You only need one.

AEG is a big-time player and Live Nation has good market share as well.

There are good options other than SMG.

AEG is owned by Phillip Anschutz (Anschutz Entertainment Group), who also owns the Oklahoman.

There had been a lot of speculation that the city may carve off some or all of Wheeler Park for a new soccer stadium.

However, they just announced $2 million in improvements throughout the park, so I don't think that is going to happen.

There had been a lot of speculation that the city may carve off some or all of Wheeler Park for a new soccer stadium.

However, they just announced $2 million in improvements throughout the park, so I don't think that is going to happen.

FYI:

SCOPE OF PROJECT: To provide improvements to the existing ball fields, drives, park access roads, and parking lots. Improvements may include the addition of restrooms and a concession building.

Project is scheduled for FY '22 with a construction cost of $1,976,023.

I know it's not realistic, but it would be cool if they could put the soccer stadium between Wheeler Park and Scissortail Park (i.e. east of Walker) and work to better connect the area in between. Then the lower park would be a rectangle instead of an L, and Wheeler Park would be almost an extension of Scissortail.

There had been a lot of speculation that the city may carve off some or all of Wheeler Park for a new soccer stadium.

However, they just announced $2 million in improvements throughout the park, so I don't think that is going to happen.

you would like to think that the different city departments talk to each other and plan for the future as to not waste dollars / work ...... sadly i don't think that is the case .. i would guess that this is a approved parks dept porject that they are moving forward with ... and if the maps office /city pick this as the stadium site .. this money will have just have been wasted.

The City recently installed a couple of big gates on either end of the north parking lot at Wheeler Park. I think they have had ongoing issues with donuts/racing and may be trying to cut down on that activity, but I'm not sure.

The City recently installed a couple of big gates on either end of the north parking lot at Wheeler Park. I think they have had ongoing issues with donuts/racing and may be trying to cut down on that activity, but I'm not sure.

Yes, a portion of the improvements will go to reducing that activity. Concession stand, connectivity improvements for pedestrians and bikes along Western, and pedestrian connectivity from the fields to the concession stand are other areas of focus for the upcoming improvements.

Something called the Honeymoon Rock Festival is scheduled for Sept. 18-19 at Wheeler Park:

https://honeymoonfest.com/

The city has submitted plans for improvements to Wheeler Park:


Project will provide a new concession stand and toilet structure to the existing tournament field and site improvements to the existing roads, parking lots and storm water drainage in the park.


This seems to indicate this location will not be selected for the MAPS 4 multi-purpose stadium.

Wheeler Park has a softball stadium that could use some attention like chair back seats more concessions and restroom accommodations.

It will likely never happen, but it would be so cool if we could turn everything south of I-40 and North of the river, cap I-40, and turn some of the south of the river sections into an absolutely massive park. You could keep some small developments with parking garages, restaurants, and other amenities. The big thing would be connecting scissortail, wiley post, wheeler park, and regatta park together into a massive park to be the centerpiece of OKC.

For the sake of discussion capping I-40 would cost multiple billions of dollars, with a B, depending upon how much was capped, of course.

By capping, do you mean running it underground?

By capping, do you mean running it underground?

Yeah, connecting north and south scissortail turning a portion of I-40 by the Scissortail bridge into a tunnel. It is completely improbable, but it would be really cool. The fever dream would be making a giant park/riverwalk on both sides of the river from like Portland to eastern and having a real riverwalk. Obviously, that is not going to happen due to a variety of things.

18067
18068

At the very least, I would like them to do a "bridge" on each side of the Skydance bridge for the purpose of putting vegetation up there to put more distance between the railing and the drop off to I-40 below--the Gathering Place in Tulsa gives a good example of how to make a road crossing that feels like a green space (granted, it's over Riverside Dr. and not a large interstate highway, so inherently going to be quieter). A full-on cap between Walker and Robinson would be a pretty nice addition to the park for those reasons too, if it ever was economical.

I do see more river developments in the future--it may be a decade or two, as I think the area around Lower Scissortail needs to get developed (I did see a 3-story townhouse going up a tad west of the lower park, so there are signs of it starting). But get some more developed neighborhoods (like Wheeler is doing) and sites like OKANA on the river, as well as development between Scissortail and Wiley Post, and you have potential nucleation points for some expansion up and down the river. So who knows, maybe someday we will be talking about the current Pull a Part site becoming a cool mixed development spot right on the river.

