Only two big ticket items on MAPS 4

MAPS 4 Stadium

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/stadium022819b.jpg

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/stadium022819e.jpg
Designed to allow for soccer-American football expansion & renovation

New State Fair Arena

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/arena022619e.jpg

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/arena022619g.jpg
(8)Option for temporary upper-deck seating on the platform at the above right.
http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/arena022619r.jpg

15320

The soccer stadium, IMO, should not be viewed simply as a sports facility but also as a real estate development tool. Because taxpayers had to pay millions of dollars to speculators who bought land where they knew MAPS 3 dollars would go (ie: Scissortail Park) just prior to the MAPS 3 vote followed by presenting ridiculous appraisal numbers to the City, an essential component of the soccer stadium presentations should include where the stadium will go, who has been buying land in the area, and what it could potentially cost taxpayers to utilize eminent domain to acquire the land as well as who is likely to benefit from appreciation of land values in the immediate vicinity of the stadium. These answers may shed light on the question of why the soccer stadium proposal keeps hanging around despite abysmal polling numbers.

The more I think about this the more I think this one should be Maps For Neighborhoods. Lets spread the wealth to all the areas for all the people this time.

One of the best ways to "spread the wealth to all the areas for all the people" would be to include funding for operations and maintenance of city parks and public transit in this MAPS program. The original MAPS included funds for O&M and just last year the Better Streets, Safer City MAPS extension was accompanied by a separate vote for a 1/4 penny sales tax which was committed by the council to public safety operations. Making MAPS 3/4 capital and 1/4 operations and maintenance would provide approximately $28 million/year for O&M. If that O&M were divided between city parks and public transit you could improve amenities (only 1% if city parks have restroom facilities, there are few proper bus shelters etc..), see programming directed to the desires of the surrounding neighborhoods of a park (dog training, yoga, athletic leagues etc..), see improved frequency and extended hours of public transit service and fund marketing of park programming to the public. In this way, MAPS 4 could bring transformative change to all people in all parts of the city.

I think this is a good idea for part of the program - even most of it. 50s to 70s parts of the rest of the city are looking pretty run down in some areas. Too much vacant and underused commercial space. That retail center on the south edge of Will Rogers park (that used to be part of the park) is one of my pet peeves.

We are not building the Funks a stadium anymore than we built The Peake for just NBA. The stadium will be city-owned & operated thru SMG. It will allow OKC to bid for events like amateur rugby, lacrosse, soccer & minor league level sports as we have done with the WCWS thru ASA (Porter) Hall of Fame Stadium.

In most cases I'm in agreement with you, but if this were true the city could bring a hockey team into the Peake but it doesn't. We also don't seem to get all the concerts that BOK does. NBA, observationally at least, seems to defacto get a tighter grip on that venue than they should considering it's city owned.

One of the best ways to "spread the wealth to all the areas for all the people" would be to include funding for operations and maintenance of city parks and public transit in this MAPS program. The original MAPS included funds for O&M and just last year the Better Streets, Safer City MAPS extension was accompanied by a separate vote for a 1/4 penny sales tax which was committed by the council to public safety operations. Making MAPS 3/4 capital and 1/4 operations and maintenance would provide approximately $28 million/year for O&M. If that O&M were divided between city parks and public transit you could improve amenities (only 1% if city parks have restroom facilities, there are few proper bus shelters etc..), see programming directed to the desires of the surrounding neighborhoods of a park (dog training, yoga, athletic leagues etc..), see improved frequency and extended hours of public transit service and fund marketing of park programming to the public. In this way, MAPS 4 could bring transformative change to all people in all parts of the city.

Absolutely this. We should never build shiny pretty things without having a way to pay to keep them shiny and pretty, ongoing maintenance costs definitely need to be built in to MAPS 4.

Do we have a list of previous MAPS projects that have gone without funding or which have caused cuts in other areas to fund them after their MAPS funding expired?

Ed Shadid should be able to give some good examples, since he was involved in the budget process for the city I would assume.

I thought that funding was already build into MAPS. Increased tourism dollars from
The NBA games goes to fund city functions via increased sales taxes and property taxes.

