So, three years ago, the City of Tulsa formed a downtown Stadium Trust, amid broken contractual negotiations between TDA and Will Wilkins and tears being shed about "beautiful fabrics" by then-Mayor Kathy Taylor.
Where are the stadium district improvements for which we levied $30 million extra on downtown property owners?
Read the trust charter here: http://www.tulsaworld.com/webextra/content/items/TrustDoc.pdf
I think it's filed with the same documents promising divestiture of other city properties in exchange for approving buying OneTech.
SFAIK, the only one left by the city was old City Hall. Oh and Downtown Airpark which I believe the Osage Tribe picked up for a handful of beads and a bottle of ripple, roughly the same price paid for Manhattan Island (New York, not Kansas mind you. I think We paid a few less beads for Kansas).
Never take the city at it's word. Especially if it sounds like the deal makes total sense at the time. Double especially if whatever they are trying to do appeals to your emotional side. 8)
I wonder about this every time I go by the ballpark. I'm not expecting a miracle overnight. But I've seen literally nothing improved around the ballpark.
Still a gravel parking lot just to the west of the stadium. Still a decrepit building (The Hive) just west of the stadium and north of Brady. Still no through sidewalks in the area (but I think that's a separate issue). Even where there are sidewalks, they become parking.
The ballpark has definitely helped downtown, but the lack of any movement on surrounding properties more than a year after the ballpark opened is just ridiculous.
Quote from: TheTed on April 26, 2011, 01:21:54 AM
I wonder about this every time I go by the ballpark. I'm not expecting a miracle overnight. But I've seen literally nothing improved around the ballpark.
Still a gravel parking lot just to the west of the stadium. Still a decrepit building (The Hive) just west of the stadium and north of Brady. Still no through sidewalks in the area (but I think that's a separate issue). Even where there are sidewalks, they become parking.
The ballpark has definitely helped downtown, but the lack of any movement on surrounding properties more than a year after the ballpark opened is just ridiculous.
Reminds me of another area near a similar sports venue at 3rd & Denver...
I'm hoping GreenArch, once built, is successful and leads to similar developments on the warehouse property south of the ballpark and something mixed-use with streetfront restaurants/retail on the empty lot to the west with either apartments or offices above. Filling in those two properties would be a tremendous improvement.
As for The Hive/Curly's, I think that would make a great location for the Mickey Mantle Museum that has been discussed. It could be adjacent to the Race Riot Memorial next to Franklin Park to the north, both fronting Elgin.
I find it interesting that there is so much activity in Brady but none of it is by the ballpark. The streetscape is ridiculous...so nice north of Archer and south of 1st but non-existent between the two over the tracks. What's up with that?
The folks on the Stadium Trust are holding out hope for a national developer to come in and do a large scale development. They want to see something akin to KC's Power & Light District, Louisville's Fourth Street Live or Baltimore's Power Plant Live. It isn't a coincidence Mayor Taylor flew city councilors to those locations during the discussion of creating the trust, etc. It also is not a coincidence that all of those developments were built and managed by the same company.
Isn't it odd that city gov't/authorities/trust members, etc. only seem to get excited about the large scale "comprehensive" development plans, yet none of those plans has ever actually been done – even after announcement to great fanfare. I suppose, to be fair, Place Once (which is really a local group) is about to finally break ground on one portion, but even its promoters now talk in terms of 3-5 years before the concept is completed – plenty of time for things to change/downsize, etc. Meanwhile, the local, individual entrepreneurs keep battling away against the City's inertia and absurd zoning code hostility to slowly reform downtown, the Blue Dome and the Brady District into interesting, vibrant and somewhat eclectic entertainment zones. As for me, I prefer the bottom up organic style of development that's occurring downtown as opposed to the monolithic and homogenous comprehensive plans that keep getting talked about but never ever happen. Yeah, its taking longer to remake downtown than I want, but what we are getting is, in my opinion, a better and more authentic version of Tulsa than what any national developer will ever likely bring us.
