Just got this email.
http://ism.infinityprosports.com/Components/Emailer2/MailSendViewer.php?OnlineEmailID=7212&ID2=106
Press conference today at 1:30.
I am excited!
About damn time. I've been waiting all month for this. Thanks for the early warning!
Press Conference Today
Announcement Regarding Tulsa Drillers and Downtown Development
Mayor Kathy Taylor will host a 1:30 p.m.. press conference today to announce new developments between the City of Tulsa and the Tulsa Drillers.
The announcement will take place on the eleventh floor of City Hall. Chuck Lamson, Drillers owner will also participate in the briefing.
- - -
Woohoo! Thanks for the heads up. I may bash the plan later, but the announcement has me excited. [}:)]
Sweet! I was afraid when I read the thread title it would involve Jenks since we (or I) haven't heard much on the subject lately.
quote:
Originally posted by TulsaSooner
Sweet! I was afraid when I read the thread title it would involve Jenks since we (or I) haven't heard much on the subject lately.
She'll announce a blue ribbon panel headed by Sharon King Davis to look into ways to fund the stadium, with a final predetermined conclusion of a tax increase coming about 1 month later. But don't worry, it will be wrapped up into a MegaTax(TM) that will encompass everything from roads to bridges. So the public will be faced with a poison pill scenario similiar to V2025 where we have to vote in the things we dont want to get the things we want.
You can't compete with free Tulsa.
Saw it online at the World and almost jumped for joy... I stopped myself right before, remembering that the conference could go more than one way.
***Fingers crossed***
No, my guess is that we're going to get a skeletal plan for a stadium downtown. Four main questions will be answered:
1) Where--Nordam site? Hartford Building? Evans Fintube? (best money=Hartford Building)
2) Who--a local private developer? A national developer? The city as developer? The county? (Best money=public-private partnership, with a local private developer building the stadium and surrounding mixed-use development and transferring ownership of the stadium to the city. Why the transfer? See below.)
3) How and how much--It's inevitable that any stadium, downtown or suburbs, will be publicly subsidized. Is it a TIF? A sales tax? A municipal bond? And for how much? And what of taxation? (Best money=generous TIF and city ownership/management of stadium, in order to offer Drillers cheap rent and tax-exempt concession sales. This will be a big handout and a major sticking point. Expect resistance from Tulsa blogosphere.)
4) Is Lamson on board? Is he going to fully commit, hedge his bets, or just nod and smile and say, "Pretty Drawing. It could work."? (best money=hedges his bets until TIF is approved.)
This is all total conjecture--my guesses on what we'll get today. I have absolutely no inside information. If nothing else, I look forward to the pretty drawings and a spirited discussion. See you after lunch.
quote:
Originally posted by DScott28604
Saw it online at the World and almost jumped for joy... I stopped myself right before, remembering that the conference could go more than one way.
***Fingers crossed***
If they were moving to Jenks, Vic Vreeland would be hosting the press conference.
The BOK drive thru caddy corner from the Areema?
Bill White's white knight?
Tifftown?
Hope they have something that works for soccer too.....
Other than checking the TulsaNow forum constantly beginning at 1:15/1:30, how can I receive word? I always here "Press conference! Press conference!" but never see anything live on tv, and have to wait until TW or KTUL updates their websites...
Is the press conference open?
I'd check the news site for the Drillers. Also wouldn't be surprised if KRMG covers it. But, of course, the best way is to check here!
Something is happening downtown with a stadium. That's a given. If it was a negative they would have a press release but not a conference. What's more, the Driller's would not send a rep to say 'screw you Tulsa.' And the fact that the conference is downtown is probably suggestive of something.
Kaiser is funding a ball park, entertainment district, and endowing OSU-Tulsa to be a stand alone state college called Oklahoma Tech specializing in engineering, oil & gas, and medicine. [;)] (totally not true, just sayin')
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by DScott28604
Saw it online at the World and almost jumped for joy... I stopped myself right before, remembering that the conference could go more than one way.
***Fingers crossed***
If they were moving to Jenks, Vic Vreeland would be hosting the press conference.
Well, I just meant that they could either announce a definite plan with renderings and Lamson saying, "Yes, Tulsa, Yes!", or it could just be, "Ok, we're still interested... We'll let you know".
People complain about how secretive things (developments, etc.) are in Tulsa, but I sure am excited about this, and if it's that privacy that keeps parties at the table, then I'm fine with it. I hope Mayor Taylor and her team have come up with something extraordinary.
The WORLD broke the news...
http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=8582
There is a plan! To make a plan...
I just spoke to someone from the Drillers and the press conference is open.
City, Drillers agree to downtown stadium
by: P.J. Lassek WORLD STAFF WRITER
1/22/2008 12:00 AM
Related stories: Calling for a change-up
Drillers noncommittal despite Jenks TIF
Mayor Kathy Taylor and Driller's owner Chuck Lamson will announce today that they have entered into an exclusive agreement to negotiated a deal to bring the baseball team downtown.
The location for a city-owned stadium is in the East Village, the recent site of two previously announced projects that fell through -- a Wal-Mart Supercenter and prior to that a privately-owned baseball stadium.
The exclusive agreement legally binds Lamson to negotiate only with Tulsa until May 30 at which time a definitive agreement must be reached.
The agreement prevents Lamson from further talks with Jenks developers, with whom he signed a non-binding agreement last fall for a proposed baseball stadium in a riverfront development.
Taylor said the land in the East Village area that was under a purchase option for the Wal-Mart Supercenter has been signed over to the city. She said private funding is being used to finance those option prices. She didn't release the amount.
"We had to have an exclusive agreement with Chuck to tie up the land, but we had to tie up the land before we announced the exclusive agreement because we didn't want people speculating on property and then us having to pay more for it like we saw with the BOK Center," she said.
Taylor said that part of the negotiation with Lamson will be to fully explore public and private funding mechanisms. "We're going to be looking at a broad variety of funding mechanisms. What we won't be looking at is any thing that would adversely affect street funding," she said.
In addition to the private funding, the public funding options being explored include a "defined term increase" in the city's current 5-percent hotel-motel tax and a perhaps collection of state sales tax through a legislative amendment to the Leverage Act as it deals with Tax Increment Financing Districts.
Because the city has no construction drawings, Taylor said that at this point the city doesn't know how much a stadium would cost. She did say that she and several councilors have traveled out of state to look at other ballparks and know their basic costs.
But, she said, "to announce what our stadium is going to cost would be a real ballpark figure."
She said the city also is looking at additional land it owns around the stadium that could increase in value and allow the city to ultimately sell it to help fund the package.
Taylor said when looking at ballparks that have been revitalization engines for downtowns, "part of the attraction is the outdoor space outside of the stadium where events like concerts and art fairs can be held that bring people outside even when baseball isn't being played."
