Here is the budget they presented in today's meeting.

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/stadium080619i.jpg

the awnings or overhangs need to cover not just some of the seats but all of the seats. There are many soccer stadiums as well as new stadiums that do this.

Cant tell from the pictures but do they still have the field going east west and not north south? if they do, that is a huge huge mistake

There have been discussions of consuming the city park south of the river north of Capitol Hill between Robinson and Walker as an alternate location.

Why am I highly skeptical they would want to build this stadium south of the river? Especially when you have Wiggins talking about development around it. I assume Co-op site is the goal here and pretty much the only goal.


The prices they are quoting in the article seems lite to me. I assume they are not factoring in the cost of the land and this project will take a large parcel. It will easily top out over 100 mil IMO. I don't see how it could be built on the Co-Op site with the price tag of that land unless they have a bunch of other private investors lined up to construct surrounding projects. So if this is included on MAPS I assume the land purchase will also fall under MAPS?

Yes, my worry is they want the co-op site and will overpay for land acquisition and then have to do environmental clean up on top of that.


You can bet that there would still be a healthy subsidy ask (TIF or otherwise) in addition to the MAPS funds.

Another worry, as if a paid for soccer stadium isnt enough of a catalyst to develop around.


If we're seriously sold on creating a #1OKC, this would certainly be a fantastic first step.

All this said, I am coming around on the soccer part. I'd have no problems if we allocated 1/3 of MAPS money to Chesapeake Arena, Fairground arena and soccer stadium.

The presentation revealed two options to build the venue, each with new amenities and features. The first option represented a $37 million to $42 million investment for an 8,000-seat stadium that would accommodate soccer, high school football, rugby, lacrosse, concerts and festivals. It is estimated it would host more than 60 events each year resulting in an annual $60 million economic impact.

The second option presented was a $67 million to $72 million investment with 10,000 seats, shade structures, and other amenities to improve the fan experience. Additional restrooms would allow for crowds of up to 18,000. This option would include a larger stage sought by national music touring groups, and a secondary stage designed to seat 8,000. It is estimated it would host more than 80 events each year resulting in an annual impact of over $79 million.

Not that it's the only variable when evaluating civics projects, but it's interesting that they put the impact numbers that low. The state fair arena numbers were presented as $230 MM in direct revenue and a $400 MM impact at a cost of $95 MM.

The Energy only draws about 5k a game, right? So, it would definitely be dependent on other events to reach those numbers and, really, it would have to mainly be from those other sports they mentioned, as a lot of the entertainment events would just be cannibalized from the park's amphitheater.

I'd love to see this happen, so I don't want to get too pragmatic (lol), but it does seem to have a numbers problem unless I am missing something, or the MLS is more in range than I realize.

Strange to me that they would not include parking in Option 1, but included it in Option 2. That's approx 10-15% of the total budget and makes Option 1 look 75% cheaper when in reality it's 50% (not including any costs for land acquisition).

Gotta say, I really like that 2nd option. Looks great. I love the shade it provides. Ideally for me, I'd still like to see them start out with a large capacity, but 10k right off the bat is pretty good. I love functionality of it, as a soccer stadium, an amphitheater, and the broader use for sports and other activities.

And we've all been thinking all along this would be in the Co-Op, but the more I read and think, this would be REALLY awesome south of the river.

They think that it could be an ace in the hole on a shoestring budget. It's politically extremely palatable and they wouldn't have land acquisition costs. Plus it could help reinvigorate Capitol Hill overnight.

I think this is an excellent idea for the reasons you mentioned. it would turn me from a no vote to a yes...

There have been discussions of consuming the city park south of the river north of Capitol Hill between Robinson and Walker as an alternate location.

This plus a streetcar extension down to Capitol Hill is something I have been wondering about for a while, and may have even posted as a suggestion in the MAPS 4 Ideas thread.

Here is the budget they presented in today's meeting.

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/stadium080619i.jpg

Surface parking lots for 2750 cars? That’s a horrible idea in either location.

Why am I highly skeptical they would want to build this stadium south of the river? Especially when you have Wiggins talking about development around it. I assume Co-op site is the goal here and pretty much the only goal.

Yes, my worry is they want the co-op site and will overpay for land acquisition and then have to do environmental clean up on top of that.

Another worry, as if a paid for soccer stadium isnt enough of a catalyst to develop around.

All this said, I am coming around on the soccer part. I'd have no problems if we allocated 1/3 of MAPS money to Chesapeake Arena, Fairground arena and soccer stadium.

