It's being announced today:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20090112_296_0_Thedow701338
Anyone have the early scoop and wish to share?
Hmmm... something like the "Obama-Franklin-Kaiser National I'm sorry Ballpark"
It's going to be ONEOK Park or something to that effect.
$20 says it's ONEOK Field.
"Sutton Stadium"? Oh wait my bad. I bet ONEOK as well. But then again, I was at a sports book over the weekend and did not bet on the Cardinals.
It will always be TBAG to me.
quote:
Originally posted by carltonplace
It will always be TBAG to me.
If they name it that, I will be a lifetime season ticket holder.
Good scoop. http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20090112_296_0_Thedow701338
Also funny:
quote:
The preliminary artist renderings depict an exterior that evokes the Prairie School architectural style that was made famous by Frank Lloyd Wright and features flat roofs, broad overhanging eaves and horizontal lines.
I was hoping for "McNellie's Field".
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
Good scoop. http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20090112_296_0_Thedow701338
Also funny:
quote:
The preliminary artist renderings depict an exterior that evokes the Prairie School architectural style that was made famous by Frank Lloyd Wright and features flat roofs, broad overhanging eaves and horizontal lines.
Because nothing says "play ball" like Frank Lloyd Wright.
Will the roof leak? That's what we'd get for leaving a work of art out in the rain.
Under the heading of wishful thinking.
Greenwood Stadium
Tulsa's Greenwood Stadium
An homage to Tulsa's Black Wall Street
Would move us towards healing some wounds and demonstrate that we have a lot of class.
I went to the press conference today. The logo looks good and they gave each of us a commemorative baseball. I hung out for a while and had a hot dog and some cracker jack.
$5 million for twenty years works out to about $4,000 a game which is what is normally costs to be a single game sponsor.
Driller Baseball and ONEOK Energy, both over a hundred years old in Tulsa.
It's great that Tulsa has corporate citizens invested in revitalization. This is very cool.
Now maybe if they'd weigh in on the stadium's design . . .
If anyone wants to know why I wagered $20 on the name before:
http://www.oneokfield.com/
For those who kept mentioning vertical elements, note the original sketches on that site, it shows a large tower.
Very interesting--this sketch shows that an art deco theme was at one point under consideration for the tower element sgrizzle mentions. It appears from the current renderings, though, that they moved away from this idea. But, maybe they move back.
(http://oneokfield.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/sketch.jpg)
Man, HOK sure does love layers, sunken fields, and tower elements on their stadiums. See, for instance, Goodyear Ballpark in Arizona:
(http://www.ci.goodyear.az.us/images/pages/n1800/image002.jpg)
Also, here is a blog post gently criticizing HOK's designs (which they've been handing out assembly line-style, with cosmetic variations, for the last several years):
http://massengale.typepad.com/venustas/2005/05/comerica_park.html
quote:
There's plenty to criticize — surface parking covers the block between Woodward and Comerica, and there are two more blocks of surface parking directly to the south. HOK will never be confused with M, M & W, and they sometimes confuse traditional design with theme park kitsch. Example: the tiger heads with globe lights in their mouths are too big, and they're used too frequently. And the field is below ground level, because it's cheaper to dig down than build up, but the result is less civic presence.
I expect ONEOK Field to be a decent place to see a ball game. But we had a chance to built a great ballpark, and instead we went for the cookie cutter design from the stadium factory. Kind of a shame.
Oneok Field is no surprise.
Too bad the biggest contributor got left out completely (again). Taxpayer Field might have been more appropriate.
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
Oneok Field is no surprise.
Too bad the biggest contributor got left out completely (again). Taxpayer Field might have been more appropriate.
Really? I'm a taxpayer, when do I get my bill?
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
well, at least it is it is named after a company that actually drills wells. all BoK does is drill into people's wallets.
Not that it's relevant to the topic, but I don't think Oneok does any well drilling.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
For those who kept mentioning vertical elements, note the original sketches on that site, it shows a large tower.
Its the same "tower" thats in the renderings. Its the same tower thats back behind the building far from the street and wont be able to be seen.
I think the design is ok, may actually look quite classy really, but would still like to see some sort of gateway element or something of architectural or artistic interest on the SW corner.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
Its the same "tower" thats in the renderings. Its the same tower thats back behind the building far from the street and wont be able to be seen.
The tower in the sketches is larger than in the later renderings
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
I think the design is ok, may actually look quite classy really, but would still like to see some sort of gateway element or something of architectural or artistic interest on the SW corner.
Looks like they plan something for that corner to me:
(http://oneokfield.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/mainconcourselevel.jpg)
Quality local sponsor as far as I'm concerned. Everyone NOT from Tulsa will read "One Okay Field" which is kinda funny too.
