If funds ran out couldn't they just add more concrete steps (similar to what is underneath the Finish Line Tower) with grass between each on the other side of the river. I wouldn't think that would be very expensive and I could actually see that fitting the environment far better anyway. It's never good to have empty seats and I have a feeling that grandstand would be largely empty at most events.

I would be in favor of more concrete steps on both sides of the river no matter what. That's generally sufficient for many of the events. Not saying kill the grandstands, but with the possible exception of future speed boat races I'm not sure I see all that many people making the trek to that side. UNLESS there's something else over there to do, which the zip will help somewhat with, but there needs to be more (soccer stadium anyone?). I think they are supposed to have trams for that (and for shuttles to the landing), which would help, but I'm not sure if that's enough to draw people over there.

If funds ran out couldn't they just add more concrete steps (similar to what is underneath the Finish Line Tower) with grass between each on the other side of the river. I wouldn't think that would be very expensive and I could actually see that fitting the environment far better anyway. It's never good to have empty seats and I have a feeling that grandstand would be largely empty at most events.

If funds were short of what it takes to build the stadium but at least a decent amount left, they have been delayed for the same reason the stadium has, to this point there have been a lot of other things that have a bigger impact both at events and everyday operations. The reason we have the ones there are now is that is Chesapeake paid for them. The original plan has them running almost the entire last 1000 meters (half the sprint course), more recent versions have them the last 500 meters (from the finishline to around the new whitewater boathouse). If they had the cash on hand to do any more right now there would probably be some around Devon, though the rest of the way they probably would not put them in until they had the buildings they surround finished.

It is, really if anything had to be dropped though it would be the thing we could live without the easiest. We already have space for several thousands to view from the north bank (where everything else at events happens.

There is concrete step which act as bleachers by the tower, most kayak/rowing crews and guests (the vast majority of which know someone in the race, and probably came with them) bring folding chairs and a lot bring shade hut things. More of the concrete steps/teirises will be added over time.

Plus the south side is pretty isolated, the reason you see the towers to the bridge being proposed is because without the stairs up and down you have to walk a mile to cross the bridge.

I gotcha. This is a poor layout period. A grandstand needs to be one of the main items (in-place) while events are being held. The south needs the attention now vs. later in the phasing. The north will always have the amenities, but the south needs a grandstand & parking. The Chesapeake Arena has seats. The Bricktown ballpark has seats. ...it's kind of a requirement w/ large attended events

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTxjYuXtjNC0r1j__I4OLNTfUu2LAHyr UJivkJZY779ZN_DO6BM

I've seen this pic of the grand stand on the river.

Will this be one of the last MAPS 3 projects that they will build on the river?

Google Image Result for http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_L3gtvb8usg4/SqWKbuyuPqI/AAAAAAAAAOQ/nOFoStWfsuw/s320/riverstadium1.jpg (http://www.google.com/imgres?start=379&sa=X&rlz=1T4NDKB_enUS540US548&biw=1259&bih=552&tbm=isch&tbnid=UbY21cPl-9peXM%3A&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Fdowntownontherange.blogspot .com%2F2009_09_01_archive.html&docid=yx3OYnK974yZTM&imgurl=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F_L3gtvb8us g4%2FSqWKbuyuPqI%2FAAAAAAAAAOQ%2FnOFoStWfsuw%2Fs32 0%2Friverstadium1.jpg&w=320&h=180&ei=s0rXUo_2JumfyQHkn4CgAw&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=1208&page=23&ndsp=17&ved=0CI0CEIQcMFg4rAI)

If funds ran out couldn't they just add more concrete steps (similar to what is underneath the Finish Line Tower) with grass between each on the other side of the river. I wouldn't think that would be very expensive and I could actually see that fitting the environment far better anyway. It's never good to have empty seats and I have a feeling that grandstand would be largely empty at most events.

Why? There is no requirement that people have to park on the north side of the river and then navigate their way to the south side to the grandstand.

Why? There is no requirement that people have to park on the north side of the river and then navigate their way to the south side to the grandstand.

There is not any parking on the south side or plans hinting any to added. I guess people could park in the neighborhood there but I doubt they would be that happy about it.

