No way... really? It's being paid for exactly by what I've been saying and everyone is... had no idea.

So that 80% in private dollars... that's just coming from magic though right? Or MAYBE it could be coming from the surrounding real estate development revenue... possibly (the main claim everyone is saying why it can ONLY be built at UTC). Mystery to me how you could come up with 80% of the funds privately and it not be a donor or donors willing to put up the cash - that if it was the case those same donors could also pay say 80% of it for an on campus arena, no?

because it's not just an arena. it's a full development project that will include retail, etc. that makes it much easier to get private investment for. that is the difference. that is why it can't be done on campus, there is no money for just an arena from donors, the university has said this, and said that is why there won't be a replacement for LNC on campus (and even then it would be near LNC) for another 15-20 years, because of how they have projects already set up on the books.

but for an investment opportunity for a whole district that is diversified in all of it's revenue streams, yes, there is interest for people to invest in that.

so to clarify, OU isn't buying land in CC, that is a private development group. This whole project is being put together by another completely different private development group, and they are building more than just an arena, but allowing these investors to build into a complete district that they will be building, and that is why they are able to get that investment.

this is not donor money ..

HAHAHA OMG. Can you not read or understand what the context of that last part of the sentence means... it's literally sarcasm.

You have other OU people saying though that this 80% in private money is not coming from real estate development around the arena. So it's just going to appear like magic. Half of you are saying oh I bet donors will pay for this and the other half are saying no donors aren't a part of this because no one would pay for an on campus arena. It's really a clown show here today. It's hilarious.

HAHAHA OMG. Can you not read or understand what the context of that last part of the sentence means... it's literally sarcasm.

You have other OU people saying though that this 80% in private money is not coming from real estate development around the arena. So it's just going to appear like magic. Half of you are saying oh I bet donors will pay for this and the other half are saying no donors aren't a part of this because no one would pay for an on campus arena. It's really a clown show here today. It's hilarious.

the 200 mil of public money is what is building the arena ..

This is not what everyone else has said nor Pete. The claim is a donor or donors support for an on-campus arena doesn't exist. The only options to build one at all is at UTC where they can leverage income from surrounding development to pay for it. Supposedly it would be paid for by "private" $$$ - well if donor support isn't there for an on-campus arena there isn't magically going to be ones for it at UTC. If there is donor support for an arena, building it at UTC is even dumber of an idea. OU has plenty of land to build a mixed-use development on. Even on the parking lots of the arena now or even a bit north. Not having available land on the OU campus is not an issue.

Again, if you want concerts it's going to have to be more than 10,000 seats. Not what they are proposing.

Where are you getting that they are proposing a small arena? That hasn't been announced, at all. You're inferring something from nothing (pulling it out of your butt, to be more specific).

because it's not just an arena. it's a full development project that will include retail, etc. that makes it much easier to get private investment for. that is the difference. that is why it can't be done on campus, there is no money for just an arena from donors, the university has said this, and said that is why there won't be a replacement for LNC on campus (and even then it would be near LNC) for another 15-20 years, because of how they have projects already set up on the books.

but for an investment opportunity for a whole district that is diversified in all of it's revenue streams, yes, there is interest for people to invest in that.

so to clarify, OU isn't buying land in CC, that is a private development group. This whole project is being put together by another completely different private development group, and they are building more than just an arena, but allowing these investors to build into a complete district that they will be building, and that is why they are able to get that investment.

If arena's paid for themselves with just private investment around them why is that not done everywhere?

So let's say hypothetically the new arena is $150 million, so you have $850 million in mixed-use private development around it. Back of the napkin analysis, if that $850 million is built out and stabilized between a mixture of retail, residential, etc. you'd have a blended cap rate around 5.50% probably (new multifamily is in the 4-5% while retail, office, etc. is over 6.5%-9%). You'd have somewhere around $47 million in net operating income to cover the debt service on the entire thing including the arena if it's not being covered by a donor and just leveraged by the private development.

Say 70% of that $850 million in private development is financed (LTV can vary from 50-85%) at 6.50% interest that is a debt service requirement of $38.7 million almost, remaining 30% come from investors who also typically want a return of at least 8% at minimum - return rates on equity can be 10% + typically. So the remaining $120 million of the arena if lumped in to be paid for by that private development ($30 million from TIF, etc. equals the $150 million total). The arena portion would have a debt service amount of $7.8 million at 6.50%. Most banks are giving financing out for stabilized properties closer to 8 or 9% currently just for everyone's info but I'm being generous assuming rates will come down a bit over the next 12-24 months which is likely.

$38.7 + 7.8 million = $46.5 million (nearly 100% of your net operating income). Ain't profitable and you aren't going to get a lot of private investors to kick in the 30% gap in the private development for less than a 1% return on investment.

Where are you getting that they are proposing a small arena? That hasn't been announced, at all. You're inferring something from nothing (pulling it out of your butt, to be more specific).

Talk to all your fellow Sooners on here about that, not me. HA. That info I'm repeating from others on here saying it will be around 8,000 seats or so which to me is dumb. If you want to get concerts and other benefits out of it, it has to be bigger. UT Austin's arena would be the model to look at for that. It also cost $375 million +

the 200 mil of public money is what is building the arena ..

A full on clown show. When did this become public money paying for the arena? Everyone else is saying the max public investment is like $20-30 million via TIF and it's being paid for via private $$$.

If it's public money paying $200 million for an arena for OU to use at UTC, good luck ever getting that built. You really expect the 100,000+ non OU students that are residents of Norman to pick up the tab for OU when they couldn't get an on campus arena funded. Brilliant idea there. Just like it being paid for via 'private' investment too.

