvest Ballpark was bid. That is 11.6% inflation folks. I know everyone thinks prices are going down, which they are, but that has only been a trend over the last few months-not for the majority of this year or the 2 years+ since that ballpark was bid. In fact, according to ENR, the Building Cost Index is still +5.3% for this year. Material costs decreases take much more time to be realized by the end user, and material is just one part of it. Only about 40% of it to be accurate. So, while material is down slighly over the past few months labor and equipment costs have been actually still going up.
quote:
Originally posted by stymied
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelBates
In response to various points that have been made about Arvest Ballpark in Springdale, Ark., etc.:
In 1991, Minor League Baseball (the National Association as it was then known) imposed Facility Standards )embedded in this very large PDF (//%22http://www.billingsgazette.net/m/extras/2006/10/15/cobb.pdf%22)) on all teams. The only difference between AAA and AA is in minimum capacity -- a AA park must seat at least 6,000, a AAA park must seat at least 10,000.
Arvest Ballpark seats 6,500 and has 25 luxury suites. Picnic areas and berms can hold an extra 1,000 fans. Opening night this year drew 7,820.
This article by the team's GM, Eric Edelstein (//%22http://nwanews.com/nwat/Sports/56398/%22), in the Northwest Arkansas Times, explains some of the special features of the park, including a field drainage system identical to that being used in the new Yankee Stadium and a full-sized stage that can be used for concerts and pre-game festivities.
The stadium was designed by HOK and constructed by Crossland in 2007 and 2008 (post-Katrina). BaseballParks.com named it 2008 Ballpark of the Year (//%22http://www.baseballparks.com/NWA-1.asp%22) and commended it for its "green" features, including motion-controlled lighting and special lighting for use by the cleanup crew, so that the big field lights can be turned off right after the game.
From the photos and articles I've seen I don't think it's fair to suggest that Arvest Ballpark is in any sense a substandard or no-frills park.
Regarding the cost of the park: Springdale's Morning News ran several articles in the spring and summer of 2007, as bids were received, contracts were awarded, and budgets were adjusted. This story from June 8, 2007, reports on changes to the budget after the construction contract was awarded to Crossland (//%22http://www.nwaonline.net/articles/2007/06/08/news/060907szstadcontract.txt%22), the low bidder of only two bids submitted. Here is the City of Springdale's summary of the budget, as published in the newspaper:
quote:
City Costs with contingencies
Site preparation $1.7 million
Parking lot pavement $2.8 million
Stadium construction $33.2 million
Separate purchases $1.4 million
Land purchase $3.8 million
Design fees $2.0 million
Street improvements $3.6 million
Street engineering $0.5 million
Sewer and water $0.8 million
miscellaneous $0.3 million
bond costs $0.7 million
Total costs $50.9 million
I've highlighted the numbers that seem to me to provide an apples-to-apples comparison with what has been proposed for Tulsa. It adds up to $36.3 million, including (according to the story) $1 million for contingencies. The rest of the Springdale money went to a land acquisition, parking lot, four-laning an access road to connect the stadium to the main highway two miles north, and water and sewer connections to a previously undeveloped area.
The Springdale Ballpark was also "hard bid" vs. a negotiated design-build. This is very different. Have you seen the Springdale Ballpark up close? I have. The quality of the work at Springdale is substandard. Many items were not put in that were needed, but were not on the drawings. That is what you get with a hard bid - tough luck-go talk to your architect. With design-build there is no finger pointing, it is not adversarial, the architect and builder are contractually the same entity - nothing will be missed.
The Springdale Ballpark also had just 25 suites compared to the proposed 30 suites for the Drillers, plus the Drillers Ballpark will also have 2 premium level party decks of over 5,000 sf with seating for over 500, which are not as expensive per seat as the suites themselves, but are much more expensive than standard seats. Springdale had no party decks.