Quote from: DTowner on April 26, 2011, 12:47:05 PM
Isn't it odd that city gov't/authorities/trust members, etc. only seem to get excited about the large scale "comprehensive" development plans, yet none of those plans has ever actually been done – even after announcement to great fanfare. I suppose, to be fair, Place Once (which is really a local group) is about to finally break ground on one portion, but even its promoters now talk in terms of 3-5 years before the concept is completed – plenty of time for things to change/downsize, etc. Meanwhile, the local, individual entrepreneurs keep battling away against the City's inertia and absurd zoning code hostility to slowly reform downtown, the Blue Dome and the Brady District into interesting, vibrant and somewhat eclectic entertainment zones. As for me, I prefer the bottom up organic style of development that's occurring downtown as opposed to the monolithic and homogenous comprehensive plans that keep getting talked about but never ever happen. Yeah, its taking longer to remake downtown than I want, but what we are getting is, in my opinion, a better and more authentic version of Tulsa than what any national developer will ever likely bring us.
+1
While I would love to see things move faster it is pretty amazing how downtown has been transformed in the past 5 years, and will be exciting to see what happens over the next 5 years. All organic and LOCAL development. I say let the same thing happen around the ballpark. It needs to happen as it's becoming a dead zone of development between what's happening west of there in Brady and south in Blue Dome. It is the crossroads between the two districts..
Quote from: rdj on April 26, 2011, 11:01:42 AM
They want to see something akin to KC's Power & Light District, Louisville's Fourth Street Live or Baltimore's Power Plant Live.
Ick. Crappy chains for suburbanites and tourists. I don't think any locals go to the P+L in Kansas City.
If you've got a few days, you can read up on their complaints with the Power and Light District.
http://forum.kcrag.com/index.php?board=44.0
The old warehouses south of the ballpark at the SE corner of Elgin & Archer would make a great place for apartments: 2 sides would have skyline views and the other would overlook the ballpark. Something like this proposed development in Denver:
(http://denverinfill.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/2011-04-26_20th-Chestnut3.jpg)
The ballpark would have a MUCH more urban feel with 3-4 story buildings on those two sites with the skyline still visible above:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v316/bg918/oneok-field-tulsa-4.jpg)
Quote from: DTowner on April 26, 2011, 12:47:05 PM
Isn't it odd that city gov't/authorities/trust members, etc. only seem to get excited about the large scale "comprehensive" development plans, yet none of those plans has ever actually been done – even after announcement to great fanfare. I suppose, to be fair, Place Once (which is really a local group) is about to finally break ground on one portion, but even its promoters now talk in terms of 3-5 years before the concept is completed – plenty of time for things to change/downsize, etc. Meanwhile, the local, individual entrepreneurs keep battling away against the City's inertia and absurd zoning code hostility to slowly reform downtown, the Blue Dome and the Brady District into interesting, vibrant and somewhat eclectic entertainment zones. As for me, I prefer the bottom up organic style of development that's occurring downtown as opposed to the monolithic and homogenous comprehensive plans that keep getting talked about but never ever happen. Yeah, its taking longer to remake downtown than I want, but what we are getting is, in my opinion, a better and more authentic version of Tulsa than what any national developer will ever likely bring us.
In regards to DTowner. I totally agree with you that redevelopment cannot be forced, but has to happen organically. The best development is from local, creative, interesting people. In addition, Tulsa's most interesting places were all originally created this way as well, as small piecemeal developments. This also leaves the area (businesses don't stay forever) with good bones for creative people with more limited resources to come in a do something exciting. Look at the Brady/Blue Dome/Cherry St/Brookside/SoBo districts. All small scale commercial developments that have been redeveloped into what I would consider the hot spots of T-Town. Back in the day we used to create buildings that were human scaled at street level. Even larger buildings downtown (pre 1940's) kept this in mind. Even though they have larger footprints and far more vertical height, the street level is just as people friendly as most single story buildings. Why does the city need a huge development to occur? Look what small developments have done to spur economic activity in certain areas; some not particularly desirable before their arrival. The city leaders should be breaking down barriers at break neck speed especially for some of the local proven developers/entrepreneurs.
Besides, smaller developments are far more democratic. It spreads the inputs and rewards around far more fairly than our elected leaders choosing preferred developers through backroom deals.
In line with this discussion, I do understand somewhat why the city would like large developments. Everyone is trying to create more downtown residents. Every city has this pie-in-the sky vision of a New York style community in their downtown. Some would even probably enjoy having the kind of activity downtown that they had in the 40's or so. All well and good, but it will never happen this way again. People back then used to live in far smaller spaces than most would consider living in now. Plus, today there are always automobile considerations for every residential development that was not necessary back then either. Today the average studio comes in at around 500 s.f. or so and one bedrooms for at least 700 s.f. There is a downtown building in Bartlesville that was converted into 12 studio apartments (less than 700 s.f. each). Historically it was a 50 room hotel (which makes each room about 150 s.f.). We will never have the type of residential capacity we used to without building vertically in a hurry; which for Tulsa is probably way down the line.