Per BOk, they make money. That's their job. People voluntarily give them money and they loan that money to people who voluntarily want it. The essence of business and I wish them the best of luck.
Without companies like BOk very few companies would have the capital to drill any wells whatsoever, make payroll, buy assets, and other "details" of doing business. Are they foreclosing on your house or something?
A good number of angles/renderings on there. How indicative of the actual design I do not know.
(http://oneokfield.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/collage.jpg)
(http://oneokfield.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/aerial2.jpg)
I am starting to get somewhat excited about the project. I hope we do it right! and I hope it brings the development to the area we want.
With luck, the recession will spotlight Tulsa doing well and encourage "foreign" investment in our city. To a Californian, Oregonian, or many other places... building in Tulsa seems like a damn good idea about now.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
Its the same "tower" thats in the renderings. Its the same tower thats back behind the building far from the street and wont be able to be seen.
The tower in the sketches is larger than in the later renderings
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
I think the design is ok, may actually look quite classy really, but would still like to see some sort of gateway element or something of architectural or artistic interest on the SW corner.
Looks like they plan something for that corner to me:
Yea but the sketch is a sketch lol. From that they do the renderings. Sketch first, then renderings to scale second.
Good catch on the entrance thing though. In the 3-D images it looks bare. but in the "above" image there does look to be something that could be a gateway.
That is one OK field. Too bad the company isn't called OneKickAss...
BOK and ONEOK. People not from here will sure think we have some strange-named facilities. A friend from Denver came to Tulsa and upon seeing the BOK Center asked what BOK (he pronounced it Bach) stood for. He he had no idea it was a bank. I look forward to how they pronounce ONEOK...
Own-y-ock
quote:
Originally posted by PonderInc
That is one OK field...
I think the small print said OneOk Field at Greenwood.
That would make it One OK Fag.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
quote:
Originally posted by PonderInc
That is one OK field...
I think the small print said OneOk Field at Greenwood.
That would make it One OK Fag.
Wouldn't that violate the ban on cigarette advertising?
Well of course we would sell the name. When I was growing it would have been named after a great person. In this current era we sell it to the highest bidder. Some day someone will put this in perspective and tell us what it says about us that everything here can be bought and sold.
Anyway, now all we need is a whole lot of new business to move into downtown. Everything sort of hangs on that, right?
I was waiting for the name seller crowd to come out of the woodwork.
And do you know WHY we sell the names for structures now? Because the alternative would be to raise taxes to pay for the ballpark. Frankly, I'm happy the city got the $5,000,000 for slapping a corporate name on it. I can spend my families $50 share of what we would of had to pay on a night out utilizing that ballpark.
It is also worth noting that stadiums and the like were often named after large donors to help build said stadium. Sutton Stadium, Skelly Stadium (Madison Square Gardens, Rockefeller Center, Wrigley Field, Shea Stadium...). If an individual gave $5mil I'm sure we could call it Michael Patton stadium or S. Grizzle Stadium.
The names have always been for sale, the high bidders might more often be corporate than they used to be. But nothing has really changed since "back in the day."
There will be a meeting of the "name seller crowd" at my place tonight at 7:30 p.m. We probably won't get much accomplished but at least we'll have the satisfaction of knowing that we irritated Cannon Fodder.
Please review the following update on naming rights from an online encyclopedia:
"The public reaction to this practice is mixed. Naming rights sold to new venues have largely been accepted, especially if the buyer has strong local connections to the area, such as the case of Rich Stadium in the Buffalo suburb of Orchard Park, Heinz Field in Pittsburgh, and Coors Field in Denver. Selling the naming rights to an already-existing venue has been notably less successful, as in the attempt to rename Candlestick Park in San Francisco to 3Com Park. The general public (and some media outlets) continued to call the facility what it had been known as for over three decades – Candlestick Park. After the agreement with 3Com expired, the rights were resold to Monster Cable, and the stadium was renamed Monster Park. San Francisco voters had the final say; they passed an initiative in the November 2004 elections that stipulates that the facility's name will revert to Candlestick Park once the current naming rights contract expires in 2008. The initiative is largely ceremonial: it would not apply to a new stadium, which the 49ers are currently planning to build."
Now, imagine that. Trendsetting San Franciscans have said enough already. No more naming rights.
Maybe this will gain traction. Maybe these whorish corporate names will disappear. Maybe Cannon will have to pay another $5 in taxes. Oh, the possibilities ...
It will always be TBAG to me.
