Thought I would make a new thread, NOT about how we're paying for it, how well it will get used, who's getting rich, whatever. Just showing the construction progress and (hopefully soon) some new sketches to compare it to.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3583/3364870953_c6ef156231.jpg?v=0)
13 months and counting
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3621/3365686338_735f742a2f_b.jpg)
Plenty of Equipment
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3424/3365689304_a0d27d7d79_b.jpg)
This would be looking right at the left field bleachers
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3458/3365691958_be4b0cb2fc_b.jpg)
Hard to see from this angle, but that is a 20-30 ft drop down to the base of that concrete form, I have another pic from another angle.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3463/3365687558_622617d397_b.jpg)
Here you can see the top of those same forms from another angle.
And the construction is already having an effect, the UHAUL building is getting a facelift (in progress)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3436/3364883839_7a5f379b2c_b.jpg)
So are they are going the design/build route with the site package finished and the design (CD's) still in progress? They never released the final design renderings did they?
I was down there last weekend and it will definitely be a big improvement for the area just to have something there instead of a vacant lot. That and the Matthews Warehouse could really change the look of Brady. Is there any chance Elgin gets a bridge built over the tracks? Seems odd that the main street from the rest of downtown to the ballpark and OSU-Tulsa has an at-grade crossing.
I was at the site on Friday. I couldn't believe how much dirt they've moved. In some of the holes they were breaking up rock and had poured concrete.
I also noticed that they saved many of the bricks from the street (Frankfurt?) that ran through the site. Wonder what their plans are for those old bricks?
SXSW:
Site plan is pretty well done. They know where the field will be and where structures will be. They know the elevation of dirt generally and what needs to be cleared. You can start site work well before actual construction and can abandon the site after it is prepped until the design stage is over with no ill effects, just resume when actual construction is good to go.
TU is doing the same thing with their new 80,000 sq. foot Arts Center. They didn't want to try to finish the fund raising in the down economy (they don't issue bonds for projects) but wanted to show a commitment to the project. So they are doing all the site work with actual construction postponed indefinitely.
There is now a construction webcam:
http://www.oxblue.com/pro/open/oneok/oneokfield
To answer, yes they are building without final designs although the most recent changes are cosmetic only.
Quote from: SXSW on March 18, 2009, 10:22:31 AM
So are they are going the design/build route with the site package finished and the design (CD's) still in progress? They never released the final design renderings did they?
Still haven't seen any renderings but my understanding was that the HOK team was doing design-build. Not sure if that came from the Tulsa World or Business Journal or what . . . just a recollection. But on this timetable it would almost have to be the case.
Quote from: SXSW on March 18, 2009, 10:22:31 AM
Is there any chance Elgin gets a bridge built over the tracks? Seems odd that the main street from the rest of downtown to the ballpark and OSU-Tulsa has an at-grade crossing.
I'm pretty sure the new philosophy of the planners for the area is to keep everything at-grade. A huge bridge there would act as a barrier between the Brady/ballpark district and the Blue Dome area, both in terms of sight-lines and pedestrian intimidation, and the whole point of the development is to tie the entertainment districts together.
Great pics SGrizzle--please keep us posted.
Thanks sgrizzle. I've been meaning to start a thread exactly like this. Even took a bunch of pictures...just never got around to putting them out on flickr. I heard that somebody in the Planning Dept is taking a photo from the roof of City Hall once a week...to follow the progress. (That could make a pretty cool "time lapse" video some day in the future.)
I like the logo. Very classic with the stitching.
Good job whoever!
Really looking forward to catching some games here. Hopefully during my "lunch hour"
I guess they couldn't find a rent a fence company in Tulsa.
I believe the only suggestion made recently for Elgin was possibly doing a below-grade crossing. If/When the train station goes in, they may put some sort of crossing in with that as well. (Behind McNellie's essentially)
Oh, and as far as design plans, I can see from the webcam they are putting up walls in 3 locations. I'd say it's not exactly "just dirtwork"
Quote from: wavoka on March 18, 2009, 12:56:46 PM
I guess they couldn't find a rent a fence company in Tulsa.
Show Smaligo, it's his "benefit to the county"
(apologies for getting political on my own non-political thread)
Quote from: sgrizzle on March 18, 2009, 01:29:38 PM
I believe the only suggestion made recently for Elgin was possibly doing a below-grade crossing. If/When the train station goes in, they may put some sort of crossing in with that as well. (Behind McNellie's essentially)
Oh, and as far as design plans, I can see from the webcam they are putting up walls in 3 locations. I'd say it's not exactly "just dirtwork"
Below grade would be better for sure. One thing I noticed walking around there last weekend was how bad the connection between Blue Dome and the ballpark really is and hopefully it gets improved. Specifically the west side of Elgin where the employment office is, the sidewalk just ends. I hope they can work on beautification of the Elgin corridor with pedestrian improvements before the ballpark opens.
Has anyone else seen the new neon sign that that the Mid - Town adult book store has put up? The sign will over look the new ball park.just what I want my kids to see when I take them to a ball game.
Quote from: roscoe on March 19, 2009, 03:09:59 PM
Has anyone else seen the new neon sign that that the Mid - Town adult book store has put up? The sign will over look the new ball park.just what I want my kids to see when I take them to a ball game.
Get a pic?
Quote from: roscoe on March 19, 2009, 03:09:59 PM
Has anyone else seen the new neon sign that that the Mid - Town adult book store has put up? The sign will over look the new ball park.just what I want my kids to see when I take them to a ball game.
To complain about the sign offending you makes about as much sense as me complaining about all of those churches around town with signs...
I never understood all the outrage placed towards Midtown Adult Theatre.
They have been an anchor in downtown Tulsa ever since I can remember.
Quote from: Trogdor on March 19, 2009, 03:36:44 PM
They have been an anchor in downtown Tulsa ever since I can remember.
And, on top of that, I'd say that they have made pretty good improvements on their building exterior. Which is WAY more than you could say for several other downtown properties...
Is it a topless chick with flashing nipples or is it just the store name?
Seriously, my imagination goes crazy on this sort of stuff. I've got Neon "acts" pictured over here.
If it's the size of the Borden sign Tulsa may make a name for itself.
Quote from: Townsend on March 19, 2009, 03:42:53 PM
Is it a topless chick with flashing nipples or is it just the store name?
Seriously, my imagination goes crazy on this sort of stuff. I've got Neon "acts" pictured over here.
If it's the size of the Borden sign Tulsa may make a name for itself.
It's not really new. I think it has been there since they updated the exterior. It simply says "Midtown Adult Theatre" in a redish/pinkish neon.
Quote from: TURobY on March 19, 2009, 03:45:10 PM
It's not really new. I think it has been there since they updated the exterior. It simply says "Midtown Adult Theatre" in a redish/pinkish neon.
That one? Pfffft.
Huge improvement on the outside of the building.
Anyone have the guts to tell us if the interior was redone as well?
Quote from: Townsend on March 19, 2009, 03:49:59 PM
That one? Pfffft.
Huge improvement on the outside of the building.
Anyone have the guts to tell us if the interior was redone as well?
I've actually been in there fairly recently. I don't know what the inside looked like before, but I wouldn't get that the interior was remodelled. It kinda felt like the 70's in there. LOL
[edit]I want to point out that I did not go into any of the theatres, just the store. :P
[/edit]
Quote from: TURobY on March 19, 2009, 03:54:43 PM
I've actually been in there fairly recently. I don't know what the inside looked like before, but I wouldn't get that the interior was remodelled. It kinda felt like the 70's in there. LOL
[edit]I want to point out that I did not go into any of the theatres, just the store. :P
[/edit]
Good lord, how big is this sign? I mean, the ballpark is not even all that close to the Midtown book store is it? Isn't it 4 blocks from the nearest corner of the ball park site, making it more like 5 or more blocks from the nearest people sitting in the stadium facing towards it?
Quote from: Oil Capital on March 19, 2009, 04:24:25 PM
Good lord, how big is this sign? I mean, the ballpark is not even all that close to the Midtown book store is it? Isn't it 4 blocks from the nearest corner of the ball park site, making it more like 5 or more blocks from the nearest people sitting in the stadium facing towards it?
I measured it, it is 250'x250'
You can find some pics of the inside if you visit their website (http://www.tulsaadultfun.com/photos.htm (http://www.tulsaadultfun.com/photos.htm)). As for the sign, I can't find a picture online. If I'm feeling generous, I might drive by on the way home and get a cell-phone picture.
Quote from: TURobY on March 19, 2009, 03:31:01 PM
To complain about the sign offending you makes about as much sense as me complaining about all of those churches around town with signs...
I never understood all the outrage placed towards Midtown Adult Theatre.
Curious, why is it the MIDTOWN adult theatre?
Quote from: SXSW on March 19, 2009, 04:57:32 PM
Curious, why is it the MIDTOWN adult theatre?
Not sure. Calling our midtown "midtown" is strange unless we have an "uptown". Do we call any part South "Uptown"?
(http://www.tulsamonolithic.com/midtown.jpg)
That pic is taken from the Arnie's parking lot right next to the Blue Dome. I proceeded to drive over to the site of the new stadium. If a path was cleared (taking out a couple of warehouses), then you might be able to see the sign, though I doubt that you could read it.
Assuming the warehouses stay or something else is put in their place, then you can't even see the sign from the ballpark.
Nice detective work TURoby.
I guess "roscoe" is just stirring up some trouble that starts with a captial "T" which rhymes with "P" and that stands for porn.
Here is a news story about the latest stadium rendering, complete with bad pictures of them:
http://www.newson6.com/global/story.asp?s=10067393
...those pics are useless. I can't figure out what the difference is between the previous design and the new design. Are the pics posted anywhere else?
They have the ability to adjust the hue of the city to a blue tint?
(http://kotv.images.worldnow.com/images/10067393_BG2.jpg)
No better pictures yet, maybe later today.
The differences are that ground level is brick with vertical design elements using windows, brickwork, and decorative inlays. The Western elevator tower is now brick. The second level is Zink on the exterior. Many of the building corners are now round so if you're looking at it top-down there are few, if any, sharp corners.
Quote from: sgrizzle on March 25, 2009, 09:35:48 AM
No better pictures yet, maybe later today.
The differences are that ground level is brick with vertical design elements using windows, brickwork, and decorative inlays. The Western elevator tower is now brick. The second level is Zink on the exterior. Many of the building corners are now round so if you're looking at it top-down there are few, if any, sharp corners.
Thanks for the info!
Larger versions available here on flickr (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sgrizzle/archives/date-posted/2009/03/25/detail/)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3448/3385284392_4ddd0f7b06_b.jpg)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3462/3384469465_03dbdfe178_b.jpg)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3620/3384468977_7bdba8946a_b.jpg)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3455/3384468457_1b3a492b82_b.jpg)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3658/3384467797_25c88e0c60_b.jpg)
Oh wow! I like the look much, much better than the original designs.
Ah, very nice. Thanks for posting Grizzle.
Very pleasant appearance. Great improvement over the other plans. I didn't realize that the batters would be looking SE.
Quote from: waterboy on March 25, 2009, 10:20:28 AM
Very pleasant appearance. Great improvement over the other plans. I didn't realize that the batters would be looking SE.
More SSE, but yeah.
Also noteworthy: the stadium now will have 22 suites instead of 30. The party decks are considerably smaller since they brought some of the suites from the 3rd level to the second level. The suite level club is also smaller. The 3rd level is now only press. There are no suites up there. Also on the view looking southest you can see where they enclosed the suite and press concourses. These were originally open with a handrail to the outside and architectural mesh screen for a wind/sun screen. The exterior will have 3 different types of brick, 3 types of Zink, 2 types of cmu block, and glass.
I like the design. The lower brick portion looks like it has been there for 80+ years - like is has always been part of the Brady/Greenwood fabric. To me, it's like they incorporated an old building into the ballpark and modernized it plus added new ultra modern (contemporary) elements. It really fits into that area, IMO.
wow...I would say this represents a major step towards an "integrated" site...
