It has been pretty quiet about the redevelopment of the east end ever since the islands talks began. Now that they have sunk a little, I thought we should continue the discussion about the proposed baseball stadium and development, blue dome area changes, even the beer selection at McNellie's.
Here is the link to the Global Partners plan...
http://www.globaldevelopmentpartners.com/EastEnd.html
Sorry, I've been slipping of late... while an article on The Channels showed up predictably enough on the front page of last Sunday's TW, this was found on pg. A19...
Since this is probably archived, here goes (last I checked the World prefers entire articles be posted over selected quotes):
East End project slow-moving
P.J. LASSEK World Staff Writer
11/26/2006
Tulsa World (Final Home Edition), Page A19 of News
Developers are highly optimistic the plan will be another jewel downtown.
The East End downtown development project is still moving forward, just not as fast as some had hoped.
"It's a complicated project, but one that is very exciting," said Mitch Adwon, president of Adwon Properties, which represents the private developers in the land acquisition for the site.
Global Development Partners of Washington, D.C., has been working with local officials for a few years on a plan to convert about 34 acres on the east side of downtown into a regional destination point that would include a baseball stadium for the Tulsa Drillers and surrounding mixed-use developments.
While the development firm has contracts on 30 acres, it has only closed on one tract that is a little more than an acre. It had hoped to complete the remaining closings by late fall.
"We're still on track, we just won't be able to close by the end of November," said Adwon. "It's just going to take a little longer."
Adwon said the closing delays are due to the complexity of the loan paperwork.
But, he said, the delay hasn't stopped national retailers from expressing interest in the site.
Chuck Lamson, the president of the Tulsa Drillers, said he is still in negotiations with the developers.
"They are still getting all of the properties and I think we've reached a point that we need to coordinate between all of the parties -- us, the developer and the city," he said.
Lamson said the project is exciting and he feels "cautiously optimistic" that everything will move forward in a reasonable time frame.
"Everyone would like this to be sooner than later, including myself," Lamson said. "But I have found that with something of this nature you just have to be patient and work through the issues that come up."
Economic Development Director Don Himelfarb said the city is very supportive of the project and has had several conversations with the developers.
"It's our hope that this development does come together. It's an ambitious project," he said. "We, like everyone else, would like to see some tangible movement."
Himelfarb said if there is anything the city can do to help the developers, "we're willing to at least talk about it."
He said at this point, the developers need to piece together all of the needed real estate.
"If in fact, they are able to execute their full plan, I think it would have a substantial economic impact on the city, especially with job creation, property taxes and sales taxes," he said.
"There is no part of the city's health that it wouldn't touch in some fashion," he added.
Global Development is so confident about their project that it has a marketing broBalance = 30.0 ptschure touting the project on its Web site to attract retailers.
The brochure states that the East End will consist of more than 1.9 million square feet of mixed-use development, including more than 450,000 square feet of retail and dining experiences, 800 urban living units, three high-quality hotels, 150,000 square feet of modern office space and the baseball stadium.
In August, Kevin Justh, Global Development's senior vice president, said the goal of the development is to integrate the best mix of uses that will support a large daytime population and nighttime residents.
Once construction begins, it would take a few years to finish the first phase and five years to complete the entire project, he said.
Justh said the group plans to seek a tax increment financing district from the city. In a TIF district, some of the property and sales tax revenues generated from a development are used to fund infrastructure improvements that normally would be the responsibility of the developer.
Justh has said the group has no plans to seek a public vote for sales tax to fund the project.
The developer will end up "taking it down " piece by piece. Far too expensive to buy that much property at once and then developing it successfully in a short time period. A very slow process due to lack of densities is obvious. And financially dangerous in light of this being a rather new company. Despite the firm's "expert" personnel, it is risky to think this developer can hang in there long enough to actually profit but more importantly provide the quality development desired by the citizens.
I have mentioned before the questions I have about the broker and potential conflicts of interest, the type of mixed use contemplated, and the developer qualifications. However, I will reiterate it seems wrong to be duplicitous with taxpayer assets and that a ballpark in downtown Tulsa is not the same as in Phoenix, OKC, Indianapolis et al.
"Global Development is so confident about their project that it has a marketing broBalance = 30.0 ptschure touting the project on its Web site to attract retailers."
Say it isn't so!
The mind boggles!!
All doubts defenistrated!!!
Jumpin' Jesus on a pogostick, I haven't read anything as lame since the Davaz post in 3rd person.
jdb
^ Yea I caught that too. I was like, "Heck I can print up brochures, do all the time, doesn't really cost anything or take much effort." That comment was kind of lame. If thats the best evidence they could manage to drum up for the certainty of this thing happening, makes ya wonder.
I do hope it happens though. As for the, buying up the property thing little by little... wouldnt it be smarter to buy most if not all of it up in the beginning? I would suspect that after parts of the development actually became reality others would look at the remaining property and consider it more valuable to keep or sell at a then much higher price.
Yeah, the marketing brochure proves nothing.
"Cautiously optimistic" is probably the right approach when thinking about this project. It sounds like they're lacking somebody on the ground locally to coordinate their property accrual. Probably having trouble quieting all titles, and I'll bet the publicity caused some holdouts looking for more money. Still, it's encouraging that they're talking to Lamson at Drillers, rather than proceeding without him. More troubling is the possibility that their financing is getting sticky. The profits on these things are so marginal, it's sometimes a hairsbreadth whether they get off the ground or not. These guys seem to know how to leverage capital, though - they wouldn't have gotten past their first project otherwise.
I'm most encouraged by two things on their website. First, Gallery Place: it's wildly successful in D.C. My sister lives there and the yuppies love it. It's well-managed and trendy and Tulsans would flip over a similar project. Second, their architectural partner is HKS. If you look at their recent projects, you'll get excited about the same sort of practical but cutting edge work coming downtown.
Again, if the financing gets off the ground . . . cautiously optimistic.
" As for the, buying up the property thing little by little... wouldnt it be smarter to buy most if not all of it up in the beginning?"
This presents a huge carrying cost price tag.
Any competent developer must have a critical mass committed to build immediately to make it work.
And BTW, D.C. is a megalopolis. Not Tulsey Town.
quote:
And BTW, D.C. is a megalopolis. Not Tulsey Town.
Objection, Your Honor - irrelevant and inflammatory. The comparison is to the developers, not the market. They have a solid track record and it's encouraging that they see a financial future for real estate in Tulsa (even if some [cough, cough] do not).
quote:
Originally posted by aoxamaxoa
" As for the, buying up the property thing little by little... wouldnt it be smarter to buy most if not all of it up in the beginning?"
This presents a huge carrying cost price tag.
Any competent developer must have a critical mass committed to build immediately to make it work.
And BTW, D.C. is a megalopolis. Not Tulsey Town.
Using the word "Competent" with the realtor involved is an oxymoron.......
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
I'm most encouraged by two things on their website. First, Gallery Place: it's wildly successful in D.C. My sister lives there and the yuppies love it. It's well-managed and trendy and Tulsans would flip over a similar project.
The problem with that is... this firm did not develop Gallery Place. The principals of this firm worked did that development while at other firms. Whether these "principals" have the access to capital, resources, and expertise they had at their old firm is a crucial question.
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
I'm most encouraged by two things on their website. First, Gallery Place: it's wildly successful in D.C. My sister lives there and the yuppies love it. It's well-managed and trendy and Tulsans would flip over a similar project.
The problem with that is... this firm did not develop Gallery Place. The principals of this firm worked did that development while at other firms. Whether these "principals" have the access to capital, resources, and expertise they had at their old firm is a crucial question.
Aha. That explains the loss of momentum . . . big ideas, market feasibility, but lack of nuts and bolts, on-the-ground experience. They really need to get some competent local folks helping out, although I'm sure that skews their pre-project overhead costs. They probably underestimated the property accrual costs, and I'll bet they're getting a worse holdout problem than they expected with parcel owners.
On a different subject within this thread, I hit up the Continental Lounge over Thanksgiving weekend. It was very happening - a lot of fun. Lots of young lawyers and professional types I knew from a couple of years back. There is definitely a market for the type of urban development being pushed in Blue Dome. Just a question of whether critical mass can be achieved.
Floyd
1)There is a financial future in real estate here for these developers and that broker. I am not certain that is a good thing. I bet they are not far enough along to be approaching individual parcel owners.
2) The Continental is a nice place. It will survive until the pack moves on to the next new thing. There are not enough drinkers to support all the current establishments. Even on a good night....818 seems to be slower as is Dirty's and Arnies and 1974. It is about the market just as much as it is about the developer....
Critical mass? Catholic?
I haven't been to 818 yet.
By "critical mass," I mean some sort of tipping point where the area achieves the density of an established district. This elusive status is hard to define, but I think it happens when entrepreneurs stop being seen as "pioneering," and the status of the area as a destination is a given. See, e.g., Brookside.
Business in the bars on Brookside seems to be declining as it rotates and shuffles into downtown. I know Cherry Street is not what it was 2 years ago. What do I know?
I just observe this entertainment type once in a while. It's not safe being in either spot late night drinking.
Now, casinos? That seems to be where the action is these daze. maybe the new developer will team up with the Tribe and create more losers...
Well, I only hit the bars in Tulsa about four times a year, but when I hit 'em, I hit 'em hard. My experience over Thanksgiving was that downtown is a bit down these days, since the closing of some dance clubs and that piano bar. On the other hand, Brookside seemed to be near the best I've seen it and still growing/filling in.
This brings up another question - how much room for nightlife is there in Tulsa? Can Tulsa support a thriving East End/Blue Dome and Brookside/Cherry Street?
The answer over the past few years seems to have been no - bars are closing in one district when they're opening in the other, a sort of seesaw effect. I think only one thing can counteract this cycle, and that is residential development. If downtown can add serious housing units, I think we'll see an uptick in nightlife without a drain on Midtown.
I prefer the Brookside scene, but downtown (expecially SoBo) has some good places as well. While I think the East End proposal will add a few new bars it will mainly help the existing ones by adding 800 residential units and significant amount of new retail space, on par with that of a new shopping mall. The baseball stadium and the proposed fountain plaza at 4th and Frankfurt will be "anchors".
By the looks of their plan it will really improve the areas surrounding the existing Blue Dome District that is now just abandoned buildings and parking lots, areas east of Elgin between 2nd and 8th streets. This development could revitalize the 1st Street District which was on its way to becoming a nice walkable club district until several of the big clubs closed. Make 2nd Street more of a bar/pub district, and then from there south and east it will be the East End's mix of retail stores, restaurants (which downtown REALLY needs), loft apartments, and hotels. Would be nice to see a Hyatt-type luxury highrise hotel for the site at 3rd and Elgin, a smaller "boutique" hotel at the corner of 6th and Elgin, and then a cheaper Residence Inn or something by the ballpark.
An overlay of the proposed district in east downtown:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v316/bg918/downtowntulsa5.jpg)
Color code:
Red = residential
Orange = retail
Yellow = mixed-use
Blue = office
Purple = hotel
This is really the most significant and important development in Tulsa. I think that fact was "drowned out" a bit from all the Channels hoopla.
"...I'll bet the publicity caused some holdouts looking for more money...".
How much you willing to wager?
Global's interest - back in the beginning, long before any publicity peep - seemed focused on just the property inside the projects footprint with the abutting tracts (crumbs) offered up to local speculators for various and somewhat obvious reason(s).
Seemingly, that made sense.
Anyway, Greedy Holdouts get picked off pretty quickly around these parts. There's a curt courtship where one is encouraged to see the bigger picture and failing that the M.E.N. from T.D.A. show up with rubber hoses for a vision correction session.
Remember?
AECOM, Desco, Etc. (spit) all had two things in common: one, they wanted the whole 115 acre pie for themselves: and two, they folded and left town with little more than some meager gift bags from the City for their efforts.
Here's a bet:
"What's the key issue keeping Lamson on the fence?".
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
Well, I only hit the bars in Tulsa about four times a year, but when I hit 'em, I hit 'em hard. My experience over Thanksgiving was that downtown is a bit down these days, since the closing of some dance clubs and that piano bar. On the other hand, Brookside seemed to be near the best I've seen it and still growing/filling in.
This brings up another question - how much room for nightlife is there in Tulsa? Can Tulsa support a thriving East End/Blue Dome and Brookside/Cherry Street?
The answer over the past few years seems to have been no - bars are closing in one district when they're opening in the other, a sort of seesaw effect. I think only one thing can counteract this cycle, and that is residential development. If downtown can add serious housing units, I think we'll see an uptick in nightlife without a drain on Midtown.
SNAP! Yes, residential, college dorms, is what needs to feed the east end. Good Floyd! Agreed.
quote:
Originally posted by jdb
"...I'll bet the publicity caused some holdouts looking for more money...".
How much you willing to wager?
Global's interest - back in the beginning, long before any publicity peep - seemed focused on just the property inside the projects footprint with the abutting tracts (crumbs) offered up to local speculators for various and somewhat obvious reason(s).
Seemingly, that made sense.
Anyway, Greedy Holdouts get picked off pretty quickly around these parts. There's a curt courtship where one is encouraged to see the bigger picture and failing that the M.E.N. from T.D.A. show up with rubber hoses for a vision correction session.
Remember?
AECOM, Desco, Etc. (spit) all had two things in common: one, they wanted the whole 115 acre pie for themselves: and two, they folded and left town with little more than some meager gift bags from the City for their efforts.
Here's a bet:
"What's the key issue keeping Lamson on the fence?".
Free Rent?
No doubt money is an issue - but before one can haggle over rates, there has to be a place to rent, no?
The current ball field was recently paid off, right?
Which gives the Drillers a chance to start making some money, right?
What happens if the club walks away from that corner but there's no new place built for them to move into?
If I were Lamson I'd say, "Build it, and we might come." which probably has Global pulling out their few remaining strands of hair.
Just a wild guess on my part, jdb
Gee... what a difference a year makes.12/4/2006
quote:
Originally posted by SXSW
...While I think the East End proposal will add a few new bars it will mainly help the existing ones by adding 800 residential units and significant amount of new retail space, on par with that of a new shopping mall. The baseball stadium and the proposed fountain plaza at 4th and Frankfurt will be "anchors".
By the looks of their plan it will really improve the areas surrounding the existing Blue Dome District that is now just abandoned buildings and parking lots, areas east of Elgin between 2nd and 8th streets.
12/11/2005
quote:
Originally posted by SXSW
I'll give my two cents. I am in agreement with AVERAGE JOE and others that a downtown soccer stadium is just not necessary. I like sportyart's idea of putting one where that abandoned warehouse complex resides east of OSU-Tulsa (and less than a half mile from downtown). Has anyone ever seen that place, it could easily be the scene of a horror movie. Scary place....<snip>
.....Leave the East Village for smaller-scale urban developments like loft apartments and street level retail and restaurants, or maybe some anchors like the central library and a movie theater. Let the East Village develop into its own neighborhood.
quote:
Originally posted by jdb
Here's a bet:
"What's the key issue keeping Lamson on the fence?".
Sure, I'll play along.
I'm guessing he'll want "total control." Which in many ways is
more important than free rent.