^

The Myriad Gardens receives about $1.9M a year in subsidy; Scissortail Park will get $2.8M a year (and I believe this has gone up).

The entire budget for Parks & Rec is $33M per year for 22,000 acres of parkland.

The streetcar is being subsidized for $3.1M out of the $23M public transport budget.

The whitewater facility and Boathouse Foundation are asking for operational money now, but I don't have the figures.

Do we have a list of previous MAPS projects that have gone without funding or which have caused cuts in other areas to fund them after their MAPS funding expired?

Ed Shadid should be able to give some good examples, since he was involved in the budget process for the city I would assume.

I thought that funding was already build into MAPS. Increased tourism dollars from
The NBA games goes to fund city functions via increased sales taxes and property taxes.

So glad you asked. Unlike MAPS 1 which had some maintenance funds built in, MAPS 2 and MAPS 3 were strictly capital expenditures and there are many examples of how this has caused operational and funding deficiencies.

MAPS 2, or MAPS for Kids, spread hundreds of millions of dollars of capital investments to schools across the entirety of the city (including schools outside of I-89 and even OKC boundaries) but with no maintenance funds to accompany the capital investments. School boards were then expected to pick up all of the operations and maintenance costs of the new buildings, add-ons, HVAC systems etc.. and with cuts to education we all know how that worked out.

Exhibit number one in MAPS 3 would be the whitewater exhibit and the hemorrhaging of money by the Boathouse Foundation. Last year the Boathouse foundation secured millions of additional MAPS funds at least partially in an attempt to make capital investments designed to decrease their O&M costs and then received a multimillion dollar bail out from our general fund because of O&M shortfalls. My understanding is that the hemorrhaging continues and they are quietly seeking an additional bailout this year with no end in sight.

Ten years after the MAPS 3 vote we have only built 2 out of 4 senior wellness centers primarily due to being able to find partners who were willing/able to take on the O&M of running the facilities.

The streetcar never had a dedicated funding source for its O&M so the $3 million in annual O&M costs was simply provided from the existing transit budget.

The downtown park (Scissortail) has no identified funding source for the $3-4 million in annual O&M and funds are diverted from the parks budget. We now have a situation where the 10 acres in the Myriad Gardens requires about $4 million in O&M annually and the 70 acres of Scissortail Park will also likely require $4 million annually because programming, which brings people to parks, requires O&M dollars. So 80 acres of downtown parks requires $8 million/year or $100,000/acre for O&M. Now what about the 6,000 acres of neighborhood parks throughout the city? There is simply not enough money in the parks budget to do much more than cut the grass in our neighborhood parks throughout the city and the lack of O&M funds is a major reason that only 1% of OKC parks have restroom facilities (restroom facilities require about $5,000/year to operate and maintain).

If the convention center performs as advertised it will require a larger CVB budget to manage the type of conventions they project along with potentially greater maintenance costs. Again, there is no O&M fund dedicated to this so any increase will come from the general fund and the hotel/motel tax.

The even greater cloud hanging over all of this is what happens during the next recession/depression. We got a taste of this in the 2016 time frame and had no choice but to simply cut personnel and services throughout all departments; but you can't just shut down the streetcar/downtown park/whitewater facility so we shall see what the next recession brings.

Which is not what I asked though.

I asked what cuts were made to other programs to fund this spending. What parts of the city budgets were cut to ensure continuing funding for things created by MAPS. Since that’s an argument made by some against future MAPS projects, we should be able to know what programs or services are hurt by old MAPS projects.

I know some things are just going to cost money and not make much visible return on paper. But saying the Myriad Gardens getting 1.9 Million (which also includes the pre-MAPS Crystal Bridge I assume) doesn’t account for money the Myriad Gardens bring back into the city budget to contribute towards their own funding: sales tax spend by people dining out after visiting the Gardens, staying at local hotels, etc. This goes for the ball park, the Whitewater facility, the Peake, etc.

How much of their cut in the city budget for operations is offset by an increase in the city budget because they exist? I won’t argue that they break even, but it’s something to consider.

