The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

I thought this deserved a thread of its own.

I have only seen the pictures that were shown on TV and in the paper.

It reminds me of the stone and glass work around the University of Tulsa, especially the new buildings of the football stadium.

Maybe someone can post the different pictures.

It doesn't look grand in size, but it is hard to tell since I know that a large part of the stadium is below grade and the home plate is a couple of stories below street level.

What do others think of the design?

I'm torn. It certainly was not the design choice I would've made, and it leaves me wanting... something more. I can't place a finger on what it is about it that just doesn't feel right.

I love "prarie-school", and if this building included the detailing in the windows, fixtures, and architecture, then I would appreciate it more. Right now, though, I will agree that it looks like a high school from the late '50s - early '60s era.

Maybe if some art deco elements were combined with the prarie-school design, we could name the style "Tulsa-deco" and spark a new wave of architectural design?

It looks horrible and like no thought was put into it at all.

It makes me think the firm that designed it got the contract, said "hey it's only Tulsa" and then pulled out a design someone else rejected and plastered Tulsa Ballpark on it.

I think it's oriented on the map wrong.

quote:

---

Originally posted by wavoka

It looks horrible and like no thought was put into it at all.

It makes me think the firm that designed it got the contract, said "hey it's only Tulsa" and then pulled out a design someone else rejected and plastered Tulsa Ballpark on it.

---

dude, you don't know how true that statement actually is.

"Tulsa...keeping the bar set low."

I think it's horribly wrong.  

As I said on the other thead: sports venues should inspire thoughts of grandeur and history, ESPECIALLY in baseball, which is uniquely tied to a long, rich tradition.  This design does the opposite--it is unremakrable and looks nothing like a stadium should.  Compare it to the BOK Center, which is another non-traditional design, and you see that the arena has grand sweeping lines and makes a major statement, but this proposed ballpark seems designed to hide and blend in.  

So it's below grade?  That's a reason to build UP, not down.  The design shown in the Tulsa World needs to be SCRAPPED.  Tear it off the drawing board and throw it away.  Start over.  I'd rather have a "cookie cutter" brick throwback than this uninspired avant garde nonsense.  It wouldn't be unique, but at least it would look like a stadium.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Floyd

I think it's horribly wrong.  

As I said on the other thead: sports venues should inspire thoughts of grandeur and history, ESPECIALLY in baseball, which is uniquely tied to a long, rich tradition.  This design does the opposite--it is unremakrable and looks nothing like a stadium should.  Compare it to the BOK Center, which is another non-traditional design, and you see that the arena has grand sweeping lines and makes a major statement, but this proposed ballpark seems designed to hide and blend in.  

So it's below grade?  That's a reason to build UP, not down.  The design shown in the Tulsa World needs to be SCRAPPED.  Tear it off the drawing board and throw it away.  Start over.  I'd rather have a "cookie cutter" brick throwback than this uninspired avant garde nonsense.  It wouldn't be unique, but at least it would look like a stadium.

---

actually I changed my mind, I like it.  I want to sit in my glassed in air conditioned box seat, sip on a latte from the on site Starbucks next door, and check my stocks on my wi-fi connected laptop.  I'll be sure and occasionally do a golf clap if someone scores, and root for whatever team happens to be playing....but please, don't make too much noise as I want to listen to my latest tracks I've downloaded.

It reminds me of the side of the convention center facing Houston and 7th.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=tulsa&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=51.177128,78.75&ie=UTF8&ll=36.149292,-95.998423&spn=0,359.997597&z=19&layer=c&cbll=36.148274,-95.998126&panoid=RrX5KkTMCnW6m1cMtixHHw&cbp=12,64.34847407756365,,0,5.000000000000001

I like the design. I would like my house to look like this. I don't think it looks like a ballpark though, and if that's what everyone wants, then I guess it doesn't work for its intended purpose.

I don't care for the design, it needs work.

Instead of saying "the design needs work", I'd rather say, "we need a new design". I don't think there's anything to work with in this design.

I would like to see, as several others have mentioned, an art deco stadium. I'd love those art deco artifacts from torn-down Tulsa structures incorporated into the design in a BIG way. I don't really know what all that consists of (I didn't know we even had someone who cared to take the stuff off of buildings before demolition), but I think it would be pretty cool if we used the terra cotta pieces to form an art deco mural of sorts on entrance columns, and topped them with some distinctive deco lights.

This is kind of what I have in mind. Don't judge the terra cotta I have placed on there, just the idea in general...

(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3118/3104443077_48b8edca5e.jpg)

I think I need to see more than just two elevations before I make a decision.  3D perspectives would be nice to see.  I like the idea of a modern brick and glass ballpark but think the brick color should match the color of brick mostly found in the Brady District, not the tan color shown.

I don't feel strongly about it other than to say it is tons more interesting than the current stadium. Enough with the statements of good taste and style. My hope is that we don't make it too controversial in design and forget that its main function is as a baseball stadium. We have our iconic structure with the arena. Just build the dang thing as fast and as strong as we can with attention to functionality and flexibility e.g. parking, walking, security, other uses etc.

Make as simple a statement as possible with the exterior without making it look like a memory chip, put a big iconic statue in front of it and move on.

quote:

---

Originally posted by dsjeffries

Instead of saying "the design needs work", I'd rather say, "we need a new design". I don't think there's anything to work with in this design.

I would like to see, as several others have mentioned, an art deco stadium. I'd love those art deco artifacts from torn-down Tulsa structures incorporated into the design in a BIG way. I don't really know what all that consists of (I didn't know we even had someone who cared to take the stuff off of buildings before demolition), but I think it would be pretty cool if we used the terra cotta pieces to form an art deco mural of sorts on entrance columns, and topped them with some distinctive deco lights.

This is kind of what I have in mind. Don't judge the terra cotta I have placed on there, just the idea in general...

(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3118/3104443077_48b8edca5e.jpg)

---

Didnt realize we had a thread on the design aspect. But just to respond to the deco idea. I would have loved for it to have been deco or had deco elements. I would have loved for it to have been brick and deco.

I cant see the point in saying anything about that now. Just about everyone I know, me top of the list, at every opportunity kept pushing, wanting, begging for it to be deco or "decoish".

The powers that be and the designers didnt give a sh@t about most people would have wanted design wise. So why on earth would they give a sh@t now at this point?

You know, no matter what you do your not going to be able to please everyone and someone is going to complain. BUT the one sure fire way to have gotten in the good graces of most people in this city would have been to play up a strong deco influence.

Y'all know that there are three kinds of deco, only one really used the kind of embellishments DSJEFFRIES posted?

I need to see some real image to judge. A stright side view tells us nothing really of how it looks. They need to tweak it with a grand entrance and a few arches and they could likley be very art deco.

I'd like to see the ballbark borrow from the past:

(http://www.tulsaarchitecture.com/images/1920/Coliseum1943.jpg)

(http://www.tulsaarchitecture.com/images/1930/WillRogers2.jpg)

(http://www.tulsaarchitecture.com/images/1930/UnionDepot10s.jpg)

(http://www.dmairfield.com/places/tulsa_ok/images/TulsaAirport.jpg)

Also deco:
(http://www.bartlesville.k12.ok.us/bhs/photos/mainext01.jpg)
(http://www.agilitynut.com/06/3/monument.jpg)
(http://www.agilitynut.com/06/3/fire152.jpg)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3075/2791564442_c40b369e30.jpg?v=0)
(http://lh5.ggpht.com/_53clx5EUllI/R31-NWaKY0I/AAAAAAAAADU/pKvBRNaVF-A/Texaco+1.jpg)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Floyd



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.