Yeah, connecting north and south scissortail turning a portion of I-40 by the Scissortail bridge into a tunnel.
18067
18068

It's not so much as digging it into a tunnel as much as it is would be to make a land bridge over the corridor like they've done in Tulsa, Riverside Drive just south of I-244 if I recall correctly. They would need to construct some support columns and beams that would allow for an even weight distribution over the corridor between Scissortail Bridge and Walker Ave. Then they can build a covering with electrical installations accommodating the ceiling, insulation for the ceiling to prevent water from dripping through, and raise the elevations for both sides to make them into a hill covering the the lid in place. It's a bit too late to do the tube installation method seen in Tulsa, but that would be a hypothetical method you could do while minimizing the amount of traffic you interrupt.

GoldenHurricane22 - Check out 5th St over I-85/75 in midtown Atlanta. It is exactly what you described. It connects Georgia Tech to the midtown area. You can't even see the interstate as you cross over. If you didn't alread know it was there you never would.

I've never understood the desire to cap I-40 in the downtown area. Downtown okc has experienced a lot of changes and growth in the last 20 years. Driving I-40 is the only glimpse some people get of that change. But for some reason people keep wanting to stick those travelers in a tunnel and remove any chance that they might want to exit and see what okc has to offer.

I've never understood the desire to cap I-40 in the downtown area. Downtown okc has experienced a lot of changes and growth in the last 20 years. Driving I-40 is the only glimpse some people get of that change. But for some reason people keep wanting to stick those travelers in a tunnel and remove any chance that they might want to exit and see what okc has to offer.

Because the quality of life of the people actually living, working, playing in a city is far more important than a view someone may have while driving through a city on an interstate.

It's not so much as digging it into a tunnel as much as it is would be to make a land bridge over the corridor like they've done in Tulsa, Riverside Drive just south of I-244 if I recall correctly. They would need to construct some support columns and beams that would allow for an even weight distribution over the corridor between Scissortail Bridge and Walker Ave. Then they can build a covering with electrical installations accommodating the ceiling, insulation for the ceiling to prevent water from dripping through, and raise the elevations for both sides to make them into a hill covering the the lid in place. It's a bit too late to do the tube installation method seen in Tulsa, but that would be a hypothetical method you could do while minimizing the amount of traffic you interrupt.

You're also dealing with a railroad too.

You're also dealing with a railroad too.

You can lid that off with the rest of it too. In fact, that part will be easier to lid with the lack of traffic (contrasted to the interstate) and that it's much narrower as well.

You can lid that off with the rest of it too. In fact, that part will be easier to lid with the lack of traffic (contrasted to the interstate) and that it's much narrower as well.

Dealing with the railroads is many things but it is never easier than almost anything else you might think to compare it to.

Dealing with the railroads is many things but it is never easier than almost anything else you might think to compare it to.

That's very true. Getting an agreement to put the canal under the railroad track was a major ordeal and caused delays.

Because the quality of life of the people actually living, working, playing in a city is far more important than a view someone may have while driving through a city on an interstate.

Ah. Got it.

For 17 years I've been reading on here about people wanting new and taller buildings built downtown because it'll make the skyline look better. Either it matters how the city looks or it doesn't. It can't be both.

Ah. Got it.

For 17 years I've been reading on here about people wanting new and taller buildings built downtown because it'll make the skyline look better. Either it matters how the city looks or it doesn't. It can't be both.
I agree with this. I like elevated urban freeways because it’s mesmerizing to drive through cities on them. Trains and busses aren’t the same. Cars are much better with wider freeways and I wish we would’ve kept urban elevated freeways in SF, Boston, and Seattle. Tunnels are cool but not as cool.

Ah. Got it.

For 17 years I've been reading on here about people wanting new and taller buildings built downtown because it'll make the skyline look better. Either it matters how the city looks or it doesn't. It can't be both.

Creating a vibrant, walkable city is far more important than the views of skylines for cars on the highway or national broadcasts. If it is at all economically feasible to cap a highway (which it sometimes isn't) then you do it. Highways views of the city skyline wouldn't probably be in my top 50 considerations.

I agree with this. I like elevated urban freeways because it’s mesmerizing to drive through cities on them. Trains and busses aren’t the same. Cars are much better with wider freeways and I wish we would’ve kept urban elevated freeways in SF, Boston, and Seattle. Tunnels are cool but not as cool.

https://images.fineartamerica.com/images/artworkimages/mediumlarge/3/oklahoma-city-skyline-and-the-skydance-scissortail-bridge-gregory-ballos.jpg

You really get it, Plutonic Panda . . .

Definitely mesmerizing to drive thru a city on an elevated freeway. If the freeway isn't elevated it helps to have tall structures visible like those in Oklahoma City and Tulsa skylines.

Most major cities, your skyline is the most memorable impression left on those who drive through.

My relatives are impressed (Wow, this place has grown) when they drive thru our city especially at night and the lights on Skydance Bridge immediately grabs their attention as well as Devon Energy, BancFirst, First National (Color) & BOK Park Plaza (Crown) towers keep them spell bound.