So glad you asked. Unlike MAPS 1 which had some maintenance funds built in, MAPS 2 and MAPS 3 were strictly capital expenditures and there are many examples of how this has caused operational and funding deficiencies.

MAPS 2, or MAPS for Kids, spread hundreds of millions of dollars of capital investments to schools across the entirety of the city (including schools outside of I-89 and even OKC boundaries) but with no maintenance funds to accompany the capital investments. School boards were then expected to pick up all of the operations and maintenance costs of the new buildings, add-ons, HVAC systems etc.. and with cuts to education we all know how that worked out.

Exhibit number one in MAPS 3 would be the whitewater exhibit and the hemorrhaging of money by the Boathouse Foundation. Last year the Boathouse foundation secured millions of additional MAPS funds at least partially in an attempt to make capital investments designed to decrease their O&M costs and then received a multimillion dollar bail out from our general fund because of O&M shortfalls. My understanding is that the hemorrhaging continues and they are quietly seeking an additional bailout this year with no end in sight.

Ten years after the MAPS 3 vote we have only built 2 out of 4 senior wellness centers primarily due to being able to find partners who were willing/able to take on the O&M of running the facilities.

The streetcar never had a dedicated funding source for its O&M so the $3 million in annual O&M costs was simply provided from the existing transit budget.

The downtown park (Scissortail) has no identified funding source for the $3-4 million in annual O&M and funds are diverted from the parks budget. We now have a situation where the 10 acres in the Myriad Gardens requires about $4 million in O&M annually and the 70 acres of Scissortail Park will also likely require $4 million annually because programming, which brings people to parks, requires O&M dollars. So 80 acres of downtown parks requires $8 million/year or $100,000/acre for O&M. Now what about the 6,000 acres of neighborhood parks throughout the city? There is simply not enough money in the parks budget to do much more than cut the grass in our neighborhood parks throughout the city and the lack of O&M funds is a major reason that only 1% of OKC parks have restroom facilities (restroom facilities require about $5,000/year to operate and maintain).

If the convention center performs as advertised it will require a larger CVB budget to manage the type of conventions they project along with potentially greater maintenance costs. Again, there is no O&M fund dedicated to this so any increase will come from the general fund and the hotel/motel tax.

The even greater cloud hanging over all of this is what happens during the next recession/depression. We got a taste of this in the 2016 time frame and had no choice but to simply cut personnel and services throughout all departments; but you can't just shut down the streetcar/downtown park/whitewater facility so we shall see what the next recession brings.

How much would you say the MAPS projects contributed to the growth of the city budget during that time. Do you think the cuts would have been worse or better without the increased tax income due to projects? How much imbalance is there between growth contributions and expenses?

As an example: how many of the cuts during the small recession were caused by the fact that we have MAPS and how many were caused by the fact that we still have a large reliance on energy companies as a source of the city budget? (Which is something we have continued to improve I think)

^

The Parks & Rec Budget is only asking for 5% more this year over last, which is about a $1.8M increase. Inflation in the U.S. has been running about 2%.

Scissortail Park will take at least $2.8M in subsidy.

So, they just merely cut other things out of the parks and rec budget, such as maintenance and people. In other words, less money to go around to all the other parks and facilities.


Those are hard numbers in one area, just to use as an example.

Additional questions, and this is pretty much my own ignorance:

Was the Boathouse Foundation a MAPS creation? I know the Rapids were, but didn’t know about the Foundation.

Also: when we do bonds for additional fire stations, roads, schools, and such, do they usually include long term funding for firemen, road maintenance, and teachers?

^

The Parks & Rec Budget is only asking for 5% more this year over last, which is about a $1.8M increase. Inflation in the U.S. has been running about 2%.

Scissortail Park will take at least $2.8M in subsidy.

So, they just merely cut other things out of the parks and rec budget, such as maintenance and people. In other words, less money to go around to all the other parks and facilities.


Those are hard numbers in one area, just to use as an example.

Thanks. The closest park that we use the most is Martin Nature Park (great park by the way) and it’s been a pleasure seeing it grow over the past decade.

The Boathouse Foundation was created to operate the city-owned river facilities as a result of MAPS.