Well, it's possible that Chuck Wiggin is just another go-to developer for comments in a press release. I had a meeting with several of the people involved who wanted to know how a streetcar extension could technically be built to get down there to service both this stadium and Capitol Hill. I just assumed that this Capitol Hill site would be brought up today. Perhaps they are holding back for a big public announcement or everyone is right and it is a shell game with the ultimate site being the COOP. I would just point out that Mayor Holt is pretty sensitive to the fact that the public doesn't want more downtown investment. Add to the fact that there wouldn't be the land acquisition costs, significant environmental concerns, and you have a large riverfront property that isn't bifurcated by the Union Pacific Railroad, I would say that that site is probably still in the running.

The way this is lining up is an overall MAPS proposal that is about 75% neighborhood and human needs and 25% arenas and stadiums if you use the low numbers. Neighborhood needs amounted to about 7% - 14% in MAPS 3 depending on how you define Senior Wellness Centers.

If the site does go south of the river that really resolves a political quandary with the general public and presumably would have a profound impact on Capito Hill reinvestment. I would assume that such a site would make it more somewhat more palatable for JoBeth Hamon although that might be a stretch considering her fears of gentrification issues.

Before the council agrees to put the stadium in a project plan for MAPS4, they need to demand to know the site and ensure Funk has a signed commitment for access to that land. Otherwise, I fear this is going to turn into a bailout for the Coop site owners who will use the leverage of "not getting the stadium as promised" unless significant city investment is made to remediate the site and/or purchase the land--an "unexpected" cost that will require taking money away from other projects or using the entirety of a reserve fund.

As for the Chuck Wiggins stuff, I'm pretty sure his mid-rise comments and renderings are just there to make the proposal look better overall and get people excited.

Would be super cool IMO if they placed this south of the river.

Encouraged about the discussions.

If the stadium doesn’t go in the coop site, then what is the future outlook of that area? It could sit for years without movement. That worries me

If the stadium doesn’t go in the coop site, then what is the future outlook of that area? It could sit for years without movement. That worries me

There is nothing else on the horizon.

Their previous efforts have been stopped dead by soil and railroad ROW problems, so it's going to take some big to move things forward.

I like the south of the river idea. I think the staduim should be more about community development. Just seems like it would fit better there.

This would be perfect South of the river and would be transformative for the area. There is a mental block in this city regarding the area south of the river. I am all for the innovation district and the potential impact for the immediate area. However, it is time to do something transformative in South OKC.

Where would everyone want it south of the river? Offer suggestions to those who can make those decisions.

In no particular order: adjacent to the lower section of Central Park possibly west side; between western and walker south of 25th, along exchange to bridge stockyards, farmers market and Capitol Hill, immediately south of boathouses along river. Lots of blighted industrial land with opportunity for reinvestment.

When this was brought up with me, they were looking at siting it on the city-owned Wiley Post Park. That is land framed by the Oklahoma River, Robinson Avenue, Walker avenue, and the Packingtown Lead (Stillwater Central Railroad.)

Does anyone know how to get in touch with these folks? I'd like to ask them a question about if they thought about something.

I'd like to see them be able to hose the top high school marching contest too, but they would need to have a path for props to get to the field and it doesnt look like there is one tall enough in this design....but it looks like an easy change from what i can see in the renderings.

South side on the river would could be really cool if it could be made to work. Especially if the idea is to leave it open ended like that. Put that open end on the north side facing the downtown skyline. Incorporate the river as much as possible. And yes, please, shade structure over ALL the seats. The renderings make it look haphazardly covered.

As far as MLS goes, the league has demonstrated time and again that if you're a smaller market expansion candidate (IE not New York or Miami) you HAVE to have a stadium first before you will even be considered. OKC is likely not at all on the MLS expansion radar right now. If a stadium gets built that could change quickly.

Here we are specifically mentioned in an expansion power rankings post from the SKC SBNation blog:

'There are lots of cities without a very active bid like Oklahoma City that would immediately plug in ahead of the bottom few teams if they got serious. It really depends how high MLS Expansion goes. Sporting KC coach Peter Vermes has the number 40 in his head for expansion. If that’s the case, most of the above cities could get in (at least the top eight or nine) and then some new cities would have to emerge.'

https://www.thebluetestament.com/2019/8/1/20749800/mls-expansion-update-st-louis-probably-next-sacramento-charlotte-phoenix-las-vegas-san-diego

If this does end up going on top of Wiley Post Park, then I'm really curious as to the future development and infill in the land segment to the west bounded by Walker and Western. Wheeler and OKC split the ownership with just a few parcels taken up by Evans Enterprise.