Furthermore the Springdale site is 11 rural acres vs. just over 7 urban acres with massive utilities running through it. In fact The 39.2 budget includes $2 million just to relocate these utilities. That is a cost Springdale never had to incur. Whoever said it doesn't cost more to build urban vs. suburban or rural doesn't know what there talking about. Think shoehorn.
I don't believe the $33.2 million cost included contingency because I know the bid cost was $32,998,562. At any rate, it does not include the $2 million contingency that is part of the $39.2 budget for the Drillers. The contingency would have been substantially less because for Springdale because they had 100% completed documents. And the owner carried that cost separately.
So if you want to get really apples to apples do this:
Springdale - $33 construction bid + $2 million design + $1.7 million site prep + $1.4 separate purchases = $38.1 plus add $2 million for utility relocation $200,000 for the 5 additional suites, and $250,000 premium for the party decks. That is a $40.55 comparable number to the Drillers budget.
Finally you have to consider the added value of having a design build situation vs. a hard-bid project.
Example 1: 5th Inning, pitcher is getting tired, time to call up the bullpen. Oh, wait what's that? No phone? Guess we'll have to use smoke signals. Actually they have to use cell phones because yes, the telephones lines and phones were left off the prints from the dugouts to the bullpens, so the contractor did not install them.
Example 2: They have a pretty cool small baseball diamond on the concourse area for the kids to play wiffle ball. Better bring a change of clothes though, because there was no drainage done. Not on the drawings, so you don't get drainage. Now one of the neat features of the Springdale Park is not useable most of the time because it is a natural low spot for about a 1/4 acre worth of site and is muddy 90% of the time. In fact drainage is a huge issue at Springdale. The Field had good drainage, but much of the hard surface drainage and surrounding greenscape drainage is inadequate or entirely missing in many cases because it was not on the drawings. The Visitor's dugout tunnel for example has over 5" of standing water after rains because there was no drain placed there on the drawings. They have to use buckets to bale out the water.
Example 3: The design did not consider that the suite holders might actually open their doors during a game. Once they got into summer games, they realized that upon opening the doors the suites' hvac systems were inadequate to the tune of 300%! They had to spend over $300,000 or replace the hvac equipment only a few months after the park had opened.
Thank you, Stymied. It's nice to finally have someone present some facts that are likely to contribute to a cost difference. Very interesting.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
Wow, you get more dishonest with every post. Try including the context of my post about Tulsa's stadium being the most expensive minor league stadium ever built. TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THEIR SIZES.
pancakes? Reread your post dingleberry. You didn't say that.
pancakes, indeed. Do you not understand the concept of CONTEXT?? (And apparently Recycle Michael doesn't understand the concept either.)
Poor try, Oil Capitol.
Adding words to your post later and then blaming us because you meant something more or less is a lame argument.
Now we have a poster who has answered all your questions and refuted all your claims.
The price of the new Driller Stadium is right in line with other projects, there clearly is fair way to compare them, the ballpark you cited was more expensive than you said, and there are a number of extras to the Tulsa one.
The ball is in your court. Do you want to say you were wrong, or do you want to claim we don't understand what context you were using?
Latest renderings. Unfortunately I dont think either of these shows the side facing towards the Brady and Blue Dome Districts? Or do I have my directions wrong. Was hoping there would be an interesting "grand entrance" on that side. I believe I read some where that the stadium was to be stone and steel Was kind of hoping for brick, but hey, good to be different and unique too. Plus stone and steel can have a nice, solid, higher quality to it. I like contemporary, but hope the Brady facing side is more pedestrian friendly than what I am seeing here. From what I can tell so far, design wise... its "ok", its growing on me. Its not like any of the potential scenarios I was thinking they could take, so may take a bit to digest this design and see how it settles in. The exact materials they use will still make a BIG difference on what its going to really be like.
(http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/7135/baseballstadium1rp4.jpg)
Can I just say that I really hope the official name for the place doesn't include the word "ballpark." It sounds little league.
I cringe every time I drive into Springdale and see the signs referring to "Arvest Ballpark."
