View Full Version : University Town Center



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 [37] 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46

BoulderSooner
09-17-2024, 09:41 PM
Yay a new arena next to a strip mall, paid for by diverting $600M from the City of Norman's general fund! If this passes and you live in Norman you should be livid.

Nothing like lies. This diverts 0.00 dollars from the general fund

bison34
09-17-2024, 10:46 PM
Nothing like lies. This diverts 0.00 dollars from the general fund

I mean, it does keep money from thr general fund (since they will be missing out on taxes from the development for a bit).

PhiAlpha
09-18-2024, 12:55 AM
Holy crap. It's almost 1 AM and the meeting is still going.

https://www.youtube.com/live/HAcIFo8Mzlc

PhiAlpha
09-18-2024, 01:21 AM
Passed at 1:15. Still voting on other issues surrounding it.

bison34
09-18-2024, 07:49 AM
I hope that they don't bring to the people. This meeting was long enough. And if you heard some of the stupidity coming from citizens in the meeting last night, then you know what I mean.

Prunesmoothie
09-18-2024, 07:59 AM
Who/what decides that it gets voted on by Norman residents?

BoulderSooner
09-18-2024, 08:46 AM
Who/what decides that it gets voted on by Norman residents?

initiative petition

Pete
09-18-2024, 08:58 AM
http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/ou091824a.jpg

FighttheGoodFight
09-18-2024, 09:05 AM
I'm sure we will see legal challenges over the next few years. We will see where it goes in the end.

josefromtulsa
09-18-2024, 10:29 AM
The image is missing a discount tire and an office depot to really drive home the luxury aspect.

I wish I could find the original renderings of the UNP development to compare to how it came out.

Rover
09-18-2024, 11:01 AM
The image is missing a discount tire and an office depot to really drive home the luxury aspect.

I wish I could find the original renderings of the UNP development to compare to how it came out.

Was this ever sold as a "Luxury" development? Where actually is there a "luxury" development in Norman.

jn1780
09-18-2024, 11:02 AM
The image is missing a discount tire and an office depot to really drive home the luxury aspect.

I wish I could find the original renderings of the UNP development to compare to how it came out.

Or the CarMax which is directly across the street from where this new entertainment district is going.

JoeMNeal
09-18-2024, 11:05 AM
The image is missing a discount tire and an office depot to really drive home the luxury aspect.

I wish I could find the original renderings of the UNP development to compare to how it came out.

Here is the website of the developer. The stores they work with really scream "upscale development"

https://www.rainiercompanies.com/properties/?3465251647=8&pg=2

bison34
09-18-2024, 11:16 AM
Or the CarMax which is directly across the street from where this new entertainment district is going.

But yeah, organic development will happen here. Lol. Hasn't for 15 years, won't without this TIF. But I also get the other side.

Pete
09-18-2024, 04:13 PM
http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/ou091824b.jpg

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/ou091824c.jpg

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/ou091824d.jpg

CaptDave
09-18-2024, 05:10 PM
Despite my reservations about so many aspects of this project, those areas rendering look amazing.

G.Walker
09-18-2024, 07:04 PM
I am not a fan of the traditional university gothic look for this. I thought they would go with something for sleek in modern. I think the original conceptual renderings were better.

David
09-19-2024, 08:59 AM
http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/ou091824b.jpg

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/ou091824c.jpg

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/ou091824d.jpg

Red brick and white trim is a eternal Oklahoma classic, I like it.

Urbanized
09-19-2024, 09:24 AM
I think adhering to Cherokee Gothic styling is pretty appropriate here; it helps define this arena as an extension of the OU campus. The architectural style was coined by none other than Frank LLoyd Wright on a visit to the OU campus, the university is the vanguard of this particular variation on collegiate gothic, and pretty much every construction project on campus over the past 30 years has leaned heavily back into the style. It’s OU’s thing, very specifically. It should be celebrated.

Thunderbolt
09-19-2024, 09:26 AM
As pointed out by many fans on Twitter... hilarious that the renderings show a bunch of fans in the lobby carrying flags that would obviously never be allowed inside a game.

