Well yeah. But if the city got a competent promoter for it, then there would be probably 2 or 3 festivals that annually bypass OKC that would be more apt to come here (think rock/metal summer shows that never come here). A quality outdoor venue for concerts would do wonders for this city, since OKC may be the only large city without one (the Zoo is not good, lets be honest).

If it was that easy it would have already been done.

Well yeah. But if the city got a competent promoter for it, then there would be probably 2 or 3 festivals that annually bypass OKC that would be more apt to come here (think rock/metal summer shows that never come here). A quality outdoor venue for concerts would do wonders for this city, since OKC may be the only large city without one (the Zoo is not good, lets be honest).

OKC has provided an arena to lure NHL-NBA when we didn't have a franchise, built a ballpark downtown to keep from losing AAA baseball; now its time for a multipurpose stadium to retain USL with expansion potential to lure MLS.

We'll never have a chance to find out because if we don't pass MAPS 4 with a quality multipurpose stadium, this may be the last chance. By the time we push MAPS 5 in 2028, you're talking about a 10,000 seat stadium that will swell to a whooping $200 million minimum without an anchor tenant in waiting.

No private owner will risk building a facility of this magnitude entirely with private funds. Funk-McLaughlin & Clark are not among Oklahoma's 7 riches, nor do the 3 combined = the wealth of 1 of Oklahoma's 7 riches.

If the Thunder ownership were pushing the stadium thru MAPS and owned the Energy FC--we wouldn't be having this conversation...

Oklahoma doesn't possess the multimillionaires & billionaires who can build a private stadium or arena, very few of these MLB, NFL. MLS stadiums & NBA, NHL arenas are privately owned.

...and another thing, not knocking the Thunder ownership, just saying.

We have an opportunity to maintain a variety of sports (NBA, PCL, USL, Rodeo & possibly return of ice hockey) in our city's sports entertainment portfolio, improve our quality of life thru MAPS 4 addressing the needs of--those abused, those with mental health & those rehabilitating.

OKC can craft a MAPS initiative to address 70% toward community based programs/projects and 30% toward capital improvements on arenas-stadium infrastructure. All of these programs & projects amount to about $950 million will much improve our city. We can do them all...

If the beef is with a private team being the primary tenant, MAPS 4 is already dead with the Peake being the same ask.

We build the Peake and the Ballpark under the same basic deal: the city builds something and a team will be the main beneficiary by having a place to rent and play. The Peake didn’t even have a main team to benefit when it was build. And now people are saying that paying for the Peake is a good thing because it will prevent the Thunder from leaving while at the same time complaining that if the lack of city money makes a team leave them good riddance.

The issue is not with building a city facility with a private team paying rent, lets at least be honest with that. We were fine, and continue to be fine, with a city owned facility for the Thunder and the Dodgers. The issue isn’t with funding a city facility for a minor league team, because we build and maintain the Ballpark. Attendance may be more plausible, but the Dodgers have only 2,000 more butts on average.

We don’t have a city owned stadium and the Zoo seems to have plans to get rid of the Amp. People are willing to throw more money at the Thunder and the Fairgrounds to get better facilities and keep teams and events from leaving town. I know there are plenty of reasons to be against a stadium, questions about economic impacts and impact on neighborhoods as well as the unknown costs of land. But it just irks me a bit to be against private teams renting it and being mad at talks about teams leaving when it appears to be a double standard.

Unrelated: I looked at the plans again for the fairgrounds and noticed that the arena is going to take up a good chunk of parking lot. If I recall that was part of the parking lot that was supposed to have landscaping and other things to make it look more pleasant. That just makes me think that they knew the long term plan was to tear up the parking lot anyway so why bother. And it also makes me think that they knew that when they presented the plans for the parking lot in the first place.

What do we charge the Thunder for using the Peake? Does OKC get the money for the naming rights?

I was thinking this weekend, and I really think that the nature of MAPS really makes a difference for me. As much as I am for the Stadium, I would be completely opposed to it if the city would go into debt to pay for it. The “pay as you go” nature of MAPS really made/makes a lot of the projects much more palpable.

^^^absolutely. When I talk about MAPS to out of towners, especially those in the civic/urban/downtown world they are all beyond impressed by that fact.

Has there ever been a proposed MAPS project that has been backed and talked about by City leadership and other powerful orgs (Chamber) that didn't make it into the final listing of projects that went to the vote?

Steve doing a chat with bob funk. He’s getting lit up with tough questions.