In August 2005, there seemed to be two competing plans for the "east village." One from Global Development and a second concept that presumably involved a minor league baseball stadium but didn't involve Global...
--August 28, 2005 Tulsa World article found here
(in its entirety)...
http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showpost.php?p=5988372&postcount=1
Now snatch the pebble from my hand...
You enjoy playing
"Deal or no deal," jdb? [8D]
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
You enjoy playing "Deal or no deal," jdb? [8D]
If it involves a gamble, I'm in - what are the rules?
2 questions:
Is there a general accepted split concerning consession profits?
What generates more cash for a club: tickets or beer?
I am guessing the average Tulsa Driller Baseball fan spends over ten dollars on food and drink and the average ticket revenue is only three dollars or so.
They give away a lot of tickets.
I bet they make a pretty good chunk of change doing catered parties, selling merchandise and advertising as well.
I would guess the Drillers want to control a little more than just the footprint of the ballpark. They probably want a little share of parking revenues and want to be able to control the potential vendors/tailgaters of fans. That is becoming more common in new stadium deals. It can be very reasonable demands or it could be punitive.
A good example of both is found in Chicago.
It could be wonderful if we could follow the Chicago Cubs model of Wrigleyville. The entire ballpark is surrounded by entertainment, housing and shopping.
http://www.chicagohome.com/NHDetails.cfm?NH_ID=59
The Cubs also get a little weird about what the neighbors do. They sued the building owners across the street because they were renting out the roofs for fans as well.
Wouldn't the passage of The Channels have a huge effect on a feasibility study concerning a development like this? I'm betting the developer is waiting to see what Tulsa does regarding the Channels proposal, because I don't see there being enough demand (Currently) to support both developments. The Channels theoretically calls for tons of office space and residential that will, if anything, suck all the potential out of downtown. They probably don't want to move forward until the Channels is officially dead and buried.
quote:
Originally posted by YoungTulsan
Wouldn't the passage of The Channels have a huge effect on a feasibility study concerning a development like this? I'm betting the developer is waiting to see what Tulsa does regarding the Channels proposal, because I don't see there being enough demand (Currently) to support both developments. The Channels theoretically calls for tons of office space and residential that will, if anything, suck all the potential out of downtown. They probably don't want to move forward until the Channels is officially dead and buried.
The Channels has nothing to do with the east side....ala mutually exclusive.
The Drillers should change their name to match the city if indeed they were to go by the tracks. Might I suggest the T Town Clowns (which was one of the names back in the 50's and 60's for our team in the all Negro minor league).
quote:
Originally posted by aoxamaxoa
Floyd
There are not enough drinkers to support all the current establishments.
There are 2 reasons for this:
1) I grew up in South Tulsa, where almost half the people I went to high school with were not born in Tulsa. Their parents weren't from here, and knew nothing of the city except for its generic retail around 71st st. I, however, had several friends that lived in Midtown, and I frequently hung out around Midtown in high school. One weekend when I was home from college I found some of my former high school classmates going out for a drink at a TGI Friday's. I immediately wisked them off to Brookside and and the Blue Dome bars. Most of them had never heard of any of them, and were surprised to learn that Tulsa actually had places like that. There are thousands of college-aged people turning 21 every day that grew up in a Tulsa suburban area. Most of them have never heard of the Blue Dome District. I get this a lot: "dude, isn't that in Dallas?"
2) Most people from Tulsa don't stay here. Every year, thousands of college graduates that grew up in Tulsa look for a job somewhere else. They grew up in the suburbs where they heard dangerous tales of the Tulsa downtown- a crime-riddled cesspool of dispair!
A trendy, well developed area like the East End can
can succeed in Tulsa and is in high demand. Tulsa needs a true entertainment destination. Brookside and Cherry Street are the closest things we have now- and are not bad, but are not enough. Cities much smaller than Tulsa are passing it up quickly. I recently went to Little Rock's River Market District and found it to be a vibrant popular entertainment destination for the entire Little Rock metro. It even has a real cable car system that runs throughout the area and back and forth across the river. I found the bars and restaurants to be on the subpar side for the most part, at least Little Rock has a real entertainment destination. By the way, LR's city proper population is about 200,000 less than Tulsa and its metro population is about a quarter of a million less.
Global Development- get going!
Afterthought-
I just want to agree with those saying that residential development is definitely needed downtown in order for Brookside, Cherry Street, and the East End to all succeed. I'm hoping that a true entertainment district will cause more people in their 20s to stay in Tulsa and move into Downtown or Midtown. Hopefully the East End will actually help support Brookside and Cherry Street by bringing in more people from the suburban areas to Midtown and Downtown.
I too find it amazing how many people I run across who know nothing about midtown or the historic parts of Tulsa. I will be like,,, Would you like to go to Philbrook? or Have you been to Philbrook to see the such and such exhibit? And they will answer,,, Where? And I will have to launch into a description.
Even people, especially younger ones for some reason, who have lived here most of their life, seem to have no idea of what midtown or downtown has to offer.
Perhaps getting this East End development going and having it actively promoted will make people realize there is more to Tulsa than south Tulsa, the mall and suburbs.
Philbrook? You have to explain Philbrook?
Hicks.....
quote:
Even people, especially younger ones for some reason, who have lived here most of their life, seem to have no idea of what midtown or downtown has to offer.
I encounter this a lot, but for the most part, it's the adults that I mention it to who have no clue what or where Philbrook is. Kids get out, drive around and explore, and most people my age that I know, even if they haven't been to an exhibit there, know
what and
where it is... I remember taking field trips to Philbrook throughout elementary school--we went at least three times...
I read somewhere that at some point before the early thirties, the 'explore' mode in most people dies off as they settle into whatever they call their own, and if they hadn't been there before that time (assuming they'd lived here their whole life), they most likely won't ever go. It's the same with foods, music and decorating: people become accustomed to certain tastes and never branch out.
I think Philbrook is like KWGS (89.5 FM): If you don't know it and never stumble upon it, then chances are you didn't even know it existed; but once you've been there, you'll keep going back, over and over and over again... because it's amazing.
quote:
Originally posted by DScott28604
I read somewhere that at some point before the early thirties, the 'explore' mode in most people dies off...
Bull, I am 54 and I roam around constantly.
I love exploring new places, meeting new people, and without letting the cat out of the bag, there happens to be many of us out there exploring all the time.
Sure, sometimes it's to find a missing key ring, a certain road, maybe the way back into town, and a whole lot when my TomTom goes on the fritz - but it's all exploring!
Hell, I spend so much time exploring my family makes me wear this bracelet on my wrist which has my name and address on it.
jdb
I think we've hit upon why it's necessary for a district to have "destination" status. Once there's a buzz about a certain part of town, people actively seek it out. Bricktown is the prime local example. I'm not suggesting that Tulsa emulate the Bricktown development - there's plenty to disagree with there - but it's certainly a destination for the entire OKC metro area. I think that's what people in Tulsa crave, whether they know it or not: one "it" zone to pull people together.
I also think this is why a stadium is so important to a development like this. It's a simple symbol of the destination and it works for everyone. Don't drink? Don't like expensive dinners? Doesn't matter - you can still participate in the excitement for the cost of a general admission seat. People in the 'burbs may not understand why Philbrook is that exciting, they may not share our love for dense streetscapes, but everybody loves baseball. That's why a stadium is so important, more important than an arena, even, to get people of all stripes downtown.
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
I think we've hit upon why it's necessary for a district to have "destination" status. Once there's a buzz about a certain part of town, people actively seek it out. Bricktown is the prime local example. I'm not suggesting that Tulsa emulate the Bricktown development - there's plenty to disagree with there - but it's certainly a destination for the entire OKC metro area. I think that's what people in Tulsa crave, whether they know it or not: one "it" zone to pull people together.
I also think this is why a stadium is so important to a development like this. It's a simple symbol of the destination and it works for everyone. Don't drink? Don't like expensive dinners? Doesn't matter - you can still participate in the excitement for the cost of a general admission seat. People in the 'burbs may not understand why Philbrook is that exciting, they may not share our love for dense streetscapes, but everybody loves baseball. That's why a stadium is so important, more important than an arena, even, to get people of all stripes downtown.
Totally agree. And that is part of why this east end proposal is so much more exciting and would be so much more beneficial to the city than The Channels could ever hope to be.
You know, if we get that East End development and something good along the river, plus continued development of Brookside, Cherry Street, the Utica area, and other parts of downtown. This city will rock.
When someone comes to town they will see and experience a full fledged city.
Would be so nice to hear more of... This is really nice. not, Its got potential. lol
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
You know, if we get that East End development and something good along the river, plus continued development of Brookside, Cherry Street, the Utica area, and other parts of downtown. This city will rock.
When someone comes to town they will see and experience a full fledged city.
Would be so nice to hear more of... This is really nice. not, Its got potential. lol
I agree whole-heartedly. If the East End fully reaces its potential, the other entertainment districts of Tulsa will hopefully team together to compete with the East End. The blocks in between the East End and Cherry St., or especially between the East End and the Blue Dome should see rising property values and will hopefully enhance the East End further by merging two entertainment districts into one. Intelligent zoning regulations and urban design should be sought to allow the Blue Dome and East End to merge into a mega-entertainment zone while still maintaining a separate identity.
The East End doesn't compete with the Blue Dome, it complements it. Having potentially 3 hotels, 800 residential units, and a number of new retail shops and restaurants, not to mention the ballpark, is great for downtown. Blue Dome is the "entertainment" district of Tulsa with a good concentration of the city's bars and clubs. Brookside is the only area that comes close (and right now it is a more popular district), with SoBo not far behind. But if the East End brings restaurants (which downtown really needs) and shops that's more people who would stick around to go to bars/clubs, not to mention the out-of-town visitors the hotels in the area would bring. Plus just having more development, be it lofts, offices, etc., will help make the area safer.
AutoZone Park in Memphis. Seems like a similar concept...for a AAA team.
(http://static.flickr.com/51/149319626_02bd70e5e4.jpg)
(http://static.flickr.com/93/226588711_aab38d2def.jpg)
(http://static.flickr.com/49/124838846_a55dcf4bcb.jpg)
(http://static.flickr.com/62/223668711_147f627c83.jpg)
(http://static.flickr.com/74/188588093_20eb5f3bbf.jpg)
(http://static.flickr.com/45/188735155_4e83dde018_b.jpg)
quote:
Originally posted by PRH
It's a lot of hot air and speculation, something Tulsa's seen plenty of in the last few years.
It is more than "hot air" but your correct about "speculation" playing a large part.
IMO, the downfall or demise of the concept will hinge on the lack of demand for a project of this scope and size with our current population and it's suburban mindset.
Not enough cool people, eh?
"0ne can put a horse behind his cart and still get to market: but if the cart is empty, what's the point?" - jdb
quote:
Originally posted by jdb
It is more than "hot air" but your correct about "speculation" playing a large part.
Exactly. They've closed on at least one parcel, so
something's happening. It's just a matter of "what," "how big," and "how fast."
"...They've closed on at least one parcel..." - Floyd
Sure, the easy piece of the puzzle to flip.
They also reportedly have a contract to buy (but have not closed) on the Nordam site, which is the majority of the land needed for the project.
This project seems very close, but needs the Driller's to agree to move before it can become the "real deal".
quote:
Originally posted by PRH
I'm not convinced that this development will ever happen.
It's a lot of hot air and speculation, something Tulsa's seen plenty of in the last few years.
We'll soon forget about it.
I'll say one thing -- you'll either look like a prophet or be spectacularly wrong. No offense, but I'm hoping it's the latter.
quote:
Originally posted by perspicuity85
quote:
Originally posted by aoxamaxoa
Floyd
There are not enough drinkers to support all the current establishments.
There are 2 reasons for this:
1) I grew up in South Tulsa, where almost half the people I went to high school with were not born in Tulsa. Their parents weren't from here, and knew nothing of the city except for its generic retail around 71st st. I, however, had several friends that lived in Midtown, and I frequently hung out around Midtown in high school. One weekend when I was home from college I found some of my former high school classmates going out for a drink at a TGI Friday's. I immediately wisked them off to Brookside and and the Blue Dome bars. Most of them had never heard of any of them, and were surprised to learn that Tulsa actually had places like that. There are thousands of college-aged people turning 21 every day that grew up in a Tulsa suburban area. Most of them have never heard of the Blue Dome District. I get this a lot: "dude, isn't that in Dallas?"
2) Most people from Tulsa don't stay here. Every year, thousands of college graduates that grew up in Tulsa look for a job somewhere else. They grew up in the suburbs where they heard dangerous tales of the Tulsa downtown- a crime-riddled cesspool of dispair!
A trendy, well developed area like the East End can succeed in Tulsa and is in high demand. Tulsa needs a true entertainment destination. Brookside and Cherry Street are the closest things we have now- and are not bad, but are not enough. Cities much smaller than Tulsa are passing it up quickly.
Effective marketing will play a huge role. If Global can effectively attract quality establishments and investors, the East End will be a very nice culture zone. The city needs to spread the word to the entire metro area. On a given weekend in the ideal East End, people will be coming from every part of Tulsa metro, NW Arkansas, SW Missouri, Wichita, and multiple other places in Oklahoma. A lot people from Wichita, NW Arkansas, and TULSA go to Dallas or KC for a weekend getaway. Not that the East End will propel Tulsa into offering more entertainment than Dallas or KC, but it has the potential to certainly bring a lot of those weekenders to T-Town.
"...needs the Driller's to agree to move before it can become..." - Swakers
I don't agree.
One, in the City's initial pitch to the great unwashed, Lafortune stated a ball park could be phased into the project, do you think he just made this up?: and two, The Drillers, or a different ball team, is more like the lipstick than the pig.
"If Global can effectively attract quality establishments and investors..." - pers
That's the rub.
No one is going to load up the family and risk the less than even-odds of negoitiating the percieved perils of DT - and do so with frequency - to shop at a walmart (spit).
Where's the motivation - they already have one in their own familiar backyard.
The retailers will have to be unique to the region to create a draw which puts them in a guinny pig boat.
Left up to the risk management of big Developement the only thing built is that of a safe bet, and everyone knows, on some level, a safe bet is boring. - jdb
quote:
Originally posted by jdb
"If Global can effectively attract quality establishments and investors..." - pers
That's the rub.
No one is going to load up the family and risk the less than even-odds of negoitiating the percieved perils of DT - and do so with frequency - to shop at a walmart (spit).
Where's the motivation - they already have one in their own familiar backyard.
The retailers will have to be unique to the region to create a draw which puts them in a guinny pig boat.
Left up to the risk management of big Developement the only thing built is that of a safe bet, and everyone knows, on some level, a safe bet is boring. - jdb
"Quality establishments and investors" was never intended to mean Wal-Mart. Obviously we need a mix of locally owned establishments and some upscale chains. Brookside is a good example. Aberson's development, local bars, and the new Starbuck's/Pei Wei site all go well together.
For the East End, well-known upscale chains such as Urban Outfitters or Ruth's Chris steakhouse would give the development a 'unique to the region' status.
The difference between the East End and a suburban development should be the abscence of
big box chains. A Starbuck's can fit into a mixed use development, but Home Depot or Wal-Mart cannot. Big box chains are what we should want to leave OUT of our urban-style developments. If the East End really gets going, I think there are enough local entrepreneurs that will invest in the area to balance the amount of chains and local establishments.