Why? There is no requirement that people have to park on the north side of the river and then navigate their way to the south side to the grandstand.

Because the grandstand has too large of a seating capacity. I didn't reference anything regarding which side it was on or how people would get there.

Because the grandstand has too large of a seating capacity. I didn't reference anything regarding which side it was on or how people would get there.

I guess I thought you meant it would be empty because people couldn't get there. Why do you think the seating capacity is too large? You build a grandstand to accommodate the largest crowd, not the smallest.

And there is easily room to add more parking on the south side of the river than currently exists on the north side.

We can haz renderings?!

:tongue:

What would be your Top 3 locations outside of this particular one?

I guess I thought you meant it would be empty because people couldn't get there. Why do you think the seating capacity is too large? You build a grandstand to accommodate the largest crowd, not the smallest.

And there is easily room to add more parking on the south side of the river than currently exists on the north side.

There may be room, but I just checked, there is no money budgeted to acquire land for parking.

The site also happens to already have stadium lights, which is good. However, they're running the wrong direction, which may or may not be bad.


Edit: Was typing before your previous post. Thought you wanted this to go in the same area by the current boathouses, which is where the lights are. I see now that you want it by the park, so you'd need to pay for more lights...

It would be an ambitious project, but from what I can remember about the river and general area, it's not like trying to build a stadium in the mountains.

What capacity are you thinking for the stadium?

I'd ask the market to tell me. What's it going to support?

Must be nice to be two hours behind us now ;-)

Probably the main problem would be the weight of the field. It's pretty heavy (edit: nearly 20M pounds [almost 10,000 tons]). The field in Glendale AZ (University of Phoenix Stadium, used for the NFL Cardinals and Fiesta Bowl) retracts (actually it's moved outside for sun for the grass since the stadium is a dome; also so events can be held in the stadium without damaging the grass). There should be video out there about the process, I've seen shows about it. Main point there is they use railroad rails to move the field. While this would be very neat, it would be a technical challenge.

Edit:
Facts about the AZ retractable field from the web...
- The grass field rolls out of the stadium on a 18.9 million pound tray, residing outside of the stadium except for football and soccer events, is the first of its kind in North America
- The field is 234 feet wide x 403 feet long and 39 inches tall

...basically a giant planter with grass and soil in it.

It might be more feasible, technically, to just build it as permanent over the river, which could be just as neat.

I think the Velodrome idea that I've seen floated around is probably more feasible and realistic, but this is an intriguing idea.

I think if it could be done for somewhere between $250 and $500M that it would be worth it, although, that's a lot of money for a venue that realistically is not likely to see much use.

That would defeat the purpose of having the stadium seating there for water events. If that's not important, then build it next to the river.

That's right, forgot about that detail...

You guys ready for a crazy idea?

How about a retractable field over the river?

Stadium seating on both sides of the river for both river and other events like soccer, concerts, etc. The stage/field retracts up under the banks when not in use. When in use, you've got one of the coolest fields/stages on the planet.

You have the obvious cost of the retractable field but you've got a few advantages to work with. 1) That whole area isn't developed. You're talking about moving cheap dirt. 2) The "river" isn't a river. You've got a lot of control over how it behaves. 3) The seating is paid for once but serves both water and land events. 4) On the east and west ends, you can put pedestrian bridges over the river that could be turned into VIP space during events. Again, that would be an epic way to watch just about anything. 5) If you use the below location, you've got Central Park. Oh yeah... 6) Future streetcar expansion puts it likely down Robinson or Walker...connecting your world-class open air stadium with world-class transit.

Here's an rough, practically cartoonish, drawing of what I'm talking about.

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-TVBa26Ij4dE/UteFQPvWY7I/AAAAAAAFQDs/eNTf55bVis0/w531-h558-no/retractablefield.png

Maybe a MAPS 4 project?

...this is vision. I like it.

I guess I thought you meant it would be empty because people couldn't get there. Why do you think the seating capacity is too large? You build a grandstand to accommodate the largest crowd, not the smallest.