Bob Funk Jr. is on Steve's OKC Central chat today, and I never realized how hateful people can be. Take aim at the project, sure. Criticize it however you like, but there are a lot of personal shots being taken at him and Express. Bugs the heck out of me how people feel the need to bash him personally for the project, and doing what any sound businessman would do. But that's just me, and I am not a very radical or hateful person.

https://oklahoman.com/article/5638420/okc-central-live-chat-with-steve-lackmeyer

Steve doing a chat with bob funk. He’s getting lit up with tough questions.

It isn't tough questioning, it is rude and hostile in many postings over there. Funk has answered all the questions no matter how insulting the poster. Good for him.

Never realized the base here in OKC that just hates and is so suspicious of successful people.

Bob Funk Jr., stayed with the subject content. Surprised to see a web user ask loaded questions, take a repugnant personal attack on Funk Jr., & at the Oklahoman (State largest circulation) on the advertising the Funk's contribute toward the paper and the vile attempt to put Steve Lackmeyer in an awkward position.

Steve has never been afraid to ask the tough questions, he has always been fair in his reporting.

The Chesapeake Arena, State Fair Colosseum & the MAPS 4 Stadium are projects where there are anchor tenants to help with operational & maintenance costs.

These projects are in the arena-stadium grouping; they help promote the profile of OKC in so many ways. Glad that 70% of the proposed projects will be community-neighborhood project-program proposals; 30% arena-stadium class will have anchor tenants contributing to its upkeep.

You kill MAPS in favor of making the penny sales tax a permanent part of the city's revenue; you will also have killed your greater input voice in charting OKC's future.

Let the people vote for the stadium, or at least the arena-stadium grouping as a stand alone vote. If this type of tax initiative doesn't represent logrolling then logrolling has no meaning. 80% of poll respondents (Soonerpoll MAPS 4 poll) indicated they would prefer to vote on the projects separately rather than as a package. It is dangerous when elected officials not only defy the will of the large super majority of voters and insist on a logrolling package, but won't even allow public discussion of the matter. In the August 6th meeting, David Holt indicated that they were abandoning the ballot language of MAPS 3 (which called for a temporary sales tax "for capital expenditures") in favor of a simple general fund sales tax (which would then be spent on the projects). This will mark the fourth change in as many MAPS votes. The council continues to tweak the ballot language in an attempt at circumventing state constitution prohibitions on logrolling despite the overwhelming desire of the people of OKC to vote on these projects separately just as we do with our GO Bond votes (the last GO Bond had 14 separate votes; a transit package, a parks package, a drainage package, a streets package, a bridges package, a police/fire package etc...).

That kind of thinking is what I heard when the opinion pollster plainly made it clear by his questions that being pro-animal shelter makes you anti-homeless and that being in support of programs for the homeless means you hate animals.

Separate it, and every project will die. The “I support stuff I don’t need to get stuff I need and want” aspect of MAPS is what makes maps successful in the past.

Yes, and I have to say that if the animal shelter is so important (and it certainly seems to be), they should have used general obligation bonds to build a new one a long time ago.

Now, it feels like a huge manipulation: "Vote for MAPS4 or we'll kill all these puppies!"


Regardless of what happens with this vote, citizens need to demand the new shelter happens.

Besides, as Dr. Shadid put it in 2011: “all we’re voting in is a sales tax”.

We can talk about how that money should be spend, heck that is something we do with every election to the city council or for mayor when they talk about their priorities they want to focus on, but in the end it’s a simple vote on a sales tax.

As far as comparing MAPS to Bond votes:

I am fine with micromanaging the taking on of debt that can not be changed as fluidly compares to taking money first and then having more flexibility on spending it if the income changes.

Separate it, and every project will die. The “I support stuff I don’t need to get stuff I need and want” aspect of MAPS is what makes maps successful in the past.[/QUOTE]

The "I support stuff I don't need to get stuff I need and want" aspect of MAPS is called logrolling and is expressly prohibited by the State Constitution. Perhaps what is needed is an argument to the State Legislature about how beneficial logrolling has been to OKC and that we should change the State Constitution.

In addition, I strongly disagree with the contention that if you "separate it, and every project will die". There are projects being discussed which have very strong public approval and would almost certainly pass stand alone votes. A soccer stadium, a completely amorphous economic development fund to the Innovation District etc..; tougher sell in a stand alone vote.

Yes, and I have to say that if the animal shelter is so important (and it certainly seems to be), they should have used general obligation bonds to build a new one a long time ago.


I'm pretty sure that this project is on par with the EMBARK bus system. It wasn't a priority of former City Manager Jim Couch or major business interests and therefore it was never properly addressed. Short of the positive comments that James Cooper, JoBeth Hamon, Nikki Nice, and David Greenwell have made, I am not sure that the new animal shelter has majority support on the city council and mayor to fully fund the $41 - $43 million new facility despite the obvious public support for it. The rest of the council has pretty much been silent about the animals.