The stadium would be a public facility even though it would be home of the Drillers like the BOK Center is home to the Talons arena football and Oilers hockey teams, she said.
Once again I will ask, "is this governments function? Should taxpayers, especially those that can least afford it, be forced into this future suck hole?"
Socialism..... but it's a ballpark estimation.
Thank the Gods who oversee downtown!
[^]
Lamson: "We might be going to Jenks....JINX!" [;)]
This is beyond weak.
Jeasuss Freakin' Christ on a stick, this was the best they can do? The City of Tulsa and The Drillers have signed an agreement to have exclusive rights to negotiate for the next four months? What? Really?
Never mind that the Drillers know exactly what The River District is offering and have no need to negotiate there. I would bet money that The River District has set a date of June 1st for the Drillers to agree to move to Jenks or not based on their construction schedule. The Drillers have in reality agreed to nothing but look good in giving The city of Tulsa a last chance.
The most outrageous part is that the City of Tulsa is just now going to explore ways to fund this? Now? With stunning ideas like a change in state law, that would cost the state sales tax revenue? HA, not gonna happen and certainly not going to happen in 120 days. Or an increase in the hotel tax. Correct me if I'm wrong but an increase in the hotel tax would still take a vote of the people, and the hotel industry is certainly going to fund a fight against that (just like they did "Tulsa Time") and the likely vote is "no" anyway. And that's even if you can cobble together a plan, get it through the council and then hold a vote in less than 120 days, which I doubt. Sale of land nearby? That land has been for sale for years and years with no takers at fire sale prices. That's a dream and even if the land were to sell there's no way it will bring the kind of money needed for a stadium.
There's nothing to write a TIF on, and that's the way to get this done and it just not possible here. I certainly don't see the people passing a tax in a vote. You might get $5-6 million in naming rights. That leaves you $30+ million in real money short of what is needed with no real idea of how to get it.
120 freakin' days. I give up.
Another example of the cart before the horse....
Things need to be thought through a little more Kathy Taylor. How can you not have a major thing like funding figured out already?? Shouldn't that be the first thing.
Morons...
quote:
Originally posted by swake
This is beyond weak.
Jeasuss Freakin' Christ on a stick, this was the best they can do? The City of Tulsa and The Drillers have signed an agreement to have exclusive rights to negotiate for the next four months? What? Really?
Never mind that the Drillers know exactly what The River District is offering and have no need to negotiate there. I would bet money that The River District has set a date of June 1st for the Drillers to agree to move to Jenks or not based on their construction schedule. The Drillers have in reality agreed to nothing but look good in giving The city of Tulsa a last chance.
The most outrageous part is that the City of Tulsa is just now going to explore ways to fund this? Now? With stunning ideas like a change in state law, that would cost the state sales tax revenue? HA, not gonna happen and certainly not going to happen in 120 days. Or an increase in the hotel tax. Correct me if I'm wrong but an increase in the hotel tax would still take a vote of the people, and the hotel industry is certainly going to fund a fight against that (just like they did "Tulsa Time") and the likely vote is "no" anyway. And that's even if you can cobble together a plan, get it through the council and then hold a vote in less than 120 days, which I doubt. Sale of land nearby? That land has been for sale for years and years with no takers at fire sale prices. That's a dream and even if the land were to sell there's no way it will bring the kind of money needed for a stadium.
There's nothing to write a TIF on, and that's the way to get this done and it just not possible here. I certainly don't see the people passing a tax in a vote. You might get $5-6 million in naming rights. That leaves you $30+ million in real money short of what is needed with no real idea of how to get it.
120 freakin' days. I give up.
Underwhelming, but maybe we're not quite reading between the lines here? What I see is that the City has managed to cut Bill White and his failed Wal-Mart dreams out of the picture for the Nordam land.
Thus, one possibility will be the re-emergence of Global Development. This puts the City in their corner, protects them from further land speculation, and gives them the kind of security that is necessary to even begin securing financing. Even if it's not Global, it gives good protection to whoever decides that their moment is now.
Speaking of financing, notice that the Fed cut the prime rate by 0.75% today? You know that that means, right? Money is a hell of a lot cheaper than it was last Friday. If there was ever a 120-day period to secure financing and get a deal done, NOW is the time to do it. Don't be surprised to see BOK brought into the deal.
If KK even THINKS about putting up a tax to a vote she will expose deep fractures within the city. I have a sneaky suspicion she will set up this town for a midtown versus everyone else vote....because no way in hell will south Tulsa pass this one when Jenks would be closer and not cost them a dime.
One only needs to look back at how the downtown library vote turned out to see the direction any ball park vote will go.
There is no possible way this will go to a popular vote, city or county, unless the Mayor suddenly hates having any sway. It might pass, but it would cost her every cent of political capital for the rest of her term. So forget sales tax or municipal bonds. Think state funding or TIF.
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
There is no possible way this will go to a popular vote, city or county, unless the Mayor suddenly hates having any sway. It might pass, but it would cost her every cent of political capital for the rest of her term. So forget sales tax or municipal bonds. Think state funding or TIF.
A TIF on what? To have a TIF you have to have an "I"ncremental increase in taxes. There's no place where that is going to assuredly happen in the vicinity of the stadium. You can't hope for it, the city is going to be borrowing money with the TIF so it has to be very solid.
State funding? Sure, that's going to happen. You people really need to start to realize that state government is the enemy of Tulsa and should be treated as such. The state certainly treats Tulsa in this manner. Tulsa will get nothing except derision for going hat in hand to the state asking for stadium funding. Let's recall how that five year plan to widen I-44 that started in 1986 is going? It will probably not be done in 2016. The state had to be shamed in to accepting The OSU Medical Center as a $160 million gift. The state is NOT our friend and will not be helping.
A hotel tax should be a no-brainer, but we have too many blogger types and people like "Inteller" for that to be an option.
This is troubling.
This is what is known as a political Hail-Mary.
The mistake was making the announcement at this point.
Not wise.
Agreement to negotiate = desperation.
Now we know who's holding what cards.
She has now given up all possibility of asking for additional tax money, and there is very little chance a TIF program will fly in that area to pay for anything.
This announcement has put her in a very poor position for negotiation. Meanwhile, the Jenks development has no intentions to scrap their plans for the stadium. The Drillers are welcome to commit at a later date. They are actually happy about this.
I have to give Chuck Lamson my best golf-clap. This was brilliant on his part, allowing her to back into a corner. He is in the perfect position. No matter what happens he gets what he wants. Go ahead Chuck, roll the dice, you win either way!
Clap!
Clap!
Clap!
Aguh! Who is our city PR consultant, and why haven't they been fired!