The top picture is facing the shops on Greenwood and the bottom one is facing the expressway to the north.
I like that you can drive on the expressway and look down directly into the ballpark. I like that it goes down and keeps a low profil to not overwhelm the Brady and Greenwood districts.
I love the rooftop party areas that look down on the field but have the skyline and straight shot look down to the entertainment district.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
The top picture is facing the shops on Greenwood and the bottom one is facing the expressway to the north.
I like that you can drive on the expressway and look down directly into the ballpark. I like that it goes down and keeps a low profil to not overwhelm the Brady and Greenwood districts.
I love the rooftop party areas that look down on the field but have the skyline and straight shot look down to the entertainment district.
The top picture is actually facing Elgin on the west side. They labeled it wrong.
What the hell? Did the design firm just dust off some old plans from the 1960's for this?
As soon as they named HOK I called this.
It's some fugly-donkey nastiness. Thanks for nothing. Try again.
MID-CENTURY MODERN FAIL.
This is not a ****ing Frank Lloyd Wright house. Give me some arches and classic shapes with deco detailing. Goddamn HOK--they have no stake in this project other than to make it look different and "significant" to toot their own horn. This isn't about what Tulsa wants--it's about what the architect wants in order to get respect from other architects.
This is a direct result of the sub rosa nature of the entire project. Instead of getting community input, somebody in the Mayor's office googled "minor league stadium architect," found HOK, and hired them before there was ever a Stadium Trust.
In 20 years this thing is going to look incredibly dated.
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
As soon as they named HOK I called this.
It's some fugly-donkey nastiness. Thanks for nothing. Try again.
MID-CENTURY MODERN FAIL.
This is not a ****ing Frank Lloyd Wright house. Give me some arches and classic shapes with deco detailing. Goddamn HOK--they have no stake in this project other than to make it look different and "significant" to toot their own horn. This isn't about what Tulsa wants--it's about what the architect wants in order to get respect from other architects.
This is a direct result of the sub rosa nature of the entire project. Instead of getting community input, somebody in the Mayor's office googled "minor league stadium architect," found HOK, and hired them before there was ever a Stadium Trust.
20 years ago this thing would have already looked incredibly dated.
Fixed that last sentence for you....
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
Poor try, Oil Capitol.
Adding words to your post later and then blaming us because you meant something more or less is a lame argument.
Now we have a poster who has answered all your questions and refuted all your claims.
The price of the new Driller Stadium is right in line with other projects, there clearly is fair way to compare them, the ballpark you cited was more expensive than you said, and there are a number of extras to the Tulsa one.
The ball is in your court. Do you want to say you were wrong, or do you want to claim we don't understand what context you were using?
What a sad, little, little, dishonest man you are.
(1) I never went back to add any words to my posts
(2) the poster who "answered all my question and refuted all my claims"?? Are you referring to Michael Bates? It is to laugh. He answered one "question", if you will, that being the accurate cost of constructing the Springdale ballpark. And my "claims" were his claims, entirely based on (and linked to) his earlier research. He now has amended and revised his numbers regarding the Springdale park. That still leaves all the others he researched that have substantially lower costs per seat than we are spending. (and I love how you are now all about Michael Bates when you dismissed him as just a blogger a few posts back).
I fully acknowledge that with Bates' revised numbers, the cost of our ballpark appears to be in line with the cost of the Springdale park. As Bates tells us, the Springdale park has a number of "upgrades". It remains to be seen exactly what is included in our park, but I'm willing to believe they are building a park as good as Springdale's.
3. Again, the cost of the ballpark we are building is clearly in line with the costs of the Springdale park. There are plenty of others out there that appear to have been built (or under construction) at a lower per seat price. Your line that the "ballpark
cited is more expensive than said" is particularly laughable, given that what I said about its costs were what your new hero Michael Bates earlier said about its cost, and more so, given that it turns out the cost of the Springdale park is a mere $3 Million more than I quoted (again, based on Bates' earlier numbers), but $5 Million less than you repeatedly and dishonestly posted.
