^
ODOT made some revision but as you can see from the end result, it's still a freeway.

Probably the most common sense idea was just to restore the original street grid as Reno is only a block away.

But one thing it does do better than Reno, is get you inserted into the CBD faster with fewer lights, which was its whole purpose. It would take twice as long to take the same stretch on Reno with the 10 lights along the way. So from this perspective, it's absolutely serving its purpose. Ever since 40 moved, it takes longer to get from 40 to the CBD because of all of the lights, no matter which path you take to 40. And unless the city buys up land on western, well that's never going to improve either.

Probably the most common sense idea was just to restore the original street grid as Reno is only a block away.

:yeahthat:

It's interesting, I remember ODOT said there was going to be something like 25,000 cars per day on this thing and I have never driven it where it was busy. So, out of curiosity, I went to the ACOG website where you can pull up traffic counts all over OKC and there are none for the boulevard. There is one that I thought seemed odd at 125,000 per day and then I realized it was the old I-40 that was still showing up on the system.

There are parts of EK Gaylord that have between 15,000-20,000 cars per day, mainly south and north of the boulevard. Reno in Bricktown shows between 10,000-12,000 cars per day. It would be interesting to see how many actually travel on the boulevard every day and if it is actually serving it's intended purpose.

It's interesting, I remember ODOT said there was going to be something like 25,000 cars per day on this thing and I have never driven it where it was busy. So, out of curiosity, I went to the ACOG website where you can pull up traffic counts all over OKC and there are none for the boulevard. There is one that I thought seemed odd at 125,000 per day and then I realized it was the old I-40 that was still showing up on the system.

There are parts of EK Gaylord that have between 15,000-20,000 cars per day, mainly south and north of the boulevard. Reno in Bricktown shows between 10,000-12,000 cars per day. It would be interesting to see how many actually travel on the boulevard every day and if it is actually serving it's intended purpose.

Might be that OKC hasn't sent their traffic counts to ACOG lately... try submitting an Open Records Request for the data and see what OKC has? https://oklahomacityok.justfoia.com/Forms/Launch/d705cbd6-1396-49b7-939e-8d86c5a87deb

It's interesting, I remember ODOT said there was going to be something like 25,000 cars per day on this thing and I have never driven it where it was busy. So, out of curiosity, I went to the ACOG website where you can pull up traffic counts all over OKC and there are none for the boulevard. There is one that I thought seemed odd at 125,000 per day and then I realized it was the old I-40 that was still showing up on the system.

There are parts of EK Gaylord that have between 15,000-20,000 cars per day, mainly south and north of the boulevard. Reno in Bricktown shows between 10,000-12,000 cars per day. It would be interesting to see how many actually travel on the boulevard every day and if it is actually serving it's intended purpose.

I suspect it only approaches that number when there are events happening downtown.

Probably the most common sense idea was just to restore the original street grid as Reno is only a block away.

If only you knew how many times that was suggested. But Eric Wenger and ODOT weren't even slightly interested in doing anything that made more sense for OKC. I recall lots of responses like "the overpasses on the west end will have beautiful openings for sunlight"........

I don’t see the problem with having this boulevard and it seems smart to have extra road capacity for the future when OKC really starts to see major growth. Arterials like Reno can only handle so much.

I don’t see the problem with having this boulevard and it seems smart to have extra road capacity for the future when OKC really starts to see major growth. Arterials like Reno can only handle so much.

Agree. I have 2 specific uses for the Boulevard, and it is a great way to save time. Years from now it will be built out and incorporated where only old geezers will complain out it.

If only you knew how many times that was suggested. But Eric Wenger and ODOT weren't even slightly interested in doing anything that made more sense for OKC. I recall lots of responses like "the overpasses on the west end will have beautiful openings for sunlight"........

The Classen/Western overpass being by far the most beautiful. What with the light gracefully streaming through and illuminating the soot from the fire barrels and all.

If only you knew how many times that was suggested. But Eric Wenger and ODOT weren't even slightly interested in doing anything that made more sense for OKC. I recall lots of responses like "the overpasses on the west end will have beautiful openings for sunlight"........

I wrote Wenger repeatedly and he was a complete prick throughout.

One thing they oughta do in this new Boulevard would help provide relief is find a way to remove some of those loop ramps in the deep deuce neighborhood area. They could do a braided type system or remove them completely and put a park cap over it. It might cause a few extra minutes of drive time, but it really could spur some cool development in the area. I don’t think that’s needed right now for something to 10-20 years down the line would be something worth looking into.