I'm not trying to play Debbie Downer here, but I always feel like cities need to create realistic expectations of what could occur. When the ballpark trust shows you this nice presentation of what the district will look like in the future, they need to be upfront and say more than likely this is probably 20 years down the road or so.
Just my opinion.
Quote from: erfalf on April 26, 2011, 01:49:53 PM
Besides, smaller developments are far more democratic. It spreads the inputs and rewards around far more fairly than our elected leaders choosing preferred developers through backroom deals.
Bumgarner anyone?
Bueller?
If we were ever to get a large-scale P+L-type district, I can imagine the angry council meetings already.
Current downtown bar/restaurant owners are gonna be extremely upset. The P+L was taxpayer funded. Any new large-scale development is probably gonna require incentives. And they're gonna want special treatment. P+L got the law changed to allow open alcohol within its courtyards.
So people who already invested in downtown are gonna be funding their competition. Yet another reason more organic development is a much better idea.
Quote from: Conan71 on April 26, 2011, 01:56:20 PM
Bumgarner anyone?
Bueller?
I'm not sure what you are referencing, but I was semi quoting Bull Durham. Ya know, "throw some ground balls, it's more democratic".
Another question...
Back in the 20's and 30's it was the norm to build individual buildings. I would consider this like a two story building with around 50' of frontage. Is this not economically feasible anymore? These are the types of buildings that get re-used over and over. Do all new construction projects have to be at least a half block or larger to make economic sense?
I understand for office space, attracting businesses to town usually requires a large floor plate/open floor plans. However for retail (at least the kind we would be attracting downtown) why could smaller projects not make sense? I would think it would also allow for phasing of projects if desired.
Quote from: Floyd on April 26, 2011, 02:07:47 PM
This is the ironic part--the "stadium improvement district" or whatever they called made sense to exactly NO ONE who understood it--it was blatant "pay for play" by the donors in order to control the area around the stadium. What is hacking me off is that the donors--the people sitting on the board of the stadium trust--have done NOTHING. NOT ONE THING in their exclusive zone of control, except to keep out smaller, more organic developers who would have moved in by now. It's a joke, and the city council should take up the issue.
Their zone of control is the ballpark and not much else. The trust owns a couple of smaller buildings that are not directly adjacent and no-on has shown a real interest in developing. From any map I've seen, 120 N Elgin is not under their control.
Quote from: erfalf on April 27, 2011, 08:16:30 AM
I'm not sure what you are referencing, but I was semi quoting Bull Durham. Ya know, "throw some ground balls, it's more democratic".
Another question...
Back in the 20's and 30's it was the norm to build individual buildings. I would consider this like a two story building with around 50' of frontage. Is this not economically feasible anymore? These are the types of buildings that get re-used over and over. Do all new construction projects have to be at least a half block or larger to make economic sense?
I understand for office space, attracting businesses to town usually requires a large floor plate/open floor plans. However for retail (at least the kind we would be attracting downtown) why could smaller projects not make sense? I would think it would also allow for phasing of projects if desired.
I was making a reference to the conspiracy theory we have on the board here that every development deal is a back room deal. ;)
There are some developers in Tulsa who seem to be pretty good at stacking the deck on the planning board so they can get whatever they want run through with minimal interference.
Quote from: Floyd on April 27, 2011, 10:41:45 AM
It's my personal opinion that they settled for mediocrity in the design of the stadium, and now they're sitting on the development of the district.
I disagree with your assessment of the design of the stadium. I have been in 20 minor league parks and half of the major league parks. From a fan's perspective, this park is a home run.
Quote from: Floyd on April 27, 2011, 10:53:54 AM
Fair enough. It's a pleasant spot to catch a game but I have trouble imagining a more banal, uninspired design in terms of stadium architecture. It's a rare feat to spend $40 million on a 6000 person stadium less noticeable than its predecessor.