This used to be the sentiment in building sports arenas and a lot of people have come to realize that it's better for a place to be full than big. There are lots of spots along the river where people could set up chairs for extra seating (or you could easily add the concrete steps as I suggested), but if you build a huge grandstand that is primarily empty at most events it can make it feel like no one came to the event. It's kind of like going to Skinny Slim's when there are 50 people and the Bricktown Events Center. Very different feel...

I think the Velodrome idea that I've seen floated around is probably more feasible and realistic, but this is an intriguing idea.

I think if it could be done for somewhere between $250 and $500M that it would be worth it, although, that's a lot of money for a venue that realistically is not likely to see much use.Oh man, I would love to see that built.

This used to be the sentiment in building sports arenas and a lot of people have come to realize that it's better for a place to be full than big. There are lots of spots along the river where people could set up chairs for extra seating (or you could easily add the concrete steps as I suggested), but if you build a huge grandstand that is primarily empty at most events it can make it feel like no one came to the event. It's kind of like going to Skinny Slim's when there are 50 people and the Bricktown Events Center. Very different feel...

Sorry, but I don't see that as problem at all. The grandstands will likely only be used for major events and should be very full for those.

Andrew had a meeting the OKC Chamber a few days ago. Here is what he had to say about the meeting.

""WOW! That was awesome... They liked my concept, they liked my building design, they liked everything I presented. Lots of questions, not design questions like what I am use to. Who owns the land? How do I see this being funded? Have I started contacting people/organizations about this? where are the current headquarters for each sport listed? What is it's "Olympic potential"? What am I doing to move this project forward...

They are going to do some research to help answer some of these questions and there are others they want to send my information to so they can look it over. All in all a very productive meeting. Looks to be moving in the right direction and talks about another meeting at a future date with more people involved!"

Without going back through every post, I'm not sure I understand this. Who is Andrew and what does this mean?

My guess is it was the architectural grad student, Andrew Stevens, who for a thesis designing a velodrome near the river
http://www.okctalk.com/current-events-open-topic/32529-okc-net-zero-velodrome-dream-thesis-ou-grad-student.html

Yeah, sign me up as a supporter of that project, it looks awesome.

Maps 4, anyone?

I would be there all the time! I love biking.

Could the Velodrome be that which would make Dallas and Kansas City jealous? (To paraphrase Steve's chats)

Could the Velodrome be that which would make Dallas and Kansas City jealous? (To paraphrase Steve's chats)

He was asked that specific question in his last chat and he said no.


I'm pretty sure I know of what he is hinting at; it's for a proposed project in Bricktown. I'm working on a post to share what I know; just trying to get a bit more info.

He was asked that specific question in his last chat and he said no.


I'm pretty sure I know of what he is hinting at; it's for a proposed project in Bricktown. I'm working on a post to share what I know; just trying to get a bit more info.It is part of the massive residential development?

He was asked that specific question in his last chat and he said no.


I'm pretty sure I know of what he is hinting at; it's for a proposed project in Bricktown. I'm working on a post to share what I know; just trying to get a bit more info.

I am VERY curious about this. For Dallas and Kansas City to be jealous it would have to be a real game changer. Somebody mentioned the Power and Light district in Kansas City along with hints of that project in a chat a few weeks ago and Steve thought what might be happening is better. Not sure how much of it is real and how much is the usual hype. Can't wait to find out though.

It is part of the massive residential development?

I am just dreaming but it would be great to see something in OKC that is what the Epicentre in Charlotte was intended to be (if anybody has been to Charlotte you know what that is). Three floors of bars, restaurants, and nightclub with Times Square-ish billboards, and then a 10-15 story condo/apartment tower above it. I doubt OKC is ready for such a development but its fun to dream. I can picture it in the last remaining empty lot on the canal catty-cornered from JDM place.

He was asked that specific question in his last chat and he said no.


I'm pretty sure I know of what he is hinting at; it's for a proposed project in Bricktown. I'm working on a post to share what I know; just trying to get a bit more info.
Pins & needles

I noticed the other day that the river lake is full again. Looks good.

Also, it looked like they were drilling piers opposite the Zip Line tower, on the south side of the water, last week.