I really love the new design, very nice improvement over the previous design. One very small element though; I like how the Oneok logo is a diamond it would be cool to put bases on the logo at the entrance to the park, it would make a funny little touch.
I think it's a nice blend of the old and the new. Looking very cool!
I noticed that they've added some little architectural details (as seen on many historic buildings downtown) with the decorative squares on the brick walls.
That would be a cool opportunity for upgrades. Real, carved, bas relief stonework, or terra cotta tiles...
I'd donate to that! (Then, I could say: "That's my little bit of added beauty...")
STUDD!*
(Stadium in Tulsa Urban Design Delight!)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3658/3384467797_25c88e0c60_b.jpg)
They are going to have to be very innovative in how they keep those stadium lights out of the eyes of IDL traffic.
Some ideas...
(http://www.abacuslighting.com/img/pr00208.jpg)
(http://www.softlite.com/images/baseball3.gif)
(http://www.softlite.com/images/BASEBALL2.gif)
(http://dynamics.org/Altenberg/PROJECTS/STARRY_NIGHTS/PICS/SOFT_LIGHTING/FOOTBALL1.enh.jpg)
(http://www.selux.com/cms/images/products/exterior/plane_projector_2000/465_main.jpg)
(http://www.musco.com/permanent/images/fixtcomp.jpg)
(http://www.musco.com/permanent/images/denver.jpg)
Very cool. Now we just need to see the area around the ballpark infill with some mixed-use buildings and that could be a lively area. Fixing up Elgin from OSU-Tulsa south to 11th with new sidewalks, landscaping, and lighting would go a long way in tying the whole east end of downtown together, especially the ballpark and Blue Dome.
Quote from: patric on March 25, 2009, 12:25:05 PM
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3658/3384467797_25c88e0c60_b.jpg)
They are going to have to be very innovative in how they keep those stadium lights out of the eyes of IDL traffic.
Nice catch! Yeah that might be the new traffic accident spot in Tulsa.
Wow. Very nice! Haven't been on here in a while and sgrizzle told me at lunch that the drawings were on here - so here I am. I cannot wait for next year when I can take my daughter (and her friends) to the NEW Ballpark!
(Hey sgrizzle - update your Joe Momma Count - it's driving me crazy!)
I think they did a pretty decent job of updating the design to make it more palatable. It's more traditional looking now and captures a bit more that idea of "Plains Deco" that was used at the Pavillion and many other spots.
Still could have handled a design that was a little more inspiring, but this, while somewhat bland, at least won't be an eyesore.
Much improved. I look forward to seeing more detailed renderings and hearing about the details.
Quote from: restored2x on March 25, 2009, 03:16:56 PM
Wow. Very nice! Haven't been on here in a while and sgrizzle told me at lunch that the drawings were on here - so here I am. I cannot wait for next year when I can take my daughter (and her friends) to the NEW Ballpark!
(Hey sgrizzle - update your Joe Momma Count - it's driving me crazy!)
He did. Last week I remember seeing it at 30; now it's 32.
Quote from: Hoss on March 25, 2009, 03:56:29 PM
He did. Last week I remember seeing it at 30; now it's 32.
I had lunch with him at Joe Momma's today. He wrote #33 on the table - I asked him what it meant and he said it was his "Joe Momma" count, which here still stands at #32.
Well, they did a pretty good job of blending a lot of things together. It can be hard to make this crowd happy,,, I want deco, I want brick, I want contemporary, etc. lol. I personally would have liked to have seen just a hint more drama and flair, some more entertainment factor, in the design...all in all its a very good "handsome" design and I give it a "B". (The arena was an A-, I am stingy with A's lol) Course its always hard to judge when you dont know how costs come into play. But anyway, Good job :).
Quote from: TheArtist on March 25, 2009, 06:51:39 PM
Well, they did a pretty good job of blending a lot of things together. It can be hard to make this crowd happy,,, I want deco, I want brick, I want contemporary, etc. lol. I personally would have liked to have seen just a hint more drama and flair, some more entertainment factor, in the design...all in all its a very good "handsome" design and I give it a "B". (The arena was an A-, I am stingy with A's lol) Course its always hard to judge when you dont know how costs come into play. But anyway, Good job :).
+1 "What he said."
To the news agencies that took the stadium pictures off of my flickr page.. YOU'RE WELCOME
I never hated the old design, but I do consider the new one an improvement. I'm more anxious to see the plans for the neighboring buildings. Musuem(s), hotel, parking garage, sports bar are all a must.
P.S. Joe Momma count now accurate.
Quote from: sgrizzle on March 26, 2009, 06:36:18 AM
I'm more anxious to see the plans for the neighboring buildings. Musuem(s), hotel, parking garage, sports bar are all a must.
Me too. I like what they have shown in the renderings. There are prime development opportunities on the two parking lots on Elgin between Archer and Brady, the old Curly's building on Brady, the old warehouses on Archer east of Elgin, and the two buildings on the west side of Elgin just north of the tracks. I really hope that employment office can be either relocated or renovated, as it is right now it really presents an obstacle for people walking on the sidewalk from Archer to 1st. Any idea if a streetscape on Elgin and Archer is part of the ballpark plans?
Now that John Hope Franklin has died I hope we start to see a push to get his park finished. Is it even fully funded?
Quote from: stymied on March 25, 2009, 10:48:18 AM
Also noteworthy: the stadium now will have 22 suites instead of 30. The party decks are considerably smaller since they brought some of the suites from the 3rd level to the second level. The suite level club is also smaller. The 3rd level is now only press. There are no suites up there.
Are you serious? Do you have a source? Sounds like a bit of bait and switch. How does that work out with the fixed-price contract, I wonder?
FWIW, I liked the original design better, standing alone. But I think you guys are right. This will look better in the neighborhood.
Quote from: Oil Capital on March 26, 2009, 08:35:01 AM
Are you serious? Do you have a source?
Everything else "stymied" has said about the ballpark has been correct, so I will choose to believe him on this information.
I think he is the guy who wears the Driller mascot costume...Hornsby.
Yeah stymied has had inside info throughout this process.
I don't know how I feel about the decrease in suites--I mean, in my mind I'm certain they're underestimating the draw of a downtown ballpark and building too small. I made this complaint to one of the principals in this deal and his response was something along the lines of, "Sometimes it's better to have high demand than high availability." This didn't strike me as incredibly populist, although nothing about the project has been incredibly populist.
But from a design point of view, it looks like moving the suites gave them the ability to create a more vertical element with the press box behind home plate. From the limited renderings this seems to be an improvement. I definitely want to see an updated site plan and get new capacity numbers. If they can't jam 8000 people in there including the grass berms and party decks it'll be a shame. I went to Drillers Stadium on the 4th of July this year with 11,000 other people to watch fireworks. A downtown stadium could draw even more for the big games.
Oh also, does anyone (stymied?) have updated information on the status of the Mickey Mantle museum? The last word so far was had by Steve Lackmeyer of the Daily Jokelahoman, who got quotes from the Oklahoma Redhawks that they were still interested and wrote a story saying it was going to OKC without talking to the Mantle family. Is the museum still moving forward, and if so, have they figured out where they're putting it?
Taking a hopefull guess,,, I might suppose the Mantle family may have been hedging their bets and waiting to see what happened with the ballpark in Tulsa, aka whether it was actually going to happen or not and what kind of facility it was going to be. So now that we are this far, and renderings approved, perhaps we have a better stab at getting it. If it isnt already committed to OKC. It doesnt look like there is a place for it now in the new renderings, but even right across from the ballpark would be a neat place for it.
I believe the building that has the "East Village" sign on it was under consideration for the museum, it's right across the street. I also believe that if OKC was a done deal, it would be done. They want to see what else is going to be built and I've heard of about 6 different museums eyeing downtown currently.
Quote from: Oil Capital on March 26, 2009, 08:35:01 AM
Are you serious? Do you have a source? Sounds like a bit of bait and switch. How does that work out with the fixed-price contract, I wonder?
FWIW, I liked the original design better, standing alone. But I think you guys are right. This will look better in the neighborhood.
Contract is not fixed price. It is a design-build with a guaranteed maximum price. Big difference. Suite numbers were reduced and lowered to second level only for budget reasons. Trust approved changes in favor of other embellishments. It is their park and they are spending the $60 million they way they want to, which includes changing their minds along the way so long as they stay under $60 million.
Quote from: stymied on March 26, 2009, 10:39:10 AM
Contract is not fixed price. It is a design-build with a guaranteed maximum price. Big difference. Suite numbers were reduced and lowered to second level only for budget reasons. Trust approved changes in favor of other embellishments. It is their park and they are spending the $60 million they way they want to, which includes changing their minds along the way so long as they stay under $60 million.
I'm Floyd and I approve of trading luxury boxes for aesthetics.
Quote from: Floyd on March 26, 2009, 09:24:34 AM
Yeah stymied has had inside info throughout this process.
I don't know how I feel about the decrease in suites--I mean, in my mind I'm certain they're underestimating the draw of a downtown ballpark and building too small. I made this complaint to one of the principals in this deal and his response was something along the lines of, "Sometimes it's better to have high demand than high availability." This didn't strike me as incredibly populist, although nothing about the project has been incredibly populist.
But from a design point of view, it looks like moving the suites gave them the ability to create a more vertical element with the press box behind home plate. From the limited renderings this seems to be an improvement. I definitely want to see an updated site plan and get new capacity numbers. If they can't jam 8000 people in there including the grass berms and party decks it'll be a shame. I went to Drillers Stadium on the 4th of July this year with 11,000 other people to watch fireworks. A downtown stadium could draw even more for the big games.
This ballpark can still be stretched to meet AAA standards if they ever go that route, which is 10K I believe. As it is now, for a bedlam game there they can get that many seated using the berms and 360 degree concourse for standing room only.
Quote from: TheArtist on March 26, 2009, 09:46:12 AM
Taking a hopefull guess,,, I might suppose the Mantle family may have been hedging their bets and waiting to see what happened with the ballpark in Tulsa, aka whether it was actually going to happen or not and what kind of facility it was going to be. So now that we are this far, and renderings approved, perhaps we have a better stab at getting it. If it isnt already committed to OKC. It doesnt look like there is a place for it now in the new renderings, but even right across from the ballpark would be a neat place for it.
This is what I have heard. There is space to incorporate the museum if the support for this gains traction. OKC has claimed the lead in the race to land the museum, but I have heard the family is just waiting to see more progress. The Trust has a back up plan up their sleeve if the Mantle Museum doesn't happen. Stay tuned...
All new AAA stadiums are over 10,000. The smallest stadium currently the Las Vegas 51st with 9,334. I imagine if we really wanted to increase the size of the stadium it would be pretty easy to do with stands in the outfield.
http://www.ballparksofbaseball.com/aaaballparks.htm
Thanks for the info Stymied.
Thanks for those answers. Karma for you!
Quote from: Floyd on March 26, 2009, 11:35:29 AM
Thanks for those answers. Karma for you!
Thanks! I need all the Karma I can get.
Quote from: Floyd on March 26, 2009, 10:44:03 AM
I'm Floyd and I approve of trading luxury boxes for aesthetics.
It's now 23 suites, as one of the founders double wide suites was split into 2.
Quote from: stymied on March 26, 2009, 10:39:10 AM
Contract is not fixed price. It is a design-build with a guaranteed maximum price. Big difference. Suite numbers were reduced and lowered to second level only for budget reasons. Trust approved changes in favor of other embellishments. It is their park and they are spending the $60 million they way they want to, which includes changing their minds along the way so long as they stay under $60 million.
Gotcha. So, is it basically cost-plus, with a cap? (and fwiw, the stadium construction contract is, I believe, $39.2 Million, not $60 Million.)