Talk to all your fellow Sooners on here about that, not me. HA. That info I'm repeating from others on here saying it will be around 8,000 seats or so which to me is dumb. If you want to get concerts and other benefits out of it, it has to be bigger. UT Austin's arena would be the model to look at for that. It also cost $375 million +

UT's Moody Center seats only 10,000 for basketball. OU's will likely be in that same area. And keep in mind that there are 20,000 more students at UT and is in the heart of Austin with 2.4 million people vs Norman with 130,000 (or even OKC metro with 1.4 million)

Can we get this guy out of the thread? He knows it's $200 million pinochle funding, not $20 million. He keeps moving goal posts, and being kind of rude and snobby about his "knowledge". He hasn't raised one good point that Pete and others haven't countered multiple times, yet keeps cluttering the thread with regurgitated buzzwords and talking points that aren't true.

Talk to all your fellow Sooners on here about that, not me. HA. That info I'm repeating from others on here saying it will be around 8,000 seats or so which to me is dumb. If you want to get concerts and other benefits out of it, it has to be bigger. UT Austin's arena would be the model to look at for that. It also cost $375 million +

Great comparison between OU and one of the two main universities in Texas with more money than god.

the 200 mil of public money is what is building the arena ..

That's not exactly what it says. And it will serve all of Norman, not just OU.

A full on clown show. When did this become public money paying for the arena? Everyone else is saying the max public investment is like $20-30 million via TIF and it's being paid for via private $$$.

If it's public money paying $200 million for an arena for OU to use at UTC, good luck ever getting that built. You really expect the 100,000+ non OU students that are residents of Norman to pick up the tab for OU when they couldn't get an on campus arena funded. Brilliant idea there. Just like it being paid for via 'private' investment too.

Spoken like a true OSU cowboy.

Mystery to me how you could come up with 80% of the funds privately and it not be a donor or donors willing to put up the cash - that if it was the case those same donors could also pay say 80% of it for an on campus arena, no?

It's just the difference between a donation and an investment. Don't confuse or equate the private investment into the development with booster money. It functions completely differently.

Most likely, this is just a commercial development group that believes they can include an entertainment venue and receive public assistance for that. OU basketball (and other indoor sports, I assume) are simply the anchor tenant. As for whether that is a good call for the University to participate, well, that would very much hinge on the terms of the lease, imo. The university does have some leverage in that because they own the land. So, it could be simply, "okay, you can develop the land, but we want an arena to be in the mix, we'll lease it for our teams and we can get public assistance to cover it." So, the University gets their land developed, the developers get some value add through public assistance, the athletic department gets a new facility, and the investors are hoping to get a return through revenue generated from the entire development mix.

So, there is no donor / booster opportunity cost going on here and this is the group that has emerged and is interested in developing this property in this way. So, "why aren't they doing this... why aren't they doing it over there... why not on campus... etc." is irrelevant as far as anyone knows, because this is the only group that is doing this. I'm sure if the campus corner developers were interested in building an arena for OU to use, the university would answer the phone. But this is where the school has some leverage and where there's investors willing to participate.

Simply put $800 million in investment in this development does not equate to reallocation of $800 million in potential facility donation money. It's not automatically the same money and it functions completely differently.

You can say it's a bad investment, but saying that money can just be flipped to another location or turned into a straight out donation doesn't really make sense.

What everyone seems to be claiming when that's brought up is that the arena will be paid for by the surrounding development and income from the retail, apartments, etc. So a private developer will build the arena out of the kindness of their hearts and foregoing profit on surrounding development to make sure that happens according to many here. No help from OU at all, just a small $20-30 million help from City of Norman, County, etc.

This is kind of the structure of many large public/private developments where a venue is involved. The private developer(s) don't see the venue as something they are building out of the kindness of their hearts. They probably don't even see it as something they are building. They see it as an anchor attraction which, with a viable anchor tenant secured, can provide guaranteed traffic to their development several nights a year that is being built with public assistance.


If there's a private individual that can donate that much or several - it shouldn't be built in UTC.

It's not a donation. It's an investment in the whole development. That's just different money, even if it is the same individual, if you get where I'm coming from.

I'm amazed that a post about this proposed major development for Norman and the OKC metro took such a turn for the worse simply because the man's screen name includes the word "Poke."

Instead of questioning his numbers and his apparent knowledge of real estate, financing, and public projects, Urbanist was shouted down and dismissed because he's not a Sooner fan. That's sad. He's entitled to his own opinion, so attack him on his numbers or his research into other venues or whatever, not his lack of love for OU.

I think he makes a lot of sense, because this "If you build it, they will come" mentality has been proven wrong more than once, and definitely in Oklahoma. It's not as if this development is being built in a vacuum. OKC is experiencing growth in every quadrant and the barriers to success here are HUGE.

Just my 2 cents. Fire away.

I'm amazed that a post about this proposed major development for Norman and the OKC metro took such a turn for the worse simply because the man's screen name includes the word "Poke."

Instead of questioning his numbers and his apparent knowledge of real estate, financing, and public projects, Urbanist was shouted down and dismissed because he's not a Sooner fan. That's sad. He's entitled to his own opinion, so attack him on his numbers or his research into other venues or whatever, not his lack of love for OU.

I think he makes a lot of sense, because this "If you build it, they will come" mentality has been proven wrong more than once, and definitely in Oklahoma. It's not as if this development is being built in a vacuum. OKC is experiencing growth in every quadrant and the barriers to success here are HUGE.

Just my 2 cents. Fire away.

He wasn't giving his opinion. He was blatantly misinterpreting quotes and blatantly giving false info (article said $200m in public funding, but he kept saying $20m). If he was less matter of fact, it would be fine. But he made it seem like OU was misleading people. And was antagonistic about it. He wouldn't bother to read rebuttals to his actual info presented, and went on about something that doesn't matter (bond ratings) for multiple posts.

That is why he got bashed. Not for his opinion or screen name. Him not wanting to have actual dialogue and showing bias is why we mentioned his name.

I am glad this is finally moving forward. This has been in the works for years, so people need to understand this just didn't spring up overnight. The original UNP masterplan always called for a mixed-used development like this when the plan was created in 2006. Now we are finally getting the UNP we were supposed to get, rather than the sprawled commercial strip mall it is now.