As to the "extras", as Bates posted, the Springdale park includes plenty of extras too. Does our park include all of those, PLUS more? You don't know, do you?
For what exactly are you expecting an apology? Should I apologize for questioning the great and powerful leadership of Tulsa, based on well-researched, cited, and linked numbers? Or should I apologize for somehow being responsible for causing you to post your fantasies, lies, and distortions (repeatedly posting higher costs for a ballpark when you knew it included construction of more than just the ballpark; posting prices for other ballparks as if they are comparable when you either knew and chose not to include their capacities, or did not understand that the size of stadiums is kind of an important factor when trying to compare construction costs (e.g., the Gwinnett County Stadium... 10,000 seats and lots of upgrades but still only $5900 per seat compared to our $6600.) Likewise, the ballpark you referenced in Allentown apparently has 10,000 seats.
If I wanted to be a dishonest poster, I could have posted the recently-built Kansas City, KS minor league ballpark, which was built for $13 Million (and, by the way, includes "extras" like capability to host soccer games and concerts). But I honestly do not think it is comparable to the stadium we are building, so I didn't bring it into the discussion.
With Bates' revised numbers re: Springdale, I am a good deal more comfortable with the the cost of our new park. Hopefully, the "extras" we get in ours will be at least equal to those in the Springdale park and consist of more than "underground batting cages", infrastructure for concerts and infrastructure for soccer games (the first of which seems more like a waste of money than an "extra" and the other two of which are pretty much standard equipment for new ballparks.)
And to close on a happy note. I really like the design. Very cool, fitting for Tulsa, and different from the standard old-time ballpark designs.
Well, I have decided I like it lol. I like the mix of retro and contemporary. Though it doesnt fit with everything thats nearby, my expectation, and hope, is that what new development goes nearby will also be contemporary in nature. Some of the rehabs and new stuff that is going in now is often a mixture of modern and old, or very contemporary. This will also compliment the new Channel 6 building and the Matthews Warehouse/Philbrook Expansion. If they also do a complimentary contemporary development style with the property around it... we are going to have a very unique mix of buildings in that section of downtown from Brady to Greenwood to Blue Dome. Its as if 100years ago some simiar styles went in, then about 100years later a completely different set went in, with nary a peep from anything else in between.
Seems on here, one persons "old and out dated" is anothers "cool and retro" lol. Also seems that some of those that think this is old looking would have preferred that we had gone with an even older style? I get the context issue, but it looks like we are going to have a lot more contemporary and "retro 60s" type stuff in the area. So I think it will all work out. And yes, its definitely unlike any other ballpark I have ever seen. Tulsa unique. That whole area of downtown is evolving into something very unique, not a copy of something some other city has done (aka OKC blah) and I like that.
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
I fully acknowledge that with Bates' revised numbers, the cost of our ballpark appears to be in line with the cost of the Springdale park...
...And to close on a happy note. I really like the design. Very cool, fitting for Tulsa, and different from the standard old-time ballpark designs.
Good enough for me. I apologize for being so defensive about the costs and trying to spank your comments so fervently.
I like the openness of the design. It looks inviting. I think it is going to be a very cool place to bring my family.
I already paid my deposit for 2010 season tickets.
Crap, OC and I agree on things now.
My first thought was Frank Lloyd Wright also. Can't say I don't like the design, can't say I like it either. I will have to wait for a more detail drawing I suppose. But by that rendering it does look very 1970's airport.
I mean, honestly--this would be a nice design for an airport terminal or a new high school.
But a sports venue? Stadiums are supposed to inspire thoughts of greatness and hearken back to ages past. ESPECIALLY baseball--a sport in which history has more meaning than any other.
Here's a test for you: if someone passes by a ballpark and says, hey what's that building--then you've achieved FAIL. We need sense of place, not sense of grad student architectural achievement.
Now that I've gotten that off my chest, I'll wait for more renderings before continuing to complain.