Ok, I am going to go ahead and mention, with the hope that someone might listen lol, something that I noticed when I first saw the renderings. Wasnt going to bring it up, but in another forum there were some questions as to the "art-deco" elements of the building. In that vein, the first thing that caught my eye was the Banding elements around the building. The most common use of such horizontal banding elements in streamline type deco is to have the bandings in sets of 3. A lot of deco elements are repetitions of 3. I think it would give the building just a little more of a deco feel. Sometimes the typical person,,, well,,, needs a few more cues, or more obvious cues, to "get it". Having it be a classic, 3 band, would make the deco nature of the building more obvious to the everyday, huddled masses, :P viewer.
I like how they used the "eyebrow" and the curve, and the zink, and the brick, and of course the panels,,, But the very first thing I noticed was the 2 band instead of a 3 band going around, and wished they had done the more obviously, classic deco 3 band. Surely one more little line of bricks going around wouldnt be too much to ask for ;D
(http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/8184/1asamplesweb.jpg)
Adding one more banding of brick between the other two would add that extra touch of deco to the ballpark. Especially when viewing this side. The building is solidly contemporary enough that I dont think adding the more obviously deco 3band would detract from that. I think it would actually a fun touch, an "oh look at the deco element they added there" thing to the ballpark. A lot of people are not going to register the 2 band as being a deco touch. The three band they will.
(http://img128.imageshack.us/img128/8476/11128346.jpg)
(http://img128.imageshack.us/img128/3905/76979775.jpg)
In looking at the renderings it appears the ballpark actually attaches or is very close to the old buildings of greenwood. I think it would be really cool if they added like a party area or seats on the roof of those buildings like they do in Chicago. I think you could really incorporate these buildings as a fabric of the overall stadium.
Quote from: forevertulsa89 on March 27, 2009, 02:22:17 PM
In looking at the renderings it appears the ballpark actually attaches or is very close to the old buildings of greenwood. I think it would be really cool if they added like a party area or seats on the roof of those buildings like they do in Chicago. I think you could really incorporate these buildings as a fabric of the overall stadium.
It has been suggested to Ruben Gant, but it's up to them what they do with their own property.
Quote from: forevertulsa89 on March 27, 2009, 02:22:17 PM
In looking at the renderings it appears the ballpark actually attaches or is very close to the old buildings of greenwood. I think it would be really cool if they added like a party area or seats on the roof of those buildings like they do in Chicago. I think you could really incorporate these buildings as a fabric of the overall stadium.
That would add to the fun Factor, either way though I plan on being a season ticket holder when this baby opens :)
Baseball within walking distances from home, very exciting.
For those that missed it, Tulsa World published an article by Jay Cronley - "Ill Wind Blows Into Ballpark"http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20090327_206_A11_Accord426983
This article seems to address some long standing concerns many had since the first conceptual drawings were released and the orientation of the field displayed.
This city's new downtown baseball park will not conform to tradition when it comes to alignment.
It appears that the line from home plate through the mound and over second base will run into the southeast; which is to suggest that when the south wind is howling, a left-handed batter couldn't hit a homer near the line in right using an aluminum bat against an aged pitcher.
To compensate for any possible week- or monthlong southerly gale, somebody said the right-field line would be only about 307 feet.
Three hundred and seven feet, home to the wall — that's a short field, a very short field.
Aren't coach-pitch fences around 310 down the lines?
In a raging southerly flow, games will be scored in the 2-1 vicinity and will last an hour and a half; in a calm setting, it's apt to be 11-10 in the bottom of the fourth.
But talk about fan-friendly. Be sure to take a glove to the games. Given the customary south winds, there should be, oh, 65 or 70 souvenir pop foul balls available for snagging per game.
I'm hoping this doesn't become a $39.2 million flub as a result of these concerns. I recall many in here and on the Tulsa World voiced concerns about these issues before construction started yet our local leaders chose to push ahead with all due haste. I'm wondering if the ballpark design and orientation was vetted by the league and deemed acceptable for its shorter baseline and direction? Stymied, do you know?
I'd hate to see issues like these effect Bedlam or other major baseball events outside of normal season Drillers play.
Jay Cronley is not smart.
Doesn't he pretty much complain about... everything?
Yup. And from what I understand, the mothership (read that as the Rockies organization) signed off on the alignment. That tidbit of info comes directly from the Driller team president
Jay Cronley is just a complainer. This is NOT the only field facing this way, the field is below ground, and there are plenty of buildings around the field. He acts like there is going to be some sort of constant 100mph headwind aimed at the batter.
Quote from: DowntownNow on March 28, 2009, 01:19:24 AM
For those that missed it, Tulsa World published an article by Jay Cronley - "Ill Wind Blows Into Ballpark"http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20090327_206_A11_Accord426983
This article seems to address some long standing concerns many had since the first conceptual drawings were released and the orientation of the field displayed.
This city's new downtown baseball park will not conform to tradition when it comes to alignment.
It appears that the line from home plate through the mound and over second base will run into the southeast; which is to suggest that when the south wind is howling, a left-handed batter couldn't hit a homer near the line in right using an aluminum bat against an aged pitcher.
To compensate for any possible week- or monthlong southerly gale, somebody said the right-field line would be only about 307 feet.
Three hundred and seven feet, home to the wall — that's a short field, a very short field.
Aren't coach-pitch fences around 310 down the lines?
In a raging southerly flow, games will be scored in the 2-1 vicinity and will last an hour and a half; in a calm setting, it's apt to be 11-10 in the bottom of the fourth.
But talk about fan-friendly. Be sure to take a glove to the games. Given the customary south winds, there should be, oh, 65 or 70 souvenir pop foul balls available for snagging per game.
I'm hoping this doesn't become a $39.2 million flub as a result of these concerns. I recall many in here and on the Tulsa World voiced concerns about these issues before construction started yet our local leaders chose to push ahead with all due haste. I'm wondering if the ballpark design and orientation was vetted by the league and deemed acceptable for its shorter baseline and direction? Stymied, do you know?
I'd hate to see issues like these effect Bedlam or other major baseball events outside of normal season Drillers play.
It took all but about 24 hours for the Rockies organization to sign off on this. It is not a big deal. As mentioned this is not the only ballpark with this orientation. It is not the most common or preferred, but is acceptable and workable. The issue is not the prevailing summer winds, but the orientation of the sun to the players and their safety. There are ballparks all around the country that have a NE orientation that have their own wind issues to contend with especially in the great lakes and north east part of the country. If Lamson and the Rockies had not approved this orientation, and were worried about south winds, the park would be under consruction on the other site right now.
Stymied, if you're talking about the "other site" being the East Village site originally proposed, I thought there were a variety of reasons it couldn't happen there: parties couldn't come to terms, desires for surrounding redevelopment, etc?
The field orientation been discussed over and over and over and over and over and....
Home plate through the pitcher's mound just needs to face easterly, whether that's northeast, southeast or due east. Northeast is the most common, but several ballparks in the major leagues have a southeastern orientation, including Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, and the Texas Rangers (who built theirs in a parking lot and could've faced it any direction they wanted).
If anything, it'll be nice to have a breeze blowing in from right field and cooling off the fans along the third base line when it's 90+ degrees outside. If a left handed batter at the Double A level can't hit a home run into the wind with a short porch in right (307 feet), then he needs to consider driving a beer truck for a living. Maybe Marshall's will be hiring.
Quote from: DowntownNow on March 28, 2009, 12:23:13 PM
Stymied, if you're talking about the "other site" being the East Village site originally proposed, I thought there were a variety of reasons it couldn't happen there: parties couldn't come to terms, desires for surrounding redevelopment, etc?
There were plenty of rumors, not a lot of facts. There was a legal dispute over one parcel that was delaying it, but they ended up liking greenwood better anyway.
Quote from: sgrizzle on March 28, 2009, 03:32:01 PM
There were plenty of rumors, not a lot of facts. There was a legal dispute over one parcel that was delaying it, but they ended up liking greenwood better anyway.
The Greenwood site was determined to be several years ahead of the curve in terms of surrounding development, the entitlements weren't as tricky, it was cheaper, the construction was going to be about $2 million cheaper due to some massive PSO underground lines, and the consruction schedule on the other site could not be completed by 2010 opening day. I still think they always had a plan to make either site work, and in the end gave they compromised best overall orientation for all the advantages mentioned above. It was an easy decision in the end.
Southeast facing ballparks:
Majors:
Cincinnati Reds
Pittsburgh Pirates
Milwaukee Brewers
Chicago White Sox
Detroit Tigers
Texas Rangers
Minors (mostly AAA):
Dunn Tire Park (Buffalo)
PGE Park (Portland)
Nashville Sounds Baseball Club
Harbor Park (Norfolk, VA)
Security Service Field (Colorado Springs)
Franklin Covey Field (Salt Lake City)
The Diamond (Richmond)
Chukchansi Park (Fresno)
Commerce Bank Park (Bridgewater, NJ)
Trenton Thunder (NJ)
Birmingham Rickwood Field (AL)
San Antonio Missions Baseball
Ct Defenders (Norwich, Conn. - almost due south)
University of Washington's baseball stadium (happen to know that one)
There, that's the 10 minutes I can devote to this search. Google Maps, "baseball stadium" and start clicking. There are more than a couple facing SE and nearly all of them are larger than Tulsa's new endeavor. The sun, not the wind, is the real problem - but the people above seemed to do OK with it.
I have no comment on prevailing wind conditions at the above sites. Anyone who wants to nitpick the wind/orientation on these ballparks needs to do so on all the others to see if it is the dominate factor.
And just for fun, the Twins new ballpark is being orientated East-North-East as "desired." People there are pissed because it *could* be orientated on the same site to give a great outfield view of downtown:
http://www.twinsballpark2010.com/SkyLine.html
The key part of the passage from the rulebook:
"It is desirable that the line from home base through the pitcher's plate to second base shall run east-northeast."
It is desirable. It is not required.
The nice things about ballparks around the country are their quirks. If a ballpark, such as old Yankee Stadium, has a really long dead zone for right-handed batters, you'd better stock up on left-handed hitters. Kansas City teams must have speedy outfielders because of the deep outfield and speedy turf. Wrigley Field in Chicago often is regarded as a hitter's paradise -- until the wind comes out of the north. Breaking-ball pitchers don't do well in Denver because of the thinner air.
Ballparks have quirks. Most ballplayers know these quirks. You have to adjust. Baseball is all about adjusting in order to be successful. End of story.
I don't think teams are going to load up on lefties just cause they play on a short field in Tulsa. Still, 310 ft is not very long. I could hit that far. Should make for some good crowds outside the right field fence. How deep is the current field?
Quote from: waterboy on March 30, 2009, 08:36:05 PM
I don't think teams are going to load up on lefties just cause they play on a short field in Tulsa. Still, 310 ft is not very long. I could hit that far. Should make for some good crowds outside the right field fence. How deep is the current field?
dimensions
LF: 335
CF: 390
RF: 340
Quote from: TURobY on March 28, 2009, 09:18:52 AM
Doesn't he pretty much complain about... everything?
Now that I reread your post, doesn't that also sound like the OP?
:o
Quote from: Hoss on March 30, 2009, 10:35:44 PM
Now that I reread your post, doesn't that also sound like the OP?
:o
I complain about everything?
Quote from: sgrizzle on March 31, 2009, 09:10:53 AM
I complain about everything?
Sorry Scott; I saw Downtownwhatever's post at the top and thought that person was the OP.
You have my apologies for the error.
Quote from: Hoss on March 31, 2009, 09:40:12 AM
Sorry Scott; I saw Downtownwhatever's post at the top and thought that person was the OP.
You have my apologies for the error.
NP for the OP confusion.
WTH is the OP?