---

The design sucks....

Looks like after so many architects and baseball fans... not to mention "Artists" have said so.... There would be little to disagree with.

The question remains.... does the "totalitarian" form of a baseball trust see it that way.??

si como no???

.........back to the most recent Urban Tulsa.. ..  
(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y179/rico2/dancer1.gif)

quote:

---

Originally posted by sgrizzle

Y'all know that there are three kinds of deco, only one really used the kind of embellishments DSJEFFRIES posted?

I need to see some real image to judge. A stright side view tells us nothing really of how it looks. They need to tweak it with a grand entrance and a few arches and they could likley be very art deco.

---

Yea but currently its no more deco than my ranch style house. Your pushing it to say it has any more deco than that lol.

But I agree with the notion that it at least needs some tweaking, a grand entrance and perhaps some more vertical elements to it. As for arches,,, would be best to have rectangular arches not curved ones in keeping with the rest of the structure imo.

Do any of these design elements and materials look familiar? This is the Arvest Ballpark in Springdale. I think it is also by HOK and is about the same size and cost.

(http://img370.imageshack.us/img370/9945/aarvestdk5.jpg)

They did use some of that stone with some nice  texture to it like I was talking about.  


Our current version. And my tweaked one lol.
(http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/1174/baseballstadium1abcmr3.jpg)


Here is an article on the Arvest Park.

http://www.baseballparks.com/NWA-1.asp

I kinda like it.  I do wish it had more vertical height, but you can't win them all.

I like Deco, too.  But I think that when they try to replicate, it comes off as heavy handed and cartoon-y (for example, the wayfinding signs downtown).  

IF we're trying to create a younger, hipper vibe for the city, I don't mind seeing some contemporary architecture.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheArtist



Do any of these design elements and materials look familiar? This is the Arvest Ballpark in Springdale. I think it is also by HOK and is about the same size and cost.

---

Nice catch.

Right out of the HOK cookie cutter into Tulsa's downtown.  

Seriously, what baseball fan wants a stadium that looks like that?  Not one.  Not a single one.  Hope they stick a Starbucks in one corner so the "donors" can enjoy a frappuccino while they ignore the actual game being played.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Floyd

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheArtist



Do any of these design elements and materials look familiar? This is the Arvest Ballpark in Springdale. I think it is also by HOK and is about the same size and cost.

---

Nice catch.

Right out of the HOK cookie cutter into Tulsa's downtown.  

Seriously, what baseball fan wants a stadium that looks like that?  Not one.  Not a single one.  Hope they stick a Starbucks in one corner so the "donors" can enjoy a frappuccino while they ignore the actual game being played.

---

All right now. Its better than what they got now so not gonna lose their regular fans. And in addition, if it gets some of us frappuccino types in the door so be it[:P] lol.

I dont think the Arvest ballpark looks all that bad. Apparently garnered some "Ballpark of the Year Award" I think ours could look even better. For the deco fans, I agree with 1603, it can look cartoonish if your not careful. Though I have heard that they are considering incorporating some art-deco details and elements that have been saved from buildings that were torn down in the past here in Tulsa.

One consensus I think most if not all of us can agree on is that there needs to be some sort of vertical element in the design. I also think that if its at all possible, move the small parking lot next to the sidewalk back behind the tower thats on the left, and move that tower and the rest up to the sidewalk. Plus, add some articulation and windows and a door to that section to the left of the tower. That would help a lot to improve the pedestrian friendly aspect. Nobody likes to walk past a parking lot or a blank wall. This ballpark isnt after all, out in a field, like the Arvest one was... well it wont be once some development goes in around it lol.  There is likely to be a hotel right in front of that section. Would rather people walk out the door and see a building with windows, than a blank wall or a parking lot and the highway.  

quote:

---

Originally posted by Floyd
Seriously, what baseball fan wants a stadium that looks like that?  Not one.  Not a single one.  

---

What a complete over the top statement. You speak for all baseball fans, do you?

I agree the new stadium drawings look a little plain compared to the new BOK Center, but you have only seen conceptual renderings of two sides and proclaim it to repel all fans.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RecycleMichael


I agree the new stadium drawings look a little plain compared to the new BOK Center....

---

That's like saying that a woman looks a little plain compared to Olive Oyl.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MichaelBates

quote:

---

Originally posted by RecycleMichael


I agree the new stadium drawings look a little plain compared to the new BOK Center....

---

That's like saying that a woman looks a little plain compared to Olive Oyl.

---

Lookie!  MB has another cause to champion now.

If he's against it, then I'm damn sure for it.  That's why I voted YES on the arena!

[:O]

He didn't say he was against it. He made a joke about the look of the early drawings. I respect anyone who tries to be funny on the forum.

Speaking of Olive Oyl...do you think she is extra virgin?

I think I'm against it.  

I was torn at first, but the more I read comments and look at the design the less I like it.  To me, it is a new take on the ORU design.  A "cool" and "hip" new angle on the old rustic ball park.

But I fear that like ORU the design will be not well received initially and quickly dated into a curiosity.  Ye' ole Epcot Center syndrome.  

The design, as proposed, really screams 1960's to me.  A super modern 1960's airport, school, old office building.  Something like that.  Not a ballpark.

It doesn't really seem to fit in with the rest of the city, it doesn't invite people in, it doesn't scream ballpark.  Maybe it is just a bad rendering, or maybe I am not seeing the pig picture, or maybe i'm an architectural idiot.  But I don't get it.

As designed it would look much better on TU's campus than in downtown Tulsa.  Glass, loge stone, and sleek lines.

Give me expo square pavilion.  THAT would make an instantly classic ballpark.  I don't want to be fixated on the past, but a ballpark is a perfect time to build an art deco classic.  "Classic" and ballpark go together just fine.

To me the Expo Square Pavilion won't work. You would be scaling it up about 4 times the overall area and then have to remove details that are too cost prohibitive. I imagine you would get something that looks like a cross between the Pavilion and the 11th Street Home Depot.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sgrizzle

To me the Expo Square Pavilion won't work. You would be scaling it up about 4 times the overall area and then have to remove details that are too cost prohibitive. I imagine you would get something that looks like a cross between the Pavilion and the 11th Street Home Depot.

---

But what has been mentioned is that someone here in town has a collection of art deco pieces from historic, long-gone Tulsa buildings. Those, I think, are the kinds of items you think would be too cost prohibitive to reproduce, and the great thing about them is that they're free (well, I would hope), already made, they have ties to "old Tulsa" and would add a ton of value to the project. They're already here, so let's use them! I think it would end up looking a lot better than the Home Depot.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hoss

quote:

---

Originally posted by MichaelBates

quote:

---

Originally posted by RecycleMichael


I agree the new stadium drawings look a little plain compared to the new BOK Center....

---

That's like saying that a woman looks a little plain compared to Olive Oyl.

---

Lookie!  MB has another cause to champion now.

If he's against it, then I'm damn sure for it.  That's why I voted YES on the arena!