That is why he got bashed. Not for his opinion or screen name. Him not wanting to have actual dialogue and showing bias is why we mentioned his name. We must have read different posts. Either way, name-calling and automatically perceiving bias in his posts because he's not a Sooner fan or alum doesn't make for healthy debate.

I agree that he did seem to get some facts wrong and he did get rather antagonistic, but he started getting bashed for being an OSU guy while presenting numbers and referencing other developments. To think he is against this development simply because he's an OSU guy or biased against OU is silly.

He wasn't giving his opinion. He was blatantly misinterpreting quotes and blatantly giving false info (article said $200m in public funding, but he kept saying $20m). If he was less matter of fact, it would be fine. But he made it seem like OU was misleading people. And was antagonistic about it. He wouldn't bother to read rebuttals to his actual info presented, and went on about something that doesn't matter (bond ratings) for multiple posts.

That is why he got bashed. Not for his opinion or screen name. Him not wanting to have actual dialogue and showing bias is why we mentioned his name.

Hate to break it to you but that is what others were saying and I was just responding to the various claims being made by others. Yes, $20 - 30 million is one of main variations of claims made by others - maybe those were typos and they left off a 0, I don't know. Everyone is saying I'm moving the goal posts (irony of that is not lost as with many other statements - this isn't football still). I brought up many different issues and address several claims being made and my opinions and some facts about each.

My stance is the same whether it's $200 million or $1 in public money or even if it was $0 and all donor money. If this can be done via TIF, a TIF or similar structure this can be figured out for a better location. You really think UTC is a better location than on or near campus? If so, great. I think it's dumb - difference of opinion. I think OU can do better. Like what ManAboutTown said, all the OU people saw a slight criticism and flew off the rails over it because I'm an OSU fan/alumni. It frankly was hilarious to watch and sad - don't take everything so personal. This board is like a mob - if you say anything Pete or regulars don't like they like to gang up on everyone. Great way to encourage interaction with the site BTW Pete to act like that to people who drive your ad revenues. I've literally said nothing negative about OKC and somehow now I'm an OKC hater who probably lives in Tulsa? LOL. I work in both cities and own properties in both OKC, Tulsa and other places in Oklahoma. I have lots of opinions because I think Oklahoma can do better and be better. I don't hate OU no matter how much you all want to believe OSU fans lives revolve around you all too, it doesn't. I have far, far harsher opinions of OSU sports.

I still think this is a bad investment and depending on final structure of the deal could be very bad for Norman and bad for OU financially and guess what? Even OSU fans help fund OU via tax dollars and we should all be concerned how each university chooses to spend money and whether it is responsible or not.

I have concerns that the arena is too small for concerts. Too far from campus to get student to be remotely interested. Etc. Etc. There isn't a arena style single venue in the US that is booked with concerts/other events that is this size and is a net positive in revenue/feasible. Why? Like I said before that was ignored, bands and artists that tour in venues of that size go to places that are built specific for music/performances. They can not afford to tour in sub 10,000 seat venues and have mobile stages, etc. It is not profitable. They are forced into booking venues at casino performing venues, performing arts centers, amphitheaters, etc. that have stages and full A/V etc set up already. Arena's are not that.

At 8,000 seats this would barely be bigger than Union High Schools UMAC (about 6,500 seats). Same size as University of Tulsa's Reynolds Center (little over 8,000 seats). How many concerts and events do they have every year? Mabee Center in Tulsa would be bigger (little over 10,000 seats) than this if 8,000 seats is the final number. 10,000 seats would probably be ideal and use the design of the Moody Center in Austin - it was built with being a flexible venue. The seats and layout of the bowl seating was built to maximize being able to get over 10,000 in the building for concerts and thus being able to book tours that places like this wouldn't be able to or UMAC, Reynolds Center, Mabee Center, etc.

We must have read different posts. Either way, name-calling and automatically perceiving bias in his posts because he's not a Sooner fan or alum doesn't make for healthy debate.

I agree that he did seem to get some facts wrong and he did get rather antagonistic, but he started getting bashed for being an OSU guy while presenting numbers and referencing other developments. To think he is against this development simply because he's an OSU guy or biased against OU is silly.

yes, we must have read different posts, because most of the posts were about him making claims that OU was going to have to pay for all of this, OU was buying land in Campus Corner, and many other things that just weren't true. very little did people post about his username or question his expertise. i said he must not know much about real-estate, because he clearly didn't have any clue as to what he was talking about, and he just came back that he worked in the industry, and then just kept making up things and not actually listing to facts.

he claimed to be objective in the same post where he proposed his clearly subjective opinions that were already disproven. so yes, we read different posts. all i saw was a troll who didn't actually want to have a conversation and just doubled down when his opinions were met with facts

My stance on $200 million is if that can be done via TIF, a TIF or similar structure could be figured out for a better location. You really think UTC is a better location than on or near campus?.

okay. well a different development group has already purchased a majority of Campus Corner, so that's out as an option. and they can't use the TIF to build it on campus.... so where else would you put it? the reason that UTC is being looked at is because that is where the private part of this want to build it... that is where they think they can get the most investment to cover their part of it. again, we go back to the only two options... take the one on the table, because there have been years for an option to come forward and this is the only one that keeps coming up, or we wait another 2 decades to just put it back next to the current LNC. Those are the only options on the table. there is no Magical third option that is going to happen.

It's just the difference between a donation and an investment. Don't confuse or equate the private investment into the development with booster money. It functions completely differently.

Most likely, this is just a commercial development group that believes they can include an entertainment venue and receive public assistance for that. OU basketball (and other indoor sports, I assume) are simply the anchor tenant. As for whether that is a good call for the University to participate, well, that would very much hinge on the terms of the lease, imo. The university does have some leverage in that because they own the land. So, it could be simply, "okay, you can develop the land, but we want an arena to be in the mix, we'll lease it for our teams and we can get public assistance to cover it." So, the University gets their land developed, the developers get some value add through public assistance, the athletic department gets a new facility, and the investors are hoping to get a return through revenue generated from the entire development mix.