The boulevard really does provide a good connection to getting in and out of downtown pretty seamlessly with direct connections to I 40 without having to use on an offramp at a diamond interchange. I like the boulevard itself and the concept it was just the execution.

The Classen/Western overpass being by far the most beautiful. What with the light gracefully streaming through and illuminating the soot from the fire barrels and all.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

But no really....it's the dumbest alignment along the whole thing. What even is that!?

In retrospect, the pressure should have been put on ODOT and the city to use a grid or Reno option before the west and east ramps were constructed. Could have just built the ramps to Reno, updated 3rd street and called it good. Once they built out that west ramp to the old I-40 segment, they were determined to make it a bypass type of road.

I get it, ODOT said we 'haven't designed the central portion yet', but it seemed pretty obvious this was the direction they were going.

In retrospect, the pressure should have been put on ODOT and the city to use a grid or Reno option before the west and east ramps were constructed. Could have just built the ramps to Reno, updated 3rd street and called it good. Once they built out that west ramp to the old I-40 segment, they were determined to make it a bypass type of road.

I get it, ODOT said we 'haven't designed the central portion yet', but it seemed pretty obvious this was the direction they were going.

city leaders drove the BLVD every bit as much (if not more) then Odot

I don’t see the problem with having this boulevard and it seems smart to have extra road capacity for the future when OKC really starts to see major growth. Arterials like Reno can only handle so much.

My frustration with it is how it was sold to us. Pedestrian friendly, going to spur development along the boulevard, lower speed limits, etc. It was supposed to be a grand entrance into Downtown OKC and it just looks like a half a$$ highway to me...

The only part of the boulevard that I think is ok is north of the park and even then they should have worked the streetcar into the traffic pattern versus having its own space.

My frustration with it is how it was sold to us. Pedestrian friendly, going to spur development along the boulevard, lower speed limits, etc. It was supposed to be a grand entrance into Downtown OKC and it just looks like a half a$$ highway to me...

The only part of the boulevard that I think is ok is north of the park and even then they should have worked the streetcar into the traffic pattern versus having its own space.
Problem right now is there isn't any development actually ON the boulevard. There are sidewalks, trees, etc. on the boulevard and no pedestrians as there is virtually no one living west of the park and near the boulevard. WHO are the pedestrians who are going to use it right now. No one is going to go strolling past vacant buildings and overgrown lots. Rather than blaming the boulevard, why not blame the fact that so far no developer sees enough value in the land to develop near it. What a difference it might be if Strawberry Fields actually had development and people living there who wanted to walk/bike to downtown and/or the park. Right now, Its utility is for moving traffic in and out.

Problem right now is there isn't any development actually ON the boulevard. There are sidewalks, trees, etc. on the boulevard and no pedestrians as there is virtually no one living west of the park and near the boulevard. WHO are the pedestrians who are going to use it right now. No one is going to go strolling past vacant buildings and overgrown lots. Rather than blaming the boulevard, why not blame the fact that so far no developer sees enough value in the land to develop near it. What a difference it might be if Strawberry Fields actually had development and people living there who wanted to walk/bike to downtown and/or the park. Right now, Its utility is for moving traffic in and out.

That's because the City or the state own all that frontage and the setbacks are huge.

The only exception is the Omni, and that's because it was a completely City-driven development.

Problem right now is there isn't any development actually ON the boulevard. There are sidewalks, trees, etc. on the boulevard and no pedestrians as there is virtually no one living west of the park and near the boulevard. WHO are the pedestrians who are going to use it right now. No one is going to go strolling past vacant buildings and overgrown lots. Rather than blaming the boulevard, why not blame the fact that so far no developer sees enough value in the land to develop near it. What a difference it might be if Strawberry Fields actually had development and people living there who wanted to walk/bike to downtown and/or the park. Right now, Its utility is for moving traffic in and out.

My personal answer for this is people (aka me) going to the park on Saturday morning but who ended up parking on the street a few blocks away to the north west. Happens maybe once a month or so.

That's because the City or the state own all that frontage and the setbacks are huge.

The only exception is the Omni, and that's because it was a completely City-driven development.