[:O]

---

How did you vote yes on the arena? There was a proposition with many items including an arena but no way to just give the arena a defining vote....

quote:

---

Originally posted by RecycleMichael

quote:

---

Originally posted by Floyd
Seriously, what baseball fan wants a stadium that looks like that?  Not one.  Not a single one.  

---

What a complete over the top statement. You speak for all baseball fans, do you?

I agree the new stadium drawings look a little plain compared to the new BOK Center, but you have only seen conceptual renderings of two sides and proclaim it to repel all fans.

---

Guess I am being a little over the top.  I'm just disappointed that the opportunity was there to build something special and there's apparently a good chance that it will veer towards banal.

Maybe at least we can call it the "Tulsa BallPark At Greenwood"?

I understand that scaled up the Pavilion would be too expensive... but the ballpark could be built with essentially the same number of elements as the pavilion.    The entrance needs to be fairly ornate, but the outfield walls just need a detail brick accent and subtle terra cotta here and there.  Overall it doesn't need to be as ornate, larger art deco structures usually are not totally covered.

Or maybe even that would be too expensive.  I don't know.  Just wish it was something neat.

I'd rather see plain red brick than the current design.  Again, unless my ignorance is blinding me.

Brick,,, If it was done in art-deco patterns, fine. But otherwise, in this case, it would be boring. And I really, really, really do not want to do any type of "bricktown ballpark" design like okc. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAnything but that. This design may not have been what I would have gone with, BUT I would pick this design over something like OKC has any day. We have to do our own thing not look like we are copying sh!t that okc has. Better it look like our own sh!t than a second hand copy of their sh!t. lol

quote:

---

Originally posted by MDepr2007

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hoss

quote:

---

Originally posted by MichaelBates

quote:

---

Originally posted by RecycleMichael


I agree the new stadium drawings look a little plain compared to the new BOK Center....

---

That's like saying that a woman looks a little plain compared to Olive Oyl.

---

Lookie!  MB has another cause to champion now.

If he's against it, then I'm damn sure for it.  That's why I voted YES on the arena!

[:O]

---

How did you vote yes on the arena? There was a proposition with many items including an arena but no way to just give the arena a defining vote....

---

Semantics.

Could you not argue that the arena, with the lions share of the money doled out, isn't the keystone of the project?

Wow.

What I was alluding to, was that MBs vehement vitriol against the arena is essentially what made me vote for it.

I'm glad the ballpark design is in flux, because that current design is fugly as hell and doesn't tell me it's a baseball stadium.

I mean, I like neato designs as much as the next guy. But I don't want designs to be so out there that it confuses the structure's main purpose.

The reason most new stadiums have a retro look from the 1930s and '40s is because people actually *like* them. Hint, hint.

Maybe just maybe none of it is real anyway???

quote:

---

Originally posted by MDepr2007

Maybe just maybe none of it is real anyway???

---

It's all part of "The Matrix".

Thought I would throw this out there,,, yes I had too much time on my hands last night lol. People keep mentioning "traditional ballpark designs and feels" but what I have noticed is that it appears there are at least 4 relatively distinct categories that ballpark designs can fall into. And of course, as with any category, there are always those that blur the line and are exceptions. But here are the 4.

The first is what I would call the "COLLONADE". It seems that many of the oldest ballparks, and the new ones that reproduce that look fit into this category. The exterior has lots of vertical elements that repeat the length of the ballpark or the structure and usually there is a grand entrance on the corner. It can of course be done in any style, traditional brick to contemporary and deco. But notice too that these often have a structure that goes all the way around the ballpark, ours does not, and in none of the versions I have seen, was there ever intended to be, the only new structure on ours is on the back corner where you would not really want a grand or main entrance.  

 (http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/4984/acollonadesxk3.jpg)

Then there is what I call the "BRICKTOWN". Made mostly of brick of course lol, but also around the entrance has some sort of tower and often exposed metal or wood beams.

(http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/7054/abricktownuw9.jpg)

Then there is the "CONTEMPORARY" No discernable rules here lol.

(http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/6027/acontemporaryae8.jpg)

There is also the "VILLAGE" which has the exterior look like a grouping of buildings surrounding the ballpark. Often has some open nature to it where the sidewalk runs right into the interior of the park. The ballpark is part of the fabric of the street and can almost be hidden as if you perhaps took out a chunk of buildings in an area, and the empty space, surrounded by buildings, was turned into the ballpark.

(http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/7169/avillagewu8.jpg)

I had originally thought we might be getting some kind of "deco/contemporary, collonade"/open design. Or Village/open design (which is basically what the SE side is, the greenwood shops). I realized that we would not likely be getting a grand entrance ON the building, since all of the layout plans have shown the main entrance at the open area on the SW corner.

Again, here is the ballpark layout.

(http://img154.imageshack.us/img154/5899/ballparkrender2yu3.jpg)

The building itself, the NW corner is where you might typically find one of those "grand entrances", but because of the placement of our ballpark, thats the corner that is least likely to be seen. The most prominent corner is the SW one where there is no building what so ever. With this "open design" your grand entrance either does not exist or exists as some sort of unattached, gateway type structure. Which would be fine imo. It just doesnt look like they are going to do that though? So if there is going to be any apparent "main entrance" it would then have to be on the East facing side of the building where the ticket booth is. It wouldnt have to actually be an entrance, but could at least have the look, the "ballpark look" that people want. Or we do away with the open plan and have a structure, likely a collonade facade, that goes all the way around that part of the ballpark and then put your grand entrance on the SW corner.  The building is only where the blue and green is, off to the back side of the block, the rest, the pink, on the side where most will be walking or approaching the ballpark, looks to be open.

Part of what I am curious about is would most of you be happy with a reworking of the building, plus at least a small but apparent entrance on the West side, and the large open space? Or do you want a grand entrance on the SW corner? Both?  Or perhaps a reworking of the building and a grand entrance structure of some sort on the SW corner?

Besides the style issue, I keep getting the feeling that people are looking at the renderings we have gotten of the building and are thinking that runs the whole length of the ballpark. It does not. They then dont see what looks to be a main entrance of some sort. Which is true, there IS NO main entrance ON the building. The main entrance could best be seen as the open area on the SW corner. But it appears as if they have left it very open with no gateway structure that says, "ballpark here!".

Victory Field in Indianapolis has its grand entrance in the outfield.

(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3141/2726409360_b7b5cd1197.jpg)
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/45/203360079_7f5d467b1e.jpg)

You woudn't want to build too much on the southwest corner because then you lose what is most attractive to the park's placement: the view of the skyline from the berm. But there is no reason you couldn't have a series of gates/grand entrances on the west side...a smaller one on the southwest corner and a smaller one on the northwest corner and then one in the middle that was "more grand". That way the illusion from the outside would be that home plate faced the west, but once you got inside you'd see the actual layout.

Well, the Civil Engineering will rock, that is for sure.  :-)

In the top-down view I am seeing an entrance on the west side that doesn't seem represented in the side view. I wonder if maybe the side view were meant more to show materials than final design.

The "main" entrance will be at Brady and Elgin, which spills right into a party deck along the first base line (curved section of wall). The corner of Archer & Elign is another entrance (mostly for outfield/berm seating) and a gateway to the Blue Dome area. Third entrance is at Brady and Greenwood (immediately north of the Greenwood buildings) which takes you straight down to the left field foul pole, the left field party deck and the third base line concourse. There's a small entrance at Archer & Frankfort (outfield) and what will likely be VIP & ballplayer access slightly northwest of home plate (right off that little parking lot).