^

Yes, but without the support of the majority fo council it won't get on the MAPS 4 ballot either.

So, if there is majority support, there are other more suitable ways to fund the facility than by lumping it with $950M of things many don't necessarily want to pay for.

^

Yes, but without the support of the majority fo council it won't get on the MAPS 4 ballot either.

So, if there is majority support, there are other more suitable ways to fund the facility than by lumping it with $950M of things many don't necessarily want to pay for.

I think that is my point. I'm not sure where we disagree on that. It won't be on the MAPS 4 agenda without the mayor or another one or two people who haven't publicly spoken supportively for it to get on board with it.

I think animal welfare folks just want it resolved as soon as possible and they see MAPS 4 as the next available public timeslot to deal with it. I know that I do on bus transit issues even though you could argue that the bus system could be resolved in the potential RTA vote. Suggesting that it could be dealt with at some future time without a clear alternative is just a gaseous funding suggestion to the animal shelter supporters.

The "I support stuff I don't need to get stuff I need and want" aspect of MAPS is called logrolling and is expressly prohibited by the State Constitution. Perhaps what is needed is an argument to the State Legislature about how beneficial logrolling has been to OKC and that we should change the State Constitution.

In addition, I strongly disagree with the contention that if you "separate it, and every project will die". There are projects being discussed which have very strong public approval and would almost certainly pass stand alone votes. A soccer stadium, a completely amorphous economic development fund to the Innovation District etc..; tougher sell in a stand alone vote.

Every tax is log-rolling if we go by that standard. Is every part of the city funded by a specific portion of tax that was approved for specific purposes?

Or is the General Fund just that, a general fund for whatever the council wants to spend it on?

Every tax is log-rolling if we go by that standard. Is every part of the city funded by a specific portion of tax that was approved for specific purposes?

Or is the General Fund just that, a general fund for whatever the council wants to spend it on?

We are talking about items for public vote.

And with the general obligation bonds, things are separated out to comply with the anti logrolling law.

The "I support stuff I don't need to get stuff I need and want" aspect of MAPS is called logrolling and is expressly prohibited by the State Constitution. Perhaps what is needed is an argument to the State Legislature about how beneficial logrolling has been to OKC and that we should change the State Constitution.

In addition, I strongly disagree with the contention that if you "separate it, and every project will die". There are projects being discussed which have very strong public approval and would almost certainly pass stand alone votes. A soccer stadium, a completely amorphous economic development fund to the Innovation District etc..; tougher sell in a stand alone vote.
+1

Bob Funk Jr. is on Steve's OKC Central chat today, and I never realized how hateful people can be. Take aim at the project, sure. Criticize it however you like, but there are a lot of personal shots being taken at him and Express. Bugs the heck out of me how people feel the need to bash him personally for the project, and doing what any sound businessman would do. But that's just me, and I am not a very radical or hateful person.

It’s sad if the informative aim of the chat devolved into attacks on Funk.

That said, I’m not sure you can ask people to consider a vote that increases their taxes, with one project being dependent (smoke and mirrors about “multi-use” aside) on the success of FC energy and Funk and not expect some of this behavior.

I’m not aware of any other proposed project that has such a singular person who will be responsible for stewarding the City’s investment as Funk will be via his ownership in FC Energy. Again, not saying I agree with the attacks, but can’t say they are totally unexpected...especially when considering the reality that something will be displaced if the stadium makes the final ballot.

Let the people vote for the stadium, or at least the arena-stadium grouping as a stand alone vote. If this type of tax initiative doesn't represent logrolling then logrolling has no meaning. 80% of poll respondents (Soonerpoll MAPS 4 poll) indicated they would prefer to vote on the projects separately rather than as a package. It is dangerous when elected officials not only defy the will of the large super majority of voters and insist on a logrolling package, but won't even allow public discussion of the matter. In the August 6th meeting, David Holt indicated that they were abandoning the ballot language of MAPS 3 (which called for a temporary sales tax "for capital expenditures") in favor of a simple general fund sales tax (which would then be spent on the projects). This will mark the fourth change in as many MAPS votes. The council continues to tweak the ballot language in an attempt at circumventing state constitution prohibitions on logrolling despite the overwhelming desire of the people of OKC to vote on these projects separately just as we do with our GO Bond votes (the last GO Bond had 14 separate votes; a transit package, a parks package, a drainage package, a streets package, a bridges package, a police/fire package etc...).

it absolutly is not log rolling ... and neither was the last maps vote as you shoudl well know you voted against going forward with some of the projects after the vote from the horseshoe


and of course they are changing the ballot languge they want some of the money to go to capital projects and some to go to endowment/sustainment funds ..

that doesn't all fall under capital projects so a changed is needed ...


what it comes down to is the public trust between the voters and the council (a trust you were happy to break )

I'm not for a soccer stadium, but I'm not 100% against it either, as long as it's done right.