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
There is no possible way this will go to a popular vote, city or county, unless the Mayor suddenly hates having any sway. It might pass, but it would cost her every cent of political capital for the rest of her term. So forget sales tax or municipal bonds. Think state funding or TIF.
state funding? Oh yes the entire state will enjoy funding a little downtown yuppy hangout. I have a feeling you won't be getting the support of the farmers out in Mayes or Cimmaron counties. The state would PAY for something to stay inside Oklahoma when they can have it for free? Makes ZERO sense.
As long as it took Jenks to cobble together a TIF, I don't see KK doing it in 4 months. Hell just finding an unwitting developer will take that long.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
A TIF on what? To have a TIF you have to have an "I"ncremental increase in taxes. There's no place where that is going to assuredly happen in the vicinity of the stadium. You can't hope for it, the city is going to be borrowing money with the TIF so it has to be very solid.
Tulsa Hills has a TIF and there was ABSOLUTELY nothing there before the shopping center that's being built.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
There is no possible way this will go to a popular vote, city or county, unless the Mayor suddenly hates having any sway. It might pass, but it would cost her every cent of political capital for the rest of her term. So forget sales tax or municipal bonds. Think state funding or TIF.
A TIF on what? To have a TIF you have to have an "I"ncremental increase in taxes. There's no place where that is going to assuredly happen in the vicinity of the stadium. You can't hope for it, the city is going to be borrowing money with the TIF so it has to be very solid.
State funding? Sure, that's going to happen. You people really need to start to realize that state government is the enemy of Tulsa and should be treated as such. The state certainly treats Tulsa in this manner. Tulsa will get nothing except derision for going hat in hand to the state asking for stadium funding. Let's recall how that five year plan to widen I-44 that started in 1986 is going? It will probably not be done in 2016. The state had to be shamed in to accepting The OSU Medical Center as a $160 million gift. The state is NOT our friend and will not be helping.
A hotel tax should be a no-brainer, but we have too many blogger types and people like "Inteller" for that to be an option.
The hypothetical East Village TIF would require partnership with a private developer. The "I"ncremental increase comes from the private part of the partnership. The City and the developer would enter into an agreement to build an East Village very similar to the plan proposed by Global Development. City of Tulsa would be responsible for site cleanup and stadium construction. The Private Developer would be responsible for creating mixed-use commercial development around the stadium. City of Tulsa funds their part through borrowing against the TIF, precisely as Jenks will do. The "I"ncremental increase comes from the private part of the partnership.
Skeptical that we'll be able to find a developer to help out? I was too, for a second. But then I noticed that we have a little angel making this happen, did you?
quote:
Taylor said the land in the East Village area that was under a purchase option for the Wal-Mart Supercenter has been signed over to the city. She said private funding is being used to finance those option prices. She didn't release the amount.
Somebody is providing the seed money for this deal to happen. That "somebody" is either a philanthropist (e.g. Kaiser), an interested developer (e.g. Global), or a combination of the two (e.g. Kanbar). Will be interesting to find out who.
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
There is no possible way this will go to a popular vote, city or county, unless the Mayor suddenly hates having any sway. It might pass, but it would cost her every cent of political capital for the rest of her term. So forget sales tax or municipal bonds. Think state funding or TIF.
state funding? Oh yes the entire state will enjoy funding a little downtown yuppy hangout. I have a feeling you won't be getting the support of the farmers out in Mayes or Cimmaron counties. The state would PAY for something to stay inside Oklahoma when they can have it for free? Makes ZERO sense.
As long as it took Jenks to cobble together a TIF, I don't see KK doing it in 4 months. Hell just finding an unwitting developer will take that long.
I misspoke. By state funding, I meant a change in state law allowing a higher hotel tax.
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
There is no possible way this will go to a popular vote, city or county, unless the Mayor suddenly hates having any sway. It might pass, but it would cost her every cent of political capital for the rest of her term. So forget sales tax or municipal bonds. Think state funding or TIF.
A TIF on what? To have a TIF you have to have an "I"ncremental increase in taxes. There's no place where that is going to assuredly happen in the vicinity of the stadium. You can't hope for it, the city is going to be borrowing money with the TIF so it has to be very solid.
State funding? Sure, that's going to happen. You people really need to start to realize that state government is the enemy of Tulsa and should be treated as such. The state certainly treats Tulsa in this manner. Tulsa will get nothing except derision for going hat in hand to the state asking for stadium funding. Let's recall how that five year plan to widen I-44 that started in 1986 is going? It will probably not be done in 2016. The state had to be shamed in to accepting The OSU Medical Center as a $160 million gift. The state is NOT our friend and will not be helping.
A hotel tax should be a no-brainer, but we have too many blogger types and people like "Inteller" for that to be an option.
The hypothetical East Village TIF would require partnership with a private developer. The "I"ncremental increase comes from the private part of the partnership. The City and the developer would enter into an agreement to build an East Village very similar to the plan proposed by Global Development. City of Tulsa would be responsible for site cleanup and stadium construction. The Private Developer would be responsible for creating mixed-use commercial development around the stadium. City of Tulsa funds their part through borrowing against the TIF, precisely as Jenks will do. The "I"ncremental increase comes from the private part of the partnership.
Skeptical that we'll be able to find a developer to help out? I was too, for a second. But then I noticed that we have a little angel making this happen, did you?
quote:
Taylor said the land in the East Village area that was under a purchase option for the Wal-Mart Supercenter has been signed over to the city. She said private funding is being used to finance those option prices. She didn't release the amount.
Somebody is providing the seed money for this deal to happen. That "somebody" is either a philanthropist (e.g. Kaiser), an interested developer (e.g. Global), or a combination of the two (e.g. Kanbar). Will be interesting to find out who.
Ah, I see the road to Kaiserville continues to be built. I have an idea, maybe Kathy, Kanbar, and Kaiser can all go in together to build the stadium. Then we can have Driller baseball at KKK stadium. [}:)]
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
There is no possible way this will go to a popular vote, city or county, unless the Mayor suddenly hates having any sway. It might pass, but it would cost her every cent of political capital for the rest of her term. So forget sales tax or municipal bonds. Think state funding or TIF.
state funding? Oh yes the entire state will enjoy funding a little downtown yuppy hangout. I have a feeling you won't be getting the support of the farmers out in Mayes or Cimmaron counties. The state would PAY for something to stay inside Oklahoma when they can have it for free? Makes ZERO sense.
As long as it took Jenks to cobble together a TIF, I don't see KK doing it in 4 months. Hell just finding an unwitting developer will take that long.
I misspoke. By state funding, I meant a change in state law allowing a higher hotel tax.