So, there is no donor / booster opportunity cost going on here and this is the group that has emerged and is interested in developing this property in this way. So, "why aren't they doing this... why aren't they doing it over there... why not on campus... etc." is irrelevant as far as anyone knows, because this is the only group that is doing this. I'm sure if the campus corner developers were interested in building an arena for OU to use, the university would answer the phone. But this is where the school has some leverage and where there's investors willing to participate.

Simply put $800 million in investment in this development does not equate to reallocation of $800 million in potential facility donation money. It's not automatically the same money and it functions completely differently.

You can say it's a bad investment, but saying that money can just be flipped to another location or turned into a straight out donation doesn't really make sense.

Maybe some of my posts confused people because I was responding to various scenarios people threw out there.

OU does own the land around the current arena and they could conceptually build a new one on the parking lots and redevelop that entire area into a mixed-use development - that site isn't smaller than the UTC site and plenty of vacant land on the south side of campus that could become a massive mixed-use and walkable urban center all the way down to the National Weather Center (and a much better location for a weather museum too than UTC). I think that would be a far better spot and could utilize the same TIF/tax dollar recapturing that would pay for the arena on the UTC site. That is why I have a hard time believing the ONLY option is UTC. Campus Corner area and downtown Norman have plenty of spots an arena and mixed-use development could fit on.

It does seems that if OU wants to shift the risk off to Norman and taxpayers the UTC is the easiest option for them if they have support from city/county. If they did a TIF or some sort of tax $ recapture on the current arena's parking lots/site they would have to do the bonds themselves to do the construction and well that's where their credit ratings, debt, etc. become an issue. To do it on campus they'd be nearly doubling their current debt with little/no donor support for an arena (which just blows my mind how OU donors care that little about basketball and other sports that would use the venue). OU's past bad investments have tied their hands a bit in what they can/can not do in getting a new arena built, especially on campus and because of that it's a combination of various forces that have pushed this proposal which is a bad location away from campus, too small of size, etc. etc.

Maybe some of my posts confused people because I was responding to various scenarios people threw out there.

OU does own the land around the current arena and they could conceptually build a new one on the parking lots and redevelop that entire area into a mixed-use development - that site isn't smaller than the UTC site and plenty of vacant land on the south side of campus. I think that would be a far better spot and could utilize the same TIF/tax dollar recapturing that would pay for the arena on the UTC site. That is why I have a hard time believing the ONLY option is UTC. Campus Corner area and downtown Norman have plenty of spots an arena and mixed-use development could fit on.

It does seems that if OU wants to shift the risk off to Norman and taxpayers the UTC is the easiest option for them if they have support from city/county. If they did a TIF or some sort of tax $ recapture on the current arena's parking lots/site they would have to do the bonds themselves to do the construction and well that's where their credit ratings, debt, etc. become an issue. To do it on campus they'd be nearly doubling their current debt with little/no donor support for an arena (which just blows my mind how OU donors care that little about basketball and other sports that would use the venue). OU's past bad investments have tied their hands a bit in what they can/can not do in getting a new arena built, especially on campus and because of that it's a combination of various forces that have pushed this proposal which is a bad location away from campus, too small of size, etc. etc.

because the LNC is basically off campus by all real measure. students can't really just walk there, they all drive or take the bus. the reason UTC is a better option than near the current LNC is because people actually already go to UTC, why build mix use in the LNC parking lot? who would want to live there, people already say that because HW9 traffic is so bad, that is why they don't go to LNC, so people aren't going to go there to shop. you don't gain anything by building it there. UTC would cut a good 20 minutes off the drive to go to a basketball game for people living in OKC. that might actually entice them to come to a game. people already live and go to UTC to shop, so adding more shopping and mixed use development makes sense there.

yes, in a perfect world we could build it somewhere on campus, that was actually on campus, but that just doesn't appear to be a viable option at all. If we want a good development that might actually spur growth, and population traffic to an area, UTC destroys the parking lot of LNC in every category. If the purpose of putting an arena on campus is to get kids to walk to games, then LNC isn't the answer, because it's apparently already too far for the kids to feel the need to walk there. and that seems to be the only real argument i hear for why it needs to be on campus.

okay. well a different development group has already purchased a majority of Campus Corner, so that's out as an option. and they can't use the TIF to build it on campus.... so where else would you put it? the reason that UTC is being looked at is because that is where the private part of this want to build it... that is where they think they can get the most investment to cover their part of it. again, we go back to the only two options... take the one on the table, because there have been years for an option to come forward and this is the only one that keeps coming up, or we wait another 2 decades to just put it back next to the current LNC. Those are the only options on the table. there is no Magical third option that is going to happen.

I'll try to clear this up one last time via Campus Corner. I know and taking what I was saying out of context. BTW there's several people on the campus corner thread talking about how OU can use eminent domain etc etc to help with Campus Corner redevelopment and other various things. I didn't make that up.

What I am saying is there are parking lots in that area an arena could fit on, which is true. Getting a hold of that site is another issue, yes - not denying that. OU could approach the developers buying up campus corner and other owners and work out a deal those just like UTC. OU owns the land yes, but they still have to have a private partner to do the mixed-use development around the arena or there is no TIF $$ to build the arena. It's not the same structure of private-public partnership but if they can work something out for UTC I have a hard time thinking they could with Campus Corner possibly.

I still think the parking lots and surrounding vacant land around LNC is a better site and OU owns that land already. Walking distance to campus, better suited for student housing expansion, campus related office research buildings, etc. etc.

because the LNC is basically off campus by all real measure. students can't really just walk there, they all drive or take the bus. the reason UTC is a better option than near the current LNC is because people actually already go to UTC, why build mix use in the LNC parking lot? who would want to live there, people already say that because HW9 traffic is so bad, that is why they don't go to LNC, so people aren't going to go there to shop. you don't gain anything by building it there. UTC would cut a good 20 minutes off the drive to go to a basketball game for people living in OKC. that might actually entice them to come to a game. people already live and go to UTC to shop, so adding more shopping and mixed use development makes sense there.

yes, in a perfect world we could build it somewhere on campus, that was actually on campus, but that just doesn't appear to be a viable option at all. If we want a good development that might actually spur growth, and population traffic to an area, UTC destroys the parking lot of LNC in every category. If the purpose of putting an arena on campus is to get kids to walk to games, then LNC isn't the answer, because it's apparently already too far for the kids to feel the need to walk there. and that seems to be the only real argument i hear for why it needs to be on campus.