Old and busted:
(http://www.ticketini.com/pub/photos/the_tulsa_drillers_stadium_opened_in_117206.jpg)
New hotness:
(http://coachesaid.com/Content/ContentImages/oneok-field-tulsa-4.jpg)
Quote from: Floyd on April 27, 2011, 10:53:54 AM
Fair enough. It's a pleasant spot to catch a game but I have trouble imagining a more banal, uninspired design in terms of stadium architecture. It's a rare feat to spend $40 million on a 6000 person stadium less noticeable than its predecessor.
No offense, but the stadium at the fairgrounds is an absolute dump with zero architectural interest. Is ONEOK Field going to win a design award, probably not, but it is infinitely more pleasing to the eye than its predecessor. I think it is a nice park and is very family friendly.
If you want to complain about the design of the ballpark, you should complain about the fact no local firms were given an opportunity to bid on the design. It wasn't for lack of experience in the field. As an example, Crafton Tull Sparks' Tulsa office has done work on athletic facilities at OSU & OU. In addition, they designed QT Park in Grand Prairie, TX, which just happened to be voted the best ballpark in America in 2008. Also, I don't work there, but have friends who do...
Quote from: Floyd on April 27, 2011, 10:53:54 AM
Fair enough. It's a pleasant spot to catch a game but I have trouble imagining a more banal, uninspired design in terms of stadium architecture. It's a rare feat to spend $40 million on a 6000 person stadium less noticeable than its predecessor.
This is just plain wrong, the stadium is great and you are about the first person I have ever heard say otherwise.
I finally drove around the stadium area a few weekends ago. I was favorably impressed by the stadium. If "they" could only make the rest of the area as nice there would be no turning back (good thing).
Quote from: swake on April 27, 2011, 12:17:58 PM
This is just plain wrong, the stadium is great and you are about the first person I have ever heard say otherwise.
All new minor league stadiums are great because they're miles better than the previous generation of MiLB stadiums. So ours is great in comparison to the old dump (and the old dump in just about every other city).
But in comparison to this new round of MiLB parks, it's nothing special. Pretty much follows the blueprint laid out by the dozens of other new parks built in the past 10-15 years. It's a great place to watch a game, but architecturally kind of meh. Plus the best parts of the park's flair are kind of buried where nobody sees them.
Quote from: Red Arrow on April 27, 2011, 12:24:37 PM
I finally drove around the stadium area a few weekends ago. I was favorably impressed by the stadium. If "they" could only make the rest of the area as nice there would be no turning back (good thing).
Agree. The ballpark is just a few mixed-use developments (west and south of stadium) away from being one of the better minor-league parks, both the park itself and the area around it, in the country. It is just a few blocks from dozens of restaurants and bars to the south in Blue Dome and west in Brady. I think the "feel" of the park is pretty urban and more buildings around it will give it even more of that vibe, plus the skyline view is awesome.
So let me get this straight. We have an updated stadium that is a great place to watch a game. Which would lead me to believe that it will not cease to be a great place to watch a game. But because it does not have an "on the edge" design it is nothing special? The city tried to have something that was "not like the other" with the BOK and received nothing but criticism for it.
And it might have followed a blueprint laid out by dozens of other parks... because that blueprint works. If they would have went off the deep end, tried their own thing and failed miserably, it would have been a huge failure. Even if it had been a huge success, there is a good chance that about 20-35% of the populous would have still found things to say negatively. Why take THAT chance when the risk vs reward is so uneven? They produced a quality park. People who would love to take the kids to the park and now have a place where they can run and play during the game. It is a big change from having the kids climbing over the bleechers in searing heat.
Also, OneOK has been open for approx 13 months... I think you all ask a little too much sometimes. Heck, the BOK has been open for close to 4 years and they are just now getting to the area across the street from it.
Quote from: JCnOwasso on April 27, 2011, 01:11:34 PM
Also, OneOK has been open for approx 13 months... I think you all ask a little too much sometimes. Heck, the BOK has been open for close to 4 years and they are just now getting to the area across the street from it.
I think everyone is so ready for something to happen because they are worried we are going to be asked to fund another stadium in 25 years or so.
Call me crazy, but I predict in the future there will be a push for a larger stadium to accommodate a higher profile team. OneOK will be deemed to small and we will not be able to add the necessary capacity, so we will be asked to fund a new bigger facility for say $100 million (with another $40 mil for the Stadium Trust).
Quote from: erfalf on April 27, 2011, 01:28:49 PM
I think everyone is so ready for something to happen because they are worried we are going to be asked to fund another stadium in 25 years or so.