Referring to the pictures that Artist posted:


Yankee Stadium - Big time, well established. We have enough interest to support a limited use structure. I guess it's the "classic" based on the Colosseum.

Bricktown and Campbell's - looks like a shopping mall. Possibly thoroughbred horse racing.

Richmond Braves -  entrance, some kind of sporting place.

Clipper Stadium - shopping mall mixed with professional offices.

PETCO Park - guard towers on a parking garage

Nationals - enclosed parking garage

Minnesota Twins - Jetsons (George, Jane, Judy, Elroy, and Astro)

Open side reminds me of a high school or maybe a small college stadium.  It also reminds me of a present ($ saving?) home style where the front is brick or stone and the remaining sides are clap board with maybe a brick base a few brick high.  Looks unfinished to me.

Sorry I don't have something nicer to say.

These pictures look a bit better to me:
(http://www.kjrh.com/media/news/1/0/4/104d15d9-ed8e-438b-a6e6-63b49e33fc60/Original.jpg)

Those pictures are alot better. There is now that somewhat central tower we were all talking about. It would appear that the outside of the ballpark is a continued work in progress with how fast they are putting it together. I trust HOK won't give us a crappy project. They are renowned for this kind of development and I doubt that they want a blemish on their record.

They are moving dirt today.

Here are the newest and older versions for comparison.

(http://img528.imageshack.us/img528/9176/baseballstadiumnewoldae6.jpg)



I do like the newer version better, more Modern Metro versus Retro "Old School" (pardon the pun). I like the addition of more of the contrasting black which actually does pull in a bit of a deco feel to the contemporary. I also like how they loosened up a bit and had some fun with the upper windows. Very nice. The main item I dont like on either the old version or the new one is the diagonal thing the "TULSA BALLPARK" sign is on. Hate to say it, but it looks cheap and takes away from the rest of the design.

Still curious to see what they put on the SW corner, if anything. Sculpture, water feature, gateway,,, would be nice to have something there imo.

I'm pretty sure "tulsa Ballpark" is just there as a placeholder for exampe sign placement, not design or format.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sgrizzle

I'm pretty sure "tulsa Ballpark" is just there as a placeholder for exampe sign placement, not design or format.

---

I figured that. Its the thing its on that I dont like. And no, I dont mean the whole stadium lol.

Saying that new rendering is substantially different from the old one is like saying a '57 Belvedere underground is much different than one above ground.

This is the same tired design as before. The whole thing should be scrapped.

I'm just happy to see changes being made only a about a week after the initial drawings were made.

Michael Bates chimes in: LINK (//%22http://www.urbantulsa.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A25579%22)

Still looks like an airport terminal to me.

Show that rendering to 100 people and ask them what the building is.  No one will guess baseball stadium.  Most won't guess a public gathering place of any kind.

LOL, If they are already moving dirt, then this plan was completed, priced, and approved a long long time ago.  A thousand decisions were already made, and our discussion here is meaningless.

We will get what we get.

Moving on. . .

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gaspar


LOL, If they are already moving dirt, then this plan was completed, priced, and approved a long long time ago.  A thousand decisions were already made, and our discussion here is meaningless.

We will get what we get.

Moving on. . .

---

That's quite a leap. The seating bowl will be below grade, so there's a lot of excavation to take place regardless of what the design above grade ends up being. Just because they've started digging doesn't mean the whole design is a done deal.

From a shear developer standpoint, looks like something to tear down in 10-20 years and replace with the $200 million version.

Really, thinking more major future was a large factor in current design, or "how little can we get by with and still call it a ballpark".

That's part of the problem with private development.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RecycleMichael

I thought this deserved a thread of its own.


It doesn't look grand in size, but it is hard to tell since I know that a large part of the stadium is below grade and the home plate is a couple of stories below street level.

What do others think of the design?

---

According to the Tulsa World, the playing field will be 13 feet below street level (i.e., approximately one story).

I liked the design, but Michael Bates makes some very good points in his critique.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gaspar


LOL, If they are already moving dirt, then this plan was completed, priced, and approved a long long time ago.  A thousand decisions were already made, and our discussion here is meaningless.

We will get what we get.

Moving on. . .

---

That initial drawing posted here was drawn on December 5th and then revised again a few weeks later. Hardly set in stone.

I wonder what the odds of them changing the design are?  Zero?  10%?  

They might tweak it, but I think we're stuck with the airport terminal.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Floyd

I wonder what the odds of them changing the design are?  Zero?  10%?  

They might tweak it, but I think we're stuck with the airport terminal.

---

Keep in mind as well what you are seeing is the design of the back of the suites and the back offices. The ballpark and the majority of the seating is sunken.

I liked a lot of what Bates wrote except his dislike of the arena design and of course his money line,"If so, it speaks once again to Tulsa's lack of self-confidence. A confident city could have a baseball stadium that looks like a stadium. An embarrassed and self-conscious city has to have an iconic thingamajig".

There is a time and place to be adventurous with design. This is neither.

Signs are ready for pickup.

(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3077/3129478484_f3eda94363.jpg?v=0)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gaspar

Signs are ready for pickup.

---

Maaaaaaaaaaan, I wish it were so.

quote:

---

Originally posted by waterboy

I liked a lot of what Bates wrote except his dislike of the arena design and of course his money line,"If so, it speaks once again to Tulsa's lack of self-confidence. A confident city could have a baseball stadium that looks like a stadium. An embarrassed and self-conscious city has to have an iconic thingamajig".

There is a time and place to be adventurous with design. This is neither.

---

Bull Puckey!

I have watched in envy as countless cities in Europe, Asia, South America, and some in the US put up all kinds of wonderful, adventurous, interesting, new buildings. While it seems as though many places here in the US are staid and boring as if they are lifeless and dying. What was it Bing Thom said? The old world is becoming new, the new world is becoming old.

Now, I am not going to say this ballpark is some wonderful, icon of modern design, BUT at least it is not same ol same ol. Hopefully they will tweak it a bit more and it will look nicer in real life versus these renderings.

As for it not looking like a typical baseball stadium... well I showed pics of lots various types and designs for baseball stadiums. Dont really see a "typical" archetype that they all seem to follow. And besides that...

I would love to see a city in which everything were done with some sort of artistic flair, an eye for being different and unique. I think everything in ones life can be a work of art, from a toaster, to a power tool, street light, chair, school, fence, wall,,, you name it. I would sooo respect any city whose people built things that were creative and different, that didnt always look like the same ol same ol. It would say to me, these people are wonderful, they have a sense of life beyond the basic. They arent average, they have a sensibility of  bringing joy, and beauty to every day things. Everything, every single little thing is a chance to express their creativity, something beyond merely existing. In light of such a vision, Who on earth would want or care to make a ballpark that looks like a ballpark lol? Be bold, be different, be wonderful. Create public spaces that are rife with artistic flair. Who gives a crap what others think. We should naturally want to do it for ourselves and our children. However, I honestly believe that if we were to do such things, the world would look at us and admire us and think "Now there is a people who know what life is about and how to live it fully."

