It’s a waste of the “MAPS brand” to bastardize it in this fashion. In 10 years when we really need to fund something extraordinary that “brand” will have been tarnished by the MAPS 4 no vote, or controversial yes vote on a bunch of projects no one is thrilled about.

Was MAPS for Kids a waste of the MAPS brand?? That was a pretty huge departure from MAPS 1.

some of that work was for naught because greatness i guess, so, perhaps, yes in the long run

Also amazing that a board in OKC, which represents a vast overwhelming minority, thinks that because a few posters are not in favor of many of the projects means the whole voting populace is against them. Most I know want the stadium, and will vote yes if it is on the ballot. Others love the animal shelter, and will vote yes regardless of it. Others want progress, no matter what it may be, and will vote yes regardless.

Was MAPS for Kids a waste of the MAPS brand?? That was a pretty huge departure from MAPS 1.

It was a clear, cut and dry city-wide need. I don’t think you’ll see the same passion for animal shelters and mental health facilities, even though I agree we have a need for them.

I don’t have a dog in this fight, but spending money because it is available does not seem a prudent use of the MAPS brand. The fact that there’s no vision seems problematic, just a bunch of groups lobbying for their cause to be one of those chosen.

There is understandably lots of room for broad opinion on this if you follow these matters closely as many posters do. I have been read in on some of the more detailed polling data and might be privileged with broader perspectives as a result. The polling demonstrates a very clear path forward under the current political climate with a (needs based) agenda. A few things of note, the new MAPS 3 Park will be opening immediately before the vote. The brand itself should be further boosted by that big public event entering the winter. The new convention center and other senior wellness centers will open after the tax begins its next run.

Another big difference between this MAPS and previous MAPS is that you have activists and community organizers aggressively promoting their individual causes. It’s currently not the big, broad, heavy handed campaigning from the Chamber yet although that is forthcoming as well.

This MAPS will pass easily. Where I personally have concerns is whether the quality of the proposals meets “the MAPS standard”. I am deeply concerned about the rumblings surrounding short changing budgets. We shouldn’t be proposing only doing half of the needed bus shelters or trying to simply renovate the 50yo animal shelter. If these “needs based” projects are meet the MAPS transformational standards already set, then they need to be far reaching and ground up. Renovations and halvsies are half baked and terrible precedents to set within the brand.

I think its fair to say the Prior MAPS had advantage of one sided branding. Social media was a shell of itself then. Now those against have better methods to get their word out versus prior MAPS.

And why does it need to be 10 years? I continue to struggle why its not redone as a shorter term. I prefer 2-3 year MAPS thus allowing us to adapt to changing need/s.

And as mentioned there is no big need like prior MAPS. So everyone is dreaming up wants and there is a big difference. Because if no concensus it would be prudent to not push it in any ballet this year.

The whole reason to have public meetings is to help leaders develop consensus.

I'll vote yes on MAPS4 regardless, but I'm extremely bummed we couldn't even get a streetcar extension on the list of items to talk about.

I can see the logic in wanting to avoid a “we Just build it, why are they asking for money for rail” argument. More so with an upcoming “money for (regional) rail” vote in the near future.

I would encourage anyone with an interest in public transportation and streetcar to come to the upcoming July 29th meeting. We are first on the agenda at 9 am. There will be proposals for streetcar extensions, bus stops, automatic signal priority for EMBARK buses, and Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) proposals. Proposed investments range from $35 million to $140 million.

Im not sure how I feel about the $80 million request for affordable housing. First, that is a big chunk of the MAPS money. Secondly, we are one of the lowest cost of living cities in the country. I know theres always a need for affordable housing but do we have THAT big of a need right now for affordable housing? I could understand something like $20-25 million request but 80 seems rather large.

ALso, I agree with others that 10 year MAPS seems too long. It makes MAPS less flexible and creates the issue of groups and special interest just throwing their ideas into the mix just because its so big and long. I like 5 years or so. That way when in 4-5 years something new or needed pops up, we can address it. Cant do that in when MAPS is 10 years long.

the only thing that should be half baked is the fairgrounds arena; they should be able to foot all of that bill, Maps should only pay for half of it MAX.