Jake
09-19-2024, 09:32 AM
As pointed out by many fans on Twitter... hilarious that the renderings show a bunch of fans in the lobby carrying flags that would obviously never be allowed inside a game.

Was wondering about that. Looks like the Storming of the Bastille.

BG918
09-19-2024, 10:42 AM
I'm sure we will see legal challenges over the next few years. We will see where it goes in the end.

There will be a public referendum. This is far from being a done deal. I have my doubts this ever actually gets built, certainly nothing like the renderings.

jn1780
09-19-2024, 10:51 AM
As pointed out by many fans on Twitter... hilarious that the renderings show a bunch of fans in the lobby carrying flags that would obviously never be allowed inside a game.

Or the fans wearing backpacks. But I guess software didn't have any fans wearing OU t-shirts to pick from.

onthestrip
09-19-2024, 11:37 AM
But yeah, organic development will happen here. Lol. Hasn't for 15 years, won't without this TIF. But I also get the other side.

What did UNP look like 15-20 years ago? Mostly nothing right? Why wouldnt it continue to develop without the arena over the next 15 years? Do you really think a fairly small college arena will set off a flurry of restaurants and apartments? The only reason you will see some of that is OU needs some ad valorem taxes to pay them back for some of the arena. Thats why I think you will see apartments built quickly, but commercial development is another story. The Olive Gardens of the world dont really care about a college arena being nearby.

progressiveboy
09-19-2024, 11:39 AM
I like the rendering! Looks like a mixture of Gothic with a modern twist! To bad that this may come to a public initiative. I attended the University of Oklahoma and have always liked Norman, however, it makes me question if the residents of Norman are as progressive and forward thinking?

jn1780
09-19-2024, 03:10 PM
I like the rendering! Looks like a mixture of Gothic with a modern twist! To bad that this may come to a public initiative. I attended the University of Oklahoma and have always liked Norman, however, it makes me question if the residents of Norman are as progressive and forward thinking?

Lack of forward thinking maybe. But building sports stadiums/arenas hasn't really been associated with progressive ideas.

FighttheGoodFight
09-19-2024, 03:14 PM
Yes. Most of the against has come from both side of the aisle. They would rather see tax funds not diverted and be for anything from a homeless shelter to roads to police. I guess we will see how it changes the general fund in the next few years. Who knows.

BoulderSooner
09-19-2024, 03:15 PM
Yes. Most of the against has come from both side of the aisle. They would rather see tax funds not diverted and be for anything from a homeless shelter to roads to police. I guess we will see how it changes the general fund in the next few years. Who knows.

that of course is failed thinking ... these taxes don't exist with out this project ..... so there is nothing to divert elsewhere ..

Rover
09-19-2024, 03:16 PM
There will be a public referendum. This is far from being a done deal. I have my doubts this ever actually gets built, certainly nothing like the renderings.

I do not believe the public vote is binding. It is basically a feel-good vote.

That said, I find it hard to believe the citizens would vote down the largest development opportunity in the history of the city.

BoulderSooner
09-19-2024, 03:18 PM
I do not believe the public vote is binding. It is basically a feel-good vote.

That said, I find it hard to believe the citizens would vote down the largest development opportunity in the history of the city.

the previous public vote (that didn't occur) would not have been binding ..

a referendum generated public vote .. is binding ..

bison34
09-19-2024, 03:21 PM
that of course is failed thinking ... these taxes don't exist with out this project ..... so there is nothing to divert elsewhere ..

But those funds this would generate won't be going to the general fund, while the general fund will have to pay for infrastructure and police and additional resources, due to a large-scale project like this. Where will that money come from?

BoulderSooner
09-19-2024, 03:26 PM
But those funds this would generate won't be going to the general fund, while the general fund will have to pay for infrastructure and police and additional resources, due to a large-scale project like this. Where will that money come from?


1.125% of sales tax collected in the TIF District will still go to the City's Public Safety (0.5%),
Norman Forward (0.5%) and Public Transportation (0.125%) programs.

the city will still get part of the sales taxes .... and public safety is one of the parts that the TIF doesn't touch ..

bison34
09-19-2024, 04:17 PM
the city will still get part of the sales taxes .... and public safety is one of the parts that the TIF doesn't touch ..