I dont think this ballpark has gone far enough. I think they are being too conservative. Pragmatically speaking, I dont think they are going to make major changes at this point. So trying to get them to trash it for something completely different isnt, imo, going to get any constructive results. The best we can likely hope for is for them to make some tweaks here and there. Like with the upper windows. Seems like they went "safe" at first. Then loosened up a tiny bit and made some positive changes. Give em some credit for making that change, and encourage them to make some more in that direction.  

If in the end its still not all that exciting or different... I look at it like I do a blank canvas or white wall. I make a living at turning white walls into new worlds. I spend most of my life taking blah and turning it into WOW! I am not talking "lipstick on a pig" here, that may be all you can imagine. I am talking taking a pig and some lipstick and making her look like Marilyn Monroe lol. If you dont have the vision, talent or guts, Get the heck out of my way and let me at it lol. It aint over till its over. When this building is done, ITS NOT! Think like an artist! Be Creative! Nothing is done till WE are done.  

Wow, are you like...the Target designer du jour?

This is Tulsa. The city of people you described occasionally visit their cousins or grand parents here. When we're all artists from New York we'll fit this design.

BTW, what do the stadiums in that design leading city of New York look like? Yankee stadium looks like a baseball stadium. Perhaps Bates is right. We lack the confidence to just build a dang stadium and stop trying to impress outsiders with our style and creativity.


New tag line for Tulsa. "Tulsa....Je'ne c'est quoix!" Sorry for the spelling.

quote:

---

Originally posted by waterboy

Wow, are you like...the Target designer du jour?

This is Tulsa. The city of people you described occasionally visit their cousins or grand parents here. When we're all artists from New York we'll fit this design.

BTW, what do the stadiums in that design leading city of New York look like? Yankee stadium looks like a baseball stadium. Perhaps Bates is right. We lack the confidence to just build a dang stadium and stop trying to impress outsiders with our style and creativity.


New tag line for Tulsa. "Tulsa....Je'ne c'est quoix!" Sorry for the spelling.

---

NYC is getting old and living in the past too imo, and has lost its way. Its living on past glory. May still be able to claim to be "the greatest city on earth". But my sense is that its losing its edge, becoming conservative and "corporate". Look at all those buildings replacing the Twin Towers...booooring, yawn. Look at London for some fun and funky architecture with some guts. Even Denver here in the US is having some fun with some neat architecture. Madrid, Barcelona, Valencia, those are some cities where they appreciate art and bold architecture infiltrating their lives. They seem to have developed a normal habit for it. Its simply the way you live. From the poor person to the wealthy. The average working bloke appreciates it, expects it, as much as anyone else. Its not a class thing or a special thing as we sometimes tend to see it. Its everyone. I just dont think we are used to it. A little nurturing and surely people here can get it just as much as anyone anywhere can. And I think thats something worth nurturing. Surely cant hurt lol.  

This has got me thinking, our city really is quite devoid of some... "choice" stand out, pieces of art. The critters along the river, not exactly inspiring, interesting or challenging lol. Glad we got em and all, but we need a few things with some oompf lol. (Oompf, thats one of them fancy, technical terms us artists use [;)] )

Perhaps right in front of this ballpark would be just the place for something? "segue back on topic there". Ooooh, but could people here handle a piece of art in front of their ballpark? Ooooh, I dont know lol. [:P] And NO! not some guy in bronze swinging a bat! lol

A friend e-mailed to take me to task for suggesting the use of a classic style for the ballpark, for wanting the ballpark to look like it had been there for a hundred years. He said that it's dishonest to recreate historic styles.

What matters to me more than anything about this ballpark is that it should be a good urban building. What it looks like from the outside to the pedestrian and the driver matters more to the health of downtown than what it's like on the inside for the fan. We are using it (or should be using it) to fill a gap in our downtown. We are trying to reweave a urban fabric tattered by 50 years of bad decisions, both public and private.

Build it in a modern style if you must, but make it "legible" -- easy to tell what it is and how you get in -- and build it to the street and make the building front permeable -- no blank walls, no mirrored surfaces.

It ought to be possible to build a good urban building with modern materials, but modern architects seem to have a problem with it. (Case in point, the BOK Center.)

That's one reason to insist on a classic style. If you find an architect who isn't offended to his artistic core by your desire to borrow from Plains Commercial or Richardsonian Romanesque or Art Deco, he might be self-effacing enough to be willing to make the ballpark look like a ballpark instead of turning it into his personal artistic statement.

Well put Michael.

Agree with Michael.  Those are exactly the points in Michael's linked article that I agreed with.   Generally speaking, I like the design, but it appears to be lack legibility and permeability, both of which are hugely important for this project.

QuoteOriginally posted by sgrizzle



Keep in mind as well what you are seeing is the design of the back of the suites and the back offices. The ballpark and the majority of the seating is sunken.
[/quote

As mentioned above, the playing field is to be a mere 13 feet below street level.  The renderings show what appears to be three stories of building, above street level.  Not sure a majority of the seats will fit into a space that is 10 feet tall (because the seats won't start at field level...)

In any event, what does it matter what is behind the structure?  The design of the structure is what it is, good or bad, no matter if there are bleachers, concession stands, suites, or back offices inside.

+1 Bates.  I'm whole heatedly on board with what you have written on this issue.  


Artist:

NYC is a much better city today than it was 10 or 20 years ago.  Crime is (way, way) down.  Construction is up.  There are more sky scrappers than ever.  Tourism is back.  Their arts are as impressive as ever, their new planetarium (whatever they call it) is certainly an impressive cultural asset.  Urban living is in vogue and young people have returned to Manhattan.  

If you are worried that they are too "corporate" then you miss the entire point of New York City.  It was founded AS a corporation by the Dutch.  The English took it over and operated it as a for-profit venture.  5th Avenue, Wall Street, Times Square, the Empire State Building, Rockefeller Center, the World Trade Center...  this is a city built on commerce, for commerce, and by commerce.  Too say NYC is too corporate is to say San Francisco would be pretty without all that water, the hills, and that damn orange bridge.

And finally, the World Trade Center was a stark and modern as it could be when first built.  It was criticized as being bland and out of touch.  The city HATED IT for years during and after the construction.   The design isn't my favorite either, but NYC has a better architectural track record than I do and time will tell.  

Maybe I'm just kind of slack jawed because we are sitting in the "Oil Capital of the World" accusing NYC of living in the past.  Nothing personal, just touched a nerve for some reason.

Having lived in Denver I am most familiar with Coors Field.  It is a great example of an urban ballpark and what I immediately envisioned for Brady, albeit at a smaller scale.  I like how the brick mimics the warehouses of LoDo and the form/mass of the outside matches the 3-4 story buildings around it.  I don't mind if Tulsa's ballpark is stone/glass but I do want a good urban design that fits in Brady.

quote:

---

Originally posted by SXSW

Having lived in Denver I am most familiar with Coors Field.  It is a great example of an urban ballpark and what I immediately envisioned for Brady, albeit at a smaller scale.  I like how the brick mimics the warehouses of LoDo and the form/mass of the outside matches the 3-4 story buildings around it.  I don't mind if Tulsa's ballpark is stone/glass but I do want a good urban design that fits in Brady.

---

oh yeah Coors field is the ultimate urban ballpark.  You can hop a free bus and crawl all of the bars after the game.  Denver has it figured out when it comes to hip urban planning.  I just don't understand why so many buinesses along the 16th St mall are going under (and this was prior to the recession).  I think rent and taxes must be really high.