I do understand your point and why LNC feels like that and it's because of the built environment surrounding LNC. It is essentially built like it's an off campus commuter site. If the way to pay for a new arena though is via property taxes/sales taxes of surrounding development the LNC site is far better (demo LNC and build a new arena, not saying keep LNC - tear it down after the new facility is done and then could redevelop the rest of the site and surrounding areas). If it was turned into a mixed-use urban center and areas around it, the walk from campus would feel like no big deal walking past retail, housing, etc... unlike it does now because you're walking across mostly barren land and massive parking lots. The failures of LNC are being repeated with the UTC site except that they plan to place a few strip centers in front of the arena walking from the massive surface parking lots so you're last 100 feet into the arena won't feel as awful. Now you'll have to convince a disinterested fan base of students to go even further via car or bus to get to it and you couldn't even get them to LNC.

Edit: While the location would be slightly closer in to OKC - this site will only have 1 ingress/egress point via 24th if you're using I-35 from north or south to access Norman. Just think about that... if you think traffic is an issue on Highway 9. The ingress/egress of the south campus area is a lot better than funneling 5,000 plus cars if the arena is sold out to the Tecumseh and Robinson on/off ramps and then forcing everyone to turn left from Robinson to 24th or go into 24th off an inadequate interchange off Tecumseh. That's why suburban strip centers are a bad idea for stuff like this. If you think it's hard to get into LNC just wait. That's even more public dollars that will have to go into building out additional infrastructure to ease traffic in and out. That will be a net negative to retailers on event days/nights for an area that already has healthy enough traffic for suburban retailers. You're mixing incompatible types of development/users. Even for local traffic, Rock Creek is your only other east/west option to get to another north/south road and only can take you west to an inadequate 36th for a large event traffic event like this. The airport isn't going anywhere anytime soon so no way to add east/west road connections either. Adding an on/off ramp at Rock Creek would have $25+ million easily too to add another ingress/egress point from I-35.

It's a difference of opinion if you like UTC better than a south campus site like the LNC parking lots, etc. I still think it's a massive mistake and only sucks development away from campus that could have been done to make the university more desirable for students with more retail, housing, etc. within walking distance and not via car miles away. OU has the benefit of being in a major metro and in the largest suburb of the metro and just wastes the opportunity of its location that baffles me so much. It has a lot of things OSU could never replicate in a market size perspective of being able to do really great campus developments/mixed-use stuff and have a tenant list that would locate there given the metro size. There isn't a reason why retailers like Trader Joes, etc. wouldn't be interested in a well done mixed-use neighborhood that went from Highway 9 north toward the main part of campus that couldn't be replicated at UTC.

Just move on dude. Let it go. Life’s short.

I don’t know what your day job is, but you’ve spent quite a bit of time, effort and characters on this thread.

Surely there’s more out there for you.

Just move on dude. Let it go. Life’s short.

I don’t know what your day job is, but you’ve spent quite a bit of time, effort and characters on this thread.

Surely there’s more out there for you.

Another triggered Sooner I see. You do understand what the internet is and a forum right? The very one you're posting to now... you can move on too and not post or not read my comments, yet you took the time out of your day because you wanted to. What's your day job? I don't post that often but this was entertaining given the hysteria from OU fans that came my way for no reason when I've said very little negative things about any of this. It's comical. Sooner fans are so sensitive on here, hate to see what happens to people in the real world.

I don't think I've ever seen any poster here before who completely understands everything about everyone else and is so adept at rationalizing his own posts, even when shown to not be accurate. He is certainly entitled to his opinion but 90 percent of what he says is just opinion and worth nothing more than that. So I'm sure I will be lambasted next as an OU apologist. LOL

My thoughts exactly, looks like a giant parking lot from above. I am never too excited about these unwalkable car centric developments.

I know it's too late for this now but I think the duck pond would make a great spot for a new arena. Just sayin.

Good location but not enough space

So question like some of the others are leading to here. Since OU is not contributing to the venue (understandably) I wonder if Harroz's goal is to use this as a buffer. Play here for a bit and see how it goes and then start a fundraising campaign for a LNC replacement.

LNC is too valuable as a space for parking for football and regular commuter parking, so you won't see the actual lot itself going anywhere. But if LNC is dozed (or dug up, whatever you want to call it) while they play at University Town Center , then there's freedom to start over and not have to worry about location.

My concern then becomes, what is Norman going to do to keep that size of an arena busy if/when OU moves out. That's a pretty good sized venue at 11k. It could host a ton of graduations (if the price is right). There are hotels nearby for some 2nd tier conventions...but they aren't walking distance close, which is a downside. So does it become an Olympic type venue then, where it just sits and collects dust for 30 years as it stagnates? That's all assuming OU doesn't stay there. If it does stay, well there's nothing to worry about. It's going to be plenty busy.

If OU does stay, i'm also wondering if OU rebuilds the practice facilities (which i hear always leak in the rain for some reason...or at least used to).

So question like some of the others are leading to here. Since OU is not contributing to the venue (understandably) I wonder if Harroz's goal is to use this as a buffer. Play here for a bit and see how it goes and then start a fundraising campaign for a LNC replacement.

LNC is too valuable as a space for parking for football and regular commuter parking, so you won't see the actual lot itself going anywhere. But if LNC is dozed (or dug up, whatever you want to call it) while they play at University Town Center , then there's freedom to start over and not have to worry about location.