EDIT: I was really hoping for something that echoed the Fairgrounds Pavillion.
(http://henryhawkins.com/tulsa/images/pavilLg.jpg)
I see elements of the fairgrounds pavilion. People seem to focus on one kind of Art Deco and this seems to have a lot of elements of Streamline Art Deco to me.
Very rectilinear. I'd like to see more articulation that tells me it's a ball park and not another Borg cube. Reminds me of a triple-blade razor. Looks like it could hurt you.
Ball parks should be warm and permanent looking. Brick and steel. Boral brick with art-deco articulation would serve us far better than this design. I don't see any grand entrances that stimulate the senses and force your eye up. The engineered space should also serve as a design element.
I try to visualize a ballpark with the eyes of a kid, and without the label, there is nothing in this image that tells the kid in me that this is a ball park or stimulates any amazement.
Just my opinion, I know that some of you love the Borg cube designs that are popping up like little square pimples all over the country.
Floyd is absolutely right. This is going to wind up as one of Kunstler's Eyesores of the Month.
I don't hate it, I can see where they are going with it. It needs a grand entrance...something with an arch form to draw in the eye.
Artist or Gaspar, feel like adding a pretty door?
I started really looking at it and piecing together how its actually going to be dimensionally... and it starts to fall flat again. It is already very linear, but when you start to realize how it will look in real life with the set backs and all, the "line of sight", not a "straight on rendering",,, its going to lose even more of the height and interest that you see now.
For instance, driving or walking up Archer from the west to the ballpark or along Elgin near Archer, you will not see the third level because it is set back so far. Also that black tower, and whats to the back of it, will be hidden because of how far its set back behind the building.
You will essentially be seeing just this...
(http://img122.imageshack.us/img122/8780/baseballstadium1bje4.jpg)
Now the 40 something % in favor of a downtown ballpark will drop below 40% ?
If the Tulsa Elite would allow bigger people to play, we could dream bigger[;)]
(http://www.pizzahutpark.com/Portals/0/images/park_nolegend5.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by carltonplace
I don't hate it, I can see where they are going with it. It needs a grand entrance...something with an arch form to draw in the eye.
Artist or Gaspar, feel like adding a pretty door?
Can't polish that. It's just all wrong, and slapping a pretty door on it is not enough.
Certainly would be easy to draw though. I bet I could 3D it in less than a week. Sketchup model in a day!
I think it can be tweaked up a little bit. I am curious as to what they have planned for the South side and the SW corner. Thats really the main entrance and the side people will see the most. In some older diagrams it appears that there are a few buildings along Archer, but in the latest it looks mostly open. Is there going to be any artwork there? Fountains? etc. Cant tell yet what they have in mind. The general feeling I am getting is that from that side they want it to be very open, as if the outside and inside of the ballpark flow into each other. There isnt really an "entrance", its open space inviting you in. In an old rendering it looked as though there was a plaza with a fountain across the street, then sidewalk, street, then sidewalk right into the ballpark. Everything connected and flowed with similar design elements as one large space. And too, it could be they want it to be a bit more of a multi-function, multi-use space. Not just say "baseball park only" and only those inside can see inside. Plus, if they have more contemporary buildings around the ballpark that will help the whole area look nice. The structure of the ballpark isnt intended to be some towering, architectural masterpiece, just nice, clean, simple lines, and the whole area working together creating a nice feel... I am still curious to see more.
There are some similarities in these two...
(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y179/rico2/baseball.jpg)
They will be neighbors no...?
(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y179/rico2/livingarts4.jpg)
And this... the new channel 6 building.
(http://img129.imageshack.us/img129/2161/kotvdowntownek7.jpg)
I am sure other similar stuff will go in that area soon as well.
Does KOTV still have the money?
With the relations between KOTV, Tulsa World and KRMG , one might think they'd move in together. They could share a dugout maybe
I did hear that the Channel 6 project has slowed.
Griffin made his money through syrup and jelly sales. Let's all go to the store and buy some Griffen's products to make sure he builds his new building.