Is the zip line up?

Is the zip line up?

My guess is that where they were drilling piers across the river, will be where the tower for the connecting cables will stand.....so not up yet.

Andrew had a meeting the OKC Chamber a few days ago. Here is what he had to say about the meeting.

""WOW! That was awesome... They liked my concept, they liked my building design, they liked everything I presented. Lots of questions, not design questions like what I am use to. Who owns the land? How do I see this being funded? Have I started contacting people/organizations about this? where are the current headquarters for each sport listed? What is it's "Olympic potential"? What am I doing to move this project forward...

They are going to do some research to help answer some of these questions and there are others they want to send my information to so they can look it over. All in all a very productive meeting. Looks to be moving in the right direction and talks about another meeting at a future date with more people involved!"

What a great question. Olympic potential. The more we plan for something "big", the more likelyhood of its arrival.

The Velodrome would be another cool part of the mix. Nice.

He was asked that specific question in his last chat and he said no.


I'm pretty sure I know of what he is hinting at; it's for a proposed project in Bricktown. I'm working on a post to share what I know; just trying to get a bit more info.

Hey Pete, do you have an ETA on that post? ...is it commercial / mixed-use / entertainment ????

The zip line is currently supposed to be open mid-April.

I think the Velodrome idea that I've seen floated around is probably more feasible and realistic, but this is an intriguing idea.

I think if it could be done for somewhere between $250 and $500M that it would be worth it, although, that's a lot of money for a venue that realistically is not likely to see much use.

If you're talking about investing $250 - $500 million into a facility like this, you need to justify its use if we're seeking voter approval.

Let's just build a Megadrome (Mega + velodrome) capable of being used for multiple sports with a minimum seating capacity of 20,000 with risers extending maximum to accommodate 30,000.



I am VERY curious about this. For Dallas and Kansas City to be jealous it would have to be a real game changer. Somebody mentioned the Power and Light district in Kansas City along with hints of that project in a chat a few weeks ago and Steve thought what might be happening is better. Not sure how much of it is real and how much is the usual hype. Can't wait to find out though.

Can't imagine something being so big that it would make Dallas and Kansas City jealous; those cities are known for exhibiting snootiness toward Oklahoma City.

The Velodrome idea sounds great because of the multiple use configuration potential it possesses.


https://sp2.yimg.com/ib/th?id=HN.608006758882608066&pid=15.1https://sp3.yimg.com/ib/th?id=HN.608050163823673759&pid=15.1https://sp3.yimg.com/ib/th?id=HN.608038752092751263&pid=15.1

Could a facility like this include: basketball, football, rodeo, swimming, soccer, tennis, trade shows, track & field, wrestling etc., because a facility of this size would easily cost in the range of $250 - $500 million as bchris02 cited. The more events you could justify in building a structure of this magnitude; the easier it will be to appeal to the public if something like this were put on a MAPS IV referendum.

The most troubling thing about MAPS IV going forward will be the MAPS III convention center recall. This could be the most devastating event for our future growth. Why? All future MAPS will involved 'no new taxes' since the beauty about this is that as the city grows, so grows the sales tax collection base. Target recalling and picking off proposal projects approved will not benefit Oklahoma City. This recall of the convention center could easily stagnate Oklahoma City's growth. Just imagine a scenario of 'nay-say' voters waiting on collections to begin only to pluck off previously approved projects--this would kill corporate and industry growth with the uncertainty of voter approved projects. Especially a situation where corporate incentives to attract expansion or relocation of a business or industry might be involved

The convention center and commuter rail are among projects that will enhance our image; produce some revenues with tangible and intangible benefits. Projects like the downtown city park and wellness centers will have community benefits for our citizens.

We need to kill this recall of any future MAPS voter approved projects. You will place future (bundled) approved projects in jeopardy. Dr. Shadid's push for this recall to use as a part of his 'so called' campaign platform will be detrimental to the growth of our city. Imagine the see-saw back and forth effect of approving projects only to have collections stopped with a recall?