Ok. I must have missed that part. Thank you for sharing.

Jersey Boss
09-19-2024, 05:23 PM
Ok. I must have missed that part. Thank you for sharing.

As it stands now the public safety tax does not cover all public safety obligations. The Police, EMS, and Fire Dept all rely on the general fund as well. So this proposed district will deplete more general fund in order to cover operations in a district that does not contribute to the general fund. Public Safety is 24% of the general fund expenditure. Hopefully if it withstands challenge the district will not need a new firehouse or cop shop.

BG918
09-19-2024, 08:06 PM
the previous public vote (that didn't occur) would not have been binding ..

a referendum generated public vote .. is binding ..

Exactly, and I don’t see any way that doesn’t happen.

FighttheGoodFight
10-02-2024, 10:27 AM
Main Event permit filed in August for 9million. That should start going up shortly.

BG918
10-02-2024, 10:38 AM
Any update on the PF Chang?

FighttheGoodFight
10-02-2024, 12:37 PM
Any update on the PF Chang?

Nothing filed yet. September permits should be out next week or so.

SunRoad
10-02-2024, 05:33 PM
OUDaily is reporting that students were paid to attend the council meeting where the entertainment district was voted on, filling about half the chamber, keeping other residents from attending and speaking.

https://www.oudaily.com/news/entertainment-district-norman-ou-oklahoma-snapchat-university-north-park-arena-tif-students/article_476e7992-804f-11ef-b95f-ebc27abf8bae.html

BoulderSooner
10-03-2024, 07:42 AM
OUDaily is reporting that students were paid to attend the council meeting where the entertainment district was voted on, filling about half the chamber, keeping other residents from attending and speaking.

https://www.oudaily.com/news/entertainment-district-norman-ou-oklahoma-snapchat-university-north-park-arena-tif-students/article_476e7992-804f-11ef-b95f-ebc27abf8bae.html

only 2 students spoke ..... no one was stopped from speaking ..

this is a nothing story ....

PhiAlpha
10-03-2024, 07:58 AM
OUDaily is reporting that students were paid to attend the council meeting where the entertainment district was voted on, filling about half the chamber, keeping other residents from attending and speaking.

https://www.oudaily.com/news/entertainment-district-norman-ou-oklahoma-snapchat-university-north-park-arena-tif-students/article_476e7992-804f-11ef-b95f-ebc27abf8bae.html

And yet somehow there was enough speaker participation from concerned parties (who allegedly weren’t allowed to attend) that the meeting didn’t end until 2AM.

SunRoad
10-03-2024, 05:32 PM
I disagree . I can only think of two reasons to pay students to attend: to intentionally misrepresent support (which would be promoting a lie) or to keep citizens from speaking (which would be tyranny).

First, it suggests that those who claim student support are disingenuous. If the promoters really have support, they wouldn’t need to pay surrogates. Surely they could find 75 students without spending $4,000 if the supportive students actually exist. If I found out that my favorite presidential candidate was paying half the people who attend his/her rallies, I would certainly question that person’s integrity and motives.

Second, everyone who wants to speak, for or against the project, should have that right. It doesn’t matter if one person or a hundred were restricted and it doesn’t matter which side they would have supported: someone was essentially trying to silence their constituents.

Third, it’s just a bad look, suggesting that the promoters themselves are unsure of their support. Norman voters willingly supported Norman Forward and recent school bonds without anyone having to resort to shenanigans. I have no way of knowing if the people behind this are fabricators or tyrants or devious tricksters or idiots or some combination of those things, but for me, actions like this make me question their legitimacy and integrity.

PhiAlpha
10-03-2024, 09:48 PM
I disagree . I can only think of two reasons to pay students to attend: to intentionally misrepresent support (which would be promoting a lie) or to keep citizens from speaking (which would be tyranny).

First, it suggests that those who claim student support are disingenuous. If the promoters really have support, they wouldn’t need to pay surrogates. Surely they could find 75 students without spending $4,000 if the supportive students actually exist. If I found out that my favorite presidential candidate was paying half the people who attend his/her rallies, I would certainly question that person’s integrity and motives.