Quote from: TheArtist on March 26, 2009, 08:19:58 PM
Ok, I am going to go ahead and mention, with the hope that someone might listen lol, something that I noticed when I first saw the renderings. Wasnt going to bring it up, but in another forum there were some questions as to the "art-deco" elements of the building. In that vein, the first thing that caught my eye was the Banding elements around the building. The most common use of such horizontal banding elements in streamline type deco is to have the bandings in sets of 3. A lot of deco elements are repetitions of 3. I think it would give the building just a little more of a deco feel. Sometimes the typical person,,, well,,, needs a few more cues, or more obvious cues, to "get it". Having it be a classic, 3 band, would make the deco nature of the building more obvious to the everyday, huddled masses, :P viewer.
I like how they used the "eyebrow" and the curve, and the zink, and the brick, and of course the panels,,, But the very first thing I noticed was the 2 band instead of a 3 band going around, and wished they had done the more obviously, classic deco 3 band. Surely one more little line of bricks going around wouldnt be too much to ask for ;D
(http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/8184/1asamplesweb.jpg)
Adding one more banding of brick between the other two would add that extra touch of deco to the ballpark. Especially when viewing this side. The building is solidly contemporary enough that I dont think adding the more obviously deco 3band would detract from that. I think it would actually a fun touch, an "oh look at the deco element they added there" thing to the ballpark. A lot of people are not going to register the 2 band as being a deco touch. The three band they will.
(http://img128.imageshack.us/img128/8476/11128346.jpg)
(http://img128.imageshack.us/img128/3905/76979775.jpg)
William, believe it or not, HOK Sport has read this topic and your point above and otherwise had no clue of this detail. But they have since changed this detail to incorporate the 3 bands. The 2 band detail was never intended to be Art Deco. They just liked it, but the additional band was not a big deal to add and makes a statement to the select few that will notice it. Keep talking, as they are listening. Also, HOK Sport is no longer HOK Sport. They are now Populous.
http://www.populous.com/
If they're listening, then hopefully they'll listen to the comments on the lighting.
Kewl... I am famous now. I can go by the building and point and say... "See that band of bricks, that was my idea. ;D"
I have been immortalized. People in the future will ask "Who did that? Who thought of that incredible detail?" They will write stories and sing songs about me. :P
But you know what would even be really incredible? Well lets just say, whoever gets to design those deco panels that are to go around the building, that will be some lucky artist. Wow, who wouldn't love to be able to have a hand in doing that. And wouldn't it be neat to have a local person design them? Someone who really loves this city and would work really really hard to make something wonderful and would probably do it for dirt cheap just to get the chance to do something like that. Hint hint.
This person could even sculpt them and knows a local company that could cast them as well. ;D Just sayin... Wonder how someone would go about getting such a gig?
Quote from: TheArtist on April 07, 2009, 01:33:39 PM
Kewl... I am famous now. I can go by the building and point and say... "See that band of bricks, that was my idea. ;D"
I have been immortalized. People in the future will ask "Who did that? Who thought of that incredible detail?" They will write stories and sing songs about me. :P
But you know what would even be really incredible? Well lets just say, whoever gets to design those deco panels that are to go around the building, that will be some lucky artist. Wow, who wouldn't love to be able to have a hand in doing that. And wouldn't it be neat to have a local person design them? Someone who really loves this city and would work really really hard to make something wonderful and would probably do it for dirt cheap just to get the chance to do something like that. Hint hint.
This person could even sculpt them and knows a local company that could cast them as well. ;D Just sayin... Wonder how someone would go about getting such a gig?
Contact Reuben Gant. I believe he has been charged with this task. I am hoping that doesn't imply that he is strictly seeking minority artists, but rather an eclectic mix of all talents and backgrounds.
Quote from: Nik on April 07, 2009, 11:31:56 AM
If they're listening, then hopefully they'll listen to the comments on the lighting.
Refresh my memory. What comments are those?
Quote from: stymied on April 07, 2009, 02:11:15 PM
Refresh my memory. What comments are those?
http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=12977.msg124410#msg124410
What you might want to do is find the vendors/makers for the particular lights, specs, costs etc. So they don't have to go digging themselves. May make it more likely that they will be able to consider them. People often pull the books/vendor catalog off the shelves and use what they know or are familiar with. Give them a helping hand to find a new one. Who knows the vendors the use now may have these particular types of lights.
Quote from: stymied on April 07, 2009, 02:06:59 PM
Contact Reuben Gant. I believe he has been charged with this task. I am hoping that doesn't imply that he is strictly seeking minority artists, but rather an eclectic mix of all talents and backgrounds.
Thanks for the tip, will see if I can get in contact with him.
Quote from: Nik on April 07, 2009, 02:31:46 PM
http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=12977.msg124410#msg124410
I don't think this will be an issue at all. ODOT had to sign off on the design including the lights. Populous (HOK Sport) has designed many ballparks tucked right into urban areas and freeway interchanges, so I am sure they are sensitive to this sort of concern as are the lighting manufacturers themselvses.
Original
(http://img128.imageshack.us/img128/275/84445260.jpg)
Tricked up version. Lifted the center parts up a bit, added a central inset with a spotlight shooting up (or you could add something that sticks out and "contains" the beam, ala the new PAC lighting) and some lights shooting up on the Zink.
(http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/8351/a2f.jpg)
Decofied tricked up version. ;D Same as last, except with a step down on the Zink, and a flagpole.
(http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/4171/a2e.jpg)
Frank Deford had a good piece on ballpark architecture today:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=102837901
QuoteMorning Edition, April 8, 2009 · In a front-page article in The New York Times, architecture critic Nicolai Ouroussoff expressed "disappointment" on behalf of "students of architecture," because the Mets' and Yankees' new baseball parks don't embrace the modern but, instead, celebrate a "nostalgic vision."
Speaking for students of baseball, I'm sorry, but in constructing some things, the trick is not to run away from nostalgia but simply to monkey around with it and try to gussy it up a bit. Architecturally, baseball parks are like mousetraps. No one has found a way to build a better one . . . .
. . .
People simply feel more affection for ball yards than they do for other sports' stadiums and arenas. Madison Square Garden, for all its fame, is merely an address, not a home. And a place like Gillette Stadium may be a cathedral to New England Patriots fans, just as Old Trafford is to Manchester United fans, but linear football stadiums — of both varieties — and the cereal boxes that accommodate basketball and ice hockey are pretty much just so many efficient people containers. Ball yards are quirky and idiosyncratic living things, because the architecture is part and parcel of the outfield itself — all the better that that's in utter counterpoint to the infield, that diamond of inviolate geometry.
In a subversive way, ballparks even sort of divert attention from the game itself. Football and basketball and soccer and hockey fans probably pay more attention to the action, but baseball fans are more engaged by the whole experience. It's rather like how some people go to restaurants primarily for the food, others just as much for the ambience. If football fans act more like baseball fans, it's when they're outside the stadium, tailgating. Baseball parks are sort of made for interior tailgating.
I think he nailed it. And I think the park that is being designed for Tulsa is along this same vein. A variation on a theme, but monkeyed enough to make it part of Tulsa. Current Drillers Stadium gets the job done, but it is a warehouse for the sport and little more.
Nice! I typically can't stand Deford but he hit the nail on the head here. Nostalgia is a requisite element of ballpark design.
Quote from: TheArtist on April 07, 2009, 05:18:19 PM
What you might want to do is find the vendors/makers for the particular lights, specs, costs etc. So they don't have to go digging themselves. May make it more likely that they will be able to consider them. People often pull the books/vendor catalog off the shelves and use what they know or are familiar with. Give them a helping hand to find a new one. Who knows the vendors the use now may have these particular types of lights.
Ive found that hoping for the best is the road to disappointment, and that "no one said anything" is often the reason given for things not developing the way they should.
When I talk lights with developers, I prefer to recommend concepts rather than specific products so they dont think im just hawking wares.
More often than not, developers are just unaware of a lot of newer lighting choices and are tempted to cookie-cutter copy a previous design elsewhere that might be less than ideal, so I eventually dig up cut sheets of specific manufacturers for examples.
http://www.softlite.com/product.htm
http://www.softlite.com/whysls.htm
http://www.lighting4sport.com/sportslighting.asp?sport=sn03
http://www.selux.com/cms/products/exterior/pdf/465_cc5.pdf
http://www.selux.com/cms/products/exterior/pdf/455_cc5.pdf
http://www.selux.com/cms/products/exterior/pdf/Lamps3_cc5.pdf
http://www.selux.com/cms/products/exterior/pdf/S455_SS.pdf
http://www.selux.com/cms/products/exterior/pdf/CL150_SS.pdf
http://www.qualite.com/DesignBaseball.html
Other's experiences:
http://www.seattle.gov/parks/proparks/projects/LoyalHeightsBoards.pdf
There are more, of course, as almost every manufacturer that makes a bad light also makes a good one they keep in the back room for some reason.
In any case, I would want to get across the message that lighting like Skelly Stadium and the Fairgrounds are among the less ideal.
Quote from: stymied on April 07, 2009, 08:06:51 PM
I don't think this will be an issue at all. ODOT had to sign off on the design including the lights. Populous (HOK Sport) has designed many ballparks tucked right into urban areas and freeway interchanges, so I am sure they are sensitive to this sort of concern as are the lighting manufacturers themselvses.
Not that I dont trust ODOT,
but if they have OK'd the lighting, what did they OK?
Quote from: TheArtist on April 07, 2009, 11:40:33 PM
added a central inset with a spotlight shooting up (or you could add something that sticks out and "contains" the beam, ala the new PAC lighting) and some lights shooting up on the Zink.
(http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/8351/a2f.jpg)
Consider that inset as perhaps being a subtle source of illumination itself, rather than a target that you may or may not get light projected on.
Think of LEDs behind glass bricks, for example, or even a moderate amount of neon. The PAC lighting is not a good design IMHO because of all the spill and waste.
What would really be neat is, well what it looks like is big pieces of stained glass. LEDs or neon in an inset or hidden behind a raised element might be the easiest thing to consider. What I am always afraid of when making suggestions is their cost and effort. So I try to make ones that dont change thing too much and can be easily visualized and figured out. One can imagine they will take a glance at it, decide right then whether they like it or not, then even if they do, will instantly consider different possibilities for how work and the effort that will require. If its more than its worth or they stumble on figuring out a quick, easy, cost effective solution . The suggestion goes right out the window.
If you dont catch people and convince them in the first 30 seconds, its a no go and in the pile with dozens of other neat ideas everyone will have.
As with any project, or painting even, you have to eventually say, ok, its good, this works, lets get a move on. You can keep tweaking, piddling and shifting off in a dozen, all perfectly wonderful directions, forever. Unless its a quick "oh yea I like really that and we can do it" kinda thing. Best to move on.
So are the Deco details shown in the renderings (above the windows) the ones salvaged from old buildings in Tulsa? I hope so, because that is really cool and a nice 'local touch'.
A HOK (Populous) stadium in Memphis:
(http://portfolio.populous.com/images/projects/autozone/main_1.jpg)
After all the months/years of arguing and explaining why a ballpark facing southeast is perfectly acceptable, something dawned on me this afternoon.
ONEOK Field won't even be the first baseball stadium in Tulsa to face southeast. Not by 30 years or more.
+ORU Johnson Stadium (http://tinyurl.com/coxmsl)
They built that ballpark on vacant land. They could've faced that stadium northeast just as easily, but didn't. I've never heard a single complaint about the direction ORU's home field faces in its entire existence.
Quote from: AVERAGE JOE on April 27, 2009, 05:08:40 PM
After all the months/years of arguing and explaining why a ballpark facing southeast is perfectly acceptable, something dawned on me this afternoon.
ONEOK Field won't even be the first baseball stadium in Tulsa to face southeast. Not by 30 years or more.
+ORU Johnson Stadium (http://tinyurl.com/coxmsl)
They built that ballpark on vacant land. They could've faced that stadium northeast just as easily, but didn't. I've never heard a single complaint about the direction ORU's home field faces in its entire existence.