Will we see a one billion dollar ($1,000,000,000.00) eight or nine year MAPS IV bundle for 2017? Let's think about our city's future instead of talking about building a project and by the time we get it constructed it's obsolete upon opening.


http://www.thunderfans.com/vforum/images/smilies/okc.gif "Oklahoma City looks oh-so pretty... ...as I get my kicks on Route 66." --Nat King Cole.http://www.thunderfans.com/vforum/images/smilies/okc.gif

If you're talking about investing $250 - $500 million into a facility like this, you need to justify its use if we're seeking voter approval.

Let's just build a Megadrome (Mega + velodrome) capable of being used for multiple sports with a minimum seating capacity of 20,000 with risers extending maximum to accommodate 30,000.

I can assure you that I was holding my nose while voting yes on MAPS 3 because of the Convention Center



Can't imagine something being so big that it would make Dallas and Kansas City jealous; those cities are known for exhibiting snootiness toward Oklahoma City.

The Velodrome idea sounds great because of the multiple use configuration potential it possesses.


https://sp2.yimg.com/ib/th?id=HN.608006758882608066&pid=15.1https://sp3.yimg.com/ib/th?id=HN.608050163823673759&pid=15.1https://sp3.yimg.com/ib/th?id=HN.608038752092751263&pid=15.1

Could a facility like this include: basketball, football, rodeo, swimming, soccer, tennis, trade shows, track & field, wrestling etc., because a facility of this size would easily cost in the range of $250 - $500 million as bchris02 cited. The more events you could justify in building a structure of this magnitude; the easier it will be to appeal to the public if something like this were put on a MAPS IV referendum.

The most troubling thing about MAPS IV going forward will be the MAPS III convention center recall. This could be the most devastating event for our future growth. Why? All future MAPS will involved 'no new taxes' since the beauty about this is that as the city grows, so grows the sales tax collection base. Target recalling and picking off proposal projects approved will not benefit Oklahoma City. This recall of the convention center could easily stagnate Oklahoma City's growth. Just imagine a scenario of 'nay-say' voters waiting on collections to begin only to pluck off previously approved projects--this would kill corporate and industry growth with the uncertainty of voter approved projects. Especially a situation where corporate incentives to attract expansion or relocation of a business or industry might be involved

The convention center and commuter rail are among projects that will enhance our image; produce some revenues with tangible and intangible benefits. Projects like the downtown city park and wellness centers will have community benefits for our citizens.

We need to kill this recall of any future MAPS voter approved projects. You will place future (bundled) approved projects in jeopardy. Dr. Shadid's push for this recall to use as a part of his 'so called' campaign platform will be detrimental to the growth of our city. Imagine the see-saw back and forth effect of approving projects only to have collections stopped with a recall?

Will we see a one billion dollar ($1,000,000,000.00) eight or nine year MAPS IV bundle for 2017? Let's think about our city's future instead of talking about building a project and by the time we get it constructed it's obsolete upon opening.


http://www.thunderfans.com/vforum/images/smilies/okc.gif "Oklahoma City looks oh-so pretty... ...as I get my kicks on Route 66." --Nat King Cole.http://www.thunderfans.com/vforum/images/smilies/okc.gif

I can assure you that I was holding my nose while voting yes on MAPS 3 because of the Convention Center [B]but[B] I have to agree that this recall will decimate the MAPS brand. This recall would indeed be one of the worst things to happen to our city!

I think a lot of people who were "holding their noses" when voting for the convention center are now beginning to better understand that it is probably the most NEEDED (as opposed to WANTED) of all of the projects. It's understandable that it didn't initially resonate with the public; most folks can't really envision themselves using it, nor are they aware of the existing business that uses the Cox Center with regularity and even more so WOULD use a new facility. I think that is now changing, at least on this board.

For the record, I also believe that the streetcar will also be NEEDED soon (and will be the foundation for future transit growth) so building it now makes total sense.

Back on the topic of the Riversport improvements - but relevant to this post - they are much like the convention center in that they also bring new business and sales tax revenue into the economy. Most of the other projects are strictly quality-of-life improvements for existing residents (not that there's anything wrong with that), so they naturally resonate with certain voters. In the long run those quality-of-life changes will make OKC more attractive for college graduate retention, plus business expansion and employee relocation.