I think we need to be realistic about the benefits of a place like this. The Energy is real small potatoes. It doesn't matter if they leave. OKC in 2020 is not OKC in 1990. When we built the Bricktown Ballpark, minor league baseball was our only real sports attraction. I went to one of the last games at All Sports Stadium, and boy it was a dump. Everybody knew we needed to replace it. The first MAPS was a gamble, but the people of this city knew we had to do something, we had to take a chance.

Today we are much better off. We've got an NBA team, which was basically unimaginable 30 years ago. The only sports league bigger than that is the NFL. Minor league soccer is nice, I guess, but it doesn't come within a thousand miles of the NBA. That doesn't mean we shouldn't build the stadium, but we have to keep it in perspective. This is absolutely not any kind of economic driver. It's purely a quality of life program. If you stick the stadium south of the river, on city owned land, and bill it as investment in a heavily Hispanic community, that could work. Treat it basically like a city park. The Energy could play there (they'd have to pay, of course), but you could also allow youth leagues to play there, and host community events, and things like that. Make it so it could be expanded into an MLS stadium if everything falls the right way, but that shouldn't be the selling point.

I'm not for a soccer stadium, but I'm not 100% against it either, as long as it's done right.

I think we need to be realistic about the benefits of a place like this. The Energy is real small potatoes. It doesn't matter if they leave. OKC in 2020 is not OKC in 1990. When we built the Bricktown Ballpark, minor league baseball was our only real sports attraction. I went to one of the last games at All Sports Stadium, and boy it was a dump. Everybody knew we needed to replace it. The first MAPS was a gamble, but the people of this city knew we had to do something, we had to take a chance.

Today we are much better off. We've got an NBA team, which was basically unimaginable 30 years ago. The only sports league bigger than that is the NFL. Minor league soccer is nice, I guess, but it doesn't come within a thousand miles of the NBA. That doesn't mean we shouldn't build the stadium, but we have to keep it in perspective. This is absolutely not any kind of economic driver. It's purely a quality of life program. If you stick the stadium south of the river, on city owned land, and bill it as investment in a heavily Hispanic community, that could work. Treat it basically like a city park. The Energy could play there (they'd have to pay, of course), but you could also allow youth leagues to play there, and host community events, and things like that. Make it so it could be expanded into an MLS stadium if everything falls the right way, but that shouldn't be the selling point.

this is spot on

i will also add that their price asks are very out of whack the stadium that they need shouldn't cost anywhere near their ask ..

they want a lux car ... OKC at best should buy (build) them a mid size .. something 10-12k seats for less than 25 mil

I'm not for a soccer stadium, but I'm not 100% against it either, as long as it's done right.

I think we need to be realistic about the benefits of a place like this. The Energy is real small potatoes. It doesn't matter if they leave. OKC in 2020 is not OKC in 1990. When we built the Bricktown Ballpark, minor league baseball was our only real sports attraction. I went to one of the last games at All Sports Stadium, and boy it was a dump. Everybody knew we needed to replace it. The first MAPS was a gamble, but the people of this city knew we had to do something, we had to take a chance.

Today we are much better off. We've got an NBA team, which was basically unimaginable 30 years ago. The only sports league bigger than that is the NFL. Minor league soccer is nice, I guess, but it doesn't come within a thousand miles of the NBA. That doesn't mean we shouldn't build the stadium, but we have to keep it in perspective. This is absolutely not any kind of economic driver. It's purely a quality of life program. If you stick the stadium south of the river, on city owned land, and bill it as investment in a heavily Hispanic community, that could work. Treat it basically like a city park. The Energy could play there (they'd have to pay, of course), but you could also allow youth leagues to play there, and host community events, and things like that. Make it so it could be expanded into an MLS stadium if everything falls the right way, but that shouldn't be the selling point.

This, a thousand times.

I was disappointed to read Funk’s comments downplaying the Wiley Post Park location. What sort of access do they need??? I mean there are two four lane major streets (Robinson and Walker connecting right to OKC Boulevard, our nouveau Highway. Smells like a canard to me. If they are serious about attempting to get the public’s support on this they would firm up their proposal and lock down the location on the south side.

Uprooting neighborhood parks has always been a 'no no' with residents. Our Latino population isn't limited to the south-side or Capitol Hill area.

Where are the amenities near Wiley Post Park, places like Bricktown Entertainment or Midtown where there are restaurants for before & after game gatherings. The restaurants would welcome another sports franchise to the area.