+1
When 900 ft tall Jesus tells you to place a ballpark facing Southeast, you just do it. No questions asked.
ONEOK Field at least has reasons to deviate form the norm. Like it or not, there are reasons. Looking at a freeway sucks, looking at downtown is cool. It invites people to walk through the area to get to the entrance. Embraces Greenwood and utilizes existing streets as lines for the stadium.
Why ORU actually did that, I have no idea.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on April 28, 2009, 09:41:46 AM
When 900 ft tall Jesus tells you to place a ballpark facing Southeast, you just do it. No questions asked.
Cool Man........! The way things are going they made need this dude.
Webcam image taken 1/19/10. Getting closer to being finished!
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v316/bg918/ONEOK_Field-20100119-104845.jpg)
Quote from: SXSW on January 19, 2010, 11:40:58 AM
Webcam image taken 1/19/10. Getting closer to being finished!
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v316/bg918/ONEOK_Field-20100119-104845.jpg)
If you look at the SW corner, there is an oil derrick
One thing I noticed about the stadium...I'm not too crazy about the brick color. I would have preferred a color closer to that of the remaining Greenwood buildings not the U-Haul building.
Not to pile on the negative,,, but drats, I was hoping the oil derrick would be a LOT taller. One of the things we need is something that is more visible from the area around the PAC. The reason I say that is there are so many instances where visitors are looking around downtown for the restaurants, clubs, shops and such (the entertainment district) and they look that direction and have no clue that anything is there past that sea of empty parking lots. If there were some icon that would show the way, show that there is something interesting off that direction, they would be more likely to find it, and people could give directions to the area by pointing it out. The rooftop of El Guapos is pretty much all you have but if your trying to tell someone about it who is not in direct line of site of it, its not going to be easy to discern to them.
Was reading a post someone had on another forum. They said they visited downtown Tulsa, wandered all around but didnt see any club/restaurant area and were very disappointed.
The Blue Dome and Greenwood districts are kind of separated from the core of downtown and people wouldnt have a clue as to which direction there might be something. They could venture out past a bunch of parking lots and what not and end up in abandoned slum-ville looking areas.
I was walking down Boston Ave a while back, and a group of people asked where the restaurants were. To be honest, I was in a hurry and knew it would be hard to describe how to get there, so didnt.
If there were some visible marker for the district I could have just said, "go down to the end of this street, look off to a bit to the right and you will see....( a tower, an oil derrick, a blue dome ((If I had the means I would build a tall tower/building with a blue dome on it on the corner opposite the old blue dome to act as a beacon)) etc.) the stuff is in that area.
I cant believe they made such a wimpy oil derrick regardless. I am just flabbergasted. Why even bother mentioning something that pitifully inconsequential. Missed opportunity imo. Ugh. :-\
Quote from: TheArtist on January 19, 2010, 02:20:06 PM
Not to pile on the negative,,, but drats, I was hoping the oil derrick would be a LOT taller. One of the things we need is something that is more visible from the area around the PAC. The reason I say that is there are so many instances where visitors are looking around downtown for the restaurants, clubs, shops and such (the entertainment district) and they look that direction and have no clue that anything is there past that sea of empty parking lots. If there were some icon that would show the way, show that there is something interesting off that direction, they would be more likely to find it, and people could give directions to the area by pointing it out. The rooftop of El Guapos is pretty much all you have but if your trying to tell someone about it who is not in direct line of site of it, its not going to be easy to discern to them.
Was reading a post someone had on another forum. They said they visited downtown Tulsa, wandered all around but didnt see any club/restaurant area and were very disappointed.
The Blue Dome and Greenwood districts are kind of separated from the core of downtown and people wouldnt have a clue as to which direction there might be something. They could venture out past a bunch of parking lots and what not and end up in abandoned slum-ville looking areas.
I was walking down Boston Ave a while back, and a group of people asked where the restaurants were. To be honest, I was in a hurry and knew it would be hard to describe how to get there, so didnt.
If there were some visible marker for the district I could have just said, "go down to the end of this street, look off to a bit to the right and you will see....( a tower, an oil derrick, a blue dome ((If I had the means I would build a tall tower/building with a blue dome on it on the corner opposite the old blue dome to act as a beacon)) etc.) the stuff is in that area.
I cant believe they made such a whimpy oil derrick regardless. Why even bother mentioning that. Missed opportunity to do something striking and symbolic for the area imo.
I'm pretty sure the Derrick is just the way they are holding up a sign that says "Tulsa Drillers"
Quote from: sgrizzle on January 19, 2010, 02:22:42 PM
I'm pretty sure the Derrick is just the way they are holding up a sign that says "Tulsa Drillers"
I am sure they are. Can barely do that. Not good for anything else. Bikerack perhaps.
They posted some photos on their facebook page recently. I really like that it looks like there won't be a wall between the seating area and the field. It seems like all the new ballparks copy that little Wrigley Field Brick Wall to separate seating from the field.
http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=176641&id=66062971114&ref=mf
The Drillers say they're moving in the last weekend in February. The 900 square foot scoreboard is to be delivered late this week.
Quote from: TheArtist on January 19, 2010, 02:20:06 PM
If there were some visible marker for the district I could have just said, "go down to the end of this street, look off to a bit to the right and you will see....( a tower, an oil derrick, a blue dome ((If I had the means I would build a tall tower/building with a blue dome on it on the corner opposite the old blue dome to act as a beacon)) etc.) the stuff is in that area.
You mean like the non-sensicle signs they started posting downtown? "TUL COM COL"
I'd imagine the new "how to get there" signs for the stadium will say something like "DRI STA AAA" or some dumbass thing.
There are still no signs of progress toward a sidewalk connecting the Blue Dome and the ballpark. The current sidewalks on Elgin end on both sides of the street between First and Archer.
Quote from: Townsend on January 19, 2010, 02:34:31 PM
You mean like the non-sensicle signs they started posting downtown? "TUL COM COL"
I'd imagine the new "how to get there" signs for the stadium will say something like "DRI STA AAA" or some dumbass thing.
There wouldn't be room for the stadium on there, as they have to have the international tourist attraction that is Bartlett Square on every sign. We couldn't let visitors leave town without looking at a crappy fountain that's turned off at night, two banks, a closed restaurant and another restaurant that's open 15 hours a week.
Quote from: TheTed on January 19, 2010, 02:38:06 PM
There wouldn't be room for the stadium on there, as they have to have the international tourist attraction that is Bartlett Square on every sign. We couldn't let visitors leave town without looking at a crappy fountain that's turned off at night, two banks, a closed restaurant and another restaurant that's open 15 hours a week.
Actually, isn't it Bartlet (sic) Square now?
Quote from: TheTed on January 19, 2010, 02:36:20 PM
There are still no signs of progress toward a sidewalk connecting the Blue Dome and the ballpark. The current sidewalks on Elgin end on both sides of the street between First and Archer.
It's still in the pipeline but held up waiting on a grant check
The new picture gets me so excited for when it opens. This is really great for Tulsa.
Yea, there are things on the wayfinders that probably didnt need to be on them, and stuff, like the Blue Dome District, that imo should have been.
Despite my spastic rant about the oil derrick,,, the ballpark is looking very nice.
Quote from: TheArtist on January 20, 2010, 08:06:06 AM
Yea, there are things on the wayfinders that probably didnt need to be on them, and stuff, like the Blue Dome District, that imo should have been.
Despite my spastic rant about the oil derrick,,, the ballpark is looking very nice.
Could it maybe have had something to do with a code variance? I know the rest of the structure is pretty good sized (vertically speaking for a ballpark) but I don't profess to know the ins and outs of Tulsa's weird building code.
A more clear view from yesterday (1/21):
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v316/bg918/ONEOK_Field-1-21-10.jpg)
Does anyone know the status of the rumored Mickey Mantle Museum that was to go next to the ballpark? I think it would be neat to have the museum in a new building just north of the ballpark where the surface lot is going in. Make it a parking garage that matches the design of the ballpark and comes right up to the street with the museum on the first level across the street from the new park.
(http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/6466/ballpark.jpg)
The Mickey Mantle museum is still up in the air because it is up to the family and some members prefer OKC even though they would be a new development here and existing there.
The Drillers put a parking map up on their site. It says OSU-Tulsa lots will be free and available only Friday-Sunday. How much of a negative impact will this have on surrounding businesses (who are paying the freight for this park, and who should be raising a stink about people parking in an area where they're unlikely to patronize area businesses)?
I walked by the stadium the other day. Looks like they have a scoreboard up. An actual, tangible scoreboard. A lot of the new sporting venues just have video boards so you can't look at the scoreboard when they're showing ads. So I'm very happy for a real scoreboard. They also have a nice little playground area for the kids out in the outfield concourse area.
Quote from: TheTed on January 28, 2010, 09:45:36 AM
The Drillers put a parking map up on their site. It says OSU-Tulsa lots will be free and available only Friday-Sunday. How much of a negative impact will this have on surrounding businesses (who are paying the freight for this park, and who should be raising a stink about people parking in an area where they're unlikely to patronize area businesses)?
I walked by the stadium the other day. Looks like they have a scoreboard up. An actual, tangible scoreboard. A lot of the new sporting venues just have video boards so you can't look at the scoreboard when they're showing ads. So I'm very happy for a real scoreboard. They also have a nice little playground area for the kids out in the outfield concourse area.
We can hope that as OSU expands those parking lots along Elgin will go away and will force people to find parking either in Blue Dome or Brady. Even with the OSU lots open I still think a lot of people going to games will begin or end their night in Blue Dome where the restaurants are, or go to Spaghetti Warehouse, Mexicali, Caz's, Hunt Club, or the future pizza place on Boston in the Brady District close to the ballpark. I'm sure we'll see more options right around the park in the near future.
I'm sure many people will park nearer to downtown nightlife, but I don't see many OSU-Tulsa parkers patronizing downtown businesses. Walking from OSU to the ballpark to the Blue Dome or Brady and then back to OSU is way, way too much walking for the average Tulsan.
Some pictures I took yesterday:
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2799/4311928714_9c31d0e217.jpg)
I really like the lighting in this first picture--the lights are aimed only at the parts of the building they want accented. Looks like they might add those old deco friezes above the windows and lights, too.
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2680/4311190175_fcbfd7156d.jpg) (http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4054/4311924830_3d87e60b4d.jpg)
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4062/4311922922_b07227ffcb.jpg) (http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4062/4312022836_167afcf415.jpg)
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4063/4312021130_b5e25504bb.jpg) (http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4072/4312019560_4f3c3b006b.jpg)
I really like it. My first thought was: it's too small. But I think now: it's a good size and it's nice looking. I walked through not that long ago and there is not a bad seat in the place. I love the playground idea (i imagine they'll erect a net in front of the playground).
Quote from: TheTed on January 28, 2010, 10:15:15 AM
I'm sure many people will park nearer to downtown nightlife, but I don't see many OSU-Tulsa parkers patronizing downtown businesses. Walking from OSU to the ballpark to the Blue Dome or Brady and then back to OSU is way, way too much walking for the average Tulsan.
Maybe.
But you do realize that at the old venue at Expo Square, you generally had to walk about a quarter-mile from the parking lots to get into the stadium?
The only difference now is that you actually have some night life and restaurants relatively close to the ballpark.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on January 28, 2010, 11:54:58 AM
Maybe.
But you do realize that at the old venue at Expo Square, you generally had to walk about a quarter-mile from the parking lots to get into the stadium?
The only difference now is that you actually have some night life and restaurants relatively close to the ballpark.
They also had a tram to carry folks from their cars to the stadium. And it looks like it'd be more than a mile round trip from the nearest OSU lots to Caz's, the ballpark and back to OSU. That's not a distance residents of this fine city are accustomed to traveling without an automobile.