"The difference between the East End and a suburban development should be the abscence of big box chains." - ity85
Keyword "should".
Reality is the proposed projects have tried and failed to lure the box store in their eleventh hour: and in the off hours, the City itself has tried to entice the entity.
Had been trying to get the local boys to set-up shop for the last decade.
Nice dreamy, thought to think it's still a possibility - but not one that drifts through my mind anymore.
No, it's the out-of-towners who whipped out their wallets, rolled up their sleeves, and have taken a risk: but, there's no dense, urban fabric to cuddle up with, nope - just a higher price on the parts and parcels.
I sure like the feel of the Astro Park as seen by the posted photo's. - jdb
I think local businesses will get on board. Been to the airport lately? Mostly local eateries in the new food court. I would not mind a nice mix of local business and upscale chains.
quote:
Originally posted by YoungTulsan
Wouldn't the passage of The Channels have a huge effect on a feasibility study concerning a development like this? I'm betting the developer is waiting to see what Tulsa does regarding the Channels proposal, because I don't see there being enough demand (Currently) to support both developments. The Channels theoretically calls for tons of office space and residential that will, if anything, suck all the potential out of downtown. They probably don't want to move forward until the Channels is officially dead and buried.
Don't know where you have been, but the Channels IS dead and buried.
Please see the"Idea for Downtown Housing" thread.
JDB has it right. A couple of times he has posted the issue of supply and demand across the Cherry Street, Brookside, 18th and Boston, Blue Dome and Brady districts.
You can dream of all the liquored up young people wondering around these areas all you want but in reality it's just not good.
Put a population near the east side. Please don't ruin the tradition of our ballgames by moving the stadium from the fairgrounds. The arena is going to be bad enough....
What tradition? The Drillers started out downtown. The fairgrounds stole the tradition in the first place.
Oh yeah, the tradition of the games at Expo. It is a stunning view over the outfield wall. Left field has a great shot of Walgreens and right field is the Lowes parking lot. Awesome!
And If I'd like something to eat before or after the game there are so many great resturants right there in walking distance. Oh wait, there's not. Maybe you could get some bad cheese fries at the off-track betting place? But, I can't go there if I have the kids. The best food option near the stadium seems like it must be microwave burritos from Walgreens. I also love the tradition of dodging horse manure on the walk from the parking lots. Wow, good times.
Come on, the stadium is clean, but it's as generic as they come and the location simply could not be worse.
great....an outdoor anchor for the east end that has 4 months of home games....what? like 40 nights? Well, that's more activity than the arena will pull in during the year. Let's not get into this again gamers.
A baseball park is no substitute for education and housing....
scheme on.
quote:
Originally posted by aoxamaxoa
great....an outdoor anchor for the east end that has 4 months of home games....what? like 40 nights? Well, that's more activity than the arena will pull in during the year. Let's not get into this again gamers.
A baseball park is no substitute for education and housing....
scheme on.
People with kids don't really live in downtown areas much in any city, except maybe New York. Access to higher education is a good thing in an urban area, but public secondary education means little to the viability of this project.
Residential use is the key to all of downtown, but it's the chicken and the egg argument. The area has to have retail to be truly attractive as an urban and walkable area, but retail can't live without residential development. Somehow something has to bridge the gap so that retail can happen before the density is achieved that would require the retail. And the density will never be achieved if the retail is not there.
A stadium can be the kind of anchor that bridges this gap by bringing enough non-residents into the area to help to support the retail while the residential aspect is growing. And, can also bring an urban neighborhood the kind of "action" that makes urban dwellers more likely to want to live in the area.
The target groups here are young educated people who do not have kids yet (I left when I had kids), gays, older empty nesters tired of big houses and yards and commutes and DINKs that chose to never have kids. Secondary education means little to any of these groups.
Education is important to the health of the city as a whole, but not downtown.
quote:
Originally posted by aoxamaxoa
great....an outdoor anchor for the east end that has 4 months of home games....what? like 40 nights? Well, that's more activity than the arena will pull in during the year. Let's not get into this again gamers.
A baseball park is no substitute for education and housing....
scheme on.
But there will be more like 65 to 70 games between April 1st and Labor Day.
There are also 10 Saturday night games and ten Friday night games scheduled this year that would be a real complement to an area that had before and after entertainment choices.
There is also a Friday night bedlam game for OU and OSU fans that attracts thousands of college kids each year. Think what they would do for after hours clubs and dining downtown.
There are also five days games for businessmen scheduled in 2007 and six Sunday afternoon that would be great for downtown church-goers.
Face it. Downtown baseball is magic in almost every town that has done it.
I will look forward to the Saturday night fireworks shows in front of the downtown skyline.
The only problem is that this ballpark won't face the skyline. I know most ballparks face the north or east, but could an exception be made? That would be one awesome view from near 5th and Greenwood looking west.
"There is also a Friday night bedlam game for OU and OSU fans that attracts thousands of college kids each year. Think what they would do for after hours clubs and dining downtown."
One night? You all are tripping....
Didn't we go over this already?
We agree that there aren't currenly enough entertainment seekers in Tulsa's core area to support another full-blown entertainment district.
So how do we get the entertainment seekers from outlying areas (South Tulsa and the 'burbs) to get on the Broken Arrow Expressway and head northwest? Create a destination they can't help but notice, and can't help but relate to.
What on earth could that destination be?????
Oh, a downtown ballpark.
quote:
Originally posted by aoxamaxoa
One night? You all are tripping....
Yeah, an organic garden and a smoothie bar would do much better... and provide education to our youth that a healthy lifestyle is a smart lifestyle.
quote:
Originally posted by unknown
quote:
Originally posted by aoxamaxoa
One night? You all are tripping....
Yeah, an organic garden and a smoothie bar would do much better... and provide education to our youth that a healthy lifestyle is a smart lifestyle.
way to go "unkown" ....you are all knowing.
Music is the only reason I go downtown.
The east end development is as close to a magic bean (maybe you prefer magic cows or golden egg laying geese, santa or big bangs) as we could ask for: it includes retail, dining, baseball/concerts, residence and hotels(3) all within walking distance to the CBD, the arena, Blue Dome, and 6th Street. A short trolley ride gets you to the river or Brady. This is something we should be excited about.
Hurry GDP!
Its obvious no one development will do it. The east end is just going to be one more piece to the puzzle, each piece helping the other and supporting the next. Soon the image of a real thriving downtown will begin to emerge.
Preach on, Swake and carltonplace. The East End has the potential to do more for Tulsa's urban core than anything else.
Floyd- excellent point. I have been posting all over this forum about the importance of bringing the suburbanites into the urban core. That is essential for any city I have ever seen that had a vibrant urban area. OKC should be evidence enough. Let's face it, Bricktown is not that great, but it serves as a entertainment destination for the entire OKC metro area. And what is a major part of Bricktown?-- a baseball stadium.
Furthermore, the East End not only brings in the suburbanites, but can serve as a regional entertainment destination. NW Ark, Wichita, and SW Missouri residents are just waiting for Tulsa to become a virbrant city. Tulsa has the potential to give residents of the slightly smaller regional markets what they don't have in their home city. NW Ark is one of the 5 fastest growing metro areas in the US. Bartlesville can't build fast enough to accomodate its latest influx of residents. Wichita is a metro area of over half a million people- with virtually no urban core at all. Wichita is like one giant suburb.
The time for Tulsa is now!
CARPE DIEM!!
quote:
Originally posted by SXSW
The only problem is that this ballpark won't face the skyline.
Not even remotely a problem.
quote:
I know most ballparks face the north or east, but could an exception be made?
No.
Baseball parks are laid out with home plate in the west part of the lot so the batter isn't facing the setting sun while trying to hit a 95 mph fastball. This may be more than just rule-of-thumb, it might very well be in the bylaws of professional baseball. Put another way, you'll get some batter killed taking high heat to the noggin if he's squinting into the setting sun.
Competitive integrity aside, the fans wouldn't be very comfortable if you had the field facing west toward the skyline. Ever notice which seats fill up the fastest at the Drillers games? The third base side. Which seats are the last to fill up? Down the first base line. Why? The third base side is in the shade for the first pitch, while the first base stands are cooking in the sun. Now imagine the entire stadium frying like that and trying to watch the game looking into the sun to boot.
You're right that the view would be great, but it's not that essential to the experience. It's nice to have that view, if you happen to have a quality site on the west side of your downtown. If you don't, you're still downtown and enjoying all the advantages that provides. OKC's ballpark doesn't face their skyline.
Fans go to ballparks, load up on dogs and brewski and head home....they will do little for the area. Green space would draw more people. Their free and gathering places to boot.
There are too many clubs and too few constant customers. My survey says everytime a new place opens another fails. What were those places Kitchell and Saeger had going on 3 years ago everyone thought were going to set the trend?
Less narciscism and more productive thinking here please.
Today's ballpark
Fans go to the ballpark, load up on dogs and brewski then walk directly into an adjacent parking lotand head home....
EastEnd ballpark
Fans go to the ballpark early, enjoy a pre-game meal at one of many restaurants within walking distance of the stadium, enjoy some live music, THEN go to the game, STILL load up on dogs and drinks (soda...of course) and then after the game walk past retail stores on their way to the parking garage where they contribute some sales tax dollars to a local merchant and THEN head home....
Grinch.
[}:)Its all about the money . I thin the issue is also dead and buried!
quote:
Originally posted by ky
[}:)Its all about the money . I thin the issue is also dead and buried!
Insightfull grammar, thanks for sharing.
Ok, before this thread turns anymore stupid:
Say we have 100 people (it's possible) that have plucked up the courage to move DT into the EE.
What do you speculators think is important?
Vibrant
Dense
Walkable
Livible
Shoppable
Parkable
Sleepable
Sustainable...
Pick one, I dare you - jdb
For an idea how the East End development could help Tulsa, look at San Diego's east end as a model. The Padres built a new baseball stadium in a completely run down part of San Diego's downtown (the east end) and sparked a wave of development that has created a delightful neighborhood of mixed-use urban density. The residential choices are vast and attractive, although mainly to young urban professionals and empty-nesters. Although the San Diego east end is next to the revitalized Gaslamp Quarter, with its wide variety of restaurants, clubs, theaters, retail and hotels, and sits on beautiful San Diego bay with beaches, ideal weather, world class zoo, museums and theme parks, it's still an excellent example for Tulsa to follow.
Tulsa has great potential but needs to get started now. Start with Transit Oriented Development (TOD) and build dense mixed use projects, saving the historical buildings as much as possible. Ensure walkable residential neighborhoods are built around traffic-calmed streetscapes that include lots of trees and deemphasize convenient parking. Make parking difficult (intentionally), to encourage people to get out of the isolation of their cars and enjoy a walk down the widened sidewalks to shop, go to work, the gym or out to dinner or to entertainment.
You have to build a mass of residential units first, because retail follows residential. You can't build retail concurrently with residential because it will fail. Therefore it couldn't get financing in the first place because they have to perform a market demand study and present it to the bank. No rooftops (commercial real estate developer's term for residential populations), no retail, period.
A similar chicken and egg situation exists with residential development relative to communities targeting families: with no school, no houses get sold. So schools must accompany residential development intended for families.
The problem with most urban developments is that downtown areas tend to have higher crime rates, fewer parks and worse schools than the suburbs. You can revitalize downtown with yuppies and empty-nesters but it takes longer than if you could include families in the mix. So to interest families you must have a good school choice, some recreational parks and good security. That's a tall order for any urban area so it's probably best to focus on the young adults, single adults and 'empty nesters'.
But residential still has to lead the retail, and it needs to happen on a public transit line. Trolleys are preferable to buses because developers know it's much harder to remove rails than to change bus routes. There needs to be a solid committment to good public transit to minimize the problem with cars and too many parking lots. Building more parking garages is part of the solution but not a magic bullet. Gettin rid of surface parking lots IS part of the solution. City needs to assess a VERY HIGH annual per-stall fee for surface parking lots in the CBD - and damn the torpedoes from the parking lot owners.
^ Lots of good points. I think if we get the # of living quarters they are wanting to put in the east end, plus the Mayo district, some of the other developments will keep plugging a few more in. This will be enough to possibly get a small grocery store like a neighborhood market in the area.
I think that Tulsa really needs to work to make its downtown the metro regions choice for those young people who want the city life. We have the smallest inklings of that but mostly with the locals at the moment. Getting this east end development will start to cement the notion that its ok to live work and play in Tulsas downtown.
This in my opinion is THE most important development going on in Tulsa. If the Channels hadnt been such a big topic, this would have been the headlines. I just hope it actually happens.
quote:
Originally posted by carltonplace
What tradition? The Drillers started out downtown. The fairgrounds stole the tradition in the first place.
What tradition? Excuse me... my grandfather LOVED baseball and NEVER told me of ANY Tulsa Oilers "tradition" in downtown... maybe it's because the Oilers hadn't played downtown since 1929....
How EXACTLY did the fairgrounds "steal" the Oilers/Drillers???
Please stop smokin' the joints AJ's sellin'...
"Tulsa has great potential but needs to get started now." - CoTW
"It 'started' a long time back...it just takes longer to see our progress!" - jdb
Disclaimer: The above 'bumper sticker' mentality, in the spirit of good ole fashion ribbing, is as pleasant as I can be on the subject: however, for the sake of my unnamed sparring partner (Carlton's) better health through blasting the poster known as jdb, I pledge to come back spitting mad this time next year.
THIS JUST IN:
"...and damn the torpedoes from the parking lot owners." CoTW
The City owns the parking lots and lest we forget the trash service hearings, the Puiblic Works water lines and sidewalks debaucle and a few other pedestrian issues.
"We've come a long ways since last year!" - jdb
Note to self: Jager makes it hard to spell.
quote:
Originally posted by jdb
quote:
Originally posted by ky
[}:)Its all about the money . I thin the issue is also dead and buried!
Insightfull grammar, thanks for sharing.
Ok, before this thread turns anymore stupid:
Say we have 100 people (it's possible) that have plucked up the courage to move DT into the EE.
What do you speculators think is important?
Vibrant
Dense
Walkable
Livible
Shoppable
Parkable
Sleepable
Sustainable...
Pick one, I dare you - jdb
I'd take "livable"...... but since you misspelled
livable, I'm moving to Houston out of spite.... [;)]
Okay, "I'll take 'Livible' for $500, Alex..."
http://www.mostlivable.org/cities/tulsa/home.html
Here's the problem: "livable" is always in the eyes of the beholder. Downtown Tulsa is livable........ but only if I have a car. I do have a car now... but I won't live there because there's not enough to differentiate it from the rest of Tulsa
(jazz-combo in a sushi-bar withstanding). Why live somewhere, when you can visit... In fact, after my car broke down in that netherworld known as the area of T-town east of hwy. 169, I was able to walk to restaurants, QT, and a grocery store from my east Tulsa apt... that would NOT have been possible living around that "Blue Dome" thingy or "Brady." Yeah, I live in a district alright...
the Brady Bunch District... makes me wanna go out and buy one of them station wagons with the real-wood paneling on the doors...[:O]
In the real world, there are these things we call "trade-offs." If I live downtown in an older building that will require me to scrub my own dishes and service the bathtub drain with liquid plumber once a week; this is a trade-off.