Second, everyone who wants to speak, for or against the project, should have that right. It doesn’t matter if one person or a hundred were restricted and it doesn’t matter which side they would have supported: someone was essentially trying to silence their constituents.

Third, it’s just a bad look, suggesting that the promoters themselves are unsure of their support. Norman voters willingly supported Norman Forward and recent school bonds without anyone having to resort to shenanigans. I have no way of knowing if the people behind this are fabricators or tyrants or devious tricksters or idiots or some combination of those things, but for me, actions like this make me question their legitimacy and integrity.

After reading the article...Other than Holeman saying that “[he] did observe more than one, what I would describe as elderly or older, person leave early because they were standing for over an hour,” what evidence is there that anyone who wanted to speak wasn't allowed to do so or was prevented from doing so due to students attending?

There were 150 seats, 65 of which were taken up be students (who are residents of Norman and had every right to be there) leaving 85 for anyone else and standing room for anyone who couldn't sit. There was no announcement requesting that students give up their seats but Holman, one of the bigger opponents of the project, said that he saw several students give up seats to elderly residents. There were 72 speakers over 7+(!) hours and apparently the students were only 2 of them. So 70 norman residents were able to voice their opinions for or against the project.

The only "proof" they have that money was offered was a snap chat message (that they didn't share) from a random sophomore (who wasn't offering the money himself) and who's only affiliation with OU outside of being a student is being a Phi Delt and a member of the IFC, that the students (who are 18-23 years old) were doing homework and weren't completely locked into a meeting that dragged on for 7 hours and that a bunch of them left at 9:30. It's just as conceivable that the school asked students to show up to support the project and said that the meeting would last from 4:30 to 9:30...and most of them had seen enough after 5 hours of waiting and watching. I probably would've gone and left early and worked on homework while I was there too if something similar was going on when I was a student.

If it did happen, it's a bad look but there's absolutely no way in hell that any meaningful percentage of 65 college students were paid to attend a meeting and not one of them said anything about it over text or another medium afterward that could be used as evidence to back up the claims something happened. I'm sorry lol, but if you believe that, you either didn't go to college after the advent of the smart phone, have never spent time around college students, or you're just being naive. If texts like that were sent...it's highly unlikely that not a single one of them would have been leaked over the last TWO WEEKS or that no one would've come forward to the OU Daily to confirm that it happened. The story was written by the OUDaily...a student campus newspaper...and contains little evidence to back it up. The claims are dubious at best.

Do you have any proof that there were more than 72 Norman residents who wanted to speak and/or that any of them left for reasons other than not wanting to wait their turn and stay there until 1AM to do so? (Remember...only 2 students spoke...so they weren't taking up the speaking slots that would've made other speakers have to wait longer) Do you have any evidence that anyone wasn't allowed to participate in the meeting because it was too full?

Pete
10-16-2024, 08:43 AM
Here are some of the best renderings all in one place:


HTTP://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/ou100324a.jpg

HTTP://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/unp100924x.jpg

HTTP://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/unp100924h.jpg

HTTP://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/unp100924c.jpg

HTTP://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/unp100924b.jpg

HTTP://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/unp100924g.jpg

HTTP://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/unp100924e.jpg

HTTP://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/unp100924a.jpg

HTTP://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/unp100924j.jpg

bison34
10-16-2024, 08:44 AM
When do the signatures need to be in? I am guessing they will get that amount needed fairly easily.

Even so, what would a vote do? I mean, I guess cost these council members their posts. But TIF isn't subject to public ballots.

FighttheGoodFight
10-16-2024, 09:35 AM
When do the signatures need to be in? I am guessing they will get that amount needed fairly easily.

Even so, what would a vote do? I mean, I guess cost these council members their posts. But TIF isn't subject to public ballots.

They were turned in yesterday. We will know the final number tomorrow at 11am with a public vote set for Feb. 2025.

The petition would put TIF Project Plan ordinance to a vote of the people as legislative action. I am guessing if it makes it to the vote of the people it gets knocked down. But we will see if they got enough signatures tomorrow.

bison34
10-16-2024, 09:54 AM
They were turned in yesterday. We will know the final number tomorrow at 11am with a public vote set for Feb. 2025.