You don't see any pedestrians downtown right now, not counting people who are 20 feet from their cars. It'd be more likely that the average Tulsan would walk back to OSU and drive to Caz's than it would be for them to walk to Caz's and the ballpark.
Quote from: TheTed on January 28, 2010, 09:45:36 AM
The Drillers put a parking map up on their site. It says OSU-Tulsa lots will be free and available only Friday-Sunday. How much of a negative impact will this have on surrounding businesses (who are paying the freight for this park, and who should be raising a stink about people parking in an area where they're unlikely to patronize area businesses)?
I think starting the first season with a free parking lot is a smart thing to do. If they had not then we'd hear anti-downtownians and the local news talking about how there is no parking at all.
Instead, we'll just here it's too far away but there is some parking. There will be complaints about their inability to get their Hoverounds into the stadium easily.
At least one new locally owned business is prepping to open on Greenwood in time for the new season: Fat Guys Burger Bar
(http://hphotos-snc3.fbcdn.net/hs163.snc3/19045_1341409853668_1183836014_1050679_4023365_n.jpg)
Quote from: CoffeeBean on January 28, 2010, 05:42:04 PM
At least one new locally owned business is prepping to open on Greenwood in time for the new season: Fat Guys Burger Bar
(http://hphotos-snc3.fbcdn.net/hs163.snc3/19045_1341409853668_1183836014_1050679_4023365_n.jpg)
Mmmm, health food!
Quote from: OurTulsa on January 28, 2010, 11:40:00 AM
I really like it. My first thought was: it's too small. But I think now: it's a good size and it's nice looking. I walked through not that long ago and there is not a bad seat in the place. I love the playground idea (i imagine they'll erect a net in front of the playground).
It's absolutely too small. Big mistake in the design. Sure, it will be a hot ticket. But ultimately that just limits the scope of the impact the ballpark makes on downtown.
Quote from: CoffeeBean on January 28, 2010, 05:42:04 PM
At least one new locally owned business is prepping to open on Greenwood in time for the new season: Fat Guys Burger Bar
(http://hphotos-snc3.fbcdn.net/hs163.snc3/19045_1341409853668_1183836014_1050679_4023365_n.jpg)
Very to-the-point.
Quote from: sgrizzle on January 28, 2010, 08:58:12 PM
Very to-the-point.
The logo's sort of got a creepy "King Of The Hill" meets the Corleone family thing going.
I hate to say but it looks pretty drab on the inside......Like something a high-school would build.....
Quote from: Floyd on January 28, 2010, 07:32:06 PM
It's absolutely too small. Big mistake in the design. Sure, it will be a hot ticket. But ultimately that just limits the scope of the impact the ballpark makes on downtown.
Someone confirm for me.... I keep hearing from an avid baseball fan of mine who has had season tickets to the Drillers for years and would certainly know about baseball stuff, that the new ballpark does not meet the standards of minor league baseball for distance in the outfield. In other words, the field is too small. His other complaint is, when you are the batter, catcher or home plate umpire, and you are playing an evening game, you will face southwest... straight into the sun... and not be able to see.
Quote from: Wilbur on January 29, 2010, 06:07:32 AM
Someone confirm for me.... I keep hearing from an avid baseball fan of mine who has had season tickets to the Drillers for years and would certainly know about baseball stuff, that the new ballpark does not meet the standards of minor league baseball for distance in the outfield. In other words, the field is too small.
I believe the size was addressed earlier and it was smaller, but not too small for regulation play. There was a comment before by some on here that it would make gameplay more exciting.
Quote from: Wilbur on January 29, 2010, 06:07:32 AM
His other complaint is, when you are the batter, catcher or home plate umpire, and you are playing an evening game, you will face southwest... straight into the sun... and not be able to see. If the batter is.. well, looking at the pitcher, he would be facing SE and a giant black backdrop behind the pitcher.
The batter, catcher and umpire would have to be facing first base, or to the right of it.
Quote from: Wilbur on January 29, 2010, 06:07:32 AM
Someone confirm for me.... I keep hearing from an avid baseball fan of mine who has had season tickets to the Drillers for years and would certainly know about baseball stuff, that the new ballpark does not meet the standards of minor league baseball for distance in the outfield. In other words, the field is too small. His other complaint is, when you are the batter, catcher or home plate umpire, and you are playing an evening game, you will face southwest... straight into the sun... and not be able to see.
Well, the first part is definitely wrong.
The ballpark is a tad short down the lines, but there's a very good reason for that. The prevailing winds come from the south and southwest, making it harder to hit a home run. So you bring in the fences a bit to keep too many 1-0 games from happening.
I'm not sure what "standards" you're talking about. The dimensions of ballparks in the minor leagues are all over the place. Just perusing a Web site dedicated to minor-league ballparks, there are places where it's as short as 251 feet down the line to a cavernous 360 feet down the line. That's a lot of leeway.
There are a few ballparks in the major leagues that also are short pokes down the line -- Fenway Park in particular, where its right field is 302 feet. Pac Bell Park in San Francisco has a right field that's just 307 feet, yet it remains one of the toughest places to hit a home run in the majors because of the wind.
The history of baseball is loaded with ballparks of odd dimensions. You've got that configuration in Fenway in which it's 390 feet in center, but a spot in right center that juts out to 420 feet. Current Yankee Stadium has a normal center field, but a deep left center that's nearly 400 feet. Wrigley Field dimensions are long down the lines, but short in the power alleys.
And the older ballparks that were in service for decades also had weird dimensions. The old Polo Grounds in NYC was less than 260 feet down the line, but had a center field that was 505 feet. Ebbets Field in Brooklyn was less than 300 feet down the right line. Then you had the curiosity that was Crosley Field in Cincinnati, which featured fairly abrupt and steep slope near the left-field fence.
The truth is that ballpark dimensions are variable, and to preach about baseball "standards" is showing ignorance about the game's history and many idiosyncrasies.
Having actually driven to Drillers' new stadium and checked the configuration, I can attest that the batter faces the southeast, not the southwest. And there are at least six major-league ballparks that face to the southeast:
http://www.ballparks.com/baseball/index.htm
And as one poster here noted, ORU's ballpark also faces southeast like the new Drillers stadium. Players have played games for decades with no apparent complaints. It might be an issue at a certain time of day if you're an outfielder, but that's it.
If you're an outfielder who's worried about the sun, there's a device called sunglasses. I hear they're very handy.
The sun should never be an issue if the game times are always 6:35, 7:05, or 12:15 (Sundays).
By "not big enough," I didn't mean dimensions of the field. I just think they underestimated the crowds this thing is going to draw and didn't install enough seats. One of the principals in the deal told me that was the kind of problem they would hope to have. I thought they were being dense and hadn't looked enough at the attendance spike that results when teams build new downtown ballparks. But, on the other hand, it's Lamson's business and he's the one who drew the thing up--so I assume he's getting the ballpark he wanted. I just hope it's the ballpark Tulsa needed.
I think a ballpark packed with fans is better than a park of fans spread out. Yes, hopefully there will be some games where it will sell out and wish they had built it bigger, but I think the ambience will be better for most games.
That is why I have season tickets. I chose first base line just past the dugouts.
Play ball!
Quote from: Floyd on January 29, 2010, 09:32:07 AM
The sun should never be an issue if the game times are always 6:35, 7:05, or 12:15 (Sundays).
By "not big enough," I didn't mean dimensions of the field. I just think they underestimated the crowds this thing is going to draw and didn't install enough seats. One of the principals in the deal told me that was the kind of problem they would hope to have. I thought they were being dense and hadn't looked enough at the attendance spike that results when teams build new downtown ballparks. But, on the other hand, it's Lamson's business and he's the one who drew the thing up--so I assume he's getting the ballpark he wanted. I just hope it's the ballpark Tulsa needed.
Remember though that the new field has alternate seating like the grassy berms and terraced areas in left field and you will also have people outside.
It's not all int eh physical seat count.
Quote from: Floyd on January 29, 2010, 09:32:07 AM
The sun should never be an issue if the game times are always 6:35, 7:05, or 12:15 (Sundays).
By "not big enough," I didn't mean dimensions of the field. I just think they underestimated the crowds this thing is going to draw and didn't install enough seats. One of the principals in the deal told me that was the kind of problem they would hope to have. I thought they were being dense and hadn't looked enough at the attendance spike that results when teams build new downtown ballparks. But, on the other hand, it's Lamson's business and he's the one who drew the thing up--so I assume he's getting the ballpark he wanted. I just hope it's the ballpark Tulsa needed.
It'd have to be one hell of a jump in attendance to actually fill the ballpark night after night. Average attendance last year was 4,500, and the average was up because of the "last season at Drillers Stadium" angle. Maximum capacity of Oneok Field is about 8,000. You're looking at nearly a 100 percent increase to max it out night after night.
And if it's not big enough for some nights, so be it. There are certain big-league games in which you can't find a ticket even if you auctioned your newborn (i.e., Cardinals vs. Cubs). Sellouts are fine.
Let's put it this way ... it's much better for the overall atmosphere at a ballgame to have a smaller stadium that's 80% full than a bigger stadium that's half-full at most of the games.
Those average attendance numbers are probably high as compared to actual butts in seats. Most of those weeknight games have a fraction of the attendance reported in the box score.
And the ballpark's definitely not too small. I can't imagine there will be more than a few dates a year where more seats would be needed.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on January 29, 2010, 10:09:49 AM
It'd have to be one hell of a jump in attendance to actually fill the ballpark night after night. Average attendance last year was 4,500, and the average was up because of the "last season at Drillers Stadium" angle. Maximum capacity of Oneok Field is about 8,000. You're looking at nearly a 100 percent increase to max it out night after night.
And if it's not big enough for some nights, so be it. There are certain big-league games in which you can't find a ticket even if you auctioned your newborn (i.e., Cardinals vs. Cubs). Sellouts are fine.
Let's put it this way ... it's much better for the overall atmosphere at a ballgame to have a smaller stadium that's 80% full than a bigger stadium that's half-full at most of the games.
I think that was the logic in downsizing seats at
Skelly Stadium er
Chapman field at Skelly, whatever the hell they call TU's football stadium these days. I'm sure there will be lots of sell-outs at ONEOK this year simply for the new factor and I'm sure there will be lots of great promotions to drive people there. I'd like to be at the opener, and I'm sure that will be a high demand ticket.
less seats = better environment. As much as I like having an entire section to myself, It doesn't provide the appearance that the home team is supported. The grass berm is a great addition as well. Will be great for parents who want to enjoy a game, and have a place for the kiddos to play.
But the best thing about the stadium is the fact that it faces south/southeast. So on those hot summer nights, you will atleast be able to feel the breeze. And on the cool spring nights, you will be shielded from the cold north wind.
I do find it funny that the stadium might end up being one of the harder places to hit a homerun, and the MLB stadium is historically tops on the list of hitters park. It will be interesting to see how it effects the style of play. The drillers really are not a "basher" squad, but they do have their streaks.
I can't wait!
Quote from: JCnOwasso on February 01, 2010, 04:30:14 PM
I do find it funny that the stadium might end up being one of the harder places to hit a homerun, and the MLB stadium is historically tops on the list of hitters park.
Coors Field
is the best hitter's park in the majors, period. Wrigley Field used to be the best, but no longer. Batting and slugging averages are much higher for the Rockies at home than they are on the road ... we're talking 50 points' difference, minimum.
It's because of the thin air. Fly balls go longer, and pitchers' breaking pitches don't break as much -- so they're more susceptible to being mashed by hitters. And Coors Field is a hitter's paradise despite the fences being 350 feet down the line.
As for Oneok Field, who knows how good (or bad) of a hitter's park it will be? You just aren't positive until games are played there, and you see what trends and quirks emerge.
A 2/15/10 update...looks like they are working on sidewalks along Elgin, maybe the streetscaping project has started?