The Myriad Foundation does the same for MBG and now the MAPS 3 Scissortail Park.

I don’t want to come across and say that MAPS funding is a non-issue. I do think we need to consider if the overall growth caused by it is worth continuing with other capital improvements. And many of those are probably not easily measured.

How many people moved here for work who wouldn’t know anything about OKC without the Thunder as an example. Are employers able to use that as a marketing tool, and do we have sales tax and property tax growth because someone or some business moved here because of these projects and the increased visibility.

Some stuff also isn’t ever going to make money. We don’t expect roads or a fire station to raise funds for their maintenance. Sometimes we just have to dig into our collective pockets to pay for that and cry about “socialism”. Of course it’s a fair question to then ask if a soccer stadium is worth it or if it should be spend on roads.

Maybe we need to consider selling the next MAPS as a final MAPS, with an expiring sales tax and a permanent sales tax for funding operations after the temporary improvement tax expires.

You have the same problem with the parks system that you have with almost everything else in the city, city services favor northwest and now also the central (downtown, midtown) portion of the city. There are zero public gardens or nature preserves in south okc. Unless part of the plan is to add parks to under served areas and bring some equity to the city's parks then this will just be a continuation of MAPS benefiting one part of the city over others.

The Boathouse Foundation was created to operate the city-owned river facilities as a result of MAPS.

The Myriad Foundation does the same for MBG and now the MAPS 3 Scissortail Park.


Which facilities do we own? The Rapids and trails I would assume, and maybe the cost of river and damn maintenance, maybe the water buses? Are the other buildings owned by other entities?

I’m really trying to ask more question rather than argue against stuff. I’m always learning lots of things from many folks here, so it helps me make better decisions down the line. Hope I don’t come across as too argumentative.

You have the same problem with the parks system that you have with almost everything else in the city, city services favor northwest and now also the central (downtown, midtown) portion of the city. There are zero public gardens or nature preserves in south okc. Unless part of the plan is to add parks to under served areas and bring some equity to the city's parks then this will just be a continuation of MAPS benefiting one part of the city over others.


That is something I can agree with.

Soccer is something billed as benefiting the Southside. But so far it seems to be limited to “south midtown” or “south Bricktown”.

Which is not what I asked though.

I asked what cuts were made to other programs to fund this spending. What parts of the city budgets were cut to ensure continuing funding for things created by MAPS. Since that’s an argument made by some against future MAPS projects, we should be able to know what programs or services are hurt by old MAPS projects.

This question can't be answered yet. The convention center and downtown park which constitute more than half of MAPS 3 haven't been built/come online yet. Only 2/4 senior wellness centers are built. The streetcar just came online 6 months ago. The intermodal transit hub isn't finished. etc...

Operations and maintenance for MAPS 2 came from the school districts, not the City of OKC.

The O&M concerns are not an argument against MAPS if MAPS would simply have a certain percentage dedicated to O&M. It is the fierce resistance to anything other than capital expenditures in MAPS which is the problem.

Endowments won't solve the problem either; it takes years to collect the money which have to be placed in ultraconservative investments and won't provide anything like the transformational change which would accompany having 1/4 penny of MAPS go to O&M.

What about MAPS 1?

https://www.okc.gov/home/showdocument?id=1806

If the new convention center brings in the additional conventions they are anticipating/hoping for, I would be shocked if the additional hotel and restaurant sales tax revenue from the associated visitors doesn't easily pay for the O&M for it.

Same with the sales tax from the likely new development around Scissortail park.

^

Remember we are also heavily subsidizing the Omni, building a parking garage, had to buy the land for that, etc.

LIke $200M alone just for that... So that has to be factored in as well.

And we are not allowed to subsidize certain other things as part of the agreement right? Which could limit further growth in exchange.

And we are not allowed to subsidize certain other things as part of the agreement right? Which could limit further growth in exchange.

No TIF can be used for hotels in the downtown area, and there are some other strings.

Appreciate the reply:) It is very frustrating that the city's solution is to throw a soccer field to the southside. The thought process behind that gives me a headache!

What about the new park up near CC, won't that be drawing funds from the Parks department?