I think both of those examples are quite beautiful, but they offer proportional vertical elements that make them graceful.
(http://img129.imageshack.us/img129/2161/kotvdowntownek7.jpg)
The play of color and texture, are wonderful in this one.
(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y179/rico2/livingarts4.jpg)
I don't see any of this in the ballpark. I don't see anything interesting. I see industrial, highway-side design. Slap a few loading docks on it, and park a 53' simi trailer under the canopy.
(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y179/rico2/baseball.jpg)
With the relations between KOTV, Tulsa World and KRMG , one might think they'd move in together. They could share a dugout maybe
<end quote......^
Tulsa World and share in the same sentence.
Roxanne will love you.
(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y179/rico2/krusty.gif)
Gaspar......did you ever think that we might just be seeing the version of the building that they want you to see.??
The final cut will be to silence any resistance and leave one with a sense of victory.
Kinda like a wrestling match.
[;)]
Can we start a new thread related to the design of the place.
Public buildings, particularly large public gathering facilities have the unique responsibility of articulating the character and identity of the people that make up the place in which it is located. What does this building say about us? If it didn't say 'ballpark' on it I would instantly think it was an annex to the City/County Jail or at best a new wing for Edison High School. Maybe this is due to the 2-D nature of the drawing...I'm just sayin'.
I am interested in seeing a pronounced focal point something that makes a resounding call to its presence, an announcement of sorts from the perspective that most people will personally relate to it, the southwest corner. How the heck do you get into that place? Can't tell if there is a primary entry or series of main entries (outside of the labels) from the elevation. Have we become automated and without need for visual cues so as to read a building and understand its place in our built environment...or at least how to relate to it... use it?
I'm concerned with the buildings ability to age. I'm afraid in 10 years we'll all be past this fad of 'contemporary' architecture.
I hope that I'm way off and I'm just reading the drawings wrong. But for the money we're about to throw down I was hoping for a more profound statement; something that got me excited as I walked up from the Blue Dome area, got me thinking about baseball and hearing those two words 'Play Ball'...instead of feeling like I'm walking into what looks like an expensive processing plant.
Man, I really liked what Will Wilkens was proposing to do across the street!
quote:
Originally posted by Rico
With the relations between KOTV, Tulsa World and KRMG , one might think they'd move in together. They could share a dugout maybe
<end quote......^
Tulsa World and share in the same sentence.
Roxanne will love you.
(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y179/rico2/krusty.gif)
Gaspar......did you ever think that we might just be seeing the version of the building that they want you to see.??
The final cut will be to silence any resistance and leave one with a sense of victory.
Kinda like a wrestling match.
[;)]
You may be right. I always accept that my perception is bias. My hope is that the actual structure is far better than these simple images. Unfortunately, now that I've analyzed the illustrated design of the structure as presented, I cannot go back to viewing it with new eyes. It's simply missing several necessary components.
quote:
Originally posted by OurTulsa
I'm concerned with the buildings ability to age. I'm afraid in 10 years we'll all be past this fad of 'contemporary' architecture.
+1 It is indeed a fad. Permanent architectural styles, even the modern ones use permanent elements that combine form and function and as a result are easy to maintain over long periods of time. They are also easy to comprehend and merge into new styles as they evolve.
You notice that many of the old buildings down town that are now being rehabbed into modern urban dwellings blend comfortably with the new modern elements added to them.
Fad styles are uni-dimensional. They work with nothing else, therefore they become disposable as tastes change and communities evolve. Like Hammer Pants.
(http://lkribs.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/mchammer.jpg)
Hold on just a minute. Hammer pants are out of style?
quote:
Originally posted by wavoka
Hold on just a minute. Hammer pants are out of style?
Yeah. I think it has something to do with having to put your hand into your pocket up to the elbow to retrieve your cell phone each time it rings.
They worked with the older phones.