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v316/bg918/ONEOK_Field-20100215-105326.jpg)
Quote from: SXSW on February 15, 2010, 11:29:08 AM
A 2/15/10 update...looks like they are working on sidewalks along Elgin, maybe the streetscaping project has started?
Officially, no, but they are doing the part around the ballpark anyway.
Kinda cool - video replay board is on this morning...
http://oxblue.com/pro/open/oneok/oneokfield
I see at least one other video screen above the left field bowl seating.
The time lapse with the snowfall and snow melt is a really cool effect. One of the storms, the field becomes obscured from the camera, then the field is all white, then the infield dirt becomes visilble then the snow disappears toward the outfield.
There were no barriers up and nobody around, so I sauntered in through the outfield entrance and just spent several minutes taking it all in last night. Some subtle lighting from below the suites and the video board provided a little bit of light.
I can't wait for baseball downtown.
Also, with that lack of security, I hope not many bums have taken up residence.
From the TW, view of the skyline looking down right field (the seats behind left field will have an even better view)
(http://www.tulsaworld.com/articleimages/2010/20100221_oneok.jpg)
The scoreboard
(http://www.tulsaworld.com/articleimages/2010/20100221_Scoreboard.jpg)
My seats are in this shot. I am a section past the dugout (at the start of the outfield), fifth row from the field, on the aisle.
I plan to catch many foul balls.
Took some shots last night as I went on my own little tour. There aren't many sports facilities I would call beautiful, but Oneok Field really is. It's especially stunning at night, with the nice lighting really playing up its features. And the streetscaping is going to be great--they've even installed bike racks in the parallel parking area (something completely new to Tulsa). The streetlight fixtures have no uplight, they light the sidewalks and street well, and it makes for a pleasant, well-lit walk along the sidewalk. The only complaint I have about them is the bulbs are too bright. People in Tulsa are just going to have to get used to light fixtures that do what they're supposed to do (put light on the ground) and save money by using lower-wattage bulbs. The kid zone area is pretty awesome, too, by the way.
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2780/4414687466_9e34532bfb.jpg)
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4006/4413912461_ff466bf910.jpg)
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2694/4413929499_a72d6c4179.jpg)
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4002/4413926697_ab4157c488.jpg)
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2789/4414674890_23d9b197ef.jpg)
I'm guessing art deco friezes will go in those holes. Anyone know for sure?
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2760/4414672346_c65745f1a9.jpg)
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4049/4414669588_868d032d80.jpg)
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2802/4413892749_323b42ff7e.jpg)
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4057/4414653252_3821d6e44c.jpg)
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4066/4413867115_37d8cf6789.jpg)
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4057/4414629182_92db4a821a.jpg)
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2512/4414626950_ec2f565c9a.jpg)
Bike racks in the parallel on-street parking
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4016/4413856261_425b694f87.jpg)
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2708/4414619892_e3cb36a181.jpg)
Play Ball!!!
That is one good looking baseball stadium. Nice job!
Quote from: azbadpuppy on March 07, 2010, 03:44:11 PM
That is one good looking baseball stadium. Nice job!
I've been driving by it at night fairly frequently after the Tulsa Oiler home games. Even from the north leg of the IDL she looks super.
Yes, you are correct on the art deco friese part.
Aerial view of downtown with the ballpark (from the TW)
(http://www.tulsaworld.com/articleimages/2010/20100308_tulsaskyline00000408.jpg)
Since hockey season here is essentially over and I have a two week hiatus in case we make the playoffs (6 game road trip for the Oilers) I likely will make a photo walk of this on the weekend, say mid Saturday morning? That's if anyone is interested. Either way, I will be out there.
Quote from: SXSW on March 08, 2010, 01:49:08 PM
Aerial view of downtown with the ballpark (from the TW)
(http://www.tulsaworld.com/articleimages/2010/20100308_tulsaskyline00000408.jpg)
Now we need some ground up construction in those two giant parking lots in the Blue Dome east of the PAC. That is one heck of a lot of surface parking for a downtown "that has no parking".
Quote from: carltonplace on March 08, 2010, 03:33:11 PM
Now we need some ground up construction in those two giant parking lots in the Blue Dome east of the PAC. That is one heck of a lot of surface parking for a downtown "that has no parking".
Agreed, either development or a park/green space. I've always liked the idea of a 'Blue Dome Square' for concerts and events on that lot between Cincinnati and Detroit. But fill in the lots along Elgin with new development that reinforces it as a 'main street' connecting Blue Dome to Brady, the ballpark, and OSU.
Anybody know much about the expanded food/beverage options?
Marshall's beer/other non 3.2 beers?
Maybe some BBQ Nachos like the ones at AutoZone Park in Memphis?
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3241/2468446135_fdf5d22515.jpg)
I was walking down there today and thought everything looked great. A few things I noticed:
1. The sidewalk on the west side of Elgin across from the ballpark does not have the paver stone along the curb or the street trees like the east side. It would look much better if both sides matched, but maybe they will once (hopefully) that site across the street gets developed. There are also utility poles along the west side of Elgin that should get buried.
2. They should extend the same pavers/street trees/lighting and setback sidewalks north under the 244 underpass and into the OSU campus. Right now the link between the two is awful. Same goes for south of Archer, it would be great to see this streetscaping all the way down across the tracks and connected to the existing streetscaping along Elgin at 1st (and then hopefully that part is expanded south past 3rd).
3. The two empty parcels of land directly across from the ballpark would make a great location for apartments with street level retail/restaurant space. Hopefully that eventually happens.
4. OSU should build some kind of monumental building like a library or student union where Elgin dead ends at John Hope Franklin at Sunset Hill. That would provide a better visual connection to OSU beyond from Blue Dome and by the ballpark.
All in all this is a fantastic project and could eventually be just what was needed to bridge the gap between Blue Dome and OSU.
Oh and right along the parking lot fence they have planted bushes and vines that will eventually shield someone's view of the parking on the other side...a nice gesture I'd say.
Quote from: SXSW on March 25, 2010, 02:30:30 PM
2. They should extend the same pavers/street trees/lighting and setback sidewalks north under the 244 underpass and into the OSU campus. Right now the link between the two is awful. Same goes for south of Archer, it would be great to see this streetscaping all the way down across the tracks and connected to the existing streetscaping along Elgin at 1st (and then hopefully that part is expanded south past 3rd).
I walked it at night the other day and there was one working streetlight on Elgin between Archer and First. So it's dark, and there's no through sidewalk on either side. This streetscaping needs to be done now. As it is, that stretch of downtown is not gonna win the hearts and minds of downtown haters and those unfamiliar with downtown.
I also noticed a small metal building that was just north of the old Curly's building (NW corner of Elgin & Brady) has been torn down. Does anyone know what the plans are for this space? Seems like I remember hearing about a museum but it could just be a parking lot.
Quote from: TheTed on March 25, 2010, 02:38:41 PM
I walked it at night the other day and there was one working streetlight on Elgin between Archer and First. So it's dark, and there's no through sidewalk on either side.
A rule of thumb with outdoor lighting is when you over-light one area, everything around it appears dark.
That's because the eye adapts to the brightest surroundings, not the darkest.
Same thing happens when, say, you have a nervous neighbor that gets PSO to install what they call a "security" light (aka "barn light", "NEMA light") and their yard is now lit up like an intersection.
Suddenly the neighbors yards all appear darker to them now, so they feel insecure and install inappropriately bright lights of their own, and it spreads from house to house like a cancer while the utility mops up.
Ill meet you half way, though, in that the area could use some well-planned supplemental lighting, but if you are trying to out-glare the stadium, no amount of streetlights will fix that until you address the over-lighting and glare around the stadium.
Quote from: dsjeffries on March 07, 2010, 01:16:56 PM
The streetlight fixtures have no uplight, they light the sidewalks and street well, and it makes for a pleasant, well-lit walk along the sidewalk. The only complaint I have about them is the bulbs are too bright. People in Tulsa are just going to have to get used to light fixtures that do what they're supposed to do (put light on the ground) and save money by using lower-wattage bulbs.
There's no rule of lighting that says a street light has to be a minimum of 100-watts. That's a PSO thing that needs to be addressed. Until you get past that, your just burning tax dollars for nothing.
This awning lighting obviously wasnt designed to help human vision, was it?
Quote
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2789/4414674890_23d9b197ef.jpg)
Good luck trying to look out those upstairs windows a night.
Quote from: patric on March 25, 2010, 04:56:29 PM
This awning lighting obviously wasnt designed to help human vision, was it?
Good luck trying to look out those upstairs windows a night.
I could be wrong, but I thought those lighted areas above the awning were where those art deco panels were installed, not windows.
Quote from: forevertulsa89 on March 25, 2010, 05:41:58 PM
I could be wrong, but I thought those lighted areas above the awning were where those art deco panels were installed, not windows.
I could be wrong, too. Being lined up with the downstairs windows sure makes it look that way.
In either case, the uplight is wastefully designed.
Here's some photos I took today. Didn't realize that if you sit on the first row, you are on the same level as the players, whereas at the old stadium you were several feet above the field. Also, love the open design. Feels less like a stadium and more like a giant party. The ticket price levels are amazing considering the cheapest are $5 and the most expensive are $15.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sgrizzle/sets/72157623633969175/
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4058/4485882198_3c3123822b_b.jpg)
City to BNSF: "You're not helping" ;)
A train derailed in Tulsa late Saturday morning at 1st Street and Greenwood Avenue.
District Fire Chief Ben Herring said that no injuries were reported and no hazardous materials are involved.
The derailment occurred as hundreds were taking part in DrillersFest to get a first-hand look at the new ONEOK field in the nearby historic Greenwood District.
ttp://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20100403_298_0_Atrain742073
Quote from: patric on April 03, 2010, 12:26:32 PM
City to BNSF: "You're not helping" ;)
A train derailed in Tulsa late Saturday morning at 1st Street and Greenwood Avenue.
District Fire Chief Ben Herring said that no injuries were reported and no hazardous materials are involved.
The derailment occurred as hundreds were taking part in DrillersFest to get a first-hand look at the new ONEOK field in the nearby historic Greenwood District.
ttp://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20100403_298_0_Atrain742073
Unless BNSF has an unpublished history of derailments in that area, I would say it was an unfortunate circumstance.
I was at the stadium and heard it happen. Hardly anyone there was aware anything happened.
And yes, the lighting patric pointed out was for lighting the medallions that were installed after the picture was taken.
Quote from: sgrizzle on April 02, 2010, 10:19:12 PM
Feels less like a stadium and more like a giant party.
Ditto that. Just checked out the park yesterday and I was BLOWN AWAY!! People far and wide need to come downtown and enjoy a couple of games in this park this season. It has great character. Lots of places to see the game and "be seen". It has excellent "loafing" qualities. :)
I went to DrillersFest and thought the new stadium was awesome! (Though the Drillers missed an opportunity to have some actual players on the field. A little infield practice, some signing of baseballs, some mingling with the fans...) I can't decide if it's better to sit on the 3rd base line and admire the view of downtown, or to pay $5 and sit at the picnic tables in the "terrace" area with a glove, ready to shag homeruns.
One tip for the powers that be, re: weeknight games. There's no stoplight or stopsign at Detroit and Brady. Anyone walking to the ballpark from the Brady District will need to take care crossing this intersection. Downtown workers typically zoom north on Detroit going about 40 MPH, headed for the on-ramp to the IDL. They're not used to families with little kids trying to cross the street.
My guess is that the Drillers will hire a "crossing guard" or a traffic cop to alleviate this danger.
The other infrastructure enhancement that we need is a pedestrian crossing over the RR tracks on Elgin. Anyone walking to the ballpark from the Blue Dome dristrict (and I expect thousands of people will do this very thing), will have to walk over the RR tracks...or go out of their way to cross on the Detroit bridge. I hope we won't have folks trying to out-run an oncoming train...but it's probably going to happen.