Appreciate the reply:) It is very frustrating that the city's solution is to throw a soccer field to the southside. The thought process behind that gives me a headache!

I know your feelings, so don't take this as a personal attack on you; it's like the city is throwing the south side a bone. The Northeast side has favored & supported MAPS; Edwards Park amenities & Crystal Lake are some of the results of MAPS-Bonds initiatives. We'd gladly accept those soccer fields.

Definitely understand your concern; however IIRC many precincts on the south side didn't favor & voted against MAPS & Bonds. Don't get me wrong; that doesn't mean they shouldn't benefit--their contribution to the penny sales tax adds up. You did receive MAPS-Bond projects/upgrades in many schools, parks, River projects, planters, a skate park and other projects; basically, you got a lot more than a number of communities.

If you don't want those soccer fields there are many communities and parks that would benefit. Not quite sure where they will propose the soccer stadium since the Producers COOP site is in question. OKC has invested much in the river on the south side with more in the works.

Seems like it might have been a mistake to build the CC last. Everyone will be voting formaps4, before seeing the 1/2 the benefits of maps3.

I remember reading through the CC thread and the tone quickly shifted to “ok this is pretty cool” once the cranes and steel went up. It’ll only get more positive as it nears and becomes complete.

City is trying to sell a Lamborghini in maps4, they just forgot to put gas in it.

The two unpopular items on MAPS 4 are unfortunately the ones that will probably get built last if you want the initiative to be approved.

If the arena (City owned land at SFP) is built before the soccer stadium, the USL will keep a franchise in OKC--provided the Funks want to continue to own & operate a USL franchise.

The City needs to make the debt-free CEA available for minor league hockey where we (taxpayers) funded the downtown arena to support all events. An ECHL franchise (downtown) not SFA would help Bricktown restaurants & businesses immensely.

The 47 year old Cox Convention Center Arena is not an option for an ECHL franchise or G-League OKC Blue, Tulsa & Wichita are our rivals; they will be key to the success of minor league hockey's return.

Appreciate the reply:) It is very frustrating that the city's solution is to throw a soccer field to the southside. The thought process behind that gives me a headache!

So, they want to put a soccer stadium on the south side but it's frustrating because it seems like a bone. But if the soccer stadium were put on the north side you'd be frustrated because they didn't put it on the south side.

Give some examples of what you would like. What does the south side need that a temporary flow of revenue would provide? Where would it go? What infrastructure needs are there? Give some solutions.

Sidewalks in neighborhoods esp. around schools where people tend to walk a lot would be nice. I don't walk kids to school or anything like that but I see a lot of people walking their kids and kids walking out in the streets because lack of sidewalks. This is basic stuff that all decent cities need. Do away with soccer stadiums til sidewalks are provided for the people.

The neighborhood next to my mom's is currently getting MAPS* sidewalks added. It is a nice addition and they are doing it right, fully redoing the lower part of the driveways so the sidewalk meets the driveway flat. It is only within some distance from the school though, so at some random spot in the neighborhood it just stops.

*Actually not sure if its MAPS or bonds.

Do they think they are actually fooling anyone selling the soccer stadium as a football stadium? Isn't the capacity around 10K? So it might be good for middle school games. There are already many football stadiums around town with far greater capacity, I don't see any major high school event going there.

How many is "many?" I can only think of Speegle and it only holds 3600. In fact, Taft is the only one that comes to mind for OKC Public schools and it's north side.

The conversation was about using MAPs money for parks. It just seems to me that the response to the southside is always we have or will build a soccer field for you so you can't complain. The southside is diverse; not everyone likes soccer. I was pointing out that the distribution of parks and quality/type of parks vary widely across the city and suggested that if parks were to be considered as part of MAPs it needs to involve more than just updating the existing parks. For example, it should include adding parks in underserved areas.

I hadn't heard that a site has been selected for the proposed soccer stadium.

Southside, you are correct about a site for the proposed soccer stadium. The Producer's COOP Mill site was suggested and used as a placeholder.

The city owns land on the Oklahoma River riverfront close to the core and near new development (AICCM) where a stadium could be constructed and avoid costly land acquisition.