We didn't demand that the AAA baseball stadium be moved to a park or the Chesapeake Arena be built on the north side of town. We've built these projects in the core, a central location where ALL city residents could benefit from the facilities. We didn't plan building a cheap inexpensive ballpark, we looked at what other PCL cities were doing, like New Orleans & Louisville.

So, check out Louisville (2020-$65 million, 11,500) and Rochester (2004-$35 million, 13,768); stadiums aren't getting any less expensive per seat.


https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/wdrb.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/5/da/5dad65d8-2ae0-5ddc-9f5e-403d7ae29d36/5c05ab20ad432.image.jpg?resize=960%2C540
2020-Louisville, 11,500, $65 million

http://www.empireofsoccer.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Rhino-Stadium-USL.jpg
2004-Rochester, 13,768, $35 million

Look at what we had to invest in the downtown arena to seal NBA relocation; voters were asked to approve another $100 million, $90 for the arena & $10 million for a practice facility.

Funk-McLaughin & Clark already have a practice facility

Either you want a multipurpose stadium in the core to benefit our city or you don't. If you're going to build a half-ass stadium; then drop it from MAPS altogether and don't bring up this vision about building for OKC's future.

Uprooting neighborhood parks has always been a 'no no' with residents. Our Latino population isn't limited to the south-side or Capitol Hill area.

Where are the amenities near Wiley Post Park, places like Bricktown Entertainment or Midtown where there are restaurants for before & after game gatherings. The restaurants would welcome another sports franchise to the area.

We didn't demand that the AAA baseball stadium be moved to a park or the Chesapeake Arena be built on the north side of town. We've built these projects in the core, a central location where ALL city residents could benefit from the facilities.

Bricktown was a terrible place when we built the ballpark. And the land for the Chesapeake was a lot cheaper when the city first bought it. Those areas improved only afterwards.


We didn't plan building a cheap inexpensive ballpark, we looked at what other PCL cities were doing, like New Orleans & Louisville.

So, check out Louisville (2020-$65 million, 11,500) and Rochester (2004-$35 million, 13,768); stadiums aren't getting any less expensive per seat.


https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/wdrb.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/5/da/5dad65d8-2ae0-5ddc-9f5e-403d7ae29d36/5c05ab20ad432.image.jpg?resize=960%2C540
2020-Louisville, 11,500, $65 million

http://www.empireofsoccer.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Rhino-Stadium-USL.jpg
2004-Rochester, 13,768, $35 million

I don't know how much a soccer stadium should cost, but it does appear that Funk and Friends are asking for a pretty pricey one.


Look at what we had to invest in the downtown arena to seal NBA relocation; voters were asked to approve another $100 million, $90 for the arena & $10 million for a practice facility.

Funk-McLaughin & Clark already have a practice facility

Again, you compare The Energy to the NBA. That's ridiculous.


Either you want a multipurpose stadium in the core to benefit our city or you don't. If you're going to build a half-ass stadium; then drop it from MAPS altogether and don't bring up this vision about building for OKC's future.

Okay, if you want to be that way then I'll vote against it. I don't really want the thing anyway.

https://cdn2.newsok.biz/cache/w620-cf653f23dd86dd87cb5f599c455b7aaf.jpg

https://localtvkfor.files.wordpress.com/2019/08/concert-concourse-view.jpg?quality=85&strip=all&w=1024
2021-2028 Oklahoma City, $67 - $72 million,10,000,

hoya,
Again, you compare The Energy to the NBA. That's ridiculous.


There's no comparison of an NBA franchise to the USL; you could take all USL franchises they wouldn't equal the average value of one NBA franchise.

Didn't compare the Energy FC to the NBA, just acknowledged they weren't asking for a practice facility--a venue that's required of all NBA franchises.

hoya,
Okay, if you want to be that way then I'll vote against it. I don't really want the thing anyway.

Vote your conscience (this is not about me or you), don't allow one or two posters on the forum to get you annoyed over a few posts. Hope you aren't taking anything personal; our difference & right to our opinion are what's valued.

Think more in line of how a facility would benefit the city's potential and the MAPS 4 initiatives, there are a few proposals that will be on MAPS that I don't favor, it's not going to get the best of me--if it benefits the city in some way, great. We all are not going to get everything we or one individual want or don't want on MAPS.

Uprooting neighborhood parks has always been a 'no no' with residents. Our Latino population isn't limited to the south-side or Capitol Hill area.

Bob Funk Jr. nor anyone else that I have heard has suggested that these are the reasons why Wiley Post might not be optimal. They have regularly referred to “access issues”. Again, I would argue that Robinson and Walker are two significant multi-lane major street spines that frame this location and connecting into the new OKC Boulevard. This excuse smells. It’s a canard.