State law allows a higher hotel tax, the people have to vote to it in. Susan Savage tried it years ago and was shot down on a previous version of 2025.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
There is no possible way this will go to a popular vote, city or county, unless the Mayor suddenly hates having any sway. It might pass, but it would cost her every cent of political capital for the rest of her term. So forget sales tax or municipal bonds. Think state funding or TIF.
state funding? Oh yes the entire state will enjoy funding a little downtown yuppy hangout. I have a feeling you won't be getting the support of the farmers out in Mayes or Cimmaron counties. The state would PAY for something to stay inside Oklahoma when they can have it for free? Makes ZERO sense.
As long as it took Jenks to cobble together a TIF, I don't see KK doing it in 4 months. Hell just finding an unwitting developer will take that long.
I misspoke. By state funding, I meant a change in state law allowing a higher hotel tax.
State law allows a higher hotel tax, the people have to vote to it in. Susan Savage tried it years ago and was shot down on a previous version of 2025.
Oh. I thought it had to go through the state legislature. Thanks for the correction. I guess Taylor is willing in theory to take this one to the people, maybe if no private developer steps to the plate.
(From now on I'm going to use as many baseball metaphors as I can.)
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
There is no possible way this will go to a popular vote, city or county, unless the Mayor suddenly hates having any sway. It might pass, but it would cost her every cent of political capital for the rest of her term. So forget sales tax or municipal bonds. Think state funding or TIF.
A TIF on what? To have a TIF you have to have an "I"ncremental increase in taxes. There's no place where that is going to assuredly happen in the vicinity of the stadium. You can't hope for it, the city is going to be borrowing money with the TIF so it has to be very solid.
State funding? Sure, that's going to happen. You people really need to start to realize that state government is the enemy of Tulsa and should be treated as such. The state certainly treats Tulsa in this manner. Tulsa will get nothing except derision for going hat in hand to the state asking for stadium funding. Let's recall how that five year plan to widen I-44 that started in 1986 is going? It will probably not be done in 2016. The state had to be shamed in to accepting The OSU Medical Center as a $160 million gift. The state is NOT our friend and will not be helping.
A hotel tax should be a no-brainer, but we have too many blogger types and people like "Inteller" for that to be an option.
The hypothetical East Village TIF would require partnership with a private developer. The "I"ncremental increase comes from the private part of the partnership. The City and the developer would enter into an agreement to build an East Village very similar to the plan proposed by Global Development. City of Tulsa would be responsible for site cleanup and stadium construction. The Private Developer would be responsible for creating mixed-use commercial development around the stadium. City of Tulsa funds their part through borrowing against the TIF, precisely as Jenks will do. The "I"ncremental increase comes from the private part of the partnership.
Skeptical that we'll be able to find a developer to help out? I was too, for a second. But then I noticed that we have a little angel making this happen, did you?
quote:
Taylor said the land in the East Village area that was under a purchase option for the Wal-Mart Supercenter has been signed over to the city. She said private funding is being used to finance those option prices. She didn't release the amount.
Somebody is providing the seed money for this deal to happen. That "somebody" is either a philanthropist (e.g. Kaiser), an interested developer (e.g. Global), or a combination of the two (e.g. Kanbar). Will be interesting to find out who.
Please! Kanbar has washed his hands of Tulsa. He owns empty buildings in several cities. Has for years. He uses them as a savings account.
quote:
Originally posted by TulsaSooner
quote:
Originally posted by swake
A TIF on what? To have a TIF you have to have an "I"ncremental increase in taxes. There's no place where that is going to assuredly happen in the vicinity of the stadium. You can't hope for it, the city is going to be borrowing money with the TIF so it has to be very solid.
Tulsa Hills has a TIF and there was ABSOLUTELY nothing there before the shopping center that's being built.
What Tulsa Hills had was a solid and reputable development company with major leases in hand for the development from major retailers.
What we have downtown is no developer and no leases, in fact the lowest common denominator in major retail, Wal-Mart, famously passed on the site because they aren't in growth mode right now.
You are hoping for Global, and I was too, but they couldn't afford a couple of hundred grand to keep their option alive on the Nordam land last year before the current credit crunch, I would highly doubt their ability to raise money has improved in the last year, I would guess it has disappeared.
I was hoping today for a developer with a plan and financing or a white knight like Kaiser just building a new stadium. What we got was an agreement to negotiate, haven't they been doing that for the last year?
Let's see who bought the Nordam site. I bet the "private" money was TDA.
yes, lets let her burn our chances for getting conventions in the moneypit downtown by raising hotel taxes.
Just let the Drillers go, it isn't worth destroying what scraps of future economic development we have left.
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
yes, lets let her burn our chances for getting conventions in the moneypit downtown by raising hotel taxes.
Just let the Drillers go, it isn't worth destroying what scraps of future economic development we have left.
Please. Everywhere you go there are hotel taxes out the wazoo and if it's like everything else, most places are higher than ours.
I see all the normal naysayers have weighed in on this. You guys are unbelievable...attacking before you knew anything, finding fault with everything when you did, then making dire predictions about every aspect again.
I went to the press conference. I spoke at length with the entire Drillers contingent. They are very pleased.
This announcement was overseen by a room full of people wanting to make this happen. I saw downtown business owners, OSU-Tulsa officials, Chamber and city urban planning officials, baseball fans and more and all agree that this was very positive news.
The plan is moving forward. The downtown business people want it. We baseball fans want it. This development will have a major impact on the successful downtown than most of us want.
I refuse to listen to you naysayers on this forum. Go ahead and knock, I am already disturbed.
Thank you to Mayor Taylor and the Tulsa Drillers management team for working toward a great opportunity for us fans.
(http://tulsadrillers.com.ismmedia.com/ISM2/NewsManager/1239.jpeg)
Artist's rendering.
Not to scale. Overlay on Google Earth and measure features.
Comments?
Go baby go...
Just don't raise the taxes.
One thing I like so far is that this is keeping it simple: Just a stadium. Not a pie in the sky 9 figure development, synthetic river or some other complicated engineering feat. Something that the costs on should be easy to control. Not a huge amount of land being grabbed, and the land is already being acquired...hopefully as a gift from a generous third party. I don't think it will decrease attendance...it will probably increase it for the first year or so in my opinion.
Let the private developers start taking the surrounding properties without city intervention and let's see what happens.
I'm going to stay open minded with this one.
quote:
Originally posted by TeeDub
Go baby go...
Just don't raise the taxes.
Typical, I want everything and I don't want to pay for anything.
It looks like a placeholder drawing to me. I would be impressed if they've actually moved forward with any serious designs.
Would like to be able to discern what those little pictures on the side do/say.
It looks great so far. GO TULSA!
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
It looks like a placeholder drawing to me. I would be impressed if they've actually moved forward with any serious designs.
Would like to be able to discern what those little pictures on the side do/say.