In return, what do I get? The priviledge of waiting for the 6:50 bus only to find out it won't get to me until 7:40? The priviledge of walking the streets at night alone and running into a freakazoid I don't already know? The priviledge of having to "bus it" to a grocery/liquor/clothing store? Why would I "bus it" to go to WalMart, Albertson's, Reasor's or Home Depot??? I mean, c'mon now...
Awww. Let's just go down the list. I fear
"vibrant." Why? Because it means I'll hafta move, that's why. Due to either higher rents or scary property tax hikes. Vibrant = gentrification.... aka "magic baseball" -- more on that later...
Next term:
dense. I like it. It can stay. You don't really appreciate
urban density until you're mugged by three youths who steal your wallet and throw your keys into the sewer while nobody's watching........ it gives you a whole new perspective on "safety in numbers."
I'll take
"walkable" for $200.... I don't want to drive a few blocks just to get a carton of milk/cigs.... besides, last time I lived in Tulsa, I gained 10 lbs. in a matter of a couple of weeks before I realized how much exercise I got in Chicago's "walkable urbanity."
Ummm.
Shopable. Okay, I don't have to have much... don't need a corner IKEA (would take up more room than a baseball or soccer stadium anyway). I'm sure the East End will contain trendy and overpriced garbage you just can't find elsewhere (unless you're in Utica Sq)... but all I need is socks, underwear, eclectic crap that could easily be satisfied by a couple of yippy-skippy-hippy, creepy-leather-freak or black-turtleneck-snap-your-fingers shops.... leaving the tourists to shop at Needless Markup's or Nordstrom's or any combination of fru-fru-downtown-is-cool shops like these: http://www.indydt.com/circlecentrefeature.html
Parkable. It's official: I'm no longer a McNellie's virgin... but it did take me 10-15 mins to park....... okay, it took me 10 seconds to park and then the next 10-15 mins walking around petrified that I couldn't find the street sign that indicated I'd parked illegally. I felt all dirty inside even after I realized that I only had to walk a few feet into the door of a downtown pub and was doing so without breaking any laws... my god, the prospects of minor league baseball fans at a pub that could easily be a soccer-pub superior to
Ginger's Ale House in Chicago? I'd take a job there just to tell Drillers' fans,
"No, we don't have Pabst Blue Ribbon on tap... it'll cost ya' three dollars for a bottle... too rich for your tastes? sorry... and no, we won't serve 'em in jelly jars, even if ya' brung your own!" Sleepable. Trust me, the human body can get used to anything. If I can sleep through the "el" train passing by every 7-9 mins 500 ft away from my back window AND put up with the ear-exploding volume of Jimi Hendrix's
Foxy Lady playing in the upstairs apt. on a regular basis, then dealing with a downtown Tulsa abode will be just fine....... I probably would stay awake at a Heavenly Hospitality hotel if they got their way, though... silence kinda freaks me out...
Sustainable. Okay, nothing comes to mind right now except Monty Python...
Oh, Lord, please don't burn us,
Don't grill or toast your flock.
Don't put us on the barbecue,
Or simmer us in stock.
Don't braise or bake or boil us,
Or stir-fry us in a wok.
Oh please don't lightly poach us,
Or baste us with hot fat,
Don't fricassee or roast us,
Or boil us in a vat,
And please don't stick thy servants Lord,
In a Rotissomat...
I was going for "Lively" backed up and attempted "livable", have not been able to sleep since.
I can't even begin to reply; I want to but it will have to wait - Frontal Lobe Failure.
jdb
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
quote:
Originally posted by carltonplace
What tradition? The Drillers started out downtown. The fairgrounds stole the tradition in the first place.
What tradition? Excuse me... my grandfather LOVED baseball and NEVER told me of ANY Tulsa Oilers "tradition" in downtown... maybe it's because the Oilers hadn't played downtown since 1929....
How EXACTLY did the fairgrounds "steal" the Oilers/Drillers???
Please stop smokin' the joints AJ's sellin'...
As opposed to drinking the soccer-fueling bong water of yours??? [8D]
Answer me this -- Where did Babe Ruth play an exhibition game with the New York Yankees in Tulsa?
I'm assuming you know it was downtown on Elgin... if that's the case... so what.
Sammy Sosa played for Tulsa at the fairgrounds. And neither one of us was alive when Babe Ruth played in Tulsa so arguing that this constitutes some sort of downtown tradition is about as inane as implying Shoeless Joe Jackson hit you up for quarters in a downtown Tulsa parking lot....
But answer me this -- Where did Pele play the ONLY time he came to Tulsa?
hmmmm... the answer to that question is downtown (I saw Pele at the Assembly Center in the '70s)... but it doesn't matter... the Tulsa Roughnecks played their outdoor games at Skelly... and the Oilers/Drillers have been playing their games at the fairgrounds for over seventy-five years...
A minor league ballpark in the East End is robbing Peter (the fairgrounds) to pay Paul (downtown). Implying that minor league baseball is somehow "magic" is sheer folly.
Wrigley Field was never conceived as a "mixed-use" project. For decades, the Cubs only played day games because the neighborhood around the stadium didn't approve of forfeiting the ability to park on weeknights...
Then came the advent of cable tv in the 80s... WGN showed Chicago Cubs home games across the country, Wrigleyville experienced a revival thanks in no small part to college frat-types and childless twenty-somethings looking to party... the area changed into an entertainment district and the Cubbies became the accidental beneficiary and gained the political clout to push forward with lights/night games...
The impact of a successful downtown baseball stadium in Tulsa for the Drillers wouldn't have NEARLY the effect that a major league ballpark would have... the Florida Marlins were looking at moving to OKC, but no major sports leagues have considered Tulsa... with the exception of Major League Soccer.
While we're at it, where would residents rather live? an area with three minor league night games a week drawing 4,000 fans a pop or a major league soccer game drawing 15,000 fans every other Saturday night? I'm not saying one is superior to the other...... that seems to be the job of narrow-minded baseball fans who insist that a downtown ballpark is inherently superior to a home for a major league soccer team...
Tradition? Here's some tradition:
1. Over 25,000 fans at Skelly watched the Tulsa Roughnecks shutout the NY Cosmos 3-0 in a 1979 playoff game-- the fans stormed the field and carried goalkeeper Jack Brand and coach Alan Hinton on their shoulders....
2. The second game between Tulsa and New York at Giants Stadium drew over 76,000 fans on a Wed. night... the second highest attended game in NASL history and one of the highest drawing games in the history of American professional soccer.
3. On two separate occasions, over 30,000 fans watched Tulsa Roughnecks' games at Skelly... the games are televised back to NYC...
from a 1980 New York Cosmos broadcast... question from PBP commentator Jim Karvellas to Lea Arthur "I know this is your first trip to Tulsa, how do you like it, Lea"... "I love it here, Jim. Welcome to Tulsa, the Oil Capital of the World. This team is 6th (out of 24) in league attendance because 600,000 people here love their soccer team and tonight's game should be just like the name: Roughnecks."
4. Chicago Sting fans hated the Tulsa Roughnecks (ask me how I know this)... in an indoor game at a sold out Chicago Stadium, the Roughnecks held a sign congratulating the Sting on their large crowd... then defender Victor Moreland starting throwing long-stemmed roses into the crowd... classic.
There are many, many more great moments... and that, my friend is history. And among the many reasons why Tulsa soccer fans should never take a backseat to fans of any other sport; our support for NASL soccer differentiates Tulsa from Memphis or Nashville or Louisville or OKC or Little Rock or San Antonio... it's what makes us unique. And is why we deserve a team... and why, with an East End stadium, we soccer fans could turn McNellies into an internationally renouned pub... rather than just another watering hole for fans of the Texas League... [:P]
Not trying to be anti-soccer here...
Your argument is that The Tulsa soccer team drew bigger crowds than the Tulsa minor league baseball team.
For argument sake, your attendence figures are for a team that played over 20 years ago. Everything in the world has changed in that time.
They only played 15 home games a year. If they averaged 20,000 fans per game, they would be equal to the 300,000 the Drillers do.
I would love a multi-use stadium and I am sure the Drillers owuld play in one.
But the NASL soccer league demands the stadium be soccer only and that makes a proven commodity like baseball to be preferred by me.
It's a lie to say that Major League Soccer demands the stadium be "soccer only." Repeating the "soccer only" lie over and over again will not make it true.
Even IF there were less soccer fans than AA baseball fans over the course of a season, MAJOR league soccer would have a greater impact because the ticket prices are higher... there's a MUCH higher level of media coverage... AND fans would come from further out... soccer fans from NW Ark/Joplin/Tahlequah and even OKC would go to a few games..... while the Drillers would just draw from Tulsa/the 'burbs because minor league baseball is a CASUAL sport... nobody cares if the Drillers won the first half of the Texas League... oh, wow, playoffs??? Who do we play... Frisco... or Springfield???
Do you really want to cement Tulsa as a minor league city and ignore a Major league opportunity... and the Drillers don't currently play in a dilapidated facility... they can easily keep playing at the fairgrounds for years until they get what they want.
And it is disengenuous to imply the Drillers would move to an expensive multi-purpose stadium and share dates as secondary tenant to a Major League Soccer team. It wouldn't happen. The Drillers have too good of a deal at the fairgrounds. And MLS will NEVER come to Tulsa if it involves playing second-fiddle to the Drillers. MLS can be a second tenant to the NFL Patriots or major league baseball's Nationals, but Tulsa is a much smaller market than Boston or DC...
Toyota Park in Bridgeview, Illinois can easily be used for football and has a concert stage on one end that can easily be configured for concerts.
THAT was the original plan from 2002 when LaFortune was going to propose the stadium. Instead, we went with an arena, thus contributing to the nationwide glut of indoor arenas with more behind the curve thinking and keep up with the Joneses mentality...
Once again, you cannot play a high profile high school football game (Union/Jenks or state playoffs) in an 8,000 seat baseball stadium... but you CAN play it in a 20,000 seat soccer/football stadium. Baseball stadiums are more limited in their uses than soccer/football stadiums.
We soccer fans proved ourselves after a feasability study and the over 14,000 fans that went to the KC-Dallas exhibition game at Skelly... no other city has drawn that for a one-off MLS exhibition (Houston only did it as a doubleheader with Mexican teams)... over 5000 season ticket commitments going to waste.
I think Tulsa is a MUCH, MUCH better city for MLS soccer than Denver.... but they're getting Dick's Sporting Goods Park...
Broadcasting and Media Request-
When speaking about the Rapids' new stadium and soccer complex, please refer to it by its official designation, Dick's Sporting Goods Park, without using any shortened or altered versions of this name. The Colorado Rapids appreciate your cooperation.
heh-heh. [:D]
You posted this Tulsa World story on BigSoccer.net that says that the league was only interested in towns with soccer only stadiums.
USRufnex13 Jun 2006, 12:51 AM
Hope is alive for futbol fans
By DAVE SITTLER World Sports Writer
6/11/2006
The americanization of Keith Eddy happened years ago. The transplanted Englishman remains hopeful that the United States eventually will adopt soccer with the same open-armed enthusiasm it welcomed him.
Eddy came to America in 1976 to play his beloved sport for the New York Cosmos. He arrived in Tulsa for a six-month business venture in 1982 and never left.
His USA roots now run so deep that he'll wave two flags during the 2006 World Cup, one featuring the Stars and Stripes, the other the Union Jack.
"I've been here basically half my life," said the 61-year-old Eddy, who hasn't lost his engaging British accent. "So I'd like England or USA to win it. I'm rooting for the two of them."
The 32-team, monthlong World Cup is contested every four years, with Germany hosting the 2006 event. A strong contender, England won its first match 1-0 Saturday over Paraguay; the underdog USA team starts play Monday against the Czech Republic.
The World Cup, the world's largest sporting event, is a lifeline for soccer lovers in this country. They cling to it every four years in hopes the worldwide passion it creates will finally ignite a widespread love for the game in the USA.
Soccer is huge in America for players from kindergarten
through college. But the frustration of soccer's leaders in the USA is that interest drops off significantly when those youngsters become adults, stop playing, lose interest and don't support the professional game.
Eddy, who founded the wildly popular Tulsa Soccer Club in 1992, is among those mystified why that intense childhood love for the game isn't maintained.
People like Eddy believed the next generation would be the educated generation. It would understand the game's nuances, and wouldn't be bored with soccer like us ignorant Baby Boomers.
"We've been saying for 20 years or more that when these kids who are playing now become adults, that will change," Eddy said. "But we still seem to be in that scenario, and I really don't know why."
Eddy's heard all the hackneyed excuses: There isn't enough scoring in soccer for Americans, who are used to scoreboards lighting up in football and basketball. The Yanks, used to timeouts and huddles, can't adapt to soccer's nonstop action.
"I've heard all that for the past 30 years," Eddy said.
But he's also seen the other side of it in America -- experienced sold-out stadiums where fans went bonkers for the lads booting that black-and-white ball around for 90 minutes.
The majority of Eddy's soccer career as a standout defenseman was played in Britain. But when he came to the States to play for Cosmos in the North American Soccer League, he was elected captain of a team that included Pele, the world superstar from Brazil.
Eddy knows the brilliant Pele was the primary reason the Cosmos often drew more than 70,000 spectators to Giants Stadium. But like his peers, he hoped by the time Pele was gone the game's popularity would have reached a level that the NASL would survive and thrive.
At one point, the NASL had 24 teams, including the Tulsa Roughnecks. But teams started folding because of financial problems until the league disbanded in 1984.
Tulsa was a city that once had soccer fever. It peaked when the Roughnecks won the 1983 NASL's Soccer Bowl title before more than 60,00 people Vancouver, Canada.
A month later, the Tulsa franchise was broke. The NASL folded the next year, eventually replaced by Major League Soccer.
Tulsa has retained a solid core of soccer fans from those glory days of the Roughnecks. There have been several attempts to get an MLS franchise for the city.
Last November, then-Mayor Bill LaFortune confirmed that an MLS franchise might relocate to Tulsa. Sources later confirmed that owners of the D.C. United franchise had a serious interest in putting a team in T-Town.
But the plan was shelved because of the city's lack of a soccer-only stadium, and the unwillingness of local investors to get involved.
"If Tulsa had a stadium, there is no question we would get a franchise," Eddy said. "But stadiums are not cheap. So you're going to have to have somebody with pretty deep pockets step up, and it doesn't appear that will happen."
Eddy remains convinced that Tulsa would support an MLS team. He cited a study done several years ago that showed Tulsa was second only to Tampa as the strongest cities for possible expansion.
But with Tulsa struggling to find enough funds to cover overrun costs on the city's new downtown arena, building a soccer-only stadium would be a hard sell.
So Eddy must be content to run the Tulsa Soccer Club he founded. Over the past 15 years, the club has grown from four to more than 30 elite teams, and Eddy has produced an impressive numbers of players who have earned college scholarships.
"The interest on the (Tulsa) youth level is massive," Eddy said. "But it really hasn't transformed into interest at the adult level.