Call me crazy, but I predict in the future there will be a push for a larger stadium to accommodate a higher profile team. OneOK will be deemed to small and we will not be able to add the necessary capacity, so we will be asked to fund a new bigger facility for say $100 million (with another $40 mil for the Stadium Trust).
No way ONEOK will be deemed too small. They just built a new Triple-A park in suburban Omaha that has roughly the same amount of fixed seating as ONEOK. And I'm sure there's a not-too-difficult method of adding seats to ONEOK if they really wanted to. But the trend is fewer seats. So even if we went triple-A, I doubt we'd need many (or any) more seats.
Quote from: TheTed on April 27, 2011, 01:36:44 PM
No way ONEOK will be deemed too small. They just built a new Triple-A park in suburban Omaha that has roughly the same amount of fixed seating as ONEOK. And I'm sure there's a not-too-difficult method of adding seats to ONEOK if they really wanted to. But the trend is fewer seats. So even if we went triple-A, I doubt we'd need many (or any) more seats.
I'm not advocating that we need more seeting, I'm just saying they will tell us "we need more seeting"
Quote from: Floyd on April 27, 2011, 01:42:29 PM
The new owners of Bricktown Ballpark (now RedHawks Ballpark) just tarped off a bunch of their upper deck seating in order to bring capacity down from 13000 to 8900.
And Oneok doesn't seat 6,000, it seats 7,833 and can hold over 9,000 with the grassy areas. 9400 were there for Bedlam.
Quote from: TheTed on April 27, 2011, 01:36:44 PM
No way ONEOK will be deemed too small. They just built a new Triple-A park in suburban Omaha that has roughly the same amount of fixed seating as ONEOK. And I'm sure there's a not-too-difficult method of adding seats to ONEOK if they really wanted to. But the trend is fewer seats. So even if we went triple-A, I doubt we'd need many (or any) more seats.
I've always been disappointed that there has never even been a hint of trying to lure a Triple-A franchise. There is no reason our market wouldn't support it. My guess is that the ownership has some nostalgic ties to the Texas League, but I would really enjoy Triple-A baseball here.
Quote from: DowntownDan on April 27, 2011, 07:12:30 PM
I've always been disappointed that there has never even been a hint of trying to lure a Triple-A franchise. There is no reason our market wouldn't support it. My guess is that the ownership has some nostalgic ties to the Texas League, but I would really enjoy Triple-A baseball here.
Too bad we can't just swap teams with Colorado Springs, which is the AAA affiliate of the Rockies. 2010 attendance for the AAA Colo. Springs Sky Sox: 305,168. 2010 attendance for the Drillers: 408,183. Tulsa could easily support AAA baseball and then we would have series with regional cities like OKC, Omaha, San Antonio, Memphis, etc.
Quote from: Floyd on April 27, 2011, 10:41:45 AM
It doesn't matter if no one else has shown an interest in developing. It's literally the Trust's purpose, as set out in the Indenture, to develop the area itself--that's why the council created $60 million in funding for a $39.2 million stadium. There's supposedly over $20 million set aside for development exclusively in the corner of the IDL set off by Detroit and the tracks. And we've seen nothing--not even any pretty crayon drawings.
The $20M is also paying for all of the street sweeping, trash pickup, mowing, weedeating, weed spraying, downtown marketing, etc. etc.
The trust boundary also doesn't change the fact that while they intend to develop the surrounding blocks, they don't own them. You can't redevelop property you have no control over.
Quote from: DowntownDan on April 27, 2011, 07:12:30 PM
I've always been disappointed that there has never even been a hint of trying to lure a Triple-A franchise. There is no reason our market wouldn't support it.
I have had this conversation with Drillers owners, management and staff for years.
They have looked into Triple-A. There are only so many openings and most clubs have a much closer tie between the Major league team and the Triple-A team.
For the Texas Rangers, the Triple-A team is Round Rock which is 170 miles south in the next big market and the Double-A is in Frisco in the same metro area.
For the Kansas City Royals, the Triple-A team is in Omaha, the next big market and less than 200 miles away and the Double-A is south in Northwest Arkansas.
For the St. Louis Cardinals, the Triple-A team is in Memphis, their biggest market just 250 miles downriver and the Double-A team is in Springfield.
For the Houston Astros, the Triple-A is in Oklahoma City and the Double-A team is in Corpus Christie.