You all need to relax a little and wait and see.  This is a curvilinear structure, which is impossible to transpose to a 2D elevation perspective.  Flattening a curvilinear structure exagerates the horizontal lines, which you don't perceive when viewing in 3D.  Furthermore those elevations do not show the field lights, foul ball poles, backstop nets, green space, and other ballpark-specific elements.  There will be no mistake this is a ballpark.  There is a 3D google sketchup model of this design that you can "fly" around and view from 244, Archer, Elgin, and even Greenwood, and it can not be mistaken for an "airport terminal".  The field will be permeable from surrounding views with an open concourse.  You will actually be able to see portions of the playing field from every surrounding street/freeway perspective.  And art deco will influence the final details of this design.  Just be patient.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MichaelBates

A friend e-mailed to take me to task for suggesting the use of a classic style for the ballpark, for wanting the ballpark to look like it had been there for a hundred years. He said that it's dishonest to recreate historic styles.

What matters to me more than anything about this ballpark is that it should be a good urban building. What it looks like from the outside to the pedestrian and the driver matters more to the health of downtown than what it's like on the inside for the fan. We are using it (or should be using it) to fill a gap in our downtown. We are trying to reweave a urban fabric tattered by 50 years of bad decisions, both public and private.

Build it in a modern style if you must, but make it "legible" -- easy to tell what it is and how you get in -- and build it to the street and make the building front permeable -- no blank walls, no mirrored surfaces.

It ought to be possible to build a good urban building with modern materials, but modern architects seem to have a problem with it. (Case in point, the BOK Center.)

That's one reason to insist on a classic style. If you find an architect who isn't offended to his artistic core by your desire to borrow from Plains Commercial or Richardsonian Romanesque or Art Deco, he might be self-effacing enough to be willing to make the ballpark look like a ballpark instead of turning it into his personal artistic statement.

---

Dont get me wrong, I actually dont mind the use of a classic style at all (with some caviats lol). I love Philbrook for instance but have heard others poo poo it as "Pastiche". Same thing with the Philtower, Holy Family, etc. which I see as important and cherished examples of architecture in our  city. Though, modern, reproductions of or using past styles.

I can show you plenty of examples of contemporary architecture that are pedestrian friendly. Now this ballpark design... I would say is "so so" in that respect. But I dont think its as bad as it may appear at first glance. Firstly half of the street facing facade is glass. Thats not bad. A quarter of whats left has windows and the last quarter, from what I can tell, will be made up of some interesting materials. Not to mention there may be some light fixtures added to the walls and likely some signage,et. Or we could always add some art, or those deco pieces they have mentioned may go there.

One of the things about contemporary architecture is that though it often has chunks of unadorned surfaces, and we like "adornment" to add interest for a good pedestrian friendly street scape,,, with contemporary architecture the corollary of adornment is its use of interesting materials. Materials can be boring, like plain cement, flat stuccoe, plain siding,,(and the streetscape "chunk" too large to be pedestrian friendly and uninteresting but I do not believe that is the case here), or quite interesting and textural like large, chiseled blocks of stone, exotic wood, steel, etc. Have you ever been to that one contemporary home on Cherry Street that has the curved, rusty, steel wall on one part of it? You cant help but be attracted to it and want to go up and touch it. Thats why I was adamant about the materials on this building being of a particular type.  Thats the modern equivalent of "interest and adornment". The right materials equal the right adornment for an interesting, pedestrian friendly streetscape.

Another thing too. This isnt a huge building on the west, street facing side. Its quite small actually. The largest chunk of that block is open space/railing looking into the ballpark. THAT has more potential to be harmful to the pedestrian friendly nature of the area, to be dead space, than that small building segment. THATS the area I keep going back to as being really important.  Also the chunk of the block thats along the street North of the building looks to be parking lot, not good either, but perhaps not as important. It seems we are all fixated on this tiny chunk of the building, which is half permeable glass/doors/windows.. and ignoring the largest swath on the whole block, which is open space. Most people arent going to go across the street just to walk past that segment of building lol. Pedestrian friendly or not.

The question I keep wondering about when people say they want the design changed, is... Do you want there to be structure all along that side of the block? Or do you not mind the open space and think its just the building segment that will either harm or help the street? It seems kind of absurd on the one hand to be so worried about the pedestrian friendlieness of that one small segment of building when basically what you have is,, even if it were the most perfect, pedestrian friendly, building ever, its sitting in between a parking lot and a huge open space. NOT pedestrian friendly anyway unless you want it to be the "pedestrian friendly view".

Whats important in this type of situation is the pedestrian friendly nature of whats across the street. You only really need one side to have "stuff", the other side can be "view". The Riverwalk is an example. Most walk on the shop side and opposite that is the view/park space, iconic building, river, etc. IF they were to ever get pedestrian friendly stuff around the arena that could work the same way. Parks, plazas, a pond, etc. in cities do the same kind of thing. Most walk on the one side. The Eiffel Tower doesnt have lots of windows and doors and street level decorative elements. Nobody complains that its not pedestrian friendly as they stroll along the cafes and streets opposite it. A building, structure, river, or open space can act as the "view". They dont have to be pedestrian friendly in and of themselves. Truly, thats pretty much what we are going to be getting here at best. Lots of pedestrian friendly stuff on one side, (pleeeease) a plaza/open space looking into the ballpark and the building, on the other.  The other alternative is to wrap the rest of the ballpark in some sort of buildings and or structure. Which doesnt seem to be the plan. People will, empty out of the ballpark and head into the pedestrian friendly areas around it to eat, shop, etc.  Other times they will be walking on the other side of the street and be looking at and into the ballpark. Even if it were perfectly pedestrian friendly, there wouldnt be much reason to be walking along that side of the street anyway. Make it nice to look at. Some nice, park like landscaping, a fountain, some wonderful sculptures, etc. can make that area more interesting and inviting to walk past, even more so imo than some fake building facade if you were to try and wrap that around the whole area.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheArtist


I can show you plenty of examples of contemporary architecture that are pedestrian friendly.

---

Could you show us one example?

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheArtist


Have you ever been to that one contemporary home on Cherry Street that has the curved, rusty, steel wall on one part of it? You cant help but be attracted to it and want to go up and touch it.

---

That doesn't ring a bell. Where, exactly?

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheArtist


Another thing too. This isnt a huge building on the west, street facing side. Its quite small actually. The largest chunk of that block is open space/railing looking into the ballpark. THAT has more potential to be harmful to the pedestrian friendly nature of the area, to be dead space, than that small building segment.

---

If it's actually a view into the ballpark, that's not pedestrian unfriendly. A blank wall would be a problem.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheArtist


Also the chunk of the block thats along the street North of the building looks to be parking lot, not good either, but perhaps not as important.