"Dallas is a great example. There are thousands of kids playing in the Dallas area, and yet the MLS team in Dallas struggles for support."
As long as he's able, Keith Eddy will be among those dedicated to the Americanization of soccer. As he watches many of the 64 games, he'll dream that the interest generated by the 2006 World Cup will help in his quest.
"I think there's still a mentality in this country," said Eddy, "that soccer is a foreigners' game."
Are these not your words and is the person quoted not you?
[xx(]soccer is so boring!!!!!
First, those are Dave Sittler's words, not mine. The term is commonly referred to as "soccer specific," not soccer-only...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soccer-specific_stadium
quote:
Soccer-specific stadium (SSS) is a term used mainly in the United States and Canada. It was coined by Lamar Hunt to refer to a sports stadium whose primary (but not only) purpose is to host soccer matches. An SSS may host other events such as other sporting events (mostly lacrosse and gridiron football), drum and bugle corps competitions, and concerts, but the design and purpose of an SSS is centered on soccer.
So using the term "soccer-only" is very, very deceiving... and, in my opinion, an outright lie.
The stadium we're talking about would have had a 20k seating capacity... it would have had sidelines about 5 yrds wider than a football field on each side...
NFL stadiums have a 60k- 80k capacity but are now built with soccer in mind and have extended sidelines.......
Once again, your multi-use baseball field WILL NOT be able to host the variety of events that my so-called "soccer-only" stadium would be able to host...
So, who's stadium is truly multi-purpose...???
Certainly not the ballpark. To say that the proposed east end ballpark could host more varied events than a 20k seat "soccer stadium" would simply be wrong. No matter how much you and AJ keep yapping about "multi-purpose," the soccer stadium would be able to host everything the ballpark could host, and more....... just not baseball.
Ky... you sure-nuff make some really nice jelly.... have you seen MLS in person or are you just repeating what a buncha jock-sniffing lugnuts told you to say....?
****And no, RM... my name is not Keith Eddy (if that was the question)... and as far as I know, my words have never been quoted in a TW article... but I am one of those kids who grew up with soccer and am ready to support a Tulsa team we shoulda got here back in the 90s...
Ah, Ruf stumping on behalf of his soccer fetish. Truly, the sound of one hand clapping...
Wow, AJ's first lie of 2007... I'm sure there'll be many more where that came from.
Joe, I think Ruf makes some educated and well informed points and I'm pretty sure his posts deserve a little more than your sarcastic, uninformed spite. Tulsa spoke loud and proud when it came to professional soccer, even as recently as a few years ago when the exhibition game came here. While it may not be your cup of tea, you clearly don't represent all of Tulsa on this matter...Tulsa did that for itself by showing up in big numbers.
It's just too bad that most of the pro soccer fans in this city don't have ties to BIG money or this would have been a done deal 10 years ago. And for those who wonder why Tulsa didn't pass the original proposal for the soccer stadium? We had no GUARANTEE for a pro franchise, only a handshake and it was not publicized very widely during that first vote.
I'm not sure most Tulsans realize what they were passing up when they voted it down in '97. MLS has become a big-time league with fan support growing nationwide every year. The fact is that Tulsa COULD have capitalized on this if some of the private money in town had shown some much needed "vision".
quote:
Originally posted by bacjz00
Joe, I think Ruf makes some educated and well informed points and I'm pretty sure his posts deserve a little more than your sarcastic, uninformed spite. Tulsa spoke loud and proud when it came to professional soccer, even as recently as a few years ago when the exhibition game came here. While it may not be your cup of tea, you clearly don't represent all of Tulsa on this matter...Tulsa did that for itself by showing up in big numbers.
It's just too bad that most of the pro soccer fans in this city don't have ties to BIG money or this would have been a done deal 10 years ago. And for those who wonder why Tulsa didn't pass the original proposal for the soccer stadium? We had no GUARANTEE for a pro franchise, only a handshake and it was not publicized very widely during that first vote.
I'm not sure most Tulsans realize what they were passing up when they voted it down in '97. MLS has become a big-time league with fan support growing nationwide every year. The fact is that Tulsa COULD have capitalized on this if some of the private money in town had shown some much needed "vision".
Oh, I hear what you're sayin', but you have to understand that Ruf and I go WAAAY back on this forum on this topic. I know it's a source of frustration to him that he lost the argument so soundly [:D] but you're right, he's a bright guy and on top of that, a good sport for coming back around so often to trade some good-natured barbs.
Hmmm. AJ, how exactly did I lose this argument "so soundly?"
Is there something you'd like to share with the rest of the class?
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
Go Drillers. If I ever win the big powerball lottery I want to buy the team and change nothing.
Are these not your words and is the person quoted not you?
Sorry JDB, managed to get sidetracked once again... not very hard to do, actually.
The soccer stadium was not supposed to be the focal point of this development when it was first proposed... just an anchor for the real estate people who thought they were going to be getting into the sports business...
I think some perspective needs to be presented... and luckily RM posted a TW article that offers some insight... despite Dave Sittler's incorrect use of the term "soccer-only stadium"...
Hope is alive for futbol fans
By DAVE SITTLER World Sports Writer
6/11/2006
Last November, then-Mayor Bill LaFortune confirmed that an MLS franchise might relocate to Tulsa. Sources later confirmed that owners of the D.C. United franchise had a serious interest in putting a team in T-Town.
But the plan was shelved because of the city's lack of a soccer-only stadium, and the unwillingness of local investors to get involved.
Global Development Partners = "owners of the D.C. United franchise."
Unwillingness of local investors = the perspective of those folks who'd rather pay Vancouver architect Bing Thom, not once but TWICE, to the tune of tens of millions of dollars, than step up to the plate as owner-investors for an MLS team in Tulsa.
One of Global Development Partners' divisions was going to be a sports management division and Major League Soccer's D.C. United was their first purchase in summer 2005... an MLS team for Tulsa the next winter would have been their second purchase. If everything went according to plan, Global would own sports teams in DC and Tulsa and would be building stadium/mixed use projects in DC, Tulsa, Richmond, Univ of Central Florida in Orlando, and Milwaukee...
If their original plans to own/operate (or partially own/operate) a Tulsa soccer team had gone as planned, GDP would have been the landlord for their own team at a stadium they would themselves operate... and it would be in their interests to make that stadium as "multi-use" as possible...
But here's what Global Development Partners, Major League Soccer, Mitch Adwon, and the Tulsa World do not want you to know...
Mum's the word on exactly why GDP's purchase of D.C. United fell through in January 2006, almost 6 months after it was announced. And, by proxy... GDP's Tulsa plans fell through as well...
Everyone was very tight-lipped about it; but the Washington Post reported last spring that a D.C. investor was suing GDP and claimed in the lawsuit that Major League Soccer will never approve ownership by a group involving Timothy Kissler or William Lauterbach.
If this is true, then it's entirely possible the league took a closer look at GDP's actual financial assets and balked at the deal... the full facts would need to be hidden because it could jeopardize GDP's other projects and also embarrass Major League Soccer and Colorado billionaire Phil Anschutz/Anschutz Entertainment Group (who'd highly publicized Global's $26M purchase of DC and trumpeted the group's ability to get the team its soccer stadium/mixed use project in Anacostia/Poplar Point).
There's been no news at all on their project for Howard Road at Anacostia... despite its presence on GDP's website.
So, instead of owning/operating their own stadium for their own team in Tulsa, GDP will be negotiating with the Drillers... hard to say what will eventually happen...
But GDP now needs the "east end" project to go through with/without a baseball stadium... the cost of the minor league ballpark is completely dwarfed by the cost of the entire project (based on a similar project in Richmond's estimated costs from 2005, I'd bet we're talking over half a billion dollars here... almost as expensive as The Channels). So it ain't gonna be like any previous Tulsa TIF district...
I'm wondering if this is going to be one of those "if he's in, I'm in... if they're in, we're in..." projects. Could be a house of cards but... what'd AOX call him-- er, uh... Mitch-the-***** may be the glue that holds it together...
And the results may influence whether a group in Milwaukee trying to get a mixed-use/soccer stadium built there (using GDP) see their efforts succeed -- as they already have committed local investors, unlike Tulsa...
Oh, and JDB... I couldn't actually afford EE, just the adjacent areas... compare to DESCO, rinse, repeat... anything I left out? [:D]
Dude, all I can remember is a blinding bright light and then things went black.
I'll backtrack in the morning, jdb
I agree with Ruf and have trouble understanding how his point of how much more "multi-use" a soccer stadium can be compared to a baseball field. I think you guys have been drinking to much of that baseball-fueling bong water.
quote:
Originally posted by Kenosha
AutoZone Park in Memphis. Seems like a similar concept...for a AAA team.
Or for a "similar concept" you could just look a bit closer to home... The Bricktown Ballpark was the #3 stadium in the country last year, and has been #1 two years in a row before. It's called "a model" for cities building new parks. Memphis' park has been #1 before too, but it didn't even make the list in '06.
As others have said, the East End really is the most important development going on in Tulsa now. It's really ambitious, well-connected to downtown, and it offers a downtown stadium that can not only be used for baseball but outdoor concerts and even more creative things (such as the giant snow-tubing slide set up in December in the Bricktown Ballpark) to draw people into the East End area and downtown in general.
Also I think the entire proposal is very realistic. It is not over-the-top or sensationalist and I believe it can and will happen- And even if it doesn't get done entirely as planned, I think parts will be completed, like the ballpark and inspire more organic growth in the area. Might take some time for the hotels to be confident enough to open up, but it'll happen. The ballpark is really the key feature of this proposal IMO.
Overall, a baseball stadium in the East End will bring in more revenue than a soccer stadium. Although soccer's popularity is ever-increasing, it doesn't have near the fan-base baseball does. No disrespect to soccer, but baseball is still a more popular spectator sport in the US.
I personally would have liked to see TU build a soccer stadium instead of its "grand entrance" or whatever its called. TU has very prominent men's and women's soccer programs. I would actually have supported eminent domain being used for TU's land acquisition if they were building a large soccer stadium that would serve as a possible NCAA tournament site as well as possible MLS franchise home. After all, the Roughnecks did play at Skelly Stadium.
"Memphis' park has been #1 before too, but it didn't even make the list in '06." - OKC sha
Anything like that of the new car smell?
As the newness wears off, the aromatic pride goes stale?
Guess the trick is to build something that drop's off "The List" slower than the other guy's, eh?
I still haven't changed my mind on the issue of scale.
Ball parks are big, even the little ones, and so are the parking lots that go hand-in-hand with ball parks...and Big belongs elsewhere.
Prediction: '36
Somewhere inside the IDL there will sprout up a area that has gob's of itty bitty shops right next to eachother...and that will be the place to hang.
USR -
I must have missed something...I can't figure out what in the hell your quoting me for.
However, if it helps, I can't afford the EE anymore either.
So much for "organic growh".
Can I buy a vowel for $200,000.00?
quote:
Originally posted by perspicuity85
Overall, a baseball stadium in the East End will bring in more revenue than a soccer stadium.
Can you provide the link to the report where you got this information please?
quote:
Originally posted by jdb
"Memphis' park has been #1 before too, but it didn't even make the list in '06." - OKC sha
Anything like that of the new car smell?
As the newness wears off, the aromatic pride goes stale?
Guess the trick is to build something that drop's off "The List" slower than the other guy's, eh?
I still haven't changed my mind on the issue of scale.
Ball parks are big, even the little ones, and so are the parking lots that go hand-in-hand with ball parks...and Big belongs elsewhere.
Prediction: '36
Somewhere inside the IDL there will sprout up a area that has gob's of itty bitty shops right next to eachother...and that will be the place to hang.
Memphis' stadium was built in 2000, OKC's was built in 1998. Apparently the newness factor isn't all that matters. Also, one of the stadiums ranked ahead of OKC last year was built in 1951.
Sure, stadiums are big, and yes, the place where there are a lot of shops/bars/restaurants is a great place to hang. Why not encourage that area to sprout up by increasing the amount of people who visit downtown with a stadium? You gotta remember that there is no boundary for the urban core.. Pretend the IDL just doesn't exist- you can extend the urban core beyond that. So why not put the ballpark in the center of it all, knowing that you'll never run out of space for urban core until you fill every square mile with dense development.
I just mentioned another benefit of the ballpark- like the arena, it will bring more events to downtown Tulsa. The more people you can draw out of parts of the metro into downtown for something that they want to see, more people that will become familiar with downtown, the more businesses will be confident that downtown has a steady enough flow of patrons, and more people will realize that they want to be a part of the downtown community. Allowing the ballpark to be a catalyst for retail, entertainment, and hotel development (like the arena is becoming) will only intensify the Tulsa renaissance. Sure, the arena is great, but I think you need both downtown to make a really big splash.
I don't think the East End will be successful without the ballpark, or in any case it will take much longer to attract tenants without it.
quote:
Originally posted by jdb
USR -
I must have missed something...I can't figure out what in the hell your quoting me for.
However, if it helps, I can't afford the EE anymore either.
So much for "organic growh".
Can I buy a vowel for $200,000.00?
Sorry, jdb-- thought you were going to respond in full to my post on pg.3...
Spent New Years' Eve at Blue Dome & Brady...
And I hafta say the BA expressway is a straight shot to this mythical "East End" and is very accessible to the proposed location of the stadium... who'd want to live that close to the highway, anyway...???
Perspi-- the question is not between the current popularity of baseball and soccer... if this were between a Major League Baseball team and a Major League Soccer team coming to Tulsa, it'd be no contest... baseball is a more popular spectator sport. This is between AA-Texas League baseball and Major League Soccer... ask the folks in Frisco, TX which means more and brings in more $$$ to their city... the Texas League's Frisco Roughriders at Dr Pepper Ballpark or MLS's FC Dallas at Pizza Hut Park... and guess which stadium hosts more varied events...
I need to go out and consume massive quantities of beer... so somebody please compare the history of minor league baseball in OKC and Memphis to the history of minor league baseball in Tulsa........ then compare the history of soccer in Tulsa to the history of soccer in OKC and Memphis.... [;)]
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
quote:
Originally posted by jdb
USR -
I must have missed something...I can't figure out what in the hell your quoting me for.
However, if it helps, I can't afford the EE anymore either.
So much for "organic growh".
Can I buy a vowel for $200,000.00?
Sorry, jdb-- thought you were going to respond in full to my post on pg.3...
Spent New Years' Eve at Blue Dome & Brady...
And I hafta say the BA expressway is a straight shot to this mythical "East End" and is very accessible to the proposed location of the stadium... who'd want to live that close to the highway, anyway...???
I live within two blocks of 51 and I can barely hear it. Tracy Park sits just east of 75 and is still a very desirable place to live. I don't think having close access to a highway is a deterrent to quality living. The current downside to living close to the core is the dearth of grocery, dry cleaning, shops etc to fill everyday needs. We do have a downtown tag agency now though.
The point I was trying to make was that the proposed ballpark's location is a prime spot for a stadium but not-so-prime for residential.
Put the stadium/parking next to hwy 75/51, the mixed-use/retail next to that... then the residential a block or so to the west...