The whole point of putting the stadium in South OKC particularly south of the river is to SPUR DEVELOPMENT. We need to give Capitol Hill, Stockyards and the Farmers Market a giant shot in the arm with public investment. Much in the same way NE OKC is benefiting from the Innovation District and Adventure District. Very simple concept. See Maps 1 & 3. Canal, ballpark, streetcar, library, the Peake, Central Park, convention center and whitewater facility have all transformed there immediate areas and have caused billions of additional private investment.

Maps 1&3 have not impacted inner city south side. The area is in desperate need of infrastructure (besides 5 lane roads) and investment.

The trendy thing to do is to champion NE OKC to get likes on social media and obtain credibility for caring. However, an equally marginalized minority community in South OKC sets waiting and ignored.

There is much work to do in NE OKC and that work should and will continue, but South OKC needs capital investment like the innovation district and adventure district.

We need to give people a reason to come to INNER CITY SOUTHSIDE.

I guess I was hopeful that this location was their magic hat trick to get more of the public support this proposal. It adds a great deal of credibility to proactive propose the soccer stadium to be built in an underserved area needing infill and connection to the success underway due north.

To not propose a solid location creates ambiguity about who and how landowners or developers might benefit without meaningful public discourse ahead of the vote.

After working with city government for twenty years, hearing that consultants will decide this stuff at a later date gets old. How about we rely on the uniquely qualified OKC Planning Department that we already pay for?

This is what Bob Funk Jr. said about a location in Lackmeyer's chat this week:
https://oklahoman.com/article/5638471/farmers-market-area-an-option-for-proposed-maps-4-soccer-stadium


Obviously the Producers Cooperative Oil Mill property, we thought that would be a good location three years ago. We also think Wheeler Park is a good location. I like the (recently cleared) Exchange site south of Farmers Public Market. It's only seven acres. I like Strawberry Fields west of Scissortail Park if we could ever find a way to make it work.

We also looked at Wiley Post Park but access is the biggest issue there.

Wiley Post Park is the only location that would be south of the river and it sounds like he is not high on it.

Also, I personally don't like the idea of taking a big public park (like Wheeler or Wiley Post) and building a huge stadium complex with loads of surface parking, almost exclusively for the use of private business (the Energy).

And reminder the city just completely cut off Exchange from the Western and Reno Interchange at a time when property directly adjacent is being considered for a large pro sports complex.

Also, I personally don't like the idea of taking a big public park (like Wheeler or Wiley Post) and building a huge stadium complex with loads of surface parking, almost exclusively for the use of private business (the Energy).

I think that is totally fair and reasonable. For me personally, I just want to see us invest down there in a substantial way. I don't own property or have any financial interest down there but traveling to work on the Yale Theatre every week reinforces the opportunity to me that is Capitol Hill.

They already had a significant natural barrier with the Oklahoma River. ODOT forced us to absorb the new semi-sunken I-40 Crosstown. Those physical barriers mean that some significant developmental tissue is required to draw people south.

I championed the idea for streetcar extension on Robinson but JoBeth isn't a fan of more investment in streetcar system considering the investment that truly does need to take place in the bus system. The cost ($80 - $110 million) made it too expensive to be considered in this MAPS with all of the other projects that they want to get done.

If we are not going to make a major MAPS 4 investment in the southside but may be forced to eat this stadium, where do you think it should go then?

^

It should go to one of the non-park sites.

The Exchange is interesting because it would help draw people to Farmers Market and the area west of Strawberry Fields as well as the Stockyards.

When you are asking for millions in public money, then the location should be chosen that is best for the city, not just what the owner/sponsor wants. This is why I was very happy with the convention center going to the area next to Scissortail Park, as that was undoubtedly the best way to jump-start that area and leverage the massive amount the city is already spending down there. Of course the CVB wanted the site south of the Myriad Gardens but IMO that was never in the city's best, long-term interest.

In any case, I would absolutely not vote for any MAPS ballot that includes this stadium without a location identified with full and financial costs identified in advance. Even with the convention center, we spent at least double what was pitched on the ballot for all the "must-haves" that came after the vote.

BTW, I have met Bob Funk Jr. and he is one of the nicest people I have ever had the pleasure of meeting. I'm definitely personally not against the stadium or necessarily more sports investment. At least I think that it is definitely a project worth considering and hearing out in the public process. If we're going to build this facility then ideally it would be located somewhere that the city already owns to reduce cost and have the greatest positive impact on its surroundings. Wiley Post to me seems ideal because of the massive park we are finishing to the north and the abundance of river trails and parks to east and west. Losing a major park nearly anywhere else might have negative impacts. Does this one?