But Riversport and the CC both stand a reasonable chance if bringing NEW money to the tax base from day one.

I think a lot of people who were "holding their noses" when voting for the convention center are now beginning to better understand that it is probably the most NEEDED (as opposed to WANTED) of all of the projects. It's understandable that it didn't initially resonate with the public; most folks can't really envision themselves using it, nor are they aware of the existing business that uses the Cox Center with regularity and even more so WOULD use a new facility. I think that is now changing, at least on this board.

For the record, I also believe that the streetcar will also be NEEDED soon (and will be the foundation for future transit growth) so building it now makes total sense.

Back on the topic of the Riversport improvements - but relevant to this post - they are much like the convention center in that they also bring new business and sales tax revenue into the economy. Most of the other projects are strictly quality-of-life improvements for existing residents (not that there's anything wrong with that), so they naturally resonate with certain voters. In the long run those quality-of-life changes will make OKC more attractive for college graduate retention, plus business expansion and employee relocation.

But Riversport and the CC both stand a reasonable chance if bringing NEW money to the tax base from day one.

Agree completely. I urge anyone who is still holding their nose to walk around outside the Cox Center and really look at it and then walk around it in its entirety inside. I hadn't really done that before the vote, but now I understand. It's pretty awful and if you couple that with being too small, then it's a no-brainer to build a new one. I will definitely be trying to GOTV to oppose a petition to stop MAPS. It's a huge mistake for many reasons, including ruining the MAPS brand and creating uncertainty in the mind of voters.

The Boathouse Development blog updated with some pictures of recent work Boathouse District Development (http://boathousedistrictdevelopment.blogspot.com/2014/03/momentum-pump-track-presented-by-subaru.html). It includes pictures of the north and slightly hard to see south zip line landing platforms, as well as the CHK|Central boathouse construction site.

Does anyone know what the plan is for the south side of the river from the Lincoln bridge (land west of Lincoln/Central to the river, down to SE 15th)? I am being told Conway Freight is moving out because all of that land is going to be redeveloped as part of river improvements.

Not sure about west of Lincoln, but this project is currently under construction on the south side of the river across from the boathouses.

http://www.okc.gov/planning/planning_library/Riverfront/SRCA-13-00020.pdf

http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s225/CuatrodeMayo/1copy_zpsbdc9beae.jpg

http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s225/CuatrodeMayo/2copy_zpsd54d0a89.jpg

It looks like the space light in Stiles Circle.

Yeah I know about the towers. I work right here, thus why I'm interested in future plans for the land between Lincoln/Central and the river.

It looks like the space light in Stiles Circle.

Same designer.

Same designer.
Oddly enough, it it wasn't. True story.

Seriously?

Ah, I just pulled up the plans...my bad!

Lol...just so you know, I had nothing to do with it. :)

I'm pretty sure I know of what he is hinting at; it's for a proposed project in Bricktown. I'm working on a post to share what I know; just trying to get a bit more info.

Any word on this?

UCO just posted this to their FB.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc1/t1.0-9/1972544_10152082189973995_55386946_n.jpg

Looks like work is underway!

^^^good to see!

...hearing that the wind screens are likely not going to happen... a matter of an idea coming before input from engineers...

oh, and the south shore zip line platform is built, but still in Michigan. So, just waiting on delivery.

...hearing that the wind screens are likely not going to happen... a matter of an idea coming before input from engineers...

oh, and the south shore zip line platform is built, but still in Michigan. So, just waiting on delivery.

Are you saying it changed after the engineering work was done and they then move construction to the later in the schedule

I was told that when the engineers looked at it (if the wind screens would even work) they thought the screens would cause more problems than they would solve. Not saying it's a done deal, but it's not looking good.

I was told that when the engineers looked at it (if the wind screens would even work) they thought the screens would cause more problems than they would solve. Not saying it's a done deal, but it's not looking good.

That is interesting because as of last month they stated the only reason some wanted to wait on releasing the bid for the windscreen(s) was they wanted to make sure there were not going to be an unexpected costs in the whitewater course bids and property acquisition.