Well, it does say "Concept Illustration." Patience. [;)]
quote:
Originally posted by spoonbill
(http://tulsadrillers.com.ismmedia.com/ISM2/NewsManager/1239.jpeg)
Artist's rendering.
Not to scale. Overlay on Google Earth and measure features.
Comments?
I was puzzled and a bit upset that they did not present a scale image of the development. I was also puzzled that the images distributed to the media were only available in low resolution print format, so I did a little diggin and got a medium resolution image from the Driller's website.
Now my big question is, (and perhaps you can help Michael, because you were there) where is the massive off-site parking? Are they are not offering any concession for parking?
I was able to dimension the park on the site. Are they really going to build a 400' deep backfield? That would put us in the record books, and make it almost impossible to hit one out of the park!
There are also several other dimensional problems with the stadium, but I'll save those for additional posts. I understand that it was a rush job and it probably won't actually be on this site, but I just wanted people to look at this rendering and understand that this is very very far from real.
We in the development world call this baiting the investor. It is not ethical, but it is frequently practiced. I assure you, there is a mad scramble for a real site, otherwise they would have offered some real drawings.
It only takes 10 minutes for a good planner to do an overlay and put things together based on the rules! They know this site is just smoke!
quote:
Originally posted by spoonbill
quote:
Originally posted by spoonbill
(http://tulsadrillers.com.ismmedia.com/ISM2/NewsManager/1239.jpeg)
Artist's rendering.
Not to scale. Overlay on Google Earth and measure features.
Comments?
I was puzzled and a bit upset that they did not present a scale image of the development. I was also puzzled that the images distributed to the media were only available in low resolution print format, so I did a little diggin and got a medium resolution image from the Driller's website.
Now my big question is, (and perhaps you can help Michael, because you were there) where is the massive off-site parking? Are they are not offering any concession for parking?
I was able to dimension the park on the site. Are they really going to build a 400' deep backfield? That would put us in the record books, and make it almost impossible to hit one out of the park!
There are also several other dimensional problems with the stadium, but I'll save those for additional posts. I understand that it was a rush job and it probably won't actually be on this site, but I just wanted people to look at this rendering and understand that this is very very far from real.
We in the development world call this baiting the investor. It is not ethical, but it is frequently practiced. I assure you, there is a mad scramble for a real site, otherwise they would have offered some real drawings.
It only takes 10 minutes for a good planner to do an overlay and put things together based on the rules! They know this site is just smoke!
OH THE HORROR! ANOTHER TULSA CONSPIRACY!
Oh wait, no. Just another forum post that is full of ****.
Wish they could combine this with Bells.....
yep, it's that dastardly, gool-ol' boy crowley up his tricks [:P]
quote:
Originally posted by AVERAGE JOE
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
It looks like a placeholder drawing to me. I would be impressed if they've actually moved forward with any serious designs.
Would like to be able to discern what those little pictures on the side do/say.
Well, it does say "Concept Illustration." Patience. [;)]
My comments weren't meant to sound impatient--they were anticipating Spoonbill's conspiracy theory criticisms. It's going to be highly entertaining to watch him spend time tearing down the entire plan based on one medium-resolution placeholder rendering.
When it's time for a real planning drawing, we'll get one. But go on, have a blast inventing theories based on this one.
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
quote:
Originally posted by AVERAGE JOE
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
It looks like a placeholder drawing to me. I would be impressed if they've actually moved forward with any serious designs.
Would like to be able to discern what those little pictures on the side do/say.
Well, it does say "Concept Illustration." Patience. [;)]
My comments weren't meant to sound impatient--they were anticipating Spoonbill's conspiracy theory criticisms. It's going to be highly entertaining to watch him spend time tearing down the entire plan based on one medium-resolution placeholder rendering.
When it's time for a real planning drawing, we'll get one. But go on, have a blast inventing theories based on this one.
Oh! I don't believe there's any conspiracy. I'm just tempering excitement with a little reality.
We so often get excited about these announcements and then a few months down the road, we get mad because they didn't materialize.
I am simply commenting on what anyone can see with a free version of google earth, and a basic knowledge of planning.
That way we won't be surprised when the site moves around a few times.
I know that you want to believe. I do too! But. . . I require something with more substance than this.
This press conference was really no news at all once you boil it down.
quote:
Originally posted by brunoflipper
yep, it's that dastardly, gool-ol' boy crowley up his tricks [:P]
check the sig on the drawing...
Just wondering how many of the cynics have been actively working to bring the Drillers downtown? My guess? None. Much easier to sit at a keyboard and bash what sounds like a huge step forward for Tulsa.
I know that we all get frustrated when we see concept drawing after concept drawing that never comes to fruition. However, I've got my fingers crossed...and have faith that the folks who are working on this one are going to get it done. Perhaps instead of all this gnashing of teeth, it would be helpful if we showed some support for the plan...and for getting the Drillers downtown where they belong!
quote:
Originally posted by brunoflipper
quote:
Originally posted by brunoflipper
yep, it's that dastardly, gool-ol' boy crowley up his tricks [:P]
check the sig on the drawing...
Ha, nice. Didn't pick up what you were putting down before. Looks like the new Special Advisor to the Mayor on Urban Planning has taken a real hands-on approach! I like it.
Well I hope this works out. Would have rather had it on the Hartford site to be closer to Blue Dome and the Greenwood areas, but, just glad its inside the IDL lol. As for the rendering to scale or not, it looks like they have the notion of wanting it to have retail around it and nice treed spaces as well. It doesnt look like they are over reaching, but at the same time they are shooting for more than just a baseball stadium. We will know in about 4 months.
I know I'm in the minority here on this website, but this made me sick today when I heard the news.
I would never take my family downtown for a ballgame.
To me, there are two forces that exist in the downtown area, and those are Old money, and the low-income, high crime crowd.
South Tulsa/Jenks, on the other hand, has the middle-class demographic that is more likely to regularly attend a ball game.
This is a very poor decision, strictly speaking in revenue potential, by the team's owner.
The Drillers are not at the forefront of most Tulsan's entertainment, but if they put that ball park in a friendly neighborhood full of medium-income families, then they would get regular business every night, and they wouldn't be a 'once a year' event for most families to make an outing--which is what it is now.
This is a very sad day for baseball, and families in the south Tulsa area.
The Old Money/Politics has won the day, and the majority of folks will stay in South Tulsa on gameday, just like they do now.
[:(]
--
quote:
Originally posted by Hawkins
I know I'm in the minority here on this website, but this made me sick today when I heard the news.
I would never take my family downtown for a ballgame.
To me, there are two forces that exist in the downtown area, and those are Old money, and the low-income, high crime crowd.
South Tulsa/Jenks, on the other hand, has the middle-class demographic that is more likely to regularly attend a ball game.
This is a very poor decision, strictly speaking in revenue potential, by the team's owner.