Surface parking lots for 2750 cars? That’s a horrible idea in either location.

exactly what i was thinking... what would be the cost atleast of a parking garage for 2750 cars??? i'd be more okay with spending more, if it included that

exactly what i was thinking... what would be the cost atleast of a parking garage for 2750 cars??? i'd be more okay with spending more, if it included that
Yeah I'd rather see a massive parking mixed-use parking garage/structured complex built than surface parking.

Yeah, surface parking is a bad idea, I'd support more money for a garage and/or Streetcar extension to the stadium/capitol hill

I could see a mix, but a large sports venue will need a decent amount of surface parking, especially if the hope is to host some state level High School and College events. Bus parking, tailgating, band setup, etc.

Looking at the map, Wiley Post just makes the most sense. Right on the water, access from Walker and Robinson (major thoroughfares) and good to jumpstart more development in the area. Also, being city owned land would be easier to build on as opposed to purchasing from a private party. Add a traffic circle at SE 17th (access to the Mat Hoffman Action Sports Park) and a parking garage south of that with retail frontage on the garage and I would like it.

The stadium idea is growing on me as it is not as expensive as I originally thought it might be,

Good renderings of the revised MAPS 4 stadium, shows some thought was put into the project with regards to the shades and potential for future expansion.

MAPS 4 will probably include: The Peake, coliseum & stadium, these so called stadium-arena projects will make up about 30% of MAPS 4, not worthy to tag a label on it like MAPS 4 Stadiums, a huge reversal of previous MAPS initiatives. Selection of an option and a site will be the next challenge for a project of this magnitude.

Want to mention that not all of our Latino & Hispanic origin population are located in the older traditional Capitol Hill district, there are pockets of the younger groups located throughout our city.

i remember drawing and sharing this diagram some time ago and still think this would make almost perfect sense.
i have intentionally been riding the bus lately and i don't think a line of streetcar to the south side is essential because there are two axial routes that stem directly from downtown down into the heart of the south side via walker and robinson. on the proposed site there currently is a small level of light industrial companies settled there but there simply is so much available land and not as expensive as strawberry fields land but still quite close. in my humble opinion mayor holt, bob funk and the maps 4 stadium developers/supporters group should really consider something like this for all the right reasons. for example, many people are commenting the positive effect of building the new stadium south of the river but too far south would defeat the purpose. if the city is to embrace connectivity, diversity, inclusion, redevelopment, urbanism, etc. the core to shore concept is ideal because the river and its downtown urban surrounding is the natural, central gathering place for all the populations of the city scattered throughout the periphery and suburbs. take for example the chesapeake arena during thunder games; people from all around the city and stake gather at that particular place with all the conveniences the urban core of downtown offers accessible. no place outside of downtown is ready to host groups of visitors in the tens of thousands in number.


15499

Good point, this would keep the venue close enough to Midtown & Bricktown restaurants to make before game activities (tailgating, pre-post game activities) more enjoyable & affordable.

Some surface parking around the stadium won't hurt. If the stadium is on the river (north or south) it will be in the proximity of parking where there won't be a need to build a parking garage.

My personal preference is 15 acres on the old COOP mill site; you're in the vicinity of the convention center garage & surface parking, you can run bus shuttle service to the stadium without too much focus on the streetcar as a people mover.
Organizers release more information on MAPS 4 multipurpose outdoor stadium:
https://kfor.com/2019/08/06/organizers-release-more-information-on-maps-4-multipurpose-outdoor-stadium/

I would support it if they put it south of the river and had a streetcar line to Capitol Hill. I think that proposal would be a winner.

As much as I like the development going on in downtown, I believe the city has to show a commitment to real investment outside of that area with this MAPS. Putting a big centerpiece project like this on the south side (even if it's barely on the south side) would be a statement. Historically the city basically ignores anything south of the river.

This would generate a lot of investment in that area, I think it would be very good for the city.

Looking at the map, Wiley Post just makes the most sense. Right on the water, access from Walker and Robinson (major thoroughfares) and good to jumpstart more development in the area. Also, being city owned land would be easier to build on as opposed to purchasing from a private party. Add a traffic circle at SE 17th (access to the Mat Hoffman Action Sports Park) and a parking garage south of that with retail frontage on the garage and I would like it.