And the section from Penn to Western is controlled access. No one is going to be building around that. The section from Walnut to the east basically is too. Hopefully, this new stadium district addresses this somewhat.

Just look at the gap between Paycom and the boulevard, all owned by the City and just sitting there for a decade; didn't even have a sidewalk until recently.

It's the same across the entire length apart from the Omni and Scissortail Park.

Just look at the gap between Paycom and the boulevard, all owned by the City and just sitting there for a decade; didn't even have a sidewalk until recently.

There's always a lot of people jaywalking in that block when there are events at Paycom, too. It probably needs a mid-block crossing, similar to what's on Reno on the north side of Paycom or on the north end of the Park.

That's because the City or the state own all that frontage and the setbacks are huge.

The only exception is the Omni, and that's because it was a completely City-driven development.
Agreed, but it is part of the problem, not the whole problem. Developers are not lining up anywhere near either side of the blvd. No developments around Farmers Market. Strawberry Fields seems dead for years. Mazaheri has made no movement. The apartments by the Omni seem stalled. None of these rely on the setbacks. I can't believe putting in a round about and bringing it to grade at Classen would make these developers move.

As I said, there is no private land to develop anywhere along the boulevard, including and especially Farmer's Market.

The closest thing to it is the old Lumberyard owned by Mazaheri and there was just an announcement last week that that is trying to be acquired by the Stadium District group... And even that property has a big setback from the boulevard.

These huge gaps comprised of weirdly-shaped properties are exactly why there was so much advocacy just to return everything to the original street grid and create developable land. What we have now is a 100% consequence of basically turning the old I-40 into a street-level quasi freeway with huge setbacks.

They should use the blvd for light rail if it passes until it joins back up with Reno

Its really silly seeing a streetcar track sandwiched between a sidewalk and another sidewalk north of the boulevard. "We're going to have this random section where its not a streetcar".

Its really silly seeing a streetcar track sandwiched between a sidewalk and another sidewalk north of the boulevard. "We're going to have this random section where its not a streetcar".
The entire streetcar is silly. It should have its own dedicated lane for the most part and fenced off so it could go a bit faster. It also needs to be expanded and double tracked. IMO it is useless as I've walked just about as fast as anywhere it could take you.

The entire streetcar is silly. It should have its own dedicated lane for the most part and fenced off so it could go a bit faster. It also needs to be expanded and double tracked. IMO it is useless as I've walked just about as fast as anywhere it could take you.

it also should have been put one or more streets over and not on broadway, so that it encouraged development there rather than being where there was already development and traffic

it also should have been put one or more streets over and not on broadway, so that it encouraged development there rather than being where there was already development and traffic
It just seems like it would be a no brainer to get extend this to Paseo, Plaza, Capitol Hill, Innovation District, and now the Boathouse District for the 2028 games.

It just seems like it would be a no brainer to get extend this to Paseo, Plaza, Capitol Hill, Innovation District, and now the Boathouse District for the 2028 games.

which is exactly why it won't be done... all of the no brainer ideas around the street car were just ignored. they wanted an attraction, not something for transit

Yep. It would take a lot to extend the streetcar to these great areas, but to do so before 2028 would be a great idea. But as Jedi said, won’t happen. And that’s too bad.

As I said, there is no private land to develop anywhere along the boulevard, including and especially Farmer's Market.

The closest thing to it is the old Lumberyard owned by Mazaheri and there was just an announcement last week that that is trying to be acquired by the Stadium District group... And even that property has a big setback from the boulevard.

These huge gaps comprised of weirdly-shaped properties are exactly why there was so much advocacy just to return everything to the original street grid and create developable land. What we have now is a 100% consequence of basically turning the old I-40 into a street-level quasi freeway with huge setbacks.

I know Pete posted this last week, but this is a good example of how far back the set backs are:

19080

I know Pete posted this last week, but this is a good example of how far back the set backs are:

19080

I really wish there was a way to see this a little better. I know my laptop is a touch screen, but when I pinch to blow up the image, all it does is get incoherently blurry.

Yesterday, they were out doing some exploratory work in the area where I believe the stadium will be located.

The trucks were pulling away just as I got my drone in the air.

HTTP://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/stadium081224a.jpg


HTTP://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/stadium081224b.jpg


HTTP://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/stadium081224c.jpg


HTTP://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/stadium081224e.jpg

That last shot is awesome, Pete! Gives a great perspective of where the stadium will be.