(http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p8/knyte6426/dynatac.jpg)
just got a funny email. The grown-ups are watching. Voice your opinions. They're listening. [8)]
Quote from someone far more important than me:
"That's godawful. . . I agree, this looks like an aged middle school!"
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
I did hear that the Channel 6 project has slowed.
Griffin made his money through syrup and jelly sales. Let's all go to the store and buy some Griffen's products to make sure he builds his new building.
No thanks, I just replaced a speaker because of their sound on cable.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3031/3102579805_d72ca93c12.jpg)
Interesting (//%22http://www.flickr.com/photos/8812316@N08/page2/%22)
or not
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
just got a funny email. The grown-ups are watching. Voice your opinions. They're listening. [8)]
Quote from someone far more important than me:
"That's godawful. . . I agree, this looks like an aged middle school!"
When I first saw it I didnt like it. Then I decided to be fair, open minded, give it a try, etc. I talked myself into liking it lol. But now, I am regrettably slinking back to not liking it lol.
If ya have to work so hard TO like something,,, Guess part of me is defeatist and saying "Well there isnt anything I can do about it, whats gonna be there is gonna be there so make the best of it, hope for the best, and learn to be happy with it".
But, if they want suggestions. It depends on how far, how much change, they are willing to consider? There is always a give and take budget wise too. I think a few tweaks here and there and some really good materials choices could still pull it off. Plus again, the entrance, the Elgin and Archer corner, is going to be very important and I have no idea what they have planned there. The renderings we are looking at are of stuff thats on the back of the building facing the highway, or to the back side. The "gateway" the "money shot" etc that leads to and from Blue Dome and Brady is that Elgin/Archer corner. Thats where you definitely want some eyecatching bling. Thats where the sense of place, is going to be created for the area.
They need to rip it up and start over.
I do like the idea of doing something contemporary. It can help Tulsa make a unique statement. Just to show what I mean by how even using nice materials can take something from, blah, to oooh niiice. Course it may cost a little more money, but if ya want something nice that makes a statement...
Look closely at this Shanghi World Financial Center pic. Notice the large blocks of stone and the amount of texture it has. That texture is wonderful and makes a great contrast with the sleek steel and glass.
Pic by staffh on flickr, taken from Skyscraper Page forum.
(http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/1729/shanghaifromskyscraperpje7.jpg)
Here is the Getty Museum. Again, simple lines, but the high texture of the stone gives it so much character and interest. pic by Kris Kros on flickr.
(http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/28/gettync0.jpg)
Now imagine the ballpark design with a similar kind of stone and texture, plus the steel and glass. I also made some quick tweaks. A curved, stainless steel portico over the ticket counters, cleaned up a few elements, added a little water feature... Ok a BIG water feature lol, plus some more "contemporary" pieces.
(http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/1174/baseballstadium1abcmr3.jpg)
Now add some contemporary light fixtures to the outside. They have some amazing stuff out now. Perhaps something like the round floriform, under the silver portico. Then a row of the backlit kind on the stonework to the left of that and some on the stonework on either side of the water feature....
(http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/6861/dahliabag5.jpg)
(http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/9708/schermohp2.jpg)
Not trying to say those exact lights, just throwing out the notion that some sort of sculptural lighting elements can be used to enhance and play up the contemporary/artistic design of the structure. Some little tweaks here and there, the right materials and accents,,, and you would definitely get rid of any notion that its a school. May be a bit overly "hip and cool" for RecycleMichael though.[8D]
Artist, you're putting lipstick on it. I would like to see more articulation particularly on the side that will play key roles in how it relates to the public realm (don't care too much about how it looks from the highway or the backs of other buildings). If we are lucky enough to create some sort of walking environment around the ballpark between OSU and Brady-Greenwood this face will kill the streetscape. I fear it will repel people or a least be very un-pleasant to walk by - no matter how many atrocious acorn lights and abstract fountains and sculptures you adorn the sidewalk and obligatory plaza with. Again, if this is going to be urban, please think about how this building relates at the points it engages the public realm. Right now, without closer detail, it says 'dull stretches of monotonous lines'. Remember, buildings, particularly public buildings say alot about the people who use it.