I didn't mean to imply that "having close access to a highway is a deterrent to quality living." I used to live in a studio apt located within half a block of the "el" train on the northside of Chicago. Within 2 weeks of moving in, I hardly noticed the noise of the redline trains going north/southbound every 7-10 mins... and down the block from me was a gut-rehab brownstone with 2 bdr condos selling for $275,000 a pop.
(I think this is AOX's cue to chime in with "We are NOT Chicago.")
So, if the east end project comes to fruition, I couldn't afford to live in one of GDP's condos. But if the project attracted a grocery store/dry cleaners/retail, guess who'd try to find/rent/buy a place within walking distance in a more "organic" area (Blue Dome or Brady) a few blocks away?
So, within the next 2-3 years (just moved to Tulsa end of October), I could be your new neighbor, the soccer-crackpot who lives on "the other side of the tracks"... [:D]
quote:
Originally posted by Chris
I agree with Ruf and have trouble understanding how his point of how much more "multi-use" a soccer stadium can be compared to a baseball field. I think you guys have been drinking to much of that baseball-fueling bong water.
First, get your own line.
Second (and for the umpteenth time), a baseball stadium is more multi-use than a soccer field based on the dimension of the field. You can fit a football or soccer field into a baseball stadium, but you can't fit a baseball field in a soccer pitch, unless one entire side of the stands is retractable or temporary.
I've said this to Ruf several times, but he either doesn't believe me or ignores it -- I'd love to see Tulsa land a MLS franchise. It would be great for the city and I believe we'd support it here. I just think a soccer-specific facility would be best built outside of downtown with a couple dozen soccer fields built around it for youth soccer. Studies have shown that there is demand for those fields, and it would be a great fit. And if something should ever happen to the pro team, we'd still be able to use the whole complex. If it were built downtown and the team moved or the league folded, we'd have a 20,000 seat stadium with no tenant creating this huge hole in downtown.
Building a baseball stadium downtown is a no-brainer. It's a model that has worked countless times across the country. Baseball and downtowns just go together -- good weather for strolling around, no tailgating tradition like football/soccer, ballpark architecture "fits" well. Tulsa has a 100 year history of supporting minor league baseball. The Drillers have solid, consistent support to the tune of over 300k fans a year. Minor league baseball has about 70 home games a year compared with 20 for MLS, which is better for businesses around the stadium. If anything happened to the Drillers franchise, Tulsa would get another one (which is what actually happened just a few years ago), so the fear of having a tenant-less stadium creating a hole in downtown is next to nil.
A new stadium for the Drillers downtown makes a lot more sense on almost every level. Plus the small fact that we already HAVE a team, one that is playing in the second oldest stadium in the Texas League. Drillers Stadium is only 25 years old, but they've maxed out what they can do there without completely rebuilding the park -- and there wouldn't be enough land at the current site to do what they wanted anyway. So the opportunity and the need is already present, just a matter of making it happen and enjoying baseball in beautiful downtown Tulsa again. [:)]
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
The point I was trying to make was that the proposed ballpark's location is a prime spot for a stadium but not-so-prime for residential.
Put the stadium/parking next to hwy 75/51, the mixed-use/retail next to that... then the residential a block or so to the west...
I didn't mean to imply that "having close access to a highway is a deterrent to quality living." I used to live in a studio apt located within half a block of the "el" train on the northside of Chicago. Within 2 weeks of moving in, I hardly noticed the noise of the redline trains going north/southbound every 7-10 mins... and down the block from me was a gut-rehab brownstone with 2 bdr condos selling for $275,000 a pop.
(I think this is AOX's que to chime in with "We are NOT Chicago.")
So, if the east end project comes to fruition, I couldn't afford to live in one of GDP's condos. But if the project attracted a grocery store/dry cleaners/retail, guess who'd try to find/rent/buy a place within walking distance in a more "organic" area (Blue Dome or Brady) a few blocks away?
So, within the next 2-3 years (just moved to Tulsa end of October), I could be your new neighbor, the soccer-crackpot who lives on "the other side of the tracks"... [:D]
Good post.
The site they're talking about for the ballpark is just about perfect for a stadium. Great street and expressway access, high visibility, no need to close streets to assemble a big enough parcel of land (GDP would actually ADD streets), close to existing entertainment but not right on top of it, just the right distance from the downtown core (5 blocks). That site is tailor-made for a ballpark.
quote:
Originally posted by okiebybirth
quote:
Originally posted by perspicuity85
Overall, a baseball stadium in the East End will bring in more revenue than a soccer stadium.
Can you provide the link to the report where you got this information please?
I think it's pretty obvious. As others have pointed out, MLS requires their teams to have a soccer-specific stadium. This limits the stadium's sports revenue to soccer only.
Second of all, Tulsa currently has a minor-league baseball team, but does not have a pro soccer team. If the stadium was finished today, the Drillers could move in tomorrow. Even if Tulsa had a soccer stadium, an MLS franchise may not come to town for years.
Third, national attendance and TV viewing for baseball is much higher than soccer. I think we can all deductively say that without any in-depth study. I know Tulsa has a lot of soccer fans, but I doubt the demand for pro soccer is as high as pro baseball. Tulsa has had minor league baseball in some form for almost 100 years. We've also hosted an OU/OSU game in Tulsa for as long as I can remember.
We have to look at what benefits a baseball stadium in the East End can provide. The Tulsa Drillers
already average about 5,000 a game according to this site: http://www.ballparkwatch.com/features/attendance_by_average_affiliated_2006.html
After a Drillers game is over, these 5,000 people simply get in their cars and drive home. Drillers Stadium is surrounded by neighborhoods, Walgreens', Sears, and the fairgrounds. If the ballpark were in a dense, urban environment such as the East End, there would be 5,000 guaranteed potential customers to nearby shops, restaurants, and bars.
"After a Drillers game is over, these 5,000 people simply get in their cars and drive home. Drillers Stadium is surrounded by neighborhoods, Walgreens', Sears, and the fairgrounds. If the ballpark were in a dense, urban environment such as the East End, there would be 5,000 guaranteed potential customers to nearby shops, restaurants, and bars."
I doubt it perpsqueak...
quote:
Originally posted by aoxamaxoa
"After a Drillers game is over, these 5,000 people simply get in their cars and drive home. Drillers Stadium is surrounded by neighborhoods, Walgreens', Sears, and the fairgrounds. If the ballpark were in a dense, urban environment such as the East End, there would be 5,000 guaranteed potential customers to nearby shops, restaurants, and bars."
I doubt it perpsqueak...
How can you doubt the fact that these 5,000 people are
potential customers to businesses within walking distance?
You left out your guarantee!
quote:
Originally posted by aoxamaxoa
You left out your guarantee!
What I originally said was that they were "guaranteed potential customers." I was guaranteeing that the 5,000 people would be potential customers.
Oh good lord lol.
quote:
Originally posted by perspicuity85
Third, national attendance and TV viewing for baseball is much higher than soccer. I think we can all deductively say that without any in-depth study. I know Tulsa has a lot of soccer fans, but I doubt the demand for pro soccer is as high as pro baseball. Tulsa has had minor league baseball in some form for almost 100 years. We've also hosted an OU/OSU game in Tulsa for as long as I can remember.
I'm trying to remember the last time I saw a nationally televised Drillers game. Maybe I'm too young to remember it? Saying a minor league team from the Texas League with 5,000 fans a game is obviously going to be bring in more revenue than a MLS professional soccer team where 15,000 or more a game is a definite probability isn't something you can throw out there and expect everyone to swallow hook, line and sinker. And what about the benefits of television exposure? Where are all those baseball games in Tulsa on television? I can deductively say that you'd see more soccer games of a Tulsa MLS team on television than you'll ever see of a minor league Driller's game. You're deductions are lacking in that area obviously. If you want to present something as fact, back it up.
I'm not knocking the Drillers because they are a important part of this city's history, but don't go throwing out statements you can't back up.
Is it possible to talk about east end development without devolving always into arguments about soccer and baseball? (Note: I go to minor league baseball games about once/decade. Last time I went to see major league soccer was in 1977.) (Though I did eat at Charlie Mitchell's until it closed...) (Perhaps instead of a sports venue, we just need good bar/restaurants owned by former athletes...)
Such divisiveness!
Soccer/baseball, farmer/cattleman, ballet/pole dancing.
The future is petanque!
http://www.petanque.org/
quote:
Originally posted by okiebybirth
quote:
Originally posted by perspicuity85
Third, national attendance and TV viewing for baseball is much higher than soccer. I think we can all deductively say that without any in-depth study. I know Tulsa has a lot of soccer fans, but I doubt the demand for pro soccer is as high as pro baseball. Tulsa has had minor league baseball in some form for almost 100 years. We've also hosted an OU/OSU game in Tulsa for as long as I can remember.
I'm trying to remember the last time I saw a nationally televised Drillers game. Maybe I'm too young to remember it? Saying a minor league team from the Texas League with 5,000 fans a game is obviously going to be bring in more revenue than a MLS professional soccer team where 15,000 or more a game is a definite probability isn't something you can throw out there and expect everyone to swallow hook, line and sinker. And what about the benefits of television exposure? Where are all those baseball games in Tulsa on television? I can deductively say that you'd see more soccer games of a Tulsa MLS team on television than you'll ever see of a minor league Driller's game. You're deductions are lacking in that area obviously. If you want to present something as fact, back it up.
I'm not knocking the Drillers because they are a important part of this city's history, but don't go throwing out statements you can't back up.
I never said the Drillers were ever or ever will be on television. What I did say is that more people follow baseball than soccer. Based on the fact that the major TV networks broadcast baseball games during prime-time viewing hours instead of soccer games, I can deduct that there is more of an interest in watching baseball than soccer. No, I do not have the acutal TV ratings numbers for soccer and baseball games, but why else would ESPN and ABC be covering MLB, and ESPN2 be covering soccer at the same time?
You also missed my other point, which was the fact that there may
never be an MLS team in Tulsa. We aren't building the arena just gambling on the possibility of an NBA or NHL team coming to Tulsa, we built it as a multi-use facility. MLS stadiums can be used for
soccer only. Right now we have a proven product in the Tulsa Drillers that can occupy a brand new baseball stadium immediately after it's built. Yes, I do agree that a MLS team would generate much greater average attendance than the Drillers, but to say we will ever get an MLS team is pure speculation. Right now in Tulsa, a baseball stadium is a much more secure investment than a soccer stadium. Instead of television exposure and revenue generated from 15,000 fans, one could conceivably get absolutely nothing if an MLS team didn't come to Tulsa.
I would love to see MLS in Tulsa, but building a facility that can only be used to house a team that we may never actually get is simply a bad investment. If there was any evidence that Tulsa was being
seriously considered for an MLS franchise, I would agree with you.
quote:
Originally posted by perspicuity85
I never said the Drillers were ever or ever will be on television. What I did say is that more people follow baseball than soccer.
People do follow baseball more than soccer, but we aren't comparing MLB to MLS here in Tulsa. We are comparing Texas minor league baseball to MLS and the economics behind both.
quote:
You also missed my other point, which was the fact that there may never be an MLS team in Tulsa.
You are catching this discussion in the middle. TulsaNow had on their main page an argument about
funding a downtown soccer stadium when there was a discussion about GDP using a soccer stadium as the center for the East End. At that time, a MLS team was very much in the works. As it stands, I'm in favor of a baseball field downtown since a MLS team is nowhere in sight, but the NIMBY comments when it was going to be a soccer stadium still leaves a bad taste in the mouth.
quote:
MLS stadiums can be used for soccer only.
That statement is simply not true.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
Not trying to be anti-soccer here...
Your argument is that The Tulsa soccer team drew bigger crowds than the Tulsa minor league baseball team.
For argument sake, your attendence figures are for a team that played over 20 years ago. Everything in the world has changed in that time.
They only played 15 home games a year. If they averaged 20,000 fans per game, they would be equal to the 300,000 the Drillers do.
I would love a multi-use stadium and I am sure the Drillers owuld play in one.
But the NASL soccer league demands the stadium be soccer only and that makes a proven commodity like baseball to be preferred by me.
Maybe recycle is flat out wrong about the soccer-only thing. He did mention the NASL and not the MLS. However, I have read other on-line articles that mention the requirement of a soccer-specific stadium, like this one: http://www.ussoccerplayers.com/rno/city082003.html
quote:
Originally posted by okiebybirth
People do follow baseball more than soccer, but we aren't comparing MLB to MLS here in Tulsa. We are comparing Texas minor league baseball to MLS and the economics behind both.
Quote
You are catching this discussion in the middle. TulsaNow had on their main page an argument about funding a downtown soccer stadium when there was a discussion about GDP using a soccer stadium as the center for the East End. At that time, a MLS team was very much in the works. As it stands, I'm in favor of a baseball field downtown since a MLS team is nowhere in sight, but the NIMBY comments when it was going to be a soccer stadium still leaves a bad taste in the mouth.
Like you said, currently a MLS team is nowhere in sight. That is why it would today be a poor investment to build a soccer stadium over a baseball stadium. That was what my point was about the economic factors, you can't invest in something because it should have happened.
quote:
Originally posted by perspicuity85
Maybe recycle is flat out wrong about the soccer-only thing. He did mention the NASL and not the MLS. However, I have read other on-line articles that mention the requirement of a soccer-specific stadium, like this one: http://www.ussoccerplayers.com/rno/city082003.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soccer-specific_stadium
"Soccer-specific stadium (SSS) is a term used mainly in the United States and Canada. It was coined by Lamar Hunt to refer to a sports stadium whose primary (but not only) purpose is to host soccer matches. An SSS may host other events such as other sporting events (mostly lacrosse and gridiron football), drum and bugle corps competitions, and concerts, but the design and purpose of an SSS is centered on soccer.
Still, these facilities often face criticism from fans in that they tend to be optimized for staging concerts, often resulting in one section of the stadium behind a goal having very few seats, if any. Instead, a berm or other feature is created where concert stages could be placed without destroying the main field."This is getting silly;
Driller Park is a BASEBALL-specific stadium... the ballparks in OKC and Memphis and Indianapolis, et al, as well as any double-A ballpark to be located in the "East End" would also be "BASEBALL specific"...
When "soccer-specific" PaeTec Park was constructed last year in Rochester, NY; Frontier Field (the home of Rochester's AAA ballclub) went from being "multi-purpose" to BASEBALL ONLY. The lacrosse team moved to PaeTec, the drum and bugle corps contests moved to PaeTec and any number of other events also moved there...
Heck, add about 8,000 seats to the visitors stands at the new Wantland Field down the turnpike in Edmond and PRESTO, CHANGE-O... Edmond will have Oklahoma's first/only "soccer specific" stadium...
Think of ANY stadium deal proposed with Major League Soccer in mind as alot like Vision 2025 and Boeing; simply put, no 20,000 seat "soccer specific" stadium will be built anywhere in the USA unless MLS agrees to house a team there; the same has always been true for Tulsa... if memory serves, the 1997 Tulsa Project only provided for a half-baked 5,000 seat soccer/track&field facility that would NOT have landed an MLS team...
quote:
Originally posted by AVERAGE JOE
Good post.