The Drillers are not at the forefront of most Tulsan's entertainment, but if they put that ball park in a friendly neighborhood full of medium-income families, then they would get regular business every night, and they wouldn't be a 'once a year' event for most families to make an outing--which is what it is now.
This is a very sad day for baseball, and families in the south Tulsa area.
The Old Money/Politics has won the day, and the majority of folks will stay in South Tulsa on gameday, just like they do now.
[:(]
1) Don't get too offended, but I have to say--your perception of the downtown demographic is so far from reality that it is laughable. I just kind of wonder where it comes from.
2) Your yearning for a ballpark close to your house is understandable. Your interpretation of business reality is not. Downtown minor league ballparks are universally successful. Suburban ballparks work fine too, but there they don't have attendance advantages over those in downtowns. Further, Tulsa is able to offer the Drillers a better margin on their sales because the stadium will be city-owned, and thus tax exempt. In order to make their TIF work, Jenks has required private ownership of any stadium, and thus eliminated that possibility.
Look man, you can be sad that the Drillers aren't going to be close to your house. I won't knock you for that. But your anger at the situation is irrational, your ignorance of business realities is lame, and I've got to call you out on it. This means too much to Tulsa not to.
quote:
Originally posted by Hawkins
I know I'm in the minority here on this website, but this made me sick today when I heard the news.
I would never take my family downtown for a ballgame.
To me, there are two forces that exist in the downtown area, and those are Old money, and the low-income, high crime crowd.
South Tulsa/Jenks, on the other hand, has the middle-class demographic that is more likely to regularly attend a ball game.
This is a very poor decision, strictly speaking in revenue potential, by the team's owner.
The Drillers are not at the forefront of most Tulsan's entertainment, but if they put that ball park in a friendly neighborhood full of medium-income families, then they would get regular business every night, and they wouldn't be a 'once a year' event for most families to make an outing--which is what it is now.
This is a very sad day for baseball, and families in the south Tulsa area.
The Old Money/Politics has won the day, and the majority of folks will stay in South Tulsa on gameday, just like they do now.
[:(]
I live in South Tulsa, Work downtown. I am often downtown in the evenings as well.
I've had my vehicles broken into
Been acosted for money at least once a week
Been approached to buy stolen merchandise
Had vehicles vandalized
Been approached to buy questionable products
Found stacks of liquor bottles
Seen people peeing on buildings
Everything above happened on or around 71st St.
I plan on spending my evenings as much as possible downtown, where it's safe.
Downtown is ABSOLUTELY safe. THe only reason it SEEMS unsafe is because there is no one there. Let's get some more people down there and give it some life after 5pm.
I agree that the Jenks location would probably see better attendance than the downtown location. For now. However, I also think a downtown location, especially if downtown itself picks up any development wise, would see better attendance than their current location. So it would still be an "improvement for baseball" in Tulsa. Plus, adding to that, improving the economics of downtown, and the city, and the perception of both as well, by keeping the baseball games in Tulsa versus having the benefit go to the suburbs is a good thing.
Hawkins, all I can say is you should question your assumptions. I am reminded of Jesse James' famous remark when asked why he robbed banks. He replied, "That's where the money is." Grizz is right. The money and assets are in the burbs. You are no safer in Jenks than you are downtown.
Why are the local TV news stories saying this is a done deal? Ch8 and Ch6 both report that Jenks has lost the Drillers and that they are in fact moving downtown after negotiations. Do they know something we don't? I thought this was simply a delay to give Tulsa a chance to put a plan on the table which seems a good idea to me.
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
quote:
Originally posted by brunoflipper
quote:
Originally posted by brunoflipper
yep, it's that dastardly, gool-ol' boy crowley up his tricks [:P]
check the sig on the drawing...
Ha, nice. Didn't pick up what you were putting down before. Looks like the new Special Advisor to the Mayor on Urban Planning has taken a real hands-on approach! I like it.
I think next time the city wants to come out with a concept drawing they should have someone put another eye on it. I think this is a very nice rendering, but mechanically I don't see it working, I measure the field as 415' deep and the design of the retail (I guess it's retail?) won't work that way. I don't know if there is more to this rendering, but on-site parking is going to be a huge issue, just like it is with the current field.
The Mayor can call us here at Tanner Consulting, or Jerry over at Tulsa Planning and Engineering, or Ted over at Sac & Assoc. at anytime for a critical eye or to draw up a real scale color site plan that has a far better chance to work.
I would like to see the city draw on the expertise of the people of Tulsa when promoting these ideas. I may be wrong, and I may not be seeing everything on this site plan, but it's producing more questions for me than answers.
Just my opinion.
P.S. I'd love to do a 3D rendering of this project. Hint! Hint!
The conceptual illustration appears to be similar to the plan presented on page 31 (or page 33 of the pdf (//%22http://tulsagrad.ou.edu/studio/ballpark/WebPresentation.pdf%22)) of the OU Urban Design Studio (OUUDS) study for a ballpark downtown.
The OUUDS study explains the size of a stadium needed for regulation play, and it includes examples of other ballparks in the league. The OUUDS study also includes an explanation of the orientation of the field and of the use of a taller grandstand along the third base line to maximum protection from solar glare.
To get a sense of scale: Most blocks downtown are 300 feet square and most streets are 80 feet wide. It's typically 380 feet from the centerline of one street to the next. Look at the blocks west of Frankfort to get a rough idea of distances.
IMO, Tulsans really should be more proactive and supportive of making sure projects like this happen in Tulsa. It's imperative to have a central core and I believe some would be very surprised at how much something that seems so trivial as a baseball stadium can spark growth, especially in a downtown district. Build it and they will come and in droves, which in turn sparks more growth to give people more options. Dining, shopping, entertainment, it all follows. Tulsa don't be thrifty, be nifty. people spending money in Tulsa generates MORE revenue, thus helping fill the coffers, thus allowing more money for better public schools, roads, etc...Please give this serious consideration and build a better Tulsa metro and invest in yourself and your community.
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
quote:
Originally posted by Hawkins
I know I'm in the minority here on this website, but this made me sick today when I heard the news.
I would never take my family downtown for a ballgame.
To me, there are two forces that exist in the downtown area, and those are Old money, and the low-income, high crime crowd.
South Tulsa/Jenks, on the other hand, has the middle-class demographic that is more likely to regularly attend a ball game.
This is a very poor decision, strictly speaking in revenue potential, by the team's owner.
The Drillers are not at the forefront of most Tulsan's entertainment, but if they put that ball park in a friendly neighborhood full of medium-income families, then they would get regular business every night, and they wouldn't be a 'once a year' event for most families to make an outing--which is what it is now.
This is a very sad day for baseball, and families in the south Tulsa area.