A walkable city is desirable; however IMO people walking around on ground level is not going to catch your attention like impressive tall structures.

That's why IMO when you have Thunder games (DT) the cameras focus on the CBD, Bricktown activity and crowds gathered in mass, entering the arena. An impressive exterior new arena and Thunder Alley development will be a 'big plus' for OKC.


https://nebula.wsimg.com/06c771aff9ebfd0301e90e30a9f10bd6?AccessKeyId=EF77E 45137D64F02A5AD&disposition=0&alloworigin=1

^^^ yep. +10000

I’d rather have a city people want to visit, live, and invest in. Cities function long before and well after someone drives by at 60 mph or once the broadcast transitions back to a game. What use is all the structures in New York City, London, Paris, Hong Kong, Tokyo, if they sit underutilized or vacant so people driving through have something cool to look at? Are they still world class cities once you take out the investments made at the human level to build a city worth living in or visiting? Is there anything worth getting off the freeway to go to? Do those cities even have cool skylines if their fabric is for passing through them or viewing from a distance or on a broadcast?

Cities have to exist for the people that live in them, they can’t simply be about what looks the coolest. San Francisco, Seattle, Portland, Boston, etc. aren’t worse off or less “cool” because their freeways are now parks or promenades. Freeways will always exist, especially in America, but we should build cities that entice people to get off the highway to explore more of rather than cities that look neat for the few minutes they’re in sight before that vehicle is on to another community.

Such fascinating viewpoints and opinions on urbanism and walkability on this site.

I love these perspectives. We need more people like you to buy real estate and make a difference. It’s unbelievably hard to do what you are saying, but it’s obviously working. Turn these words into action!

On another note, public policy and input is a very patient and worthy cause.

New York City, Seattle, Portland, Boston and San Fran went through unbelievable struggle and it continues as we speak.

What I love and dislike about OKCTalk is that there are so many ideas but that there are so many ideas. Put your money where your mouth is!

That's very true. Getting an agreement to put the canal under the railroad track was a major ordeal and caused delays.

I can understand the difficulties, however there's a substantial difference between building something OVER the railroad as opposed to something UNDER it. Managing construction is never an easy endeavor, however to place the framework of a lid over the rail line would probably require the closure of two lanes of the westbound interstate and relegating the exit ramp on Shields as a construction-only access, leaving around 4 lanes open for traffic. Again, easier said than done, but building construction around and over rail takes coordination and compromise. I will admit with the rail being the only one in the immediate area running an east-west connection through the city makes it a pivotal artery that would require rigorous planning around the schedule, but if you work on that first, the rest of this hypothetical lid project would fall in line.

As for the reason why lids and tunnels are far more popular these days, they do more to connect communities and reduce scarring caused by interstates. And as an added bonus, they can be built on top of provided that it's constructed to handle the load distribution properly, which further adds land value as well as buildable space. It gives the area uninterrupted functionality as far as living/working/commercial accommodations are concerned. And then in the case of a critical collapse like what happened in Seattle, San-Fran, or a situation as recent as Philly, you end up with a severed artery that has no means of an alternative for locals and passerby's alike. It's visually appealing from a drivers point of view, but what about the locals? We already have a boulevard (one that could've been planned better) that runs the route of the old interstate overpass. If anyone wants to take a drive into the city, they can take that route. Building a lid looks to prevent those catastrophic failures because they will be built to accommodate much heavier loads than that of bridges.

I know when I was a kid, I used to love watching the towers roll by while I'm in the car, it makes things look exciting when you're passing by it all. But when you get older, you realize that some things are really better off without, and that the local population may not want to see that division throughout their city. Furthermore, most people who drive BY the city are just trying to get to another destination, they're merely passing through. I mean it looks fun, but that may not be the final destination to some with any license plate not from the state. How many a road trip have you had that stopped in every major city outside of a Greyhound bus? Not many, and I can guarantee that you won't be there long enough to really explore the city. So it wouldn't really make sense from a travel perspective just to have your interstate run directly by the downtown area, further causing congestion in the town by allocating those exits to some streets within the city's business district. That not only taxes local traffic, but also passing traffic that have destinations elsewhere.

As for that experience of riding by the city, we already have a highway (I-235) that cuts through it, and we have it's primary connection that can introduce visitors to the town (I-35 soon to feature it's arch-span bridges in the next few years). Most of I-44 is submerged and wouldn't have great views to begin with, especially considering that the taller buildings is about two-to-three city blocks away, so a lid in one small area that's already submerged below surface level shouldn't be too much of an issue when it comes to views. If anything, a lid in that spot would connect the downtown park instead of having this gargantuan concrete gash between the two areas. And as a bonus, Scissortail Bridge could serve as a great façade for the westbound entrance, a 'gateway to the west' if you will.