The Downtown Master plan calls for an "underpass" at this location in its list of highest priorities (1-5 years) with possible local, state and federal funding...but I can't find any reference to this in the city budget's list of approved projects.
Quote from: PonderInc on April 06, 2010, 03:08:09 PM
I went to DrillersFest and thought the new stadium was awesome! (Though the Drillers missed an opportunity to have some actual players on the field. A little infield practice, some signing of baseballs, some mingling with the fans...) I can't decide if it's better to sit on the 3rd base line and admire the view of downtown, or to pay $5 and sit at the picnic tables in the "terrace" area with a glove, ready to shag homeruns.
One tip for the powers that be, re: weeknight games. There's no stoplight or stopsign at Detroit and Brady. Anyone walking to the ballpark from the Brady District will need to take care crossing this intersection. Downtown workers typically zoom north on Detroit going about 40 MPH, headed for the on-ramp to the IDL. They're not used to families with little kids trying to cross the street.
My guess is that the Drillers will hire a "crossing guard" or a traffic cop to alleviate this danger.
The other infrastructure enhancement that we need is a pedestrian crossing over the RR tracks on Elgin. Anyone walking to the ballpark from the Blue Dome dristrict (and I expect thousands of people will do this very thing), will have to walk over the RR tracks...or go out of their way to cross on the Detroit bridge. I hope we won't have folks trying to out-run an oncoming train...but it's probably going to happen.
The Downtown Master plan calls for an "underpass" at this location in its list of highest priorities (1-5 years) with possible local, state and federal funding...but I can't find any reference to this in the city budget's list of approved projects.
I agree, they really need to connect the ballpark streetscaping with the Elgin streetscaping across the tracks. Downtown Norman has a similar situation where the tracks separate the downtown and the streetscaping goes right over them; hopefully something similar is done here. The same goes for extending the streetscaping north under the 244 overpass up through OSU. And yes a light at Detroit & Brady makes sense as many people will be walking down Brady towards Caz's, Spaghetti Warehouse, Mexicali, Lola's, Hunt Club, etc. and even more so as more places open down there and the Visual Arts Center and new park on Brady between Boston and Cincinnati are finished.
To answer my own question, Sundown Wheat is on tap behind home plate, according to Mr. Marshall's Twitter.
Choc's Spahnie 363 and Last Laugh are also on tap at OneOk.
Quote from: SXSW on April 06, 2010, 10:29:36 PM
I agree, they really need to connect the ballpark streetscaping with the Elgin streetscaping across the tracks. Downtown Norman has a similar situation where the tracks separate the downtown and the streetscaping goes right over them; hopefully something similar is done here. The same goes for extending the streetscaping north under the 244 overpass up through OSU. And yes a light at Detroit & Brady makes sense as many people will be walking down Brady towards Caz's, Spaghetti Warehouse, Mexicali, Lola's, Hunt Club, etc. and even more so as more places open down there and the Visual Arts Center and new park on Brady between Boston and Cincinnati are finished.
That four-lane street is way, way too much capacity. It should be streetscaped something similar to Sixth Street between Main and Boston, maybe two automobile lanes, a raised median, on street parking, maybe a bike lane between the parking and the sidewalks.
It just looks so desolate when you can see four blocks of four-lane street and there's maybe one or two cars in the whole stretch.
Quote from: TheTed on April 08, 2010, 02:40:59 PM
That four-lane street is way, way too much capacity. It should be streetscaped something similar to Sixth Street between Main and Boston, maybe two automobile lanes, a raised median, on street parking, maybe a bike lane between the parking and the sidewalks.
It just looks so desolate when you can see four blocks of four-lane street and there's maybe one or two cars in the whole stretch.
Good idea.
On my way to the game.....!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Quote from: PonderInc on April 06, 2010, 03:08:09 PM
I went to DrillersFest and thought the new stadium was awesome! (Though the Drillers missed an opportunity to have some actual players on the field. A little infield practice, some signing of baseballs, some mingling with the fans...)
The team was at spring training in another state.
Anyone know when the streetscaping is supposed to be complete? It looks fantastic by the ballpark but is still unfinished by the new park. Will it continue south past the tracks? I've heard it will and I've heard it won't. Right now the connection between the ballpark and Blue Dome really needs some work. Huge improvement for the area but there are still lots of holes to fill...
Quote from: SXSW on April 15, 2010, 08:00:43 PM
Anyone know when the streetscaping is supposed to be complete? It looks fantastic by the ballpark but is still unfinished by the new park. Will it continue south past the tracks? I've heard it will and I've heard it won't. Right now the connection between the ballpark and Blue Dome really needs some work. Huge improvement for the area but there are still lots of holes to fill...
The rest of the streetscaping will be done with the streetscaping on Brady and is targeted to go across the tracks. That was waiting on a grnt, which like many, is approved but the money isn't through. A second holdup is that it may be put off until the geothermal project at the brady park is done as the pipes from that park are routed directly under the areas to be streetscaped. Before you ask "why not just do the parts not effected" it is because they negotiated mass discounts on lights, benches, etc for doing the whole thing together. They did decided to do some of the ballpark area, and eat a huge bill, so it would be done for opening day.
Quote from: sgrizzle on April 16, 2010, 09:06:58 AM
The rest of the streetscaping will be done with the streetscaping on Brady and is targeted to go across the tracks. That was waiting on a grnt, which like many, is approved but the money isn't through. A second holdup is that it may be put off until the geothermal project at the brady park is done as the pipes from that park are routed directly under the areas to be streetscaped. Before you ask "why not just do the parts not effected" it is because they negotiated mass discounts on lights, benches, etc for doing the whole thing together. They did decided to do some of the ballpark area, and eat a huge bill, so it would be done for opening day.
Good to know. If the rest looks like what has been done along the east side of Elgin and the north side of Archer by the ballpark then it will be really nice. Having those trees and lights, and actual sidewalks, on both sides of the street will really be a huge improvement. I like the 2nd/Elgin streetscaping alright but don't like that there aren't any street trees (and that they used acorn lights). Hope they extend the much better ballpark streetscaping further south and someday improve what has already been done in Blue Dome with at least some street trees.
Quote from: SXSW on April 16, 2010, 11:03:20 AM
Good to know. If the rest looks like what has been done along the east side of Elgin and the north side of Archer by the ballpark then it will be really nice. Having those trees and lights, and actual sidewalks, on both sides of the street will really be a huge improvement. I like the 2nd/Elgin streetscaping alright but don't like that there aren't any street trees (and that they used acorn lights). Hope they extend the much better ballpark streetscaping further south and someday improve what has already been done in Blue Dome with at least some street trees.
When you say "street trees" I imagine trees that grew up in a rough neighborhood, carry weapons and travel in groups.
Quote from: sgrizzle on April 16, 2010, 11:11:53 AM
When you say "street trees" I imagine trees that grew up in a rough neighborhood, carry weapons and travel in groups.
(http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:Su462dJSf8rcrM:http://static.pyzam.com/img/funnypics/1/pyzamfunnytree.jpg)
Damn.....!
http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/Rockies-president-48-found-dead-in-hotel-room-042010?gt1=39002
Quote from: Breadburner on April 20, 2010, 04:37:07 PM
Damn.....!
http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/Rockies-president-48-found-dead-in-hotel-room-042010?gt1=39002
Apparent "natural cause or something like that"..
Was he clothed..? or in bed just enjoying his favorite book on the "Apalachian Trail"?
Maybe he had a smile on his face?
Drifting.
Quote from: Rico on April 20, 2010, 04:51:28 PM
Apparent "natural cause or something like that"..
Was he clothed..? or in bed just enjoying his favorite book on the "Apalachian Trail"?
Maybe he had a smile on his face?
Happy ending?
(http://hphotos-sjc1.fbcdn.net/hs102.snc3/15023_419640188593_694738593_5212498_4699491_n.jpg)
Picture by John Amatucci
Ooooh nice photo.
Wow, that's gorgeous.
How's the park doing on attendance so far?
Quote from: Floyd on April 28, 2010, 07:00:13 PM
Wow, that's gorgeous.
How's the park doing on attendance so far?
Tulsa Drillers Management Thrilled with Fan Attendance (http://www.newson6.com/Global/story.asp?S=12372378)
Quote from: Floyd on April 28, 2010, 07:00:13 PM
Wow, that's gorgeous.
How's the park doing on attendance so far?
Wow indeed. And glad to see attenance is up. I like the fact that alot of the new stadiums both farm team and MLB are and have gone back to stadiums in downtown areas. There are some guys I work with that we go to Saturday or Sunday games here because there are places near Chase field to go to before or after a weekend game because of the start times. I hope that places in the Blue Dome and Brady area are seeing some growth in business.
Anyone else notice this thread has been viewed over 10,000 times?
Quote from: sgrizzle on April 29, 2010, 12:43:14 PM
Anyone else notice this thread has been viewed over 10,000 times?
At least it shows people are interested
Quote from: dbacks fan on April 28, 2010, 09:39:14 PM
Wow indeed. And glad to see attenance is up. I like the fact that alot of the new stadiums both farm team and MLB are and have gone back to stadiums in downtown areas. There are some guys I work with that we go to Saturday or Sunday games here because there are places near Chase field to go to before or after a weekend game because of the start times. I hope that places in the Blue Dome and Brady area are seeing some growth in business.
I like Cooperstown. We ate there when I was out for the Nov. '06 NASCAR weekend and my '08 trip was cut short due to unfortunate circumstances so I never made it downtown that time.
Quote from: sgrizzle on April 28, 2010, 08:53:33 PM
Tulsa Drillers Management Thrilled with Fan Attendance (http://www.newson6.com/Global/story.asp?S=12372378)
B...b....b...but, I thought this was supposed to be minor league FAIL!
Quote from: Conan71 on April 29, 2010, 12:49:47 PM
B...b....b...but, I thought this was supposed to be minor league FAIL!
Kinda like the BOK wasn't going to make a profit...much less two years in a row and increase on that profit, even in hard economic times.
Quote from: Hoss on April 29, 2010, 01:12:04 PM
Kinda like the BOK wasn't going to make a profit...much less two years in a row and increase on that profit, even in hard economic times.
Snoochie Bootchies
Some adjustments in area business hours are needed. A bunch of places open at 5pm on Saturdays, when games are at 6pm. Caz's Chowhouse even advertises "come here before the game" or something. Opening an hour before the game is cutting it pretty close at a sit-down restaurant.
Tonight there were 9,000-plus at ONEOK for Bedlam, plus a large crowd at BOK for Hank Williams that let out at 1130pm, yet where was there to eat afterwards? Joe Momma's. Anything else (not counting bars that serve three things at that hour)?
I am suprised downtown doesnt already have an IHOP or Waffle House. Even before all this new stuff people would have to drive to 31st and Memorial or wherever after the bars closed. So I have heard. 8)
Quote from: TheArtist on May 08, 2010, 09:02:50 AM
I am suprised downtown doesnt already have an IHOP or Waffle House. Even before all this new stuff people would have to drive to 31st and Memorial or wherever after the bars closed. So I have heard. 8)
Village Inn....
Quote from: Breadburner on May 08, 2010, 09:25:18 AM
Village Inn....
I used to like them; not so much anymore. Not a big fan of IHOP anymore either.
Must be all the 2am drunk runs after clubbing I did in my youth.
;D
Quote from: Hoss on May 08, 2010, 11:21:40 AM
I used to like them; not so much anymore. Not a big fan of IHOP anymore either.
Must be all the 2am drunk runs after clubbing I did in my youth.
;D
Lol...It works in a pinch....lol.
Quote from: Breadburner on May 08, 2010, 11:56:51 AM
Lol...It works in a pinch....lol.
My typical clubbing night in the wayback machine (think mid nineties here) was Ocean Club until 12am, then the 21st Street Station for good live music, then Taco Mayo at 31st/169 after 2am.
Man, I had an iron stomach back then. Not so much now...
I was always more of a Denny's person.