I do agree with UP with the quality of these projects though. One other thing I don't really understand is the "need" for everything to have an endowment. We're saying spend $20M in MAPS to investment to get $800K in annual mtc? I know this works for business, but plopping down $20M (for basically each project) just seems ridiculous when the city SHOULD just raise the tax for parks (for example). Assuming the 4% Annual Return is accurate and true; it would take 25 years for the Endowment to pay for itself. That seems to be a long time while somebody is getting a huge injection of money in the short term.

Long term, no doubt Endowments make sense given after the $25 year run the fund pays intro perpetuity. But should EVERY park project have an endowment? I think not. We should consider those who wouldn't normally have city/park staff running them (like the mental health thing, the animal shelter, zoo); yes these should have endowments since the city is gifting the building to agencies to run. But if the city will still run projects then they should increase funding for the city staff via taxes if need be. I really also wish the state could change property tax for cities and I presume this is upcoming (for the RTD), but think of the 25 years we're missing for endowing everything putting MAPS money upfront.

It is something to think about since this does somewhat inflate most projects.

the only thing that should be half baked is the fairgrounds arena; they should be able to foot all of that bill, Maps should only pay for half of it MAX.

I do agree with UP with the quality of these projects though. One other thing I don't really understand is the "need" for everything to have an endowment. We're saying spend $20M in MAPS to investment to get $800K in annual mtc? I know this works for business, but plopping down $20M (for basically each project) just seems ridiculous when the city SHOULD just raise the tax for parks (for example). Assuming the 4% Annual Return is accurate and true; it would take 25 years for the Endowment to pay for itself. That seems to be a long time while somebody is getting a huge injection of money in the short term.

Long term, no doubt Endowments make sense given after the $25 year run the fund pays intro perpetuity. But should EVERY park project have an endowment? I think not. We should consider those who wouldn't normally have city/park staff running them (like the mental health thing, the animal shelter, zoo); yes these should have endowments since the city is gifting the building to agencies to run. But if the city will still run projects then they should increase funding for the city staff via taxes if need be. I really also wish the state could change property tax for cities and I presume this is upcoming (for the RTD), but think of the 25 years we're missing for endowing everything putting MAPS money upfront.

It is something to think about since this does somewhat inflate most projects.

property tax changes are not even on the state radar .... the RTD would be another sales tax raise

property tax changes are not even on the state radar .... the RTD would be another sales tax raise

But property tax changes should be on the radar. Or income tax raises.

Understand the logic behind a short-term MAPS as well as the logic of the long-term initiatives as what we've been successful in doing in the past.

The MAPS initiative as we did with MAPS 3 for $777 million with the placeholders projects. The city has never done a 'bait & switch.'

Again, let me say this; Steve Lackmeyer, web user reply addressed this in his last chat with what has been the true soul of MAPS.

Guest said:
I read the article this morning about MAPS 4 proposals. I absolutely, 100%, will not vote for MAPS 4 if they have a stadium or an arena at the fairgrounds included. The Energy owners are very wealthy and I am not going to fund a stadium they can pay for themselves.They can sell their giant houses if they want to build a stadium. And I am not going to support a totally unresponsive fair board, either. In fact, I will campaign against another MAPS in a grassroots movement if either of these two projects are in it. Thanks for letting me vent.

Web User replied:
That seems short-sighted if you value the other proposals like Palomar, working with mental health issues, sidewalks, parks, trails, public transit, or the other proposals.

MAPS was started as a way to overcome territorial interests. But can you make your case to the city council that you do not want the fairgrounds arena or the soccer stadium?
You bet.
As an aside, over the next few weeks I will be hosting guests advocating for the various proposed MAPS 4 projects. They will include Bob Funk Jr. who is hoping to get the stadium on the list.

This has likely been posted somewhere in this long thread but if not, here is the link that is being used for support regarding the outdoor venue:

http://www.aplacetobringustogether.com

Not sure if this posted back but the animal shelter is-

www.pawsformaps4.com (http://www.pawsformaps4.com)


I posted an invite to the transit forum on the Facebook OKC Streetcar Initiative page-

https://www.facebook.com/okcstreetcarcommittee/?ref=bookmarks


It looks like the upcoming July 31st 9am meeting at City Hall has the following via James Cooper-


A. Transit
B. Homelessness
C. Chesapeake Arena & NBA Enhancements
D. Diversion Hub

UrbanPioneer - Where is the July 29th meeting you mentioned above? City hall?

UrbanPioneer - Where is the July 29th meeting you mentioned above? City hall?


It is the 31st. Apologies, I couldn’t edit it because too much time had passed.