Does it matter which side of river?

There's a park SW29/I-44 I think that got a very nice overhaul with GO2007 money, and I thought the big park with the pedestrian bridge over I-44 got a partial reno with GO2007 money as well, not that that's nearly enough. Is south lakes park not south side OKC? Or is that Moore? Used to love taking my kids there before they went and grew up on me. Again not saying south side is getting the love it needs, but just off the top of my head I thought at least a few pretty cool parks.

There's a park SW29/I-44 I think that got a very nice overhaul with GO2007 money, and I thought the big park with the pedestrian bridge over I-44 got a partial reno with GO2007 money as well, not that that's nearly enough. Is south lakes park not south side OKC? Or is that Moore? Used to love taking my kids there before they went and grew up on me. Again not saying south side is getting the love it needs, but just off the top of my head I thought at least a few pretty cool parks.

South Lakes and Earlywine are both within OKC city limits on the south side.

South Lakes and Earlywine are both within OKC city limits on the south side.

IMO, Southlakes has turned into a major disappointment, this park had so much potential. I'm not a soccer hater, but probably 75% of the park is fenced and used for soccer only!

IMO, Southlakes has turned into a major disappointment, this park had so much potential. I'm not a soccer hater, but probably 75% of the park is fenced and used for soccer only!
This reminds me of something - why are so many parks getting turned into fields and fenced/structured areas? Why can't we leave some of these as well-kept natural parks?

This reminds me of something - why are so many parks getting turned into fields and fenced/structured areas? Why can't we leave some of these as well-kept natural parks?

Because sports are life.

It would be nice if we left some of these areas (preferably around creeks) more natural with maintained dirt paths. Other than Bluff Creek I can't think of anywhere for kids to play and explore in the woods. I left out Hefner as most of the ancillary areas are littered with creeps.

Because sports are life.

It would be nice if we left some of these areas (preferably around creeks) more natural with maintained dirt paths. Other than Bluff Creek I can't think of anywhere for kids to play and explore in the woods. I left out Hefner as most of the ancillary areas are littered with creeps.
Right? They're paving and building, but I'd like to see some parks that are just trees and not so structured. Not everywhere has to be a court of some kind.

It would be nice if we left some of these areas (preferably around creeks) more natural with maintained dirt paths. Other than Bluff Creek I can't think of anywhere for kids to play and explore in the woods. I left out Hefner as most of the ancillary areas are littered with creeps.

I think your last sentence sort of addresses your first.

Because sports are life.

It would be nice if we left some of these areas (preferably around creeks) more natural with maintained dirt paths. Other than Bluff Creek I can't think of anywhere for kids to play and explore in the woods. I left out Hefner as most of the ancillary areas are littered with creeps.

Sports is also a public health and quality of life issue. Having more areas for structured sports and exercise benefits the community by improving the health of the community.

With that said, for many kids playing on a playground IS their exercise. For many, walking trails in unstructured parks IS exercise. So there is a place and a need for “non-sports” park spaces.

Martin Nature Park is a great park that achieves some of that natural play space for kids.

Not to me. It isn't my favorite project.

How many is "many?" I can only think of Speegle and it only holds 3600. In fact, Taft is the only one that comes to mind for OKC Public schools and it's north side.

Maybe I was assuming a bit because all the Tulsa Metro HS stadiums are over 10K and I don't know the exact sizes here. But for major events you have OU, for smaller events you have UCO. Then you also have Edmond, Moore, Norman, Yukon, etc HS stadiums that are all in the ball park (I think) of 10K seats. There are probably already 20+ football stadiums in the metro, I really don't think we need another one. I can understand the desire for a soccer stadium and if it does a few football games fine, but we aren't hurting for places to have football now so it isn't a real selling point.

IMO, Southlakes has turned into a major disappointment, this park had so much potential. I'm not a soccer hater, but probably 75% of the park is fenced and used for soccer only!

The unfortunate reality of South Lakes is that it is limited by its layout. The traditional park side was bifurcated from the soccer fields long ago, and really has become a single use site. As the parent of players there, I am glad for the amazing fields and complex we enjoy (despite the embarrassing lack of adequate restrooms/concession), but there is so much more they could have done had they planned appropriately.