Has that area already been remediated from an environmental standpoint? I'm pretty sure the land that Moshe Tal owned where TK7 used to operate would at least need a Phase 2 site assessment, if not higher.

I really wish there was a way to see this a little better. I know my laptop is a touch screen, but when I pinch to blow up the image, all it does is get incoherently blurry.

Yeah, sorry I don't know how to blow it up any better. If you want, go to the oklahoma county assessor website: https://docs.oklahomacounty.org/AssessorWP5/DefaultSearch.asp.

Click the "MAP Search" tab at the top and then zoom in to the area between Shields and 235. It will show you the set back. Then go west and look at the set backs. Just west of Western along the Boulevard is a massive set back and all private ownership.

To Pete's earlier point, the city owns most of the land right next to the boulevard so unless you have an in with the city and can buy it from them to develop it, you are going to be well removed from it. Again, it's just a bad design.

I know this has been discussed earlier in the thread, but will there still be a significant amount of mitigation work for the soil pollution here?

I know this has been discussed earlier in the thread, but will there still be a significant amount of mitigation work for the soil pollution here?

Yes.

And the standard is much higher for residential properties (which will be a big part of the proposed development) than for something like the stadium itself.

No idea how the developers plan to deal with this and by consensus of anyone who knows about contamination, there is no way to know the extent of buried oil tanks and other issues until they dig up the entire property. Remember that long before this was the Producer's Coop, it was a huge oilfield back when nobody even considered environmental impact.

If the contamination in the area is that risky, how deep do you need to dig to determine what kinds of development would be suitable for the area.

Looks like enough land to build the MAPS 4 Multipurpose Stadium and a future 75,000 seat 'retractable roof stadium,' beyond 2030.

If the contamination in the area is that risky, how deep do you need to dig to determine what kinds of development would be suitable for the area.

Looks like enough land to build the MAPS 4 Multipurpose Stadium and a future 75,000 seat 'retractable roof stadium,' beyond 2030.They would be required to dig as far down as the contaminants have seeped and to remove that soil until the site meets established levels of cleanliness. That could easily be a hundred feet or more, depending on how contaminated the site is, and would require millions of dollars of work.

I remember when the lot on the NE corner of NW Expressway and Portland was being readied for construction of the former Circuit City location. There had been a gas station on that corner for many years, and the removal of the tanks and contaminated soil required that they remove TONS of soil. They had to be 50 to 60 feet below grade, at least to my memory.

This is the current ownership of the various parcels in this area.

Echo Soccer (Kanady) bought the 9 acres for $13 million last month. Beffort bought the one parcel for Mose Tal for $1.3 million; I believe Beffort bought the other Tal parcels as well but that's not what is indicated on the County Assessor site.

You can see there are several different owners, road right-of-way, and from my understanding a bunch of railroad easements throughout.

Depending on how things go with future acquisitions, they may be planning to create ingress/egress at Walnut Ave. The Boulevard is pretty much at ground level at that location.

HTTP://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/coop081324d.jpg

I do hope the developers have considered the cost of remediation in their figures. I would hope they already have done soil sampling, as well. It would suck if this development gets paused or canceled because of lack of forethought, with regards to how bad the soil is (or could be).

I am assuming that the parties involved are aware of all the contamination issues, but you never know. Some people see the whole forest, then the trees come up and bite them.

Edit to add that I do believe they have. Just know that things can sometimes not be taken into account. Trees within the forest have taken down large developments before (not just OKC).

I look forward to seeing how this plays out!

I do hope the developers have considered the cost of remediation in their figures. I would hope they already have done soil sampling, as well. It would suck if this development gets paused or canceled because of lack of forethought, with regards to how bad the soil is (or could be).

I am assuming that the parties involved are aware of all the contamination issues, but you never know. Some people see the whole forest, then the trees come up and bite them.

Echo started in the oil and gas business so I would be very surprised if they didn't do their due diligence on the cost of remediation for the property. Also, I am sure there will be a public assistance ask (TIF) for the project and whatever that is will help offset the costs.

I do hope the developers have considered the cost of remediation in their figures. I would hope they already have done soil sampling, as well. It would suck if this development gets paused or canceled because of lack of forethought, with regards to how bad the soil is (or could be).

I am assuming that the parties involved are aware of all the contamination issues, but you never know. Some people see the whole forest, then the trees come up and bite them.