My concern then becomes, what is Norman going to do to keep that size of an arena busy if/when OU moves out. That's a pretty good sized venue at 11k. It could host a ton of graduations (if the price is right). There are hotels nearby for some 2nd tier conventions...but they aren't walking distance close, which is a downside. So does it become an Olympic type venue then, where it just sits and collects dust for 30 years as it stagnates? That's all assuming OU doesn't stay there. If it does stay, well there's nothing to worry about. It's going to be plenty busy.

If OU does stay, i'm also wondering if OU rebuilds the practice facilities (which i hear always leak in the rain for some reason...or at least used to).

I believe OU would have to commit to a long term lease in the range of 20-25 years. The size of the arena I have heard is between 8-10 k which makes a lot of sense as you build bigger (increased cost) you are just trying to compete with Paycom and the new Thunder arena which doesn't make much sense. This size allows OU to use it 40-50 (maybe 60) nights a year between Men's and Women's basketball and Gymnastics. I see it hosting another few tournaments for HS (volleyball, basketball, gymnastics etc) which could take up to another 20-30 nights of action. The rest would be up to the developer to fill the space.

Just a comparison of size between UNP, Campus Corner and LNC.

Campus Corner area is roughly 52 acres.
LNC area is roughly 59 acres.
UNP (the area dedicated to this development only) 208 acres. Neither CC nor LNC compares in size and quite frankly doesn't compare with infrastructure either.

A full on clown show. When did this become public money paying for the arena? Everyone else is saying the max public investment is like $20-30 million via TIF and it's being paid for via private $$$.

If it's public money paying $200 million for an arena for OU to use at UTC, good luck ever getting that built. You really expect the 100,000+ non OU students that are residents of Norman to pick up the tab for OU when they couldn't get an on campus arena funded. Brilliant idea there. Just like it being paid for via 'private' investment too.

you are the clown who clearly doesn't understand this project ..

because the LNC is basically off campus by all real measure. students can't really just walk there, they all drive or take the bus. the reason UTC is a better option than near the current LNC is because people actually already go to UTC, why build mix use in the LNC parking lot? who would want to live there, people already say that because HW9 traffic is so bad, that is why they don't go to LNC, so people aren't going to go there to shop. you don't gain anything by building it there. UTC would cut a good 20 minutes off the drive to go to a basketball game for people living in OKC. that might actually entice them to come to a game. people already live and go to UTC to shop, so adding more shopping and mixed use development makes sense there.

yes, in a perfect world we could build it somewhere on campus, that was actually on campus, but that just doesn't appear to be a viable option at all. If we want a good development that might actually spur growth, and population traffic to an area, UTC destroys the parking lot of LNC in every category. If the purpose of putting an arena on campus is to get kids to walk to games, then LNC isn't the answer, because it's apparently already too far for the kids to feel the need to walk there. and that seems to be the only real argument i hear for why it needs to be on campus.

also the majority of season ticket holders live north of norman in the OKC metro and this reduces the travel time by almost 30 min ..

it also gives before and after the game beverage options ..

there have been several season ticket holder surveys about this possibility going back years and years ... (and then of course the public survey from this year )

there was a LNC reno plan from over a decade ago and it was 175 mil ... there is simply not funding for that ...


the options are this plan or no arena for another 20 years ..


this is very much UNP ... but they are clearly rebranding it to get away from the UNP stigma ...

where do people think the 200 mil of public money is going to go ... (this area is already primed for development and the major roads are already built)

So question like some of the others are leading to here. Since OU is not contributing to the venue (understandably) I wonder if Harroz's goal is to use this as a buffer. Play here for a bit and see how it goes and then start a fundraising campaign for a LNC replacement.

LNC is too valuable as a space for parking for football and regular commuter parking, so you won't see the actual lot itself going anywhere. But if LNC is dozed (or dug up, whatever you want to call it) while they play at University Town Center , then there's freedom to start over and not have to worry about location.

My concern then becomes, what is Norman going to do to keep that size of an arena busy if/when OU moves out. That's a pretty good sized venue at 11k. It could host a ton of graduations (if the price is right). There are hotels nearby for some 2nd tier conventions...but they aren't walking distance close, which is a downside. So does it become an Olympic type venue then, where it just sits and collects dust for 30 years as it stagnates? That's all assuming OU doesn't stay there. If it does stay, well there's nothing to worry about. It's going to be plenty busy.

If OU does stay, i'm also wondering if OU rebuilds the practice facilities (which i hear always leak in the rain for some reason...or at least used to).

they are building a new hotel ..

OU is currently upgrading the practice facilities they will stay where they are for a long period of time (the BG performance center is also there and is first class)

I still think the parking lots and surrounding vacant land around LNC is a better site and OU owns that land already. Walking distance to campus, better suited for student housing expansion, campus related office research buildings, etc. etc.

you can think this it is just not correct in any way


if money was not a concern .. the location for the new arena would be on the north east corner of Jenkins and brooks .. that is the one spot with enough room to actually build a new arena ..

but that still doesn't solve the 30 min time savings that this location does ..

you can think this it is just not correct in any way


if money was not a concern .. the location for the new arena would be on the north east corner of Jenkins and brooks .. that is the one spot with enough room to actually build a new arena ..

but that still doesn't solve the 30 min time savings that this location does ..

But makes it harder for students to go to games. Sorry this is a stupid decision that OU will regret IF it moves forward. I have my doubts.

But makes it harder for students to go to games. Sorry this is a stupid decision that OU will regret IF it moves forward. I have my doubts.

Students don't go to football games, let alone basketball games. Quit making this about students. If students cared, they'd go to LNC. It's a 10 minute drive. There are no on-campus locations for an arena of this size. You can't just imagine and child-like grandeur 70+ acres from thin air.

OU won't regret it. LNC is a dump, and can be torn down and made into a mixed-use area benefitting the students and citizens of Norman. But it isn't big enough for an arena to be constructed while still housing LNC. What? Is OU supposed to try to schedule around the Thunder in OKC for 2 years AND pay rent to OKC? Good luck with that.