The Old Money/Politics has won the day, and the majority of folks will stay in South Tulsa on gameday, just like they do now.
[:(]
1) Don't get too offended, but I have to say--your perception of the downtown demographic is so far from reality that it is laughable. I just kind of wonder where it comes from.
2) Your yearning for a ballpark close to your house is understandable. Your interpretation of business reality is not. Downtown minor league ballparks are universally successful. Suburban ballparks work fine too, but there they don't have attendance advantages over those in downtowns. Further, Tulsa is able to offer the Drillers a better margin on their sales because the stadium will be city-owned, and thus tax exempt. In order to make their TIF work, Jenks has required private ownership of any stadium, and thus eliminated that possibility.
Look man, you can be sad that the Drillers aren't going to be close to your house. I won't knock you for that. But your anger at the situation is irrational, your ignorance of business realities is lame, and I've got to call you out on it. This means too much to Tulsa not to.
Don't be offended yourself, but I find your conclusions quite laughable as well. Have you been to downtown Tulsa? Obviously you and I both have.
Here's the real question: Have you been to other downtown areas, places where these baseball stadiums work better than in the suburban areas?
Newsflash, Tulsa isn't one of them!
Every time something like this comes up, people say, "Great, we need to REVITALIZE downtown Tulsa." That's because downtown is not an attractive place to be right now.
I completely expected most of you to jump my case for this, because I know the this website is pro-downtown revitalization, but I have been to other places, and I'm telling you all that at the end of the day it isn't going to work.
Tulsans like easy driving access to their destinations, and the 1-way streets of downtown are a nightmare to the average driver here.
We can go round and round again about demographics and crime, but your argument is already lost.
Just look at the area--and the previous projects mentioned on the front page of the World today that have fallen through there--and what you see is a failed development area, and OLD area, and an area that a few wealthy Tulsans are pushing to revitalize for their own economic interests.
They have YOU believing that downtown revitalization is the best way for Tulsa to grow, but that cookie-cutter mold for city growth does not apply here.
Hawkins is right.
Let's start over.
"We are going to build, on this site...an exact replica of the town of Rock Ridge. Every building...right down to the orange
roof of Howard Johnson's outhouse."
Blazing Saddles
quote:
Originally posted by Hawkins
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
quote:
Originally posted by Hawkins
I know I'm in the minority here on this website, but this made me sick today when I heard the news.
I would never take my family downtown for a ballgame.
To me, there are two forces that exist in the downtown area, and those are Old money, and the low-income, high crime crowd.
South Tulsa/Jenks, on the other hand, has the middle-class demographic that is more likely to regularly attend a ball game.
This is a very poor decision, strictly speaking in revenue potential, by the team's owner.
The Drillers are not at the forefront of most Tulsan's entertainment, but if they put that ball park in a friendly neighborhood full of medium-income families, then they would get regular business every night, and they wouldn't be a 'once a year' event for most families to make an outing--which is what it is now.
This is a very sad day for baseball, and families in the south Tulsa area.
The Old Money/Politics has won the day, and the majority of folks will stay in South Tulsa on gameday, just like they do now.
[:(]
1) Don't get too offended, but I have to say--your perception of the downtown demographic is so far from reality that it is laughable. I just kind of wonder where it comes from.
2) Your yearning for a ballpark close to your house is understandable. Your interpretation of business reality is not. Downtown minor league ballparks are universally successful. Suburban ballparks work fine too, but there they don't have attendance advantages over those in downtowns. Further, Tulsa is able to offer the Drillers a better margin on their sales because the stadium will be city-owned, and thus tax exempt. In order to make their TIF work, Jenks has required private ownership of any stadium, and thus eliminated that possibility.
Look man, you can be sad that the Drillers aren't going to be close to your house. I won't knock you for that. But your anger at the situation is irrational, your ignorance of business realities is lame, and I've got to call you out on it. This means too much to Tulsa not to.
Don't be offended yourself, but I find your conclusions quite laughable as well. Have you been to downtown Tulsa? Obviously you and I both have.
Here's the real question: Have you been to other downtown areas, places where these baseball stadiums work better than in the suburban areas?
Newsflash, Tulsa isn't one of them!
Every time something like this comes up, people say, "Great, we need to REVITALIZE downtown Tulsa." That's because downtown is not an attractive place to be right now.
I completely expected most of you to jump my case for this, because I know the this website is pro-downtown revitalization, but I have been to other places, and I'm telling you all that at the end of the day it isn't going to work.
Tulsans like easy driving access to their destinations, and the 1-way streets of downtown are a nightmare to the average driver here.
We can go round and round again about demographics and crime, but your argument is already lost.
Just look at the area--and the previous projects mentioned on the front page of the World today that have fallen through there--and what you see is a failed development area, and OLD area, and an area that a few wealthy Tulsans are pushing to revitalize for their own economic interests.
They have YOU believing that downtown revitalization is the best way for Tulsa to grow, but that cookie-cutter mold for city growth does not apply here.
You're right. I say we scrap the downtown plans, move everything out of downtown and out to 132409524th Street. Then we take that money we would've spent on the ballpark to build 100 strip malls out on 132409524th Street, each with a TGI Fridays as the anchor tenant.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
Hawkins is right.
Let's start over.
"We are going to build, on this site...an exact replica of the town of Rock Ridge. Every building...right down to the orange
roof of Howard Johnson's outhouse."
Blazing Saddles
Somebody's gonna have to go back and get a ****load of dimes.
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
quote:
Originally posted by brunoflipper
quote:
Originally posted by brunoflipper
yep, it's that dastardly, gool-ol' boy crowley up his tricks [:P]
check the sig on the drawing...
Ha, nice. Didn't pick up what you were putting down before. Looks like the new Special Advisor to the Mayor on Urban Planning has taken a real hands-on approach! I like it.
I think next time the city wants to come out with a concept drawing they should have someone put another eye on it. I think this is a very nice rendering, but mechanically I don't see it working, I measure the field as 415' deep and the design of the retail (I guess it's retail?) won't work that way. I don't know if there is more to this rendering, but on-site parking is going to be a huge issue, just like it is with the current field.
The Mayor can call us here at Tanner Consulting, or Jerry over at Tulsa Planning and Engineering, or Ted over at Sac & Assoc. at anytime for a critical eye or to draw up a real scale color site plan that has a far better chance to work.
I would like to see the city draw on the expertise of the people of Tulsa when promoting these ideas. I may be wrong, and I may not be seeing everything on this site plan, but it's producing more questions for me than answers.
Just my opinion.
P.S. I'd love to do a 3D rendering of this project. Hint! Hint!
OH MY GOD PEOPLE. The drawing says in plain as day lettering "NOT TO SCALE." Geez.
quote:
Originally posted by Hawkins
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
quote:
Originally posted by Hawkins
I know I'm in the minority here on this website, but this made me sick today when I heard the news.