I hope Transit becomes the central project for Maps 4, perhaps Mobility in OKC moreso, as you also have sidewalks, lighting, and bike lanes that go hand-in-hand with transit.

One thing that very much concerns me about OKC is that leadership often see things mutually exclusive. In the last meeting, Cooper brought up the idea that we look to implement storm drainage design into all new sidewalks. He was immediately challenged by city manager that - it would eat up the sidewalk budget so we wouldn't get as much. However, there are other funds for street improvements and likely will need to be funds available for storm/sewer rebuild. Why couldn't the sidewalks piggy on those existing and future initiatives; so you kill both at the same time?

I believe this was Jame's point, we have dollars for sidewalks and more coming, we also have dollars for streets and a need/future dollars for storm and sewer replacement. There are new methods of sidewalks that sequester rain water and debris, sending less to the storm drain. Why couldn't we adopt this technology as the benchmark for all sidewalks? I disagree that it would give us less sidewalks because you would implement while rebuilding the street or storm drain anyway. Also, you wouldn't need the same LEVEL of sidewalk everywhere, but the benchmark should be at flood prone areas and where residential/pedestrian and pedestrian/vehicular density is highest.

OKC could really stretch dollars if we considered projects more globally and have synergy where there's overlap. I bring up P180 and the Streetcar as a HUGE example - rail should have been installed at the same time as streets/sidewalks were torn up for P180. Definitely would not have decreased the rail dollars (actually, might have added more rail) and overall could have saved $$ for the city.

Sometimes, business ideas (LEAN/6-Sigma) do make $$ sense even in government; this is what I believe Cooper was suggesting. ...

I hope Transit becomes the central project for Maps 4, perhaps Mobility in OKC moreso, as you also have sidewalks, lighting, and bike lanes that go hand-in-hand with transit.

One thing that very much concerns me about OKC is that leadership often see things mutually exclusive. In the last meeting, Cooper brought up the idea that we look to implement storm drainage design into all new sidewalks. He was immediately challenged by city manager that - it would eat up the sidewalk budget so we wouldn't get as much. However, there are other funds for street improvements and likely will need to be funds available for storm/sewer rebuild. Why couldn't the sidewalks piggy on those existing and future initiatives; so you kill both at the same time?

I believe this was Jame's point, we have dollars for sidewalks and more coming, we also have dollars for streets and a need/future dollars for storm and sewer replacement. There are new methods of sidewalks that sequester rain water and debris, sending less to the storm drain. Why couldn't we adopt this technology as the benchmark for all sidewalks? I disagree that it would give us less sidewalks because you would implement while rebuilding the street or storm drain anyway. Also, you wouldn't need the same LEVEL of sidewalk everywhere, but the benchmark should be at flood prone areas and where residential/pedestrian and pedestrian/vehicular density is highest.

OKC could really stretch dollars if we considered projects more globally and have synergy where there's overlap. I bring up P180 and the Streetcar as a HUGE example - rail should have been installed at the same time as streets/sidewalks were torn up for P180. Definitely would not have decreased the rail dollars (actually, might have added more rail) and overall could have saved $$ for the city.

Sometimes, business ideas (LEAN/6-Sigma) do make $$ sense even in government; this is what I believe Cooper was suggesting. ...

Maps 4 Mobility... i like it...

The city has had a pretty bad history of integrating systems together on individual improvements that affect pedestrians and create placemaking. The few "complete streets" that we have in this city are large scale street redevelopment projects with innovation typically driven by consultants and 3rd party engineers. Arguably, the city has evolved a little bit. The reality though is that very little thinking occurs on small projects that are relevant to actual human scale that pedestrians require.

I was in that presentation by Cooper. I think what he was trying to communicate is that there is an opportunity to intertwine beautification, stormwater management, street separation for the sidewalk with an aesthetically pleasing barrier, and ADA ramp compliance all through a multi-disciplinary approach. It is placemaking without having to do a multi-million dollar street redevelopment project simply by rethinking how we address neighborhood intersections.

Since Soccer seems to be a hot topic, here’s what’s happening where I live.