The city of okc has studiously avoided investing in or encouraging investing in south okc. This has always been the case even when it was majority "white" in all areas. Whether any or all South OKCs has minority community, as currently defined, should not matter. MAPS was sold that the signature projects would be spread throughout the city which hasn't been the reality. The city's argument seems to be well we decided years ago to build all the signature projects north so we have to continue to do so.

This is why I was very happy with the convention center going to the area next to Scissortail Park, as that was undoubtedly the best way to jump-start that area and leverage the massive amount the city is already spending down there. Of course the CVB wanted the site south of the Myriad Gardens but IMO that was never in the city's best, long-term interest.

One of the coolest things about the ultimate location that was chosen is that it was the site that our City Planner Russell Claus actually picked out as part of his original "Core to Shore" Master Plan. The Convention Center Subcommittee tried to force that other location. It's gratifying to see Russell's original ideas come to fruition. That history is a big reason that I believe we could simply ask our Planning Department where this ought to go and get the debate out of the way. That would also help us establish firm costs.

If not the Producers COOP Mill site (IMO) would be the most costly land option, what about the old air park where the Wheeler Development is under construction. It's south of the river, near the interstate, Ferris Wheel, great skyline view and close enough to Bricktown, Midtown & Stockyards; bus shuttle service could be used to move fans (park & ride).

How much acreage is on that parcel--enough left for a planned stadium development on the southside that could spur more develop south, or bring the streetcar further down Western to Capitol Hill Commerce & 25th Street--potential for a restaurant, entertain district on the southside. You think the Humphreys (Kirk, Grant & Blair) would buy into a stadium development?

https://www.google.com/search?biw=1536&bih=701&ei=bBtUXZuhI5XNtQbxjYDICA&q=1135+S+McKinley+Ave%2C+Oklahoma+City%2C+Oklahoma +73108&oq=1135+S+McKinley+Ave%2C+Oklahoma+City%2C+OK+7310 8&gs_l=psy-ab.1.0.38.17772.23395..27856...1.0..0.140.140.0j1. .....0....1j2..gws-wiz.....10..0i71j35i39.-eqGy0m4OIE

Pete, Urban Pioneer & jdg78, I frequent that area on my bike from Western-Exchange Avenues near the Boadman Warehouse are you all familiar with that route.

One of the coolest things about the ultimate location that was chosen is that it was the site that our City Planner Russell Claus actually picked out as part of his original "Core to Shore" Master Plan. The Convention Center Subcommittee tried to force that other location. It's gratifying to see Russell's original ideas come to fruition. That history is a big reason that I believe we could simply ask our Planning Department where this ought to go and get the debate out of the way. That would also help us establish firm costs.

But if we don't have a study the consultants don't get paid!

but if we don't have a study the consultants don't get paid!

lolz

Wiley Post to me seems ideal because of the massive park we are finishing to the north and the abundance of river trails and parks to east and west. Losing a major park nearly anywhere else might have negative impacts. Does this one?

We've had this debate before when the rumors were swirling about Wheeler Park.

People that post here generally have no idea how much these parks (especially Wiley Post) is used by the local community. We all have birthday parties for kids a some big, rented facility, host anniversaries at restaurants and most have large homes and backyards.

Go to one of these parks any weekend and you'll see tons of families using them for all these reasons, while the kids are running around and playing on the equipment. I back up to a city park and it's always busy with these types of gatherings, and often the large groups stay almost all day.

IMO you would not be helping the community to the south of the river by taking away that pretty, highly-used park so some rich guys can get a soccer stadium with tons of surface parking.

We've had this debate before when the rumors were swirling about Wheeler Park.

People that post here generally have no idea how much these parks (especially Wiley Post) is used by the local community. We all have birthday parties for kids a some big, rented facility, host anniversaries at restaurants and most have large homes and backyards.

Go to one of these parks any weekend and you'll see tons of families using them for all these reasons, while the kids are running around and playing on the equipment. I back up to a city park and it's always busy with these types of gatherings, and often the large groups stay almost all day.


I'm not debating that. I have seen this happening at Wiley Post with my own eyes. I'm just stating that we're about to complete a $140 million park just due north, they relocated the Manuel Perez park and added new facilities, and there is an abundance of river frontage that will remain parkland. One has to wonder what sort of continued use Wiley Post will attract with all of these amenities. Farmer's exchange sounds like a great idea but what would be the land acquisition costs of such an endeavor. Is that factored into their lowball $40 million for the stadium budget?

^

Land acquisition cost was not factored into the proposal they made to city council, which is the only budget I've seen.