I would never take my family downtown for a ballgame.
To me, there are two forces that exist in the downtown area, and those are Old money, and the low-income, high crime crowd.
South Tulsa/Jenks, on the other hand, has the middle-class demographic that is more likely to regularly attend a ball game.
This is a very poor decision, strictly speaking in revenue potential, by the team's owner.
The Drillers are not at the forefront of most Tulsan's entertainment, but if they put that ball park in a friendly neighborhood full of medium-income families, then they would get regular business every night, and they wouldn't be a 'once a year' event for most families to make an outing--which is what it is now.
This is a very sad day for baseball, and families in the south Tulsa area.
The Old Money/Politics has won the day, and the majority of folks will stay in South Tulsa on gameday, just like they do now.
[:(]
1) Don't get too offended, but I have to say--your perception of the downtown demographic is so far from reality that it is laughable. I just kind of wonder where it comes from.
2) Your yearning for a ballpark close to your house is understandable. Your interpretation of business reality is not. Downtown minor league ballparks are universally successful. Suburban ballparks work fine too, but there they don't have attendance advantages over those in downtowns. Further, Tulsa is able to offer the Drillers a better margin on their sales because the stadium will be city-owned, and thus tax exempt. In order to make their TIF work, Jenks has required private ownership of any stadium, and thus eliminated that possibility.
Look man, you can be sad that the Drillers aren't going to be close to your house. I won't knock you for that. But your anger at the situation is irrational, your ignorance of business realities is lame, and I've got to call you out on it. This means too much to Tulsa not to.
Don't be offended yourself, but I find your conclusions quite laughable as well. Have you been to downtown Tulsa? Obviously you and I both have.
Here's the real question: Have you been to other downtown areas, places where these baseball stadiums work better than in the suburban areas?
Newsflash, Tulsa isn't one of them!
Every time something like this comes up, people say, "Great, we need to REVITALIZE downtown Tulsa." That's because downtown is not an attractive place to be right now.
I completely expected most of you to jump my case for this, because I know the this website is pro-downtown revitalization, but I have been to other places, and I'm telling you all that at the end of the day it isn't going to work.
Tulsans like easy driving access to their destinations, and the 1-way streets of downtown are a nightmare to the average driver here.
We can go round and round again about demographics and crime, but your argument is already lost.
Just look at the area--and the previous projects mentioned on the front page of the World today that have fallen through there--and what you see is a failed development area, and OLD area, and an area that a few wealthy Tulsans are pushing to revitalize for their own economic interests.
They have YOU believing that downtown revitalization is the best way for Tulsa to grow, but that cookie-cutter mold for city growth does not apply here.
So where do you draw the line on what goes to the suburbs? Bass Pro, we dont need it, Aquarium, we dont need it, baseball stadium we dont need it, river development,... Whats next?
What wouldnt do better in the middle of Jenks demographics? Do we just abandon Tulsa and not try to revitalize it?
Do you live in Tulsa? Dont we need sales and property taxes here to pay for things? Entertainment options here? Or is it better to let things go to the suburbs so that more people go to the suburbs and pay for things "roads, schools, support restaurants, businesses..." in the suburbs and not Tulsa?
If the stadium does not stay in Tulsa, its going to Jenks. Its possible it may do better in Jenks. But it would do well in downtown, especially when downtown begins to grow more in the future. But if its not in Tulsa its not going to do anything for Tulsa....period. We will just be losing more.
Like I've said before, the development area around 169 and 71st (the MOST EXPENSIVE RETAIL rent out there in NE Oklahoma that I'm aware of), would be prime location for a ball park or whatever else.
Why is there a Mathis Brothers building over there to the North of that? Take that, along with the adjacent available space, and that should have been where a stadium or ball park be built.
We have an IMAX theatre at 71st and 169, and several hotels. The Aquarium could have gone there too. Why did the Aquarium end up in Jenks?
I don't know anything about that. How did it happen? How did Bass Pro end up in BA? Why does the City of Tulsa lose all these tax revenue engines?
Probably because they only want to give incentives to businesses who locate downtown. So the City is shooting itself in the foot right there.
I have worked downtown for almost 3 years now, and this self-perpetuating image of an old dark place nobody wants to be will only change if we make it change ourselves. It starts with GETTING PEOPLE DOWNTOWN. When people start coming back downtown for events, they will want a place to stop for dinner.. they will want to do other things.. they will want some of the 47 crappy looking parking lots with rusty-donkey fences and poles all over them fixed up.
If we paid 1/2 the attention we paid to some other areas of Tulsa county downtown, it would do just fine. Gosh, there sure is a lot of congestion in XYZ area of Tulsa.. what area could possibly be designed to handle such traffic!? Oh.
quote:
Originally posted by Hawkins
Like I've said before, the development area around 169 and 71st (the MOST EXPENSIVE RETAIL rent out there in NE Oklahoma that I'm aware of), would be prime location for a ball park or whatever else.
Why is there a Mathis Brothers building over there to the North of that? Take that, along with the adjacent available space, and that should have been where a stadium or ball park be built.
We have an IMAX theatre at 71st and 169, and several hotels. The Aquarium could have gone there too. Why did the Aquarium end up in Jenks?
I don't know anything about that. How did it happen? How did Bass Pro end up in BA? Why does the City of Tulsa lose all these tax revenue engines?
Probably because they only want to give incentives to businesses who locate downtown. So the City is shooting itself in the foot right there.
There are a lot of stories in the naked city. I'll start with your first remark. Why is Mathis Furniture at 71st & 169? A couple of reasons. One is they warehouse their own furniture so they need a large amount of land with a rail connection nearby. Sure that's available downtown but not as visible and less costly to build in the burbs, then...Two- they sell most of their new furniture to new home buyers who live out South and use 169. Also easy for that Owasso crowd and other out of towners who know about Woodland Hills. Large durable goods retailers usually locate on the edge of a growing community because the land and building is cheap, and they can snag the young, affluent first time buyers.
It had nothing to do with the undesirability of downtown. There simply is no new construction to justify the investment as of yet. That will change in the coming years imo. In fact many smaller niche furniture dealers already do quite well between Mathis and downtown because they don't rely on generally less sophisticated newer buyers choosing instead to cater to higher end midtowners. Even North Tulsa has had several successful furniture dealers in spite of its poor reputation.
Yes, i suppose a ball park in a community with only one outdoor sports team would work next to Mathis as well as most anywhere. But why waste the synergy a downtown location would provide? Just so we could further clog the 71st corridor? Dumb idea.
I don't have time right now to address your other examples but none of them were because of the downtown you describe. The Aquarium and Bass Pro site locations had absolutely nothing to do with the downtown environment.