Seems like the stadium itself is $20 million, with the entire development (mixed use) coming in at $60 million. The City is kicking in $13.5 million in TIF, with private contributions footing the rest of the bill.

https://www.krdo.com/news/top-stories/switchbacks-getting-new-stadium-near-downtown/773004654

Colorado Switchbacks proposed USL soccer stadium.


https://media2.fdncms.com/csindy/imager/u/blog/14007566/stadium2.png?cb=1532557016

The cost of the outdoor stadium is estimated at $20 million plus a mixed-use development project costing approximately $40 million for a total of $60 million. State tourism revenue will provide a $10 million bond towards the stadium, the Colorado Springs Switchbacks will be contributing another $10 million and Weidner Apartment Homes $40 million.

Colorado Springs wants to maintain its USL agreement status.

Oklahoma City proposed USL soccer-American Football Stadium.


https://soccerstadiumdigest.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/New-OKC-Energy-stadium-rendering.jpg

Under plans submitted to Oklahoma City mayor David Holt on Thursday, USL Championship‘s OKC Energy could build a new soccer-specific stadium in the city’s downtown area. The facility would cost an estimated $65 to $80 million for construction–plus an additional $6 to $12 million for land acquisition–and be built with an initial seating capacity of 10,000. It would be designed to have the ability to host events such as concerts, rugby, lacrosse, and football in addition to professional soccer.


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

Nice to see that OKC will have an expandable stadium of what appears to be good quality ($65 to $80 million for construction). IMO if this project is approved (MAPS 4) and bids come in under the total $92 million construction & land acquisition price tag; there may an option to add more seats in the infield (lower bowl) with an initial capacity of 14k.

Built for the future; the differential between the two stadiums (Colorado Springs vs. Oklahoma City) is obviously the premium upper deck seating and bowl rounded stadium. OKC's future aspiration is to get to the MLS. City should maintain control of naming-rights until an MLS franchise is obtained with Energy FC being the anchor tenant (lease agreement) responsible for maintenance & upkeep.

The one problem with that OKC rendering is most of seats are in end zones. And if expanded on sides would cut off the “connectedness” of buildings/entertainment venues (building stadium up).

The one problem with that OKC rendering is most of seats are in end zones. And if expanded on sides would cut off the “connectedness” of buildings/entertainment venues (building stadium up).

Why would the visual "connectedness" of buildings/entertainment be of any value from inside or outside the stadium?

The stadium itself would be the centerpiece. The development venues we hope to attract would be as a result of the stadium.

What Oklahoma City will have provided for its sports franchises:


2008-10: Major league NBA basketball: Oklahoma City Thunder: Chesapeake Energy Arena ($190 million Arena includes ) & INTEGRIS Health Thunder Development Center ($11 million). Arena used for multiple events.


1998: AAA minor league baseball Oklahoma City Dodgers: Chickasaw Bricktown Ballpark ($34 million). Stadium used primarily for baseball.

202?: AAA minor league soccer Oklahoma City Energy FC: MAPS 4 soccer stadium (proposed $65-80 million). Energy FC built the $6 million multi-field training facility at the Northeast Regional Health and Wellness Campus at 2810 NE 63rd in Oklahoma City. Included on site is a new restroom, concession building, outdoor basketball courts and two MLS size soccer fields.

Why would the visual "connectedness" of buildings/entertainment be of any value from inside or outside the stadium?

The stadium itself would be the centerpiece.

Soccer has pre-parties I assume? Also, imagine buildings on side come to enjoy the view and then 5-10 years up goes stadium expansion and poof, view is gone. All I’m saying is from renderings they should consider how it blends with other development. Once you block it off its a dead end so maybe if they factor in how they do sides to keep it blended if they build up later.

Soccer has pre-parties I assume?

Downtown's environment would provide more, add to that pre & post game atmosphere; something that doesn't exist with Taft Stadium's location. Taft Stadium was never intended to be a permanent home for AAA minor league soccer. Its historical value played more into the renovation efforts.

Just how much development will encroach upon the stadium project has yet to be determined. The initial video of the MAPS 4 soccer stadium gave you a glimpse of potential:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWHxr5sdu4k

Soccer has pre-parties I assume?

Downtown's environment would provide more, add to that pre & post game atmosphere; something that doesn't exist with Taft Stadium's location. Taft Stadium was never intended to be a permanent home for AAA minor league soccer. Its historical value played more into the renovation efforts.