--Ruf rolls over, let's AJ scratch behind his ears, and offers AJ his favorite chewy toy--Or maybe not.
quote:
Originally posted by AVERAGE JOE
quote:
Originally posted by Chris
I agree with Ruf and have trouble understanding how his point of how much more "multi-use" a soccer stadium can be compared to a baseball field. I think you guys have been drinking to much of that baseball-fueling bong water.
First, get your own line.
Why should he? You've had no problems ripping off my lines.
quote:
Second (and for the umpteenth time), a baseball stadium is more multi-use than a soccer field based on the dimension of the field. You can fit a football or soccer field into a baseball stadium, but you can't fit a baseball field in a soccer pitch, unless one entire side of the stands is retractable or temporary.
And again (for the umpteenth time), just because a baseball field can technically be set up for football/soccer doesn't mean it's going to be used for those sports... minor league ballparks are HORRIBLE venues for football and soccer. Best seats for baseball are the WORST seats for ALL other sports.... Midland, TX has a AA ballpark a block from a 15,000 seat football/soccer stadium that looks much like the 20k "soccer specific" stadium that had been proposed last year by Global...
http://www.midlandtexas.gov/departments/parks_recre/sportscomplex.html
(http://www.midlandtexas.gov/images/sports_complex/pic03.jpg)(http://www.midlandtexas.gov/images/sports_complex/pic02.jpg)
Please read the calendar of events below and tell me which of the two stadiums in Midland, TX is more "multi-use"http://www.midlandtexas.gov/departments/parks_recre/pdf/events_2006-2007.pdf
quote:
I've said this to Ruf several times, but he either doesn't believe me or ignores it -- I'd love to see Tulsa land a MLS franchise. It would be great for the city and I believe we'd support it here. I just think a soccer-specific facility would be best built outside of downtown with a couple dozen soccer fields built around it for youth soccer. Studies have shown that there is demand for those fields, and it would be a great fit.
With friends like you, who needs enemas...
You keep putting any proposal for soccer in a neat little box... Tulsa's $200,000 feasability study by Conventions, Sports & Leisure from 2002 mentioned TWO feasable options for a RECOMENDED soccer stadium; one downtown w/o the fields and one in southeast Tulsa WITH the youth fields....
Those youth fields are now being constructed using funds from the Third Penny.... and they're going to be around Mohawk Park. I don't know ANYONE who thinks a 20,000 seat stadium next to the soccer complex at Mohawk would be a good fit over a more accessible downtown location....(with the possible exceptions of you and the anti-soccer Tulsa Now board member who used a Mohawk Park location as a red herring while he misleadingly signed on using "Admin" and "TulsaNow" as his own personal sockpuppets)
quote:
And if something should ever happen to the pro team, we'd still be able to use the whole complex. If it were built downtown and the team moved or the league folded, we'd have a 20,000 seat stadium with no tenant creating this huge hole in downtown.
Hey, great behind the curve thinking there... the soccer stadium would be used for football and would be much more appropriate for state playoffs than an 8,000 seat ballpark. BUT GOD FORBID TULSA EVER TAKE ANY CHANCES... no risk = no reward. Soccer is here to stay. If MLS died, USL-1 would take its place... and USL-1 already has soccer stadiums for its teams in Charleston, SC; Rochester, NY; Atlanta; construction of one in Montreal; another proposed for downtown Vancouver...
http://www.uslsoccer.com/
quote:
Building a baseball stadium downtown is a no-brainer.
Got that right... it's for people who have no brains... and no vision. All you're doing is robbing one area to provide for another... a big tax shell game. And it cements Tulsa as a minor league city that is ten years behind OKC and Memphis. Those cities have "baseball histories" far superior to that of Tulsa.
quote:
It's a model that has worked countless times across the country. Baseball and downtowns just go together -- good weather for strolling around, no tailgating tradition like football/soccer, ballpark architecture "fits" well.
Please give an example of a downtown mixed-use project with 40 acres for housing/retail/entertainment next door to a minor-league ballpark.... because the OKC and Memphis ballparks are in entertainment areas only and do not have 800 units of residential proposed in the same project...
quote:
Tulsa has a 100 year history of supporting minor league baseball.... BLAH BLAH BLAH...
Tulsa baseball has a history of MEDIOCRITY.... period. Nothing special or unique. End of story.
During its years in the North American Soccer League..... the city of Tulsa had HIGHER PER CAPITA SUPPORT FOR PRO SOCCER THAN ANY OTHER CITY IN AMERICA.
Tulsa and Memphis both joined the NASL in 1978... by 1979 and 1980, Tulsa had drawn more than double the number of fans per game over Memphis...
http://www.kenn.com/sports/soccer/nasl/index.html
quote:
A new stadium for the Drillers downtown makes a lot more sense on almost every level.
ABSOLUTELY NOT.
I had friends from Chicago come in.... ooh, can't wait to take them to a double-A downtown ballpark to watch Tulsa play Springfield or Midland... oh, pinch me... wait, is that urine I smell downtown, or is it Average Joe
marking his territory?
Geez. Tulsa versus New York downtown... Tulsa versus Chicago downtown... Tulsa versus Dallas, Tulsa versus Houston, Tulsa versus DC United, MLS All-star game from Tulsa, etc... a downtown soccer stadium would be SUPERIOR in many ways over a behind-the-times minor league ballpark. A soccer stadium is MUCH more appropriate as a compliment for an eclectic area that would fill in around it..... tried to find a baseball shirt at McNellie's but they didn't have any..... did get a soccer jersey with a McNellie's logo/soccer ball though... [:P]
And Major League Soccer would attract many more fans from outside Tulsa than the Drillers would... minor league baseball is casual entertainment-- who would travel more than an hour to go see AA baseball? I went to a few Indianapolis Indians games at Victory Field-- I couldn't tell you who won, and I didn't care who was in first place or if the club was having a good year... just pass the nachos...
Media exposure/coverage. Minor league baseball has next to none. Out of town media will broadcast from downtown Tulsa. And Tulsa has a local gem in Winnercomm... http://www.winnercomm.com/2006/
quote:
Major League Soccer
When Major League Soccer took to the pitch for the first time in 1996, Winnercomm was there. Every MLS telecast that has aired on ABC Sports, ESPN and ESPN2 has been a Winnercomm production. The personnel, the facilities, the graphics – all from the company that has produced more televised soccer than anyone since 1997. From the first play of the match to the final whistle, no one knows how to present soccer on television better than Winnercomm.
And we may no longer be talking about just American media.... after today's news, the Euro press will be here covering the sport... that could have been great exposure for downtown Tulsa... and McNellies, while we're at it...
http://sports.yahoo.com/sow/news?slug=reu-beckhamdc&prov=reuters&type=lgns
Let's see... which would have more of a positive impact on downtown Tulsa? A game featuring the Los Angeles Galaxy with David Beckham or yet another game between the Drillers and the Springfield Cardinals...
And it was WE SOCCER FANS who attracted Global Development Partners to Tulsa in the first place. If Tulsa had only drawn 9000 fans for that 2003 MLS exhibition game rather than the 14,000, guess what? Global probably wouldn't have shown any interest in Tulsa... and what if Tulsa hadn't had a detailed feasibility study available to Global that could be compared to about a dozen other cities?
Well, WE SOCCER FANS did pretty good on the study too... so why the H-E-double-hockey-sticks do you, AJ, think you're so smart as to tell Global Development Partners what to do? Global doesn't do suburban soccer theme parks... their resume includes urban mixed use... and their original plan for the soccer stadium/mixed use could have been truly special.... if only the locals decided to fully own a team rather than rely on Global to buy it for them...
Instead of spending duplicate millions to hire Bing Thom, (for both The Channels and the Kaiser Foundation) money could be better spent hiring this guy to be an advocate for Tulsa's MLS hopes...
Peter Wilt
http://www.90soccer.com/news/200506160005.shtml
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
quote:
Originally posted by AVERAGE JOE
Good post.
--Ruf rolls over, let's AJ scratch behind his ears, and offers AJ his favorite chewy toy--
Or maybe not.
It's a shame you can't take a sincere compliment. Not my problem though.
Ruf, your posts get longer, more rambling, and in some ways more deranged with each one you make. Seriously, don't go giving yourself a stroke over this. We disagree over a soccer-stadium, buddy. This ain't life and death.
You wanted us to take the high risk plan. I didn't. I think in the grand scheme of things, a baseball park is a better fit for downtown. You don't. You aren't fond of the suburban, multi-field complex. I think it's a good fit for Tulsa.
Neither one of us is wrong. There is no one right answer.
However, I seem to be enjoying the spirited debate more than you. No need to come apart at the seams. Hell, if I ever met ya, I'd buy you a beverage and give you grief in person, too. We're too good at it not to spar. [:D]
Average Joe-- if I'm interpreting your posts correctly, I'd say you're on the same page I am. If a deal was in place with MLS to put a soccer franchise in Tulsa, I'd vote for the soccer stadium over the baseball stadium every time. MLS is definitely the most-likely major league to present itself in Tulsa, and it would do wonders for that Tulsa marketing I so frequently post about. But before people will invest in a soccer stadium, we'll need a real commitment from MLS and a combination of corporate and community support. I would love to see Tulsa-based companies like Nordam, SemGroup, and QuikTrip get involved and really push the issue with MLS. Just because it wasn't a secure enough investment to build a soccer stadium in the East End doesn't mean this is a dead issue.
quote:
Originally posted by AVERAGE JOE
It's a shame you can't take a sincere compliment. Not my problem though.
Ruf, your posts get longer, more rambling, and in some ways more deranged with each one you make. Seriously, don't go giving yourself a stroke over this. We disagree over a soccer-stadium, buddy. This ain't life and death.
There you go again... you offer a
"sincere complement" when it suits your downtown baseball stadium agenda. Then, you refuse to address the numerous points I've made refuting your opinion that
"a new stadium for the Drillers downtown makes a lot more sense on almost every level." "Rambing?" "Deranged?"
Could you be a little more condescending?
quote:
You wanted us to take the high risk plan. I didn't. I think in the grand scheme of things, a baseball park is a better fit for downtown. You don't. You aren't fond of the suburban, multi-field complex. I think it's a good fit for Tulsa.
You just can't stop resorting to your little giftbag of half truths on this subject and have been doing so for months and months. But I guess it's okay... nobody can call you on it since all responses to threads over 2 months old have been systematically deleted from this forum.
If somebody came up with a great idea for a suburban/multi-field complex that wouldn't involve new regressive sales taxes on working Tulsans to build it, I'd LOVE to see the plans for something like that. Sounds like a job for DESCO or Wal-Mart... or Heavenly Hospitality...
But the Third Penny tax has already provided the funding for a new multi-field complex by Mohawk Park. If you'd like to start arguing for a taxpayer funded soccer stadium at Mohawk Park, be my guest... just don't expect me to fall for it, though. That'd be a cheap ploy.
quote:
Neither one of us is wrong. There is no one right answer.
That's mighty white of ya'.
You consistently post your opinions on this subject as if they were fact. I post my strong opinions understanding they may be unconventional and make sure those opinions have a steady stream of facts to back them up.
quote:
However, I seem to be enjoying the spirited debate more than you. No need to come apart at the seams. Hell, if I ever met ya, I'd buy you a beverage and give you grief in person, too. We're too good at it not to spar. [:D]
Far too many people (incl. AJ) took a big 'ol smelly dump on this very same project last year when it contained a stadium for soccer that would've had a concert stage on one end...
Sorry, perspi... Joe's position has always been in favor of either a baseball stadium or no stadium at all in the East End over any prospects of MLS soccer ever being played there... even if it meant losing the entire project. In his argument FOR a soccer stadium/youth field complex (if you can call it that), he knows full well that the city's already building the recommended youth soccer complex next to Mohawk and that starting over for a suburban style soccer stadium/youth complex development would set back any chances Tulsa had for Major League Soccer a good 5-10 years.
Sad, but true.
Truth and opinion make for good debate... half-truth and hyperbole do not.
Ruf... I guess you can't tell by my position on a Soccer field Downtown... but I actually grew up in Countries where that was the primary sport..
My opinion of a Baseball field over a Soccer field has nothing to do with the sport. It has everything to do with the culture that either would create.
You will definitely have a response that shows how foolish this opinion is to have... so fire away.
p.s. I have seen a few things lately that have given me cause to rethink the whole Soccer idea.
(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y179/rico2/soccerthis.jpg)
Gives an entirely different meaning to the phrase "Soccer Mom"...
First off, i admit to being a lurking troll on this thread. Can't keep up with it. But it bears repeating over and over. Tulsa needs to think of the next generations of users. Not so much the current.
Casual observance of what sports kids are playing now, watching on tv, playing on Nintendo and arguing over shows that baseball trails the pack. They are obsessing over football, basketball, soccer and extreme sports. This is just reality. And this is the generation arriving with money in their pockets, passion for their sports and fueling a curious move to embrace inner city lifestyles. The opposite of their suburban childhoods.
Look for example at the growth of churches in the last decade. They built youth oriented multi-use sport centers to keep families coming back. They didn't build based on their love of gothic styled religion that they grew up with but what was going to be their future. It's working just fine. Those churces who spent their money serving the needs of their aging members have not done so well. Now please, I'm talking successful marketing here, not the mission of religion!
We have a baseball stadium that works just fine. Set personal feuds aside. We have an opportunity to build something downtown that is more useful than a baseball diamond for the next generation or we could keep playing the same game and just keep moving current players around the chess board.
I bet you can guess my choice on that. Now, back to your regular programming....
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y179/rico2/soccerthis.jpg ........Right click... printing is started.... 35%... 55%... 85%... 99%... printing complete.... set as desktop item... [;)]
Actually Rico, I thought your opinion was that no stadium should be built in the Blue Dome area at all... you argued last year that it would turn downtown Tulsa into one big "sports complex." Back in December 2005, this was "Tubby's soccer stadium." Since this project pre-dates Mayor Taylor, the current plans for the East End can just as easily be characterized as "Tubby's baseball stadium."
I guessed you to be either first or second generation hispanic, but wouldn't venture to assume where you grew up. From what you say, I'm guessing you did not grow up in Venezuela, Nicaragua, Puerto Rico, Dom. Repub. or Cuba...
Everyone's entitled to their opinions, especially me. [:P] But I distinctly remember a very honest question you asked last year which I will now paraphrase since I can't look up your original post:
"How many people will pay $200,000 to buy condos down the street from a stadium?"
I am curious to find out what you mean when you say: "My opinion of a Baseball field over a Soccer field has nothing to do with the sport. It has everything to do with the culture that either would create."
Please explain the differences between minor-league baseball "culture" and major league soccer "culture" and what each culture would "create."
Since Ruf can't take anything I post any way but personally, I'll just address everyone else and let him do this thing. I'll also be more brief than him.
Nobody is talking about sales taxes, 3rd penny or otherwise, for a soccer complex. This is a favorite tactic of his -- crap on an idea by introducing something unpopular like a sales tax, but he's the only one saying it.
As far as deleting threads, I haven't seen any of that. All our back-and-forth crap is still out there last I checked.
Heaven forbid someone look at a soccer-stadium/housing project and decide it's too risky, but that a similar project with a baseball park for the anchor is a better fit for Tulsa. You'll be accused of "half-truths" and other unpleasant things.