That said, there is a bit of momentum with the city council of late in considering investments at both SL park and some parks on the north side that will benefit the existing usage of the soccer fields and the other park-related structures. For me, I want ALL of OKC represented in MAPS; investing in infrastructure (e.g. widening Meridian/S. 119, installing signal lights/parking improvements/park expansion) would be amazing for the area and show that city leaders consider things south of the river too when deciding on who gets funding for municipal projects.

As a resident adjacent to South Lakes and a parent of a child who is active in soccer I would like to add that widening Meridian is not a solution. That will only drive more traffic. There is ample overflow parking east of the fields in the park area. The issue is lazy people who don’t want to walk. We walk to games from our neighborhood. I would hope we could focus on connecting the neighborhoods to the park as opposed to widening the roads. The neighbors in the area are the main users of the park and as an immediate resident I think it is foolish to accommodate traffic over the neighborhoods. Additionally, widening will solve nothing unless you address the on/off ramps and bridges at I44 and 89th, 104th, 119th, 134th and 149th.

I also think it is dumb that we have two great parks in the area (Earlywine and South Lakes) with zero connectivity between the two and almost no connectivity to the immediate neighborhoods except by road. Also, zero connectivity to Earlywine golf course.

Also, the park and trails at South Lakes are highly utilized.

Additionally, widening will solve nothing unless you address the on/off ramps and bridges at I44 and 89th, 104th, 119th, 134th and 149th.

Agreed. I am amazed at the number of people that get off at 104th and then go over to Meridian to go south to 119th.

The big question with MAPS lies solely with all the collective voices of it's residents. Since I no longer reside in OKC, my hope is that OKC will continue to dream big and keep the momentum going! In the end, does the residents of OKC want their city to continue the renaissance and have a balanced agenda that will benefit all residents? OKC, you have come a long way, but you must continue to strive for improvement and have a focused vision!

Here's an idea.

How about dedicated biking and jogging trails that run through the south side up to the river, with pedestrian bridges to connect it to downtown? Basically, replace Brock Creek and Lightning Creek (more appropriately named Brock Drainage Ditch and Lightning Drainage Ditch) for their entire route, or at least down to I-240. They connect to several city parks, and with a park renovation program, it could be a really nice addition to the city.

I know those creeks actually serve a purpose, particularly during floods, but I think you could build a cap on top of it and retain its drainage value.

USSF (FIFA) Soccer field dimensions: The field dimensions are within the range found optimal by FIFA: 110–120 yards (100–110 m) long by 70–80 yards (64–73 m) wide. These soccer field dimensions are wider than the regulation American football field width of 53 1⁄3 yards (48.8 m), or the 65-yard (59 m) width of a Canadian football field.

American Football Field: When the "football field" is used as unit of measurement, it is usually understood to mean 100 yards (91.44 m), although technically the full length of the official field, including the end zones, is 120 yards (109.7 m).

A soccer stadium where the field is built to USSF FIFA regulations for pro soccer has the field capacity to more than accommodate an American football field. In essence, if you build the soccer stadium, you can easily retrofit it for American football.


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/stadium022819b.jpg
Oklahoma City proposed MAP4 Stadium pics.
http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/stadium022819e.jpg

Why there's a need for a new soccer stadium:

This side of the placeholder stadium (above) has room for expansion; if expanded could increase seating to more than 20,000 minimum if it were rounded out as in the top pic above.

The MAPS 4 Stadium proposed meets these regulations. Taft Stadium's remodel was designed for American football and Track & Field events; its field is only 67 yards wide, three yards short of the minimum USSF standard. Taft Stadium official seating capacity is 7,500. The proposed MAPS 4 stadium would seat a minimum of 10,000 with ample room for expansion to meet MLS minimum seating capacity of 18,000.

You put soccer on you lose. We're ready for you punks this time.

funny stuff


https://youtu.be/DlYqLH1VWZs

Snip

For me, pushing this as a nice outdoor concert venue would mean more than as yet another football stadium.