Just how much development will encroach upon the stadium project has yet to be determined. The initial video of the MAPS 4 soccer stadium gave you a glimpse of potential:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWHxr5sdu4k

All I’m saying is why show rendering with most seats in end zones vice on sides? Because it makes the rest of that proposed area look better. The sides (if expanded) will then be higher than surrounding buildings versus renderings almost make neighbors look to be part of stadium, thus more inviting. If they are putting most fans in end zones thats a big fail. And if on sides then show what it looks like built up and how tall.

I like soccer and would be for a 2 year MAPS cycle of just this complex and a few others ($200m/2 years). I just want the rendering to better show the stadium un relation to rest of that proposed district is all. No reason to hide the sides and no reason to put most fans in end zones

Where to put the seats depends on many things: multipurpose use plans, capacity, and the sun. Keeping people out of the sun is gonna to be a big part of that plan, many places suffer because seats are baking in the sun.

From the video, it seems like it’s just that one side that will have fewer seats, and that both ends and the other side will have more to begin with.

Where to put the seats depends on many things: multipurpose use plans, capacity, and the sun. Keeping people out of the sun is gonna to be a big part of that plan, many places suffer because seats are baking in the sun.

From the video, it seems like it’s just that one side that will have fewer seats, and that both ends and the other side will have more to begin with.

Where to put the seats depends on many things: multipurpose use plans, capacity, and the sun. Keeping people out of the sun is gonna to be a big part of that plan, many places suffer because seats are baking in the sun.

From the video, it seems like it’s just that one side that will have fewer seats, and that both ends and the other side will have more to begin with.

Good explanation d-usa:

Approximately 4,000 seats tarped off; several sections of good upper deck seats--did anyone envision the affects of the sun...
https://cdn2.newsok.biz/cache/large960_blur-0777b7273588d7cfaaca993c0443131f.jpg
Does OKC repeat its errors with a new MAPS 4 Soccer-American football stadium.

Is it me or the soccer field looks plain? The Colorado soccer field looks nicer...

Is it me or the soccer field looks plain? The Colorado soccer field looks nicer...

It's a ridiculously early rendering for possible planning purposes only. Don't lose sleep over this...

Where to put the seats depends on many things: multipurpose use plans, capacity, and the sun. Keeping people out of the sun is gonna to be a big part of that plan, many places suffer because seats are baking in the sun.

From the video, it seems like it’s just that one side that will have fewer seats, and that both ends and the other side will have more to begin with.

If true then I would hope they make the west stands much taller than any other side.

Even tho its an rendering it shows their vision. I would think this is a big deal eventually, why lose early momentum by creating a bad rendering when its the first exposure people have with project.

1. If most seats are in end zone its a failure

2. If they don’t make west side tallest to block out sun its a failure.

3. If west side will be tallest this matters for projects just west of stadium

If fans seating placement and sun exposure are key components of project they completely failed in expressing their vision. Who paid for the renderings and did city have any input?

The west side wouldn’t have to be the tallest, because people aren’t sitting in the middle of the field. Covering the regular seats on each side accomplishes the desired shading from the evening sun.

The sideline that will suffer the most from the sun and heat would be the north-side of the stadium. And from the renderings it seems that this is the section with the fewest seats so far. There is a good picture of the proposed layout here:
http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/stadium022819a.jpg

The West-End will have shade for afternoon and evening games, and the south side looks like it should be shaded as well. The other horrible section will be the east goal-line stands, similar to FC Dallas. Stick the drunk supporters there and make those the cheap seats, and that section will fill up anyway.

^^^

So the sides are north/south?

Can almost guarantee that if the Energy get funding for a stadium at some point, they will be cognizant of the need to protect as many people from the sun as possible. The east side of Taft has zero shading and it noticeably impacts attendance in those sections. They've also pushed all kickoffs between June 1st and August 31st back from 7:30 to 8:00 starting this season, so they are definitely aware of the sunlight/temperature issues.

It's a ridiculously early rendering for possible planning purposes only. Don't lose sleep over this...

Haha, I hate soccer so I am not losing sleep over it

Can almost guarantee that if the Energy get funding for a stadium at some point, they will be cognizant of the need to protect as many people from the sun as possible. The east side of Taft has zero shading and it noticeably impacts attendance in those sections. They've also pushed all kickoffs between June 1st and August 31st back from 7:30 to 8:00 starting this season, so they are definitely aware of the sunlight/temperature issues.

Agree with you. My main comments are about orientation. If the orientation is off in rendering then the whole complex rendering would be off too, due to dimensions. I would hope they got the basics right else its just a random drawing. If this vote is Dec and its now July, what do they expect public to vote for?