I understand what you are saying, but I am as sure as anything ever discussed on OKC Talk that the soil issues are intimately known to all parties involved. There was someone on this thread, or another one about the site, that walked us through all the issues and solutions with contamination and remediation. Very well done, and it was in 2024 IIRC. Anyone remember it?

I do hope the developers have considered the cost of remediation in their figures. I would hope they already have done soil sampling, as well. It would suck if this development gets paused or canceled because of lack of forethought, with regards to how bad the soil is (or could be).

I am assuming that the parties involved are aware of all the contamination issues, but you never know. Some people see the whole forest, then the trees come up and bite them.This site was obviously not contaminated to the Superfund level, as it was never listed on that. I'd be more concerned about contamination around Moshe Tal's properties than I would be the Producers Coop site. TK7 produced fuel additives and who knows if those ingredients and products were stored safely?

i wish them luck on the railroad easements... railroads usually never give up the land unless they just are given a deal they can't refuse

keep in mind that this project is going to get MILLIONS and MILLIONS of dollars in TIF

keep in mind that this project is going to get MILLIONS and MILLIONS of dollars in TIF

Hundreds of millions will no doubt be the ask.

Plus the canal extension, streetcar, stadium, utilities, ingress/egress...

i wish them luck on the railroad easements... railroads usually never give up the land unless they just are given a deal they can't refuse

Is Eminent Domain not a viable method?

Is Eminent Domain not a viable method?

not for rail road property ..

but i don't the railroads give them much trouble with the middle of this property

Is Eminent Domain not a viable method?

States are very limited in what they are able to use Eminent domain for when taking land from a railroad, unless the railroad freely chooses to give up the land. It's entirely possible, and has been the case in the past, where you actually have to make it a federal case in order to do so.

States are very limited in what they are able to use Eminent domain for when taking land from a railroad, unless the railroad freely chooses to give up the land. It's entirely possible, and has been the case in the past, where you actually have to make it a federal case in order to do so.

Inhofe had to threaten the railroad ( BNSF) that had the yard behind the gm plant to get them to hurry up and sell for the tinker expansion .. because they kept dragging their feet ..

I do hope the developers have considered the cost of remediation in their figures. I would hope they already have done soil sampling, as well. It would suck if this development gets paused or canceled because of lack of forethought, with regards to how bad the soil is (or could be).

I am assuming that the parties involved are aware of all the contamination issues, but you never know. Some people see the whole forest, then the trees come up and bite them.

Edit to add that I do believe they have. Just know that things can sometimes not be taken into account. Trees within the forest have taken down large developments before (not just OKC).

I look forward to seeing how this plays out!

There has been soil testing at least by the city. I believe it was talked about here several months ago.

Also, I am sure there will be a public assistance ask (TIF) for the project and whatever that is will help offset the costs.

Which should be considered the cost of lax or no regulation of businesses.

Which should be considered the cost of lax or no regulation of businesses.

Agree. That was just the way it was done back then. I know we are all brilliant, visionary geniuses today. But, I kinda wonder what they are going to say "In the year 2121"?

Maybe I missed this somewhere, but I thought it would have been here.....
https://www.news9.com/story/66c60d008c172629c901f3bc/investment-group-brings-soccer-back-to-okc-with-reimagined-team-and-stadium

There's a new group that is pushing for soccer in OKC. The name sucks hard.....like real hard. And the stadium design is less than i would have hoped for. It looks like they downscaled the original design but are pushing this as the "best world class" stadium.......i dont think they got there. They even tossed the shade on the home side except right over the press box....booooo. I would much rather have them go vertical on the sides than to create a bowl with terrible corner seats and an "endzone" area with bad low angle sight lines. There's really no reason to do that and to NOT go vertical. You really should only bowl in when going vertical won't fit. For something no higher than this would be, the cost of going higher isn't high. Frankly, most of our 6A football stadiums are higher than this......Maybe i'm just thinking too football-esque, but the higher seating is an important thing for other groups that they say they want to have also play there. And I will always be thinking about how band will fit in. If you can host football, you can host band....and should.