Back to the ORIGINAL point of this thread, I hope that GDP pulls this off in the near future. I think the Drillers would be very successful downtown for decades to come.
I don't take it personally... you're the one who got your panties in a wad last summer when I implied you'd be more likely to support a stand-alone baseball park financed by local sales taxes over Global's proposed soccer stadium/mixed-use TIF project for the East Village/East End...
Let me jog your memory on the 3rd penny...
http://www.ktul.com/news/stories/0406/322273.html
quote:
So, here's the plan. It calls for a 3-point-8 million dollar soccer complex near 56th Street North and Highway 75. The city is in negotiations to purchase 75 acres.
Some of the money would come from Vision 2025 dollars and the remainder from the third penny sales tax extension. The soccer complex would be the largest one around.
"The magic number is 16," says Greg Warren with Tulsa Parks. "16 is the number when you're looking for a national tourney. They come to look for a soccer complex of 16 or more. We'd like to get 32, but right now we're focusing on 16."
There are additional plans that call for a new motorcross trail and a skate park. But, the news is the soccer complex -- one that's much larger than the ones now.
The 3rd penny tax extension passed last spring...
You had no problems a year ago diverting a thread from discussing a reasonable project initially proposed for a mixed-use/soccer stadium to discussions about baseball......
http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2680
(unless my computer's messing up, it looks like all the responses to that thread have been deleted)
Gee, AJ... ain't payback a bee-ahtch! [:O]
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
I don't take it personally... you're the one who got your panties in a wad last summer when I implied you'd be more likely to support a stand-alone baseball park financed by local sales taxes over Global's proposed soccer stadium/mixed-use TIF project for the East Village/East End...
My panties were in a wad because you falsely attributed a position to me. Not to mention that your implication was wrong - I was not and AM NOT in favor of what you outlined above.
And true to form, the first time that idea saw the light of day, it came from you... but you attributed it as my position. That's dirty pool, and THAT'S what set me off.
I understand you will NEVER admit to that position.
But I still believe it's true.
I believe to this day that you'd support a baseball stadium funded by sales taxes in the "East End" over ANY possible TIF for a multi-use/soccer stadium there, including the mixed-use/retail/residential development itself...
Just like when Rico suggested Mohawk Park as an alternative location for a soccer stadium, I countered with the fact that any such stadium would need to be financed by sales taxes...
It's called "calling your bluff."
Methinks the ladies...... [:O]
And after all the off-the-wall justifications I've read from you over the course of months comparing a 20,000 soccer/football stadium to the friggin' 100,000 seat Rose Bowl or Soldier Field..... then comparing a minor league ballpark to Wrigley Field, then suggesting a minor league ballpark could be multi-use, just like the Arizona Cardinals multi-use stadium???
The Drillers just CAN'T prefer a location on the river!.... cuz you said so.... and a stadium with MLS as the primary tenant can't possibly succeed in the East End and needs to be built next to a couple of dozen youth soccer fields... because you said so...
80% of the investment is in the mixed-use/retail/residential East End... yet last year this was ALL about soccer... a huge referendum on what should have been a minor part of a larger project that would have brought MLS to Tulsa......
The last offer for hockey's Pittsburgh Penguins was $175 million.... as well as an additional $290 million to build the Penguins a new arena... a Tulsa MLS team woulda cost less than ONE-TENTH that ($10 million in 2002... $15 million in 2005)...... the new arena will cost around $150 million.... the stadium that was originally part of Global's plans woulda cost half that...
Yeah, vision????? If any of Tulsa's downtown urban activists ever showed anything that remotely resembled vision for downtown Tulsa, I'd be shocked.
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
I understand you will NEVER admit to that position.
But I still believe it's true.
You can believe whatever you want up to and including the Easter Bunny.
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
I believe to this day that you'd support a baseball stadium funded by sales taxes in the "East End" over ANY possible TIF for a multi-use/soccer stadium there, including the mixed-use/retail/residential development itself...
You are wrong.
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
It's called "calling your bluff."
It's call a load of bullschmidt.
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
The Drillers just CAN'T prefer a location on the river!.... cuz you said so.... and a stadium with MLS as the primary tenant can't possibly succeed in the East End and needs to be built next to a couple of dozen youth soccer fields... because you said so...
OH MY GOD, STOP THE PRESSES -- I HAD AN OPINION!! Holy crap, that's never happened in the entire history of the internet. Gee, so friggin' sorry my opinions don't fall lockstep with yours. How on earth do you get through the day? All that whining must be what gets you through.
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
And after all the off-the-wall justifications I've read from you over the course of months comparing a 20,000 soccer/football stadium to the friggin' 100,000 seat Rose Bowl or Soldier Field..... then comparing a minor league ballpark to Wrigley Field, then suggesting a minor league ballpark could be multi-use, just like the Arizona Cardinals multi-use stadium???
There you go AGAIN! Those are NOT my positions. QUIT MISREPRESENTING MY POSITION, you f*cking liar. Liar, liar, liar, filthy, stinking, pondscum sucking LIAR.
I just did a search of the forum for my username and Rose Bowl, Soldier Field, Wrigley Field and Arizona Cardinals between 1/1/2003 and today AND GOT NO MATCHING RESULTS FOR ANY OF THOSE COMBINATIONS. YOU ARE A FILTHY LIAR.
Why would I compare a 20,000 soccer stadium to the Rose Bowl or Solider Field?? That doesn't make sense. Wait, I didn't say that.
YOU DID and attributed it as my position YOU PATHETIC LIAR.
And of course a minor league ballpark is NOT Wrigley Field. Nobody is that stupid, so that's a lousy lie even for a pathological LIAR like yourself.
And the Arizona Cardinals stadium wasn't even OPEN when we had our debates. I NEVER compared a minor league baseball park to the Arizona Cardinals new stadium. LIAR LIAR
LIAR.
You are beyond unethical at this point. You've reached total slime level with this crap. Quit lying and attributing made-up positions to your opponents. That's beyond pathetic. You have no honor, no shame, no integrity. Engage in an honest debate or get out of here.
The site admins will be getting a private message about you and your antics. You've crossed the line.
Yawn.
I challenge the administrators of this site to find the very first post you made WITHIN MINUTES of a sticky thread condemning the original mixed-use/stadium plan for 40 acres of development and 20 acres for stadium.... the original thread that pretended to be the views of TulsaNow...
Those responses have all been erased... and you know it.
Very first post.... you were the first to play your little game... that's where TulsaNow the organization will find how you connected a 20k capacity soccer stadium to the friggin' Rose Bowl... and although you didn't bring up the comparison of the Arizona Cardinals' stadium to a possible East Village stadium... you completely agreed with/pushed the comparison last spring/summer...
I posted a link to the original thread at bigsoccer.com... which contributed to the TulsaNow thread having the biggest number of hits of any thread in the forum's short history... hundreds of soccer fans from all across the country assumed the Tulsa Now organization had taken a stand AGAINST the proposed mixed-use project/stadium...
This site loses credibility when you go cryin' to mama...
YOU knew what was going on... I didn't ....
I was ACCUSED over the past year of being...
A) Greg Jennings (or clone thereof...)
B) A paid political hack of former mayor LaFortune.
C) A person who was being paid off by Global Development Partners.
D) A person who stands to gain financially by an East Village/East End project...
E) An outsider from Illinois who has no right to express his opinions...
F) Tulsa Soccer Club founder and former NY Cosmos' player Keith Eddy
G) All of the above.
I have never been the subject of so many accusations until I started posting my opinions/facts on THIS site.
If the administrators of this site could RETURN the deleted posts, I can easily prove my case... and quote ALL AJ's disengenous posts...
I have 5 years worth of posts you can check on bigsoccer.com... I have NEVER pretended to be anything other than I am...
After I received an apology from RM about last year's vendetta against the East End project .... BEFORE ANYBODY KNEW THE DETAILS... I realized that the people I belittled only a few months ago may be completely correct...
David Arnett and Michael Bates have very good points... there ARE hidden agendas on this site...
The best way to HIDE your agenda is to pretend to be open-minded while maintaining your true agenda as a PARTISAN POLITICAL HACK...
This is the only thing I can't accuse you of... AJ... it's your allies that backed you up in the pursuit of PARTISAN POLITICAL HACKERY...
And if you think I'm some sort of pro-LaFortune political operative, consider this...
MY POSTS from summer 2002 are still viewable...
http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3135
If you can suffer through a bizarre comparison of Tulsa to "Daisy Duke," consider the above thread as the views of mostly ex-Tulsans who relocated but never HATED Tulsa...
quote:
As a summer time citizen of Tulsa when I come back from KU and the Wizards, I was quite astonished to read John Klein writing a headline type article pushing for MLS to come to Tulsa, for Tulsa to build a stadium for a team. But once I figured out that the whole gist was "Hey, let's not let those OKC bastards steal something we've been turning down for four years", I knew that Tulsa would never have a team. We had some great plans to revitalize downtown, but they got voted down. A key component of those plans? A soccer specific or mostly soccer specific stadium, 'bout 20k seats or so. But of course that gets voted down, so, I say as a proud Tulsa citizen, we don't deserve MLS.
quote:
Tulsa is Frasier, OKC is Fear Factor; Tulsa is REM, OKC is REO; Tulsa is sushi, OKC is catfish; Tulsa is brilliant but inept, OKC is dumb as a bag of hammers but wealthy.
The above thread has more intense/heartfelt debate over the future of Tulsa (circa 2002) than most all the posts/threads I've read on this site over the past year or so...
Please read the above linked bigsoccer.com thread from 2002...
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
Yawn.
I challenge the administrators of this site to find the very first post you made WITHIN MINUTES of a sticky thread condemning the original mixed-use/stadium plan for 40 acres of development and 20 acres for stadium.... the original thread that pretended to be the views of TulsaNow...
Those responses have all been erased... and you know it.
Very first post.... you were the first to play your little game... that's where TulsaNow the organization will find how you connected a 20k capacity soccer stadium to the friggin' Rose Bowl... and although you didn't bring up the comparison of the Arizona Cardinals' stadium to a possible East Village stadium... you completely agreed with/pushed the comparison last spring/summer...
I posted a link to the original thread at bigsoccer.com... which contributed to the TulsaNow thread having the biggest number of hits of any thread in the forum's short history... hundreds of soccer fans from all across the country assumed the Tulsa Now organization had taken a stand AGAINST the proposed mixed-use project/stadium...
This site loses credibility when you go cryin' to mama...
YOU knew what was going on... I didn't ....
I was ACCUSED over the past year of being...
A) Greg Jennings (or clone thereof...)
B) A paid political hack of former mayor LaFortune.
C) A person who was being paid off by Global Development Partners.
D) A person who stands to gain financially by an East Village/East End project...
E) An outsider from Illinois who has no right to express his opinions...
F) Tulsa Soccer Club founder and former NY Cosmos' player Keith Eddy
G) All of the above.
I have never been the subject of so many accusations until I started posting my opinions/facts on THIS site.
If the administrators of this site could RETURN the deleted posts, I can easily prove my case... and quote ALL AJ's disengenous posts...
I have 5 years worth of posts you can check on bigsoccer.com... I have NEVER pretended to be anything other than I am...
After I received an apology from RM about last year's vendetta against the East End project .... BEFORE ANYBODY KNEW THE DETAILS... I realized that the people I belittled only a few months ago may be completely correct...
David Arnett and Michael Bates have very good points... there ARE hidden agendas on this site...
The best way to HIDE your agenda is to pretend to be open-minded while maintaining your true agenda as a PARTISAN POLITICAL HACK...
This is the only thing I can't accuse you of... AJ... it's your allies that backed you up in the pursuit of PARTISAN POLITICAL HACKERY...
And if you think I'm some sort of pro-LaFortune political operative, consider this...
MY POSTS from summer 2002 are still viewable...
http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3135
If you can suffer through a bizarre comparison of Tulsa to "Daisy Duke," consider the above thread as the views of mostly ex-Tulsans who relocated but never HATED Tulsa...
quote:
As a summer time citizen of Tulsa when I come back from KU and the Wizards, I was quite astonished to read John Klein writing a headline type article pushing for MLS to come to Tulsa, for Tulsa to build a stadium for a team. But once I figured out that the whole gist was "Hey, let's not let those OKC bastards steal something we've been turning down for four years", I knew that Tulsa would never have a team. We had some great plans to revitalize downtown, but they got voted down. A key component of those plans? A soccer specific or mostly soccer specific stadium, 'bout 20k seats or so. But of course that gets voted down, so, I say as a proud Tulsa citizen, we don't deserve MLS.
quote:
Tulsa is Frasier, OKC is Fear Factor; Tulsa is REM, OKC is REO; Tulsa is sushi, OKC is catfish; Tulsa is brilliant but inept, OKC is dumb as a bag of hammers but wealthy.
The above thread has more intense/heartfelt debate over the future of Tulsa (circa 2002) than most all the posts/threads I've read on this site over the past year or so...
Please read the above linked bigsoccer.com thread from 2002...
One small correction in your last post... I did not accuse you of being Greg Jennings... I merely asked if you were.
The rational that you used suggested a high degree of Education. Mister Jennings always demonstrated that he was indeed well Educated.
Furthermore; The aggressive way in which you chose to pursue the Soccer Stadium... was not at all unlike the way in which Jennings pursued some of his objectives.........
If you are not.. You are not..
Sorry you took it as an accusation..
You and AJ may go to neutral corners and proceed ... [}:)]
The Tulsa Business Journal rag is all about the east end project. Double attendance? BS. A snowball effect? More like a snow job.
So, if the city annexes the Fairgrounds and ends up losing the primary tenant to downtown that's a lose lose proposition. Government ineffectiveness.
Reading the article, it seems Chuck Lamson wants to downsize into downtown.
Sure hope this fuels a redemption of downtown. But it won't. Global Development is a scam promoter based on my analysis.
We all know they've done horribly before.
Keep in mind our neighbors to the SW just did the same thing quite succesfully. Plus, Bell's paid more in rent than the drillers do..
quote:
Originally posted by aoxamaxoa
The Tulsa Business Journal rag is all about the east end project. Double attendance? BS. A snowball effect? More like a snow job.
So, if the city annexes the Fairgrounds and ends up losing the primary tenant to downtown that's a lose lose proposition. Government ineffectiveness.
Reading the article, it seems Chuck Lamson wants to downsize into downtown.
Sure hope this fuels a redemption of downtown. But it won't. Global Development is a scam promoter based on my analysis.
Just to be clear, if the city annexes the fair grounds, it won't mean that the EXPO management will change or that the county's role will change. What will change is that the City will provide water and other services at "in city" rates and collect sales tax on all goods and services sold there. Hopefully what is collected is much more than what is provided.
The Drillers would not be our tenant, but they would impact the amount of sales tax collected on the fair grounds. However if you move the Drillers downtown the sales tax impact increases exponentially.
BTW here is the story that aox spoke of: Read (//%22http://www.tulsabusiness.com/article.asp?aID=18364277.4130613.572221.9362732.7947991.372&aID2=44008%22)
^It is dead and buried. But the odd thing is, Why are they still around? What are they doing?
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
^It is dead and buried. But the odd thing is, Why are they still around? What are they doing?
Not sure who or what you are referring to.