There is no way we are ready for a Dec vote when no one really knows what will be in MAPS and even micro projects like this are possibly off.

We need to scale down MAPS to $200m and 2 year approvals so we can get concensus and focus plus easily adapt to changing needs. This soccer complex is one of many ideas floated, yet the vote is 5 months away? Not enough time to get an actual 10 year, $1B package together and inform public in time imo.

Good explanation d-usa:

Approximately 4,000 seats tarped off; several sections of good upper deck seats--did anyone envision the affects of the sun...
https://cdn2.newsok.biz/cache/large960_blur-0777b7273588d7cfaaca993c0443131f.jpg
Does OKC repeat its errors with a new MAPS 4 Soccer-American football stadium.

they didn't tarp off the sections because of the effects of the sun

they didn't tarp off the sections because of the effects of the sun

^^^^^^^ This

they didn't tarp off the sections because of the effects of the sun

Strange, you mention this. When the ballpark first open, we had seats in that upper deck section down right field. Probably weren't enough butts in those seats and the ad dollars were more profitable...

Later, they were using some seats in those sections to replace other seats throughout the venue. BoulderSooner or jedicut, what's you take on why they trapped off those seats.

^^^ they roped it off so that the stands would look more full and so that they could make ad revenue

^^^ they roped it off so that the stands would look more full and so that they could make ad revenue

Thanks, Go it!

^^^ they roped it off so that the stands would look more full and so that they could make ad revenue

yep. this. it forces more people into non-roped off sections, so that there is more infill in those. and allows for making money selling adds

At least there is room for future growth within our ballpark. The affects of the NBA on the limited sports entertainment dollars and the moderate growth of our city bodes well for the future of AAA minor league baseball.

Our attendance looks great for a team in last place in their division; especially when you match OKC up against other cities of similar size with PCL & NBA franchises:


Oklahoma City....6,733
Salt Lake City.......6,129
Memphis..............4,829
New Orleans........2,937

All of the above franchises are division bottom feeders. New Orleans struggles (over-saturated) with NFL, NBA & PCL.

Source - PCL Attendance: http://www.milb.com/milb/stats/stats.jsp?t=l_att&lid=112&sid=l112

In order to (re)grow the seating capacity the city would have to purchase seats for the upper deck to replace the ones they've used to repair broken seats and to replace the bleacher seats. Just sayin.

In order to (re)grow the seating capacity the city would have to purchase seats for the upper deck to replace the ones they've used to repair broken seats and to replace the bleacher seats. Just sayin.

You're correct, Shawnw. No knowledge if the seats were taken from the same section or one - three or more from a number of sections; they'll eventually need to be replaced Sunday repair items. Dodgers have had several large crowds exceeding 10,000 since the franchise relocated. Don't know the official capacity since the tarp ads.

JMO, you might see signs of this if just one section of the tarped upper deck opens within the next two seasons. Dodgers have really been playing some ball of late.

If you go to a game and look, it's very obvious that there are almost no seats left up there in most of the covered sections. There are still some seats yes, but some pretty massive portions of them are gone.

If you go to a game and look, it's very obvious that there are almost no seats left up there in most of the covered sections. There are still some seats yes, but some pretty massive portions of them are gone.

Good observation. Like someone missing most of their teeth; you eventually pull them all.

Could it be more economically feasible to just remove all those seats, replace with bench back support style seating--better than standing room tickets. Retrofit those tarps where they could be temporarily removed when you have large promotions with potential to draw 13,000. Again, temporary just saying.

Not going to lie, that video showing the renderings is really cool. I could get on board with something like this if it is close to that depiction. However, that looks like billions in private investment in the area with almost no surface parking. Seems very pipedream.

The rendering is great, but rather fantastic. It’s banking on the stadium being a driver for housing, retail and restaurant development. Sorry but that seems rather pie in the sky.

https://cdn2.newsok.biz/cache/large960_blur-0777b7273588d7cfaaca993c0443131f.jpg

Wow, how did I miss those bench back support seats in the 3 sections below the upper deck beginning beyond the right infield line--to the triangle section are the seats they would need to order for future upper deck use.

The rendering is great, but rather fantastic. It’s banking on the stadium being a driver for housing, retail and restaurant development. Sorry but that seems rather pie in the sky.