---

The main pedestrian pathways will be along Elgin Ave (the west side) and Archer Street (the south side). The north side is along the elevated expressway.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheArtist


Whats important in this type of situation is the pedestrian friendly nature of whats across the street. You only really need one side to have "stuff", the other side can be "view". The Riverwalk is an example. Most walk on the shop side and opposite that is the view/park space, iconic building, river, etc. IF they were to ever get pedestrian friendly stuff around the arena that could work the same way. Parks, plazas, a pond, etc. in cities do the same kind of thing. Most walk on the one side. The Eiffel Tower doesnt have lots of windows and doors and street level decorative elements. Nobody complains that its not pedestrian friendly as they stroll along the cafes and streets opposite it. A building, structure, river, or open space can act as the "view". They dont have to be pedestrian friendly in and of themselves. Truly, thats pretty much what we are going to be getting here at best. Lots of pedestrian friendly stuff on one side, (pleeeease) a plaza/open space looking into the ballpark and the building, on the other.  The other alternative is to wrap the rest of the ballpark in some sort of buildings and or structure. Which doesnt seem to be the plan. People will, empty out of the ballpark and head into the pedestrian friendly areas around it to eat, shop, etc.  Other times they will be walking on the other side of the street and be looking at and into the ballpark. Even if it were perfectly pedestrian friendly, there wouldnt be much reason to be walking along that side of the street anyway. Make it nice to look at. Some nice, park like landscaping, a fountain, some wonderful sculptures, etc. can make that area more interesting and inviting to walk past, even more so imo than some fake building facade if you were to try and wrap that around the whole area.

---

It's far better placemaking to have a good "street wall" on both sides of the street, as continuous as possible, to create a sense of enclosure in a "public room." But I agree that a false front isn't what's wanted here.

I'm not sure that landscaping is, either. We don't want to end up with what Jim Kunstler calls "a nature band-aid."

For the record, I read Artists entire post.  [:P]

quote:

---

Originally posted by stymied

You all need to relax a little and wait and see.  This is a curvilinear structure, which is impossible to transpose to a 2D elevation perspective.  Flattening a curvilinear structure exagerates the horizontal lines, which you don't perceive when viewing in 3D.  Furthermore those elevations do not show the field lights, foul ball poles, backstop nets, green space, and other ballpark-specific elements.  There will be no mistake this is a ballpark.  There is a 3D google sketchup model of this design that you can "fly" around and view from 244, Archer, Elgin, and even Greenwood, and it can not be mistaken for an "airport terminal".  The field will be permeable from surrounding views with an open concourse.  You will actually be able to see portions of the playing field from every surrounding street/freeway perspective.  And art deco will influence the final details of this design.  Just be patient.

---

You've seen this 3D model?  I think seeing a 3D rendering/perspective would give us a LOT more info.

quote:

---

Originally posted by cannon_fodder

+1 Bates.  I'm whole heatedly on board with what you have written on this issue.  


Artist:

NYC is a much better city today than it was 10 or 20 years ago.  Crime is (way, way) down.  Construction is up.  There are more sky scrappers than ever.  Tourism is back.  Their arts are as impressive as ever, their new planetarium (whatever they call it) is certainly an impressive cultural asset.  Urban living is in vogue and young people have returned to Manhattan.  

If you are worried that they are too "corporate" then you miss the entire point of New York City.  It was founded AS a corporation by the Dutch.  The English took it over and operated it as a for-profit venture.  5th Avenue, Wall Street, Times Square, the Empire State Building, Rockefeller Center, the World Trade Center...  this is a city built on commerce, for commerce, and by commerce.  Too say NYC is too corporate is to say San Francisco would be pretty without all that water, the hills, and that damn orange bridge.

And finally, the World Trade Center was a stark and modern as it could be when first built.  It was criticized as being bland and out of touch.  The city HATED IT for years during and after the construction.   The design isn't my favorite either, but NYC has a better architectural track record than I do and time will tell.  

Maybe I'm just kind of slack jawed because we are sitting in the "Oil Capital of the World" accusing NYC of living in the past.  Nothing personal, just touched a nerve for some reason.

---

I have to disagree with you about NYC. Whether NYC is a better city than it was 20 years ago could be debated. IMO, it is not. New York has lost its soul, having sold it to the highest bidder. I knew the end was near when Disney took over Times Square, and places like Applebees, Starbucks and a bazillion other chains started cropping up everywhere. 20 years ago, corporate chains were not nearly as prevalent, and Mom and Pop shops outnumbered huge conglomerates because they could still afford to do business in Manhattan.

You are correct that crime is down, and that's about the only positive change since the Giuliani administration. No, young people are not moving into Manhattan anymore- they are moving out to places like New Jersey because Manhattan and even Brooklyn have become so astronomically expensive. Cities like Portland, Baltimore, Providence, Denver and Phoenix are much more enticing these days for young, creative types. Tulsa could be one of those enticing cities as well if it plays its cards right.

Yes, New York has always been about commerce and making money, but it used to be much more diverse and opportunistic. Night life is bland and generic compared to what it was 20 years ago. Much of Manhattan has turned into suburban-style shopping and dining, and the arts scene is really catering to the staunch elite these days. As far as architecture, New York's innovative and creative heyday is long over. There will always be skyscrapers being built in NY, but the quality and the innovation has changed greatly. Now it's all about money and posturing. Bigger is not necessarily better by any stretch. Turn to cities like Los Angeles, Chicago, London, Berlin, or cities in Spain and China for cutting edge designs.

New York will always have a draw for visitors, but now it's very sterile and contrived, being tourist and money driven and reminds me more of Las Vegas or Orlando. It is a caricature of its former self.

Unfortunately it is not the forward thinking, edgy city it was 20+ years ago. New York has definitely 'jumped the shark'.

quote:

---

Originally posted by cannon_fodder

For the record, I read Artists entire post.  [:P]

---

Daaang. You need to get a life. [:P]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheArtist

quote:

---

Originally posted by cannon_fodder

For the record, I read Artists entire post.  [:P]

---

Daaang. You need to get a life. [:P]

---

Scanned it.[;)]

These cities you guys mention as being cutting edge, progressive and attractive to young people: Phoenix, Baltimore, Portland, Providence, Denver, Los Angeles, Chicago, London, Berlin.....Have no business in a sentence with Tulsa unless that sentence is about visiting family on the holidays.

We don't have the same profile of population, the same vibe, even a major point of interest like the coasts or the mountains. Just seem to be poor comparisons when deciding what style a baseball stadium in podunk Ok should look like.

Perhaps as Stymied notes, the rendition doesn't do it justice.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MichaelBates

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheArtist


I can show you plenty of examples of contemporary architecture that are pedestrian friendly.

---

Could you show us one example?

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheArtist


Have you ever been to that one contemporary home on Cherry Street that has the curved, rusty, steel wall on one part of it? You cant help but be attracted to it and want to go up and touch it.

---

That doesn't ring a bell. Where, exactly?

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheArtist


Another thing too. This isnt a huge building on the west, street facing side. Its quite small actually. The largest chunk of that block is open space/railing looking into the ballpark. THAT has more potential to be harmful to the pedestrian friendly nature of the area, to be dead space, than that small building segment.

---

If it's actually a view into the ballpark, that's not pedestrian unfriendly. A blank wall would be a problem.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheArtist


Also the chunk of the block thats along the street North of the building looks to be parking lot, not good either, but perhaps not as important.