The petition would put TIF Project Plan ordinance to a vote of the people as legislative action. I am guessing if it makes it to the vote of the people it gets knocked down. But we will see if they got enough signatures tomorrow.

But state law trumps city law. State law has TIFs up to city council, not votes of the people.

I am guessing they wouldn't turn it in if they didn't have enough.

This isn't going to happen, is it. Huge losses for Norman, and OU. Truly wish OU could move to OKC. I know that isn't feasible, but doesn't mean I can't wish it. It would benefit the state so dang much.

Laramie
10-16-2024, 09:56 AM
Good pics Pete.

This favors OKC's ole Myriad's Great Arena.

Jersey Boss
10-16-2024, 10:35 AM
But state law trumps city law. State law has TIFs up to city council, not votes of the people.

I am guessing they wouldn't turn it in if they didn't have enough.

This isn't going to happen, is it. Huge losses for Norman, and OU. Truly wish OU could move to OKC. I know that isn't feasible, but doesn't mean I can't wish it. It would benefit the state so dang much.
State law does allow this to be vetoed through petition and a vote.
See Title 62 sec. 868 for cite.

bison34
10-16-2024, 10:44 AM
State law does allow this to be vetoed through petition and a vote.
See Title 62 sec. 868 for cite.

I guess it happens so little in OKC, I didn't even realize that was allowed. But Norman is cutting off its nose to spite its face here, and they deserve every bit of bad publicity and lost developments that they will inevitably see because of this.

jedicurt
10-16-2024, 10:47 AM
This isn't going to happen, is it. Huge losses for Norman, and OU.

yes sadly, norman is going to vote it down, and then we are just going to see the university try and i guess maybe do minor upgrades to LNC and it be 20-25 years before we actually get something going, and then we are going to just keep seeing slow growth in UNP

bison34
10-16-2024, 10:54 AM
yes sadly, norman is going to vote it down, and then we are just going to see the university try and i guess maybe do minor upgrades to LNC and it be 20-25 years before we actually get something going, and then we are going to just keep seeing slow growth in UNP

Yep. Sucks, but that is what happens when you are anti-development.

BoulderSooner
10-16-2024, 01:01 PM
yes sadly, norman is going to vote it down, and then we are just going to see the university try and i guess maybe do minor upgrades to LNC and it be 20-25 years before we actually get something going, and then we are going to just keep seeing slow growth in UNP

if this is voted down an OU arena in a different municipality is very much on the table ..

Jersey Boss
10-16-2024, 01:31 PM
if this is voted down an OU arena in a different municipality is very much on the table ..

Lol

jedicurt
10-16-2024, 03:52 PM
i don't think there is any real chance this gets built outside of norman, unless the Chickisaw want to build something at Riverwind. outside of that, if norman votes this down, i think OU gets no new arena till 2040

BoulderSooner
10-16-2024, 04:07 PM
i don't think there is any real chance this gets built outside of norman, unless the Chickisaw want to build something at Riverwind. outside of that, if norman votes this down, i think OU gets no new arena till 2040

hmmmmmm

cinnamonjock
10-16-2024, 04:51 PM
An arena next to Riverwind would still feel like its in Norman at least. That would be preferable to Moore

G.Walker
10-16-2024, 05:25 PM
It's crazy that most of the people opposing this are nimbys that don't even go to the games. Real fans understand this will only benefit the city and OU.

Jersey Boss
10-16-2024, 07:39 PM
...

Bunty
10-17-2024, 01:33 AM
It's crazy that most of the people opposing this are nimbys that don't even go to the games. Real fans understand this will only benefit the city and OU.

The awesome plans look worlds bigger and better than old Gallagher-Iba Arena at OSU. OU fans know they need to look much, much better than OSU. It's bad enough to the displeasure of OU fans how OSU alumni has been providing funding for some very attractive new academic buildings on the campus in recent years.

I predict OU's new arena will be approved. Don't underestimate how much Oklahoma and Norman love OU.