(http://images.cafepress.com/jitcrunch.aspx?bG9hZD1ibGFuayxibGFuazoyX0YuanBnfGxvYWQ9TDAsaHR0cDovL2ltYWdlczQuY2FmZXByZXNzLmNvbS9pbWFnZS8yOTQ3MTAyNF80MDB4NDAwLnBuZ3x8c2NhbGU9TDAsMTcwLDEzMyxXaGl0ZXxjb21wb3NlPWJsYW5rLEwwLEFkZCwxNTUsMTI1fGNwPXJlc3VsdCxibGFua3xzY2FsZT1yZXN1bHQsMCw0ODAsV2hpdGV8Y29tcHJlc3Npb249OTV8)
Shadows...
First of all, that article even relates the fact that NEW venues are commonly accepted. Particularily when the company has strong local roots (say... OneOK, BOK, or QuickTrip) Renaming OLD venues is indeed more sensitive (see Expo). This is a NEW venue... no different that the list of famous venues I put up above.
Candlestick is a great example of how NOT to do things. Rebrand it every 5 years and with a poor marketing scheme to boot (quick, is it Monster.com, Monster Drink, Monster Cable, or just a nickname?). I would have no problem if voters wanted to increase their taxes and have it called TBAG (or whatever).
For me, I'm proud of our local companies and don't mind them showing off by sponsoring grand building projects. Woodward park. Zink lake. Skelly Field. Naming it after the person/company that puts money towards it is a long standing local and national tradition. I'll keep my $50 and call it OneOK Field.
My only regret is that it is a 5 year deal. At $1,000,000 a year discounted for 100 years the take for a life-spawn contract would be around $20mil. Minneapolis just got $100,000,000 for their new Target Stadium. Yankee Stadium could fetch as much as $250,000,000 for naming rights.
Not at least considering such offers is a disservice to tax payers.
San Fransisco area enjoys:
Monster Stadium at Candlestick Park
Oracle Arena
HP Pavilion
Herbst Theatre
Fillmore Auditorium
Louise M. Davies Symphony Hall
Paramount Theatre
Orpheum Theatre
AT&T Park
Giants & 49ers Stadium. . .
Basically, plenty of places named after the primary party who supported the construction. It has always been that way, and probably always will be. I agree that auctioning it off every 5 years is tacky, but if it is a choice between more taxes or naming a stadium... have at it with the caveat the name goes to a local company with roots willing to pay a fair price.
My 2 cents anyway.
quote:
Originally posted by SXSW
BOK and ONEOK. People not from here will sure think we have some strange-named facilities. A friend from Denver came to Tulsa and upon seeing the BOK Center asked what BOK (he pronounced it Bach) stood for. He he had no idea it was a bank. I look forward to how they pronounce ONEOK...
If your friend banks at Colorado State Bank, tell him he is a member of the BOK family, since BOK owns Colorado State Bank (and several other banks).
http://www.csbt.com/
Logo look familiar?
How 'bout -
'There Goes Wilbur's Raise Field'
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
If an individual gave $5mil I'm sure we could call it Michael Patton stadium ...
I would probably name it after my kids...
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
My only regret is that it is a 5 year deal. At $1,000,000 a year discounted for 100 years the take for a life-spawn contract would be around $20mil. Minneapolis just got $100,000,000 for their new Target Stadium. Yankee Stadium could fetch as much as $250,000,000 for naming rights.
Not at least considering such offers is a disservice to tax payers.
5-year deal? the World tells us the $5 million was for 20 years.
I'm in HT's club. You paint yourself into a corner Cannon, then blame the paint. Because it isn't necessary for taxpayers to even be involved when the venue is a private entity.
Those old stadiums you named were not at taxpayer expense, hence named after their donors...Skelly, Sutton etc. or their geographic location...Three Rivers Stadium, Candlestick Park. Once you decide that private profit making sports facilities require taxpayer donations to survive, THEN you have to sell the naming rights to the largest bidder which is usually corporate.(really the largest donor is the taxpayer but that's a different argument).
It will always be Candlestick park to the locals, just like it will always be Skelly Stadium to Tulsa locals, though I thought it was quite clever to retain the Skelly Field name and add a different name for the Stadium. That works fine for all parties. OU's stadium, publicly financed, is still Memorial Stadium named I believe after the War Veterans. They make their money from selling space on their big screen, banners, promotions etc.
It's T-BAG for me!
Isn't the Brady Theater named after Greg and Marcia Brady?
Why is it always Marcia, Marcia, Marcia?
Waterboy,
If you want to revisit the entire proposal we can go back to the threads from 6 months ago. But the proposal was a go, as was the BOk center... so the decision is to sell naming rights or not. It will be built, the question is do we build it with $5mil added from OneOK or from tax payers.
I chose corporate money over tax payer money.