I know OKC isn't Denver but if the new stadium were to blend in and contribute to the Bricktown look, it could be a catalyst for fill in development. The Rockies Coors field was definitely a catalyst to the point there is little vacant land available within a mile.

Potential 'cotton mill' transformative project, still alive...

https://cdn2.newsok.biz/cache/large960_blur-409778feafd057c33134a3bd609b1565.jpg

The Cotton Mill project marketed by Sooner Development, just southeast of downtown, is waiting to see if a soccer/multiuse stadium will be included in MAPS 4; it could anchor the retail-entertainment project.

"None of these projects (Chisholm Creek, Penn Central, The Cotton Mill project) have broken ground, " Price Edwards said, but all "would take Oklahoma City retail to a new level."--Oklahoman, Business section, July 27, 2017: http://digital.newsok.com/Olive/ODN/Oklahoman/default.aspx

Upcoming events:


Wednesday, July 31
Transit
Homelessness
Chesapeake Arena & NBA enhancements
Diversion hub

Tuesday, Aug. 6
Mental health
Multipurpose stadium
Innovation District
Other projects brought forward by Councilmembers
Overview of format, timing, revenue estimates, sustainable design, 1% for art

I know OKC isn't Denver but if the new stadium were to blend in and contribute to the Bricktown look, it could be a catalyst for fill in development. The Rockies Coors field was definitely a catalyst to the point there is little vacant land available within a mile.
Coors Field is the third oldest stadium in the National League, accommodates 46,897; built in 1995 at a cost of $300 million.


https://localtvkdvr.files.wordpress.com/2019/04/gettyimages-255273.jpg?quality=85&strip=all&w=770&h=513

Denver, you must admit is way beyond anyone's league (MLB, NFL, NBA, NHL, MLS); but they had to start somewhere...

Oklahoma City is in the early stages of U.S. major league sports development. NBA we have secured with new enhancements to be proposed for The Peake (MAPS 4: Wednesday, July 31,) and the multipurpose stadium (Tuesday, August 6) could be the catalyst for MLS.

Our stadium will be in the core of the city's revitalized-redevelopment in the downtown area. An approved MAPS 4 stadium will be a game-changer, we will have NBA, PCL (AAA) & USL (AAA) venues centralized in the downtown core. Potential starter stadium for another major league franchise.

Remember 30 years ago (1990), our CBD core development was DEAD.

Coors Field is the third oldest stadium in the National League, accommodates 46,897; built in 1995 at a cost of $300 million.


https://localtvkdvr.files.wordpress.com/2019/04/gettyimages-255273.jpg?quality=85&strip=all&w=770&h=513

Denver, you must admit is way beyond anyone's league (MLB, NFL, NBA, NHL, MLS); but they had to start somewhere...

Oklahoma City is in the early stages of U.S. major league sports development. NBA we have secured with new enhancements to be proposed for The Peake (MAPS 4: Wednesday, July 31,) and the multipurpose stadium (Tuesday, August 6) could be the catalyst for MLS.

Our stadium will be in the core of the city's revitalized-redevelopment in the downtown area. An approved MAPS 4 stadium will be a game-changer, we will have NBA, PCL (AAA) & USL (AAA) venues centralized in the downtown core. Potential starter stadium for another major league franchise.

Remember 30 years ago (1990), our CBD core development was DEAD.

USL is not a AAA league. It is a completely separate league from MLS and does not act in ayn way as a feeder league. Now some MLS teams have reserve squads in the USL, but the league as a whole doesn't exist to feed the MLS players.

Don't claim to know all the 'ins & outs' of the soccer system since it isn't the same, so I stand corrected, PattyShack.

USL soccer is comparable to PCL AAA play; it would be the next level to the highest caliber of play in the U.S. is all I am saying. Many MLS franchises now have USL affiliates; again, don't know if they act in the same capacity of AAA, my reference is limited to what I have read--NASL OKC Rayo vs USL Oklahoma City Energy FC in that the arrangement is reminiscent of an MLB club's AAA farm team in the caliber of play.

So forgive me if my knowledge of being politically correct offended you and any others. Just want to maintain the highest level of soccer sports entertainment available for our city.

...and if you really want to know the truth; based on the Funks' previous track records, not so sure their group would be the ones to get us to MLS; IIRC they had a good opportunity to bring MLS to OKC (Pre NBA in OKC) in 2002 when the franchise fee was $10 million; now it's nothing less that $100 million.