And that concerns me very much, because it's going to be a big chunk no matter where it goes. There is also the matter of parking, not only the cost but paving some huge adjacent area.


And I don't like this idea of since we are building a new park, we can just snatch an existing one. That was never part of the deal and the need for recreation in this community (vs. sitting our your arse and drinking while watching others recreate) is vital.

And I don't like this idea of since we are building a new park, we can just snatch an existing one. That was never part of the deal and the need for recreation in this community (vs. sitting our your arse and drinking while watching others recreate) is vital.

As someone who is physically active on a daily basis and enjoys parks I value that argument. I guess Capitol Hill you might get your investments in MAPS 5.

^

IMO the best thing for that area would be BRT that could easily move people to and from the core north of the river and then some sort of seed money for improvements to the downtown CH district.

The city has already invested pretty heavily there, with the new library, senior center and OCCC.

I'm not for a soccer stadium, but I'm not 100% against it either, as long as it's done right.

I think we need to be realistic about the benefits of a place like this. The Energy is real small potatoes. It doesn't matter if they leave. OKC in 2020 is not OKC in 1990. When we built the Bricktown Ballpark, minor league baseball was our only real sports attraction. I went to one of the last games at All Sports Stadium, and boy it was a dump. Everybody knew we needed to replace it. The first MAPS was a gamble, but the people of this city knew we had to do something, we had to take a chance.

Today we are much better off. We've got an NBA team, which was basically unimaginable 30 years ago. The only sports league bigger than that is the NFL. Minor league soccer is nice, I guess, but it doesn't come within a thousand miles of the NBA. That doesn't mean we shouldn't build the stadium, but we have to keep it in perspective. This is absolutely not any kind of economic driver. It's purely a quality of life program. If you stick the stadium south of the river, on city owned land, and bill it as investment in a heavily Hispanic community, that could work. Treat it basically like a city park. The Energy could play there (they'd have to pay, of course), but you could also allow youth leagues to play there, and host community events, and things like that. Make it so it could be expanded into an MLS stadium if everything falls the right way, but that shouldn't be the selling point.

Excellent post! To your point about "small potatoes" I mentioned to my hairdresser that the Energy threatened to leave OKC if they don't get MAPS money, to which she replied, "Who are the Energy?" I'm like, "Our minor league soccer team." And she says, "We have a soccer team?" LOL. And no, she is not dumb and reads and keeps up.

Would it be feasible to integrate the stadium into the lower park that has yet to be completed? We already own the land.

You mentioned BRT (shuttle), great idea if you go south.

Any land available where the Blessed Stanley Rother Shine & Basilica will begin ground breaking in November--South 89th & Interstate 35, abundance of restaurants near the area, 74th - 89th--not familiar with that area's land availability: https://www.loopnet.com/Listing/14342581/I-35-Service-Road-SE-89th-Street-Oklahoma-City-OK/ ...close to Moore & Norman.

Would it be feasible to integrate the stadium into the lower park that has yet to be completed? We already own the land.

Or the land we don't own to the west.

Could actually integrate the stadium with the park and the proposed playfields, plus add some more.

Pete - I think that is the solution. Land is cleared and the stadium would compliment the park and it is almost a blank slate on both side of Robinson. The lower park would be activated very quickly with that stadium. Perhaps we could change the plan for the lower park to incorporate more youth fields and fan amenities.

Pete - I think that is the solution. Land is cleared and the stadium would compliment the park and it is almost a blank slate on both side of Robinson. The lower park would be activated very quickly with that stadium. Perhaps we could change the plan for the lower park to incorporate more youth fields and fan amenities.

30 ares in the lower Scissortail Park extension, sounds doable. Wiley Post & Wheeler parks sit across the river to the south--it wouldn't harm either of those parks. There are some surface parking already established in WP & Wheeler parks. Parking also available at the Convention Center Complex.BRT shuttle services from Midtown, Bricktown & Stockyard City on game or event days.


https://s3-media3.fl.yelpcdn.com/bphoto/x77V0BgUoF0HbnJF3TZy5A/o.jpg

Skydance Stadium

Sounds great. Now let's brainstorm about possible obstacles...

1. Would need to reinforce Skydance Bridge, potential foot traffic mecca.

Pete - I think that is the solution. Land is cleared and the stadium would compliment the park and it is almost a blank slate on both side of Robinson. The lower park would be activated very quickly with that stadium. Perhaps we could change the plan for the lower park to incorporate more youth fields and fan amenities.

Keep in mind the city doesn't own much of that land. They would have to buy it all, parcel by parcel, which would be expensive and take a long time.

Of course, we could have been doing that 10 years ago, as the park footprint has been settled for a long time.