I'm sorry, it looks like the Edison HS annex right now.
Since "they're" watching. I agree with Floyd and to some extent, Monsier Gaspar. It looks like an airport complex from the late fifties merged into a replica of Edison High School with THX1138 highlights (show some bald people milling around).
Not a bad image, just not one that elicits a baseball feeling. Might be cool somewhere, but not downtown.
I hear what your saying. But just to help visualize things a little better. Basically this...
(http://img154.imageshack.us/img154/5927/baseballstadium1abcdyo8.jpg)
Is the part of the building that someone may be walking by. (the area in green in these renderings)
This is the latest concourse/ground level rendering.
(http://img154.imageshack.us/img154/5899/ballparkrender2yu3.jpg)
An older layout.
(http://img154.imageshack.us/img154/7141/2drillerpark60milldev2cg8.jpg)
The area in blue,,, no need to worry too much about since its behind the building and only seen from the highway. The green and blue areas are the "working end" of things, offices, tickets, gift shop, etc. I think the pink areas are actually more important. Thats the area where people will be walking and most likely to be seeing while coming towards the ballpark or in the pedestrian friendly areas (hopefully) around the ballpark. That corner is where I think there should be some sort of "gateway" type structure or look. Something entertaining and lively.
Can the main structure be different? Well of course. But I am still more interested in whats going to happen in the larger area.
I frankly still like the idea of doing something contemporary with the building design. Can anyone else think of a way to "add more articulation" to or completely change this in a way that would still be contemporary? Or would you prefer they abandon the contemporary notion all together and go with an older style?
(http://img154.imageshack.us/img154/5927/baseballstadium1abcdyo8.jpg)
One possibility I can think of is to perhaps move some of the stuff thats in the back to the side, to give that street facing side greater possibilities for more height, articulation and interest? Cause otherwise, there is not a lot of space and or height there to do much with. No need to be simply slapping random stuff on that little section thats off to the back and behind trees, just to add more stuff. You may start to make it look cluttery. Especially once they stick trees and lamp posts in front of it. Heck with as many trees as it looks like they have planted in front of that side, its unlikely your going to be able to see much of it anyway lol. I think its fine to keep that small section, clean and simple. Use some nice materials and then focus on the larger pink area and whats around the ballpark.
Artist, all your ideas are wonderful. But I have a question: how many baseball games have you been too? (I seem to recall your saying the number could be counted on one hand?)
I just realized that the exterior of this stadium was designed by non-fans. No one who loves baseball could possibly have come up with it.
If HOK can't give us someone who is a fan and student of baseball to design the thing, fire them and find someone else who appreciates the game and knows what appropriate ballpark architecture is. The design as it stands is a JOKE.
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
Artist, all your ideas are wonderful. But I have a question: how many baseball games have you been too? (I seem to recall your saying the number could be counted on one hand?)
I just realized that the exterior of this stadium was designed by non-fans. No one who loves baseball could possibly have come up with it.
If HOK can't give us someone who is a fan and student of baseball to design the thing, fire them and find someone else who appreciates the game and knows what appropriate ballpark architecture is. The design as it stands is a JOKE.
Gee floyd. Do you really think the guys at HOK aren't fans of baseball?
These are the same guys who designed Yankee stadium. But of course, you think they know nothing of baseball.
Strike one for your hyperbole.
If "they" are listening, I want "them" to understand how badly "they're" about to foul this thing up.
Regarding HOK: new Yankee stadium is an architectural replica of old Yankee stadium with modern amenities. I know they have a dedicated stadium group. I just wonder why they think a minor league ballpark should look like a transit terminal. My best guess is that whoever they assigned to the project is more interested in architecture than baseball; hence a rendering that is more Frank Lloyd Wright than Fenway or Wrigley.
The sooner we all admit the design sucks, the better chance there is that they'll fix it.