So many fiscal advantages to this plan. And it generates additional revenue from the areas surrounding said new arena.

I get some want to be skeptics for the sake of being skeptical. But your reasoning is flawed. Students are a money loser at arenas and stadiums. And OU could build an arena on top of dorms, and students STILL wouldn't go. If they don't go and show out for football games, they never will for basketball.

But makes it harder for students to go to games. Sorry this is a stupid decision that OU will regret IF it moves forward. I have my doubts.

Agree. It's not going to rescue the basketball program, instead it's just going to incentivize OU's donor base to remain lazy and football focused. I have been closely following OU basketball for over a decade...the apathy by people who actually have the power to change things is absolutely suffocating the program and this won't fix it, it's just kicking the can down the road for another 20-30 years.

But makes it harder for students to go to games. Sorry this is a stupid decision that OU will regret IF it moves forward. I have my doubts.

pretty much all students currently drive to games .. all the students also drive to the target in the UNP development ..

if they want to go they will go ..

Agree. It's not going to rescue the basketball program, instead it's just going to incentivize OU's donor base to remain lazy and football focused. I have been closely following OU basketball for over a decade...the apathy by people who actually have the power to change things is absolutely suffocating the program and this won't fix it, it's just kicking the can down the road for another 20-30 years.

i have been following the OU basketball program closely for 40 years ... if this project doesn't happen it is a non renovated LNC for another 15 years Minimum (more like 20-25)

i have been following the OU basketball program closely for 40 years ... if this project doesn't happen it is a non renovated LNC for another 15 years Minimum (more like 20-25)

Yes...because of donor apathy. I'm in agreement with you on the potential outcomes here...all I'm saying is that playing in a new arena at the UTC as opposed to continuing to play at the LNC for the next 15-25 years is not going to be a panacea for the issues that have caused the basketball program to backslide since the end of the Sampson era.

Students 100% still had to drive to games at LNC. They also give away free tickets with football and no one goes. Students like football (for a quarter or two) and everything else is secondary.

I am sure they will have ample shuttles running from campus to the new arena.

Agree. It's not going to rescue the basketball program, instead it's just going to incentivize OU's donor base to remain lazy and football focused. I have been closely following OU basketball for over a decade...the apathy by people who actually have the power to change things is absolutely suffocating the program and this won't fix it, it's just kicking the can down the road for another 20-30 years.

It is the same echo chamber of people saying the same things, but not having a solution. What is your ideal solution to the situation, so we can discuss why OU isn't going with it?

The duck pond? Too small. Same with CC. Hard to build an arena and have parking (plus, students wouldn't go to the games anyway).

Renovating LNC? Would cost about as much, if not more than a new arena, and is just lipstick on a pig.

Next to the stadium? A new football facility is going there, so it can't be there.

Destroying houses near campus using eminent domain? I'm sure that will go over well with the community.

I'm open to other suggestions, though.

It is the same echo chamber of people saying the same things, but not having a solution. What is your ideal solution to the situation, so we can discuss why OU isn't going with it?

The duck pond? Too small. Same with CC. Hard to build an arena and have parking (plus, students wouldn't go to the games anyway).

Renovating LNC? Would cost about as much, if not more than a new arena, and is just lipstick on a pig.

Next to the stadium? A new football facility is going there, so it can't be there.

Destroying houses near campus using eminent domain? I'm sure that will go over well with the community.

I'm open to other suggestions, though.

and the #1 question for all of these things where is the FUNDING coming from

Students don't go to football games, let alone basketball games. Quit making this about students. If students cared, they'd go to LNC. It's a 10 minute drive. .

THIS!!!! lets stop this whole argument about students. they literally don't care. those that do, probably already drive to LNC, and thus would drive here.

and the #1 question for all of these things where is the FUNDING coming from

Yep. A private developer, working with private funds, approached OU with an idea, and it is more cost efficient for OU to do this than to try to fundraise for the basketball program.

It is the same echo chamber of people saying the same things, but not having a solution. What is your ideal solution to the situation, so we can discuss why OU isn't going with it?

The duck pond? Too small. Same with CC. Hard to build an arena and have parking (plus, students wouldn't go to the games anyway).

Renovating LNC? Would cost about as much, if not more than a new arena, and is just lipstick on a pig.

Next to the stadium? A new football facility is going there, so it can't be there.

Destroying houses near campus using eminent domain? I'm sure that will go over well with the community.

I'm open to other suggestions, though.

Either the NE Corner of Jenkins and Brooks, or build a new arena in any corner of the parking lots surrounding the LNC. I also don't think that renovating the LNC would be a bad option either, look at the before/after of what Michigan did with the Crisler Center back in 2011. In any case, it doesn't matter what I think, because it's been obvious for quite a while that a UNP arena is OU's preferred solution. All I can do is post on OKC Talk about how I think it's a really dumb idea to build a new arena 5 miles NW of campus rather than making any real attempt to build near what's likely going to be a massively renovated Campus Corner, or even just staying on the existing LNC footprint which is becoming a better location year over year as the footprint of OU's campus continues to slowly expand to the south.

It's just a lazy solution. I am not that smart, but it doesn't take a genius to understand that lazy solutions won't do anything to fix the apathy that has enveloped the OU basketball program for as long as I've cared about it.

Either the NE Corner of Jenkins and Brooks, or build a new arena in any corner of the parking lots surrounding the LNC. I also don't think that renovating the LNC would be a bad option either, look at the before/after of what Michigan did with the Crisler Center back in 2011. In any case, it doesn't matter what I think, because it's been obvious for quite a while that a UNP arena is OU's preferred solution. All I can do is post on OKC Talk about how I think it's a really dumb idea to build a new arena 5 miles NW of campus rather than making any real attempt to build near what's likely going to be a massively renovated Campus Corner, or even just staying on the existing LNC footprint which is becoming a better location year over year as the footprint of OU's campus continues to slowly expand to the south.