---

The main pedestrian pathways will be along Elgin Ave (the west side) and Archer Street (the south side). The north side is along the elevated expressway.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheArtist


Whats important in this type of situation is the pedestrian friendly nature of whats across the street. You only really need one side to have "stuff", the other side can be "view". The Riverwalk is an example. Most walk on the shop side and opposite that is the view/park space, iconic building, river, etc. IF they were to ever get pedestrian friendly stuff around the arena that could work the same way. Parks, plazas, a pond, etc. in cities do the same kind of thing. Most walk on the one side. The Eiffel Tower doesnt have lots of windows and doors and street level decorative elements. Nobody complains that its not pedestrian friendly as they stroll along the cafes and streets opposite it. A building, structure, river, or open space can act as the "view". They dont have to be pedestrian friendly in and of themselves. Truly, thats pretty much what we are going to be getting here at best. Lots of pedestrian friendly stuff on one side, (pleeeease) a plaza/open space looking into the ballpark and the building, on the other.  The other alternative is to wrap the rest of the ballpark in some sort of buildings and or structure. Which doesnt seem to be the plan. People will, empty out of the ballpark and head into the pedestrian friendly areas around it to eat, shop, etc.  Other times they will be walking on the other side of the street and be looking at and into the ballpark. Even if it were perfectly pedestrian friendly, there wouldnt be much reason to be walking along that side of the street anyway. Make it nice to look at. Some nice, park like landscaping, a fountain, some wonderful sculptures, etc. can make that area more interesting and inviting to walk past, even more so imo than some fake building facade if you were to try and wrap that around the whole area.

---

It's far better placemaking to have a good "street wall" on both sides of the street, as continuous as possible, to create a sense of enclosure in a "public room." But I agree that a false front isn't what's wanted here.

I'm not sure that landscaping is, either. We don't want to end up with what Jim Kunstler calls "a nature band-aid."

---

First off here is that house I was talking about. An old pic while it was still under construction.
(http://img384.imageshack.us/img384/8355/cherrylofts1webavu8.jpg)

Just north of the ballpark structure is a parking lot that will run along Elgin thats as large as the street facing side of the ballpark building. If it had been possible, would have rather them place more of the building they used in back, along Elgin with a drive on the far north side to access the parking lot between the ballpark and the highway. That way more of the street along Elgin would have some sort of building along it. But, no terribly big deal at this point.

This is the kind of development I would like to see around the ballpark. Contemporary, but with a good amount of brick, mixed use, and very pedestrian friendly.

(http://img384.imageshack.us/img384/9937/aroundballparkjz2.jpg)

As for greenspace and "a nature band-aid" lol. Like I have mentioned before, I think something thats a mixture of greenery (trees, planters, trellis) water feature of some sort, and sculpture, some benches, nice lighting, etc. Turn the large open space on the SW corner into a nice "entrance/park" and have some of the design go along the S and W side.

To kind of give you a feel, I like what they have done here, though in the middle of a street, and the pic in the lower left with the trees and planters. Course there are all kinds of variations of such things. Hardly a "nature bandaid" imo. Can be very attractive and inviting.
(http://img384.imageshack.us/img384/6299/santamonicastreetis0.jpg)

Not perfect, but has a couple good ideas.
(http://img384.imageshack.us/img384/7429/kauffmanjanrevkb3.jpg)

Ok, now to the "Contemporary and pedestrian friendly" deal lol. Wanted to get on Skyscraper page and snag some stuff I had seen from London, Austin and Dallas, but either their website is acting up or my computer is. I think its my computer so had to use what I already had but found some decent examples.

  These are contemporary and pedestrian friendly.
(http://img384.imageshack.us/img384/4606/goodcontemporaryyn4.jpg)

How bout this... Neither are shopping/dining areas where you really want your best pedestrian friendly features, but I think the contemporary example would be just as nice to walk past as the typical older example.

(http://img384.imageshack.us/img384/5277/thisorthissy2.jpg)

Top is a typical, classic building on an average street, and I frankly think the contemporary one on the bottom is just as pedestrian friendly.
(http://img384.imageshack.us/img384/5786/thisvrsthiscq9.jpg)

Classical and fairly elaborate older building and a wild contemporary one. Either equally pedestrian friendly. Actually the oder ones at street level have a lot of blank space. Doors and window up high. Though the stone is interesting, but can be just as interesting on a contemporary building.
(http://img384.imageshack.us/img384/8779/thisorthis2si7.jpg)

In older cities with classic architecture there are areas that are filled with lots of little shops and cafes, etc, which are amenable to lots of street level openings and activities. But there are also many streets with large buildings that have large surfaces, Churches, libraries, all kinds of government buildings, apartment buildings, civic and entertainment venues, theater, opera, etc. Contemporary architecture can equally be both intricate and "permeable" or not.

This contemporary museum is just as interesting to walk past/pedestrian friendly as the old church its...growing out of lol.
(http://img384.imageshack.us/img384/2536/pedornotpedkc2.jpg)

The contemporary building in the middle is just as pedestrian friendly to me as those on either side.
(http://img384.imageshack.us/img384/989/pedornotab0.jpg)

Building on the left just as enjoyable to walk by as the one on the right.
(http://img384.imageshack.us/img384/6969/examplehb1.jpg)

Though not super contemporary, is just as pedestrian friendly as its older neighbors.
(http://img384.imageshack.us/img384/8384/contemporarydenveryf1.jpg)

There are dozens and dozens more examples, but I have things to do lol. And you did just want one. [:)]

Finally got on Skyscraper page so snagged a few more examples of some taller contemporary/pedestrian friendly/mixed-use developments. There are numerous examples in both Austin and Denver currently going up.

The Austonian
(http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/1862/austonian1vipf0.jpg)

Under Construction
(http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/1337/austonianucqy5.jpg)

Denver Spire. Often these buildings have parking underground and then starting again on the second floor, and retail on the ground level. This one has a garage access that looks to be on a main street. Not the best, but not bad.
(http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/5786/denverspire6webjk5.jpg)

Under Construction
(http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/7918/denverspireucjd7.jpg)

The Claredon.
(http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/281/bostonclaredonmucf8.jpg)
(http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/3630/bostoncluc3um4.jpg)

The Claridon has parking access on a side street. Not every street can be or should try to be pedestrian friendly. Those streets "B streets or alleys" are good to have your parking access on, leaving the "A Streets" to concentrate your more pedestrian friendly stuff on.
(http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/1411/bostonclparkingalleygg3.jpg)

Maple Leaf, Mixed use, will have one of the cities largest grocery stores, will also have, restaurants, retail, office and living, interior access to the rail and the "A streets" are very pedestrian friendly.
(http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/866/mapleleafsquaretorontotq7.jpg)

Again, just a few examples

There are also many that I personally would call pedestrian friendly, but that would not readily fit the normal "listed criteria". Like this one currently underway in London. Often the environment, the setting itself can make a difference. A building that may work wonderfully in one place, may have just the opposite effect in another.

Pedestrian friendly or not?

Bishopsgate Tower
(http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/1908/bishopsgatetowerpic2vq1.jpg)

(http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/4149/bishopsgatetowerpic9fz5.jpg)

Bishopsgate in London Skyline
(http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/1679/bishopsgatetowerpic8on8.jpg)

Been about 2 years now.  Have they been able to sell this yet?

(http://img384.imageshack.us/img384/8355/cherrylofts1webavu8.jpg)

Last I heard the developer was living in it.

That house off of Cherry Street was done by Shelby Navarro. It's platinum LEED certified and is as nice on the inside as it is on the outside.

If we're going to do contemporary design on the ballpark, something like that house, which is made of recycled and environmentally friendly materials, would be awesome.

Whatever the case....I can't wait for it to be done. It's going to be huge for downtown and a real boost to the progress in that neck of the woods.