If we could renovate the TPAC and someone wanted to pay us $5mil to call it the WILLIAM THEATER I'd be fine with that to. Better assets for the city of Tulsa at the expense of putting a local name on the place. Not a problem.
Someone want to give me $60mil to call City Hall something else? Wait, we gave that right away in the master lease for free.
Shadows drew attention to the fact that selling naming rights is the convention these days. Of course, he is right. And I would not expect Tulsa to do much of anything that isn't conventional. That's the difference between being a follower and being a leader.
In fact I wouldn't expect Tulsa do much of anything different and hip on purpose.
Say for example restore her civic center to its classic Mid-Century Modern condition. That's the kind of thing that Santa Barbara or say, Chicago, would do.
I would expect Tulsa to tear down the original classic and erect engineer designed metal knock offs and call it an entertainment district, not maintain it, and tear it down in 30 years.
But I think Cannon has hit on a basic condition of life here. Cheap. Or as a friend reminded me, "less expensive."
So much of where Tulsa stands now has to do with what is cheap. Just about everyone hereabouts has embraced "cheap" as an unquestioned virtue.
Road contractors working without proper safety equipment is okay with us because it is cheap. So what if a life is lost here and there. Ultimately we enjoy a net savings, even after an occasional settlment.
Tulsa is a lovely place to raise children. But Tulsa isn't hip, at least not intentionally. From time to time we accidentally touch on hip but it's mostly the subtle variety that only young people or poets would notice.
Personally I believe you get what you pay for.
But don't get me wrong. I'm delighted the stadium will go up and I wish us the best luck with downtown baseball.
Uh, Candlestick Park was a municipal venture by San Francisco. Not a private venture. (It was built on Candlestick Point.)
Wrigley Field was a private venture by the Wrigley family (yes, of the gum) who owned the field.
I guess I just don't understand this "should" stuff. If you want the stadium to be named something, pay for it. That's all. Greenwood is getting plenty out of this deal--a ballpark name would be nice, but the ballpark won't exist without funding, and so better to have one with a corporate name than not have one at all and thus forgo the Greenwood memorial, park and community center.
This kills me.
Colorado is a hitters park. High altitude etc...
Tulsa will be one of the hardest parks to hit in... faces south, summer wind
Well atleast if they have a high BA, the rockies will know that they are pure hitters and not inflated by a bad stadium design.
FWIW, the fabled reputation as a hitters park has now been tracked to the lack of humidity. The balls dried out such that they were essentially leather covered cork and had much more "bounce" than at other locations. Compared to Arizona, Denver is a very dry place.
The altitude had less effect that one would think. The balls are not kept in a humidor and the effect of the "hitters stadium" is much lessened.
Clam Nibbler Park...Had a nice ring to it....
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
Uh, Candlestick Park was a municipal venture by San Francisco. Not a private venture. (It was built on Candlestick Point.)
Wrigley Field was a private venture by the Wrigley family (yes, of the gum) who owned the field.
I guess I just don't understand this "should" stuff. If you want the stadium to be named something, pay for it. That's all. Greenwood is getting plenty out of this deal--a ballpark name would be nice, but the ballpark won't exist without funding, and so better to have one with a corporate name than not have one at all and thus forgo the Greenwood memorial, park and community center.
Well, I didn't ask anyone to name the stadium OneOk so I don't know what you mean. Its partly my stadiumm since tax dollars and public lands are being used isn't it?
Floyd, CF, I don't understand why you guys get so sensitive about this. There is obviously no choice now but to allow naming rights to be sold to the highest bidder on this stadium. That was OneOK. But it didn't and doesn't have to be that way. Candlestick park is a good example. Taxpayers paid for it so selling its name would be pretty crass. Think they would have any trouble finding a donor to buy naming rights there? No. Neither would Memorial stadium in Norman, also taxpayer funded. But they chose to retain their independence and that is just fine. They have plenty of other promotional and advertising opportunities to exploit.
Some communities and colleges opt to sell out some of their brand for money. I don't remember voting on the stadium name here. I agree with HT that it says alot about those organizations.
If its a private enterprise call it anything...call it Wrigley Stadium, call it Bologna Ball Park if you want, but when you jump in bed with the taxpayer it isn't right to sell naming rights to a quasi public building. Once you start that unholy alliance between advertising and government lots of opportunities arise that are unseemly.
Hey, its just my opinion but it is a defensible position. Perhaps when you start to see green and white exit signs on the expressways being sponsored by corporate entities using the same rationale, it will become clear what I'm saying
..."Memorial Exit-Brought to you by Riverside Chevrolet...Dad Will Do It!" In a tasteful LED of course.