It's just a lazy solution. I am not that smart, but it doesn't take a genius to understand that lazy solutions won't do anything to fix the apathy that has enveloped the OU basketball program for as long as I've cared about it.

it is OU's preferred solution because it can actually happen ... and soon ..


there is 0 funding for any of your other ideas ...

and for the record if i had 500 mil to give OU there would be a new arena at the NE corner of Jenkins and Brooks ..

Either the NE Corner of Jenkins and Brooks, or build a new arena in any corner of the parking lots surrounding the LNC. I also don't think that renovating the LNC would be a bad option either, look at the before/after of what Michigan did with the Crisler Center back in 2011. In any case, it doesn't matter what I think, because it's been obvious for quite a while that a UNP arena is OU's preferred solution. All I can do is post on OKC Talk about how I think it's a really dumb idea to build a new arena 5 miles NW of campus rather than making any real attempt to build near what's likely going to be a massively renovated Campus Corner, or even just staying on the existing LNC footprint which is becoming a better location year over year as the footprint of OU's campus continues to slowly expand to the south.

It's just a lazy solution. I am not that smart, but it doesn't take a genius to understand that lazy solutions won't do anything to fix the apathy that has enveloped the OU basketball program for as long as I've cared about it.

Again, funding. OU is working with private interests who WANT to build a new arena at UNP. OU would never be able to fundraiser the money for a new basketball arena. Donors don't care enough about basketball to fund it. So unless you have a way for OU to afford to build a new arena, this is the best option OU had.

OU just doesn't have the money. They are relying on private money, and latching on. That is what people aren't getting here. If money weren't an option, other locations would be looked at. But this is what a private developer wants, and it is the only way OU will get a new arena for their basketball and gymnastics programs.

Apathy is running rampant among basically all sports programs all across the country. It is easier to watch from home. Even SEC powers are finding this out. Not just OU.

I'm amazed that a post about this proposed major development for Norman and the OKC metro took such a turn for the worse simply because the man's screen name includes the word "Poke."

Instead of questioning his numbers and his apparent knowledge of real estate, financing, and public projects, Urbanist was shouted down and dismissed because he's not a Sooner fan. That's sad. He's entitled to his own opinion, so attack him on his numbers or his research into other venues or whatever, not his lack of love for OU.

I think he makes a lot of sense, because this "If you build it, they will come" mentality has been proven wrong more than once, and definitely in Oklahoma. It's not as if this development is being built in a vacuum. OKC is experiencing growth in every quadrant and the barriers to success here are HUGE.

Just my 2 cents. Fire away.

Its very on brand, actually. I like the one non-sequitur post that brought up Saturdays football games of OU and OSU as if that mattered in this debate.

I just think its lazy that OU cant find a way to put it on campus. They seemingly can find all the space and money for a football cafeteria or something but not for an arena for the second most popular and revenue generating sport.

Its very on brand, actually. I like the one non-sequitur post that brought up Saturdays football games of OU and OSU as if that mattered in this debate.

I just think its lazy that OU cant find a way to put it on campus. They seemingly can find all the space and money for a football cafeteria or something but not for an arena for the second most popular and revenue generating sport.

because Women's Gymnastics has a higher average attendance recently than basketball.. there is no money for basketball right now from donors.

I will never a support an arena that is not on campus and think it’s a huge mistake. Downtown Norman would be a fine alternative but not by I-35. But I’m also not paying for it.

It probably makes a lot more sense to have it by I-35. What % of attendees are students? It's never more than 25% is it? Mostly folks coming from I-35, right?

And maybe with that, Norman/OU could invest in a BRT or trolley system to move students from campus to I-35 in the future to eliminate that issue?

Its very on brand, actually. I like the one non-sequitur post that brought up Saturdays football games of OU and OSU as if that mattered in this debate.

I just think its lazy that OU cant find a way to put it on campus. They seemingly can find all the space and money for a football cafeteria or something but not for an arena for the second most popular and revenue generating sport.

It isn't "lazy". It is smart to make it way more accessable and fun for more in the area to enjoy. This idea that you could build this kind of magnetic entertainment district on campus is just fantasy.

This development makes sense for the city of Norman and for all us fans.

I just think its lazy that OU cant find a way to put it on campus. They seemingly can find all the space and money for a football cafeteria or something but not for an arena for the second most popular and revenue generating sport.

Because every other sport -- including basketball -- loses a lot of money.

Football makes a ton of money and that is only increasing with time, hence the continued investment.


It's not 'lazy' or 'stupid'. Besides BoulderSooner I seriously doubt anyone on this thread has ever had season tickets (I did for years) or even bothers to go to the games (I still see a few every year). I never missed a home game as a student and drove to ever single one of them... I'm not aware of any students who don't drive to the games, so nothing will really change in that regard.

Frankly put, pretty much none of the people commenting here have any idea what they are talking about.

There are very good reasons the university president, board of regents and both OU basketball coaches are strongly in favor of this plan.

But makes it harder for students to go to games. Sorry this is a stupid decision that OU will regret IF it moves forward. I have my doubts.

How is it any more difficult for students than LNC? Would you rather them do this or play at LNC for the next 20 years? Those are the options.

What percentage of the students live on campus? What percentage of game attendees are students? Compared to LNC… Will this move negatively affect student attendance more than it positively affects alumni/fan attendance.

It probably makes a lot more sense to have it by I-35. What % of attendees are students? It's never more than 25% is it? Mostly folks coming from I-35, right?

And maybe with that, Norman/OU could invest in a BRT or trolley system to move students from campus to I-35 in the future to eliminate that issue?

To piggyback on that, if RTA becomes a thing, and there is a stop here, it might drive more attendance from OKC metro.

Its very on brand, actually. I like the one non-sequitur post that brought up Saturdays football games of OU and OSU as if that mattered in this debate.

I just think its lazy that OU cant find a way to put it on campus. They seemingly can find all the space and money for a football cafeteria or something but not for an arena for the second most popular and revenue generating sport.

Yes. I brought up Saturdays football results which were about as relevant to the discussion as UrbanPoke’s arguments and frankly your lazy commentary on it.