Maybe I missed this somewhere, but I thought it would have been here.....
https://www.news9.com/story/66c60d008c172629c901f3bc/investment-group-brings-soccer-back-to-okc-with-reimagined-team-and-stadium

There's a new group that is pushing for soccer in OKC. The name sucks hard.....like real hard. And the stadium design is less than i would have hoped for. It looks like they downscaled the original design but are pushing this as the "best world class" stadium.......i dont think they got there. They even tossed the shade on the home side except right over the press box....booooo. I would much rather have them go vertical on the sides than to create a bowl with terrible corner seats and an "endzone" area with bad low angle sight lines. There's really no reason to do that and to NOT go vertical. You really should only bowl in when going vertical won't fit. For something no higher than this would be, the cost of going higher isn't high. Frankly, most of our 6A football stadiums are higher than this......Maybe i'm just thinking too football-esque, but the higher seating is an important thing for other groups that they say they want to have also play there. And I will always be thinking about how band will fit in. If you can host football, you can host band....and should.

I don't think there have been any formal designs released for the stadium, let alone approved by City Council and the Planning Commission. So I think you might hold off on the stadium bashing a bit.

Unless I, and everyone else on here, missed it, most renderings I have seen have been theoretical in nature.

Maybe I missed this somewhere, but I thought it would have been here.....
https://www.news9.com/story/66c60d008c172629c901f3bc/investment-group-brings-soccer-back-to-okc-with-reimagined-team-and-stadium

There's a new group that is pushing for soccer in OKC. The name sucks hard.....like real hard. And the stadium design is less than i would have hoped for. It looks like they downscaled the original design but are pushing this as the "best world class" stadium.......i dont think they got there. They even tossed the shade on the home side except right over the press box....booooo. I would much rather have them go vertical on the sides than to create a bowl with terrible corner seats and an "endzone" area with bad low angle sight lines. There's really no reason to do that and to NOT go vertical. You really should only bowl in when going vertical won't fit. For something no higher than this would be, the cost of going higher isn't high. Frankly, most of our 6A football stadiums are higher than this......Maybe i'm just thinking too football-esque, but the higher seating is an important thing for other groups that they say they want to have also play there. And I will always be thinking about how band will fit in. If you can host football, you can host band....and should.

there is no design yet ..

and this is not a new group it is the new ownership of the USL okc team ..

Maybe I missed this somewhere, but I thought it would have been here.....
https://www.news9.com/story/66c60d008c172629c901f3bc/investment-group-brings-soccer-back-to-okc-with-reimagined-team-and-stadium

There's a new group that is pushing for soccer in OKC. The name sucks hard.....like real hard. And the stadium design is less than i would have hoped for. It looks like they downscaled the original design but are pushing this as the "best world class" stadium.......i dont think they got there. They even tossed the shade on the home side except right over the press box....booooo. I would much rather have them go vertical on the sides than to create a bowl with terrible corner seats and an "endzone" area with bad low angle sight lines. There's really no reason to do that and to NOT go vertical. You really should only bowl in when going vertical won't fit. For something no higher than this would be, the cost of going higher isn't high. Frankly, most of our 6A football stadiums are higher than this......Maybe i'm just thinking too football-esque, but the higher seating is an important thing for other groups that they say they want to have also play there. And I will always be thinking about how band will fit in. If you can host football, you can host band....and should.

Those are conceptual designs from 5 years ago

Maybe I missed this somewhere, but I thought it would have been here.....
https://www.news9.com/story/66c60d008c172629c901f3bc/investment-group-brings-soccer-back-to-okc-with-reimagined-team-and-stadium

There's a new group that is pushing for soccer in OKC. The name sucks hard.....like real hard. And the stadium design is less than i would have hoped for. It looks like they downscaled the original design but are pushing this as the "best world class" stadium.......i dont think they got there. They even tossed the shade on the home side except right over the press box....booooo. I would much rather have them go vertical on the sides than to create a bowl with terrible corner seats and an "endzone" area with bad low angle sight lines. There's really no reason to do that and to NOT go vertical. You really should only bowl in when going vertical won't fit. For something no higher than this would be, the cost of going higher isn't high. Frankly, most of our 6A football stadiums are higher than this......Maybe i'm just thinking too football-esque, but the higher seating is an important thing for other groups that they say they want to have also play there. And I will always be thinking about how band will fit in. If you can host football, you can host band....and should.

The sale of the team was posted about a month ago on the OKC Energy thread under Sports.

https://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=36829&page=26

Then a few weeks later, it was announced that Kanady and Beffort are going to be redeveloping the old CO-OP area. That's where this thread went.