For the Colorado Rockies, the Triple-A team is in Colorado Springs 70 miles and Tulsa is Double-A.
To get a Triple-A team, we would have to steal one from Colorado Springs, Memphis, Oklahoma City, Omaha or Round Rock. Each of these are either bigger or closer markets with fairly new stadiums.
Quote from: Floyd on April 28, 2011, 11:50:57 AM
Tulsa will probably be in line for a AAA franchise if MLB ever expands to 32 teams. The two new markets would be former AAA markets and they'd also create two new AAA franchises. Tulsa could step up and fill one of the four open slots.
Baseball is much more likely to contract than expand.
Quote from: sgrizzle on April 27, 2011, 09:21:44 PM
The $20M is also paying for all of the street sweeping, trash pickup, mowing, weedeating, weed spraying, downtown marketing, etc. etc.
The trust boundary also doesn't change the fact that while they intend to develop the surrounding blocks, they don't own them. You can't redevelop property you have no control over.
I recall that at the time the Trust was being debated there were numerous articles stating that the Kaiser Foundation would sell various parcels of land to the Stadium Trust for its acquisition costs. I guess I always understood those parcels to include land in addition to the land on which the Stadium itself would be built. If so, the Trust should have/control some additional land that, as of yet, has not been developed.
As for AAA v. AA - is there any real advantage of one over the other from the perspective of fan interest or a draw to attend?
Quote from: DTowner on April 28, 2011, 12:33:17 PM
As for AAA v. AA - is there any real advantage of one over the other from the perspective of fan interest or a draw to attend?
Not really. But instead of series with Corpus Christi, Midland and Springfield we could have series with OKC, Omaha and Memphis. The series with OKC would be fun and would likely draw bigger-than-normal crowds.
I don't see the advantage of getting a AAA team. Virtually every player on the current Rockies MLB roster spent time with the Drillers. If a player is good enough to play in the majors, there is a good chance they wont spent much, if any, time in AAA.
I don't see a series between Tulsa and OKC being all that and a bag of chips...
Quote from: JCnOwasso on April 28, 2011, 01:16:39 PM
I don't see the advantage of getting a AAA team. Virtually every player on the current Rockies MLB roster spent time with the Drillers. If a player is good enough to play in the majors, there is a good chance they wont spent much, if any, time in AAA.
I don't see a series between Tulsa and OKC being all that and a bag of chips...
We've had some really good ones come through here like Sammy Sosa, Dean Palmer, Bobby Witt, Pudge Rodriguez, etc.
Quote from: Conan71 on April 28, 2011, 01:57:05 PM
We've had some really good ones come through here like Sammy Sosa, Dean Palmer, Bobby Witt, Pudge Rodriguez, etc.
I'm not a sports fan but even I recognize Sammy Sosa's name.
How about the Toronto Blue Jays? Their current Triple-A affiliate is Las Vegas. According to Wikipedia (reliable for sure) the team is struggling with attendance and have been unable to secure a new stadium. Tulsa makes as much sense geographically to Toronto as Las Vegas. Just a thought.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Las_Vegas_51s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Las_Vegas_51s)
Quote from: Conan71 on April 28, 2011, 01:57:05 PM
We've had some really good ones come through here like Sammy Sosa, Dean Palmer, Bobby Witt, Pudge Rodriguez, etc.
and we have had some even better ones come through recently... Ubaldo Jimenez, Jeff Francis, Tulo, Matt Holiday. No offense to Sammy and Pudge, but they both played a part of the steriod era. As a matter of fact, Sammy was about the size of Tulo when he played here in the early early 90's.
Toronto is just crazy talk. I have become a Rockies fan because of the drillers affiliation. There is NO way I would cheer for a canadian team.
One advantage of a AAA team is we would get more rehab stints from big leaguers which would add a little boost to attendance on those nights. Imagine Todd Helton rehabbing for 3 games in Tulsa.
Quote from: DTowner on April 28, 2011, 12:33:17 PM
I recall that at the time the Trust was being debated there were numerous articles stating that the Kaiser Foundation would sell various parcels of land to the Stadium Trust for its acquisition costs. I guess I always understood those parcels to include land in addition to the land on which the Stadium itself would be built. If so, the Trust should have/control some additional land that, as of yet, has not been developed.
It does, but sofar that only includes a couple of old warehouses SW of the ballpark, by the tracks.