The stadium idea is growing on me as it is not as expensive as I originally thought it might be,

It's going to be much more expensive than what they are touting all said and done. Their numbers are way lite from start to finished product. Depending on where they want to build and parking and everything else that goes into building this it could be much much more expensive. We are getting the basic numbers from them.

It's going to be much more expensive than what they are touting all said and done. Their numbers are way lite from start to finished product. Depending on where they want to build and parking and everything else that goes into building this it could be much much more expensive. We are getting the basic numbers from them.

Seriously asking, based on what? Are you in construction or design?

It's going to be much more expensive than what they are touting all said and done. Their numbers are way lite from start to finished product. Depending on where they want to build and parking and everything else that goes into building this it could be much much more expensive. We are getting the basic numbers from them.

The construction bids will determine the final costs.

Think of it this way, if it cost more than the option selected and it's presented before voters, they'll have to scale back or abandoned the project--if the project can't move forward, then that money will be absorbed by the remaining MAPS 4 projects or another project moved up. They are not going to risk the MAPS brand in favor of trying to deceive the City or The City surely not trying to deceive the voters. You can bet there will not be an extension vote if MAPS 4 funds fall short.


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/stadium080619g.jpg
Oklahoma City MAPS 4 Stadium

Looks very similar to 8,296-seat Toyota Field (pictured below) built in 2013 for $18 million; acquired by the City of San Antonio for $21 million in 2015.

https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/54402fd8e4b0e6f12d48c272/1416325453183-W08OSN1FVM5MUAYTW970/ke17ZwdGBToddI8pDm48kDB6fJSY13If4wRyfgXI4fwUqsxRUq qbr1mOJYKfIPR7LoDQ9mXPOjoJoqy81S2I8N_N4V1vUb5AoIII bLZhVYxCRW4BPu10St3TBAUQYVKcWsy9YiH5W4yZ_U_asEy7Ba YJoK_gQcF_Ujlxzj8ugcjEjo8AYUFkrx6UdGYh2l-W/DSC_5905.JPG?format=2500w

It's not that far-fetched to think that OKC can't build a similar stadium in 2022 (10 years later or beyond) for $60 - $72 million with a seating capacity of 10,000 for 3.5x what it cost to build Toyota Field in 2012.

The construction bids will determine the final costs.

Think of it this way, if it cost more than the option selected and it's presented before voters, they'll have to scale back or abandoned the project--if the project can't move forward, then that money will be absorbed by the remaining MAPS 4 projects or another project moved up. They are not going to risk the MAPS brand in favor of trying to deceive the City or The City surely not trying to deceive the voters. You can bet there will not be an extension vote if MAPS 4 funds fall short.


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/stadium080619g.jpg
Oklahoma City MAPS 4 Stadium

Looks very similar to 8,296-seat Toyota Field (pictured below) built in 2013 for $18 million; acquired by the City of San Antonio for $21 million in 2015.

https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/54402fd8e4b0e6f12d48c272/1416325453183-W08OSN1FVM5MUAYTW970/ke17ZwdGBToddI8pDm48kDB6fJSY13If4wRyfgXI4fwUqsxRUq qbr1mOJYKfIPR7LoDQ9mXPOjoJoqy81S2I8N_N4V1vUb5AoIII bLZhVYxCRW4BPu10St3TBAUQYVKcWsy9YiH5W4yZ_U_asEy7Ba YJoK_gQcF_Ujlxzj8ugcjEjo8AYUFkrx6UdGYh2l-W/DSC_5905.JPG?format=2500w

It's not that far-fetched to think that OKC can't build a similar stadium in 2022 (10 years later or beyond) for $60 - $72 million with a seating capacity of 10,000 for 3.5x what it cost to build Toyota Field in 2012.

it shouldn't cost 3.5 to build that same stadium maybe double but not 3.5

it shouldn't cost 3.5 to build that same stadium maybe double but not 3.5

BoulderSooner, this I'm in total agreement with you on. You may a see a bigger stadium with more amenities depending on the option 2 funds, be it $60 million or $72 million with a developer who wants this project. You might be surprised to see something more in line with this:


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/stadium080619h.jpg
20,000 seat venue, if the land price is right

You would think MAPS designers learned one thing from the original MAPS, provide yourself a good cushion for estimates to prepare for cost overruns.

I would support it if they put it south of the river and had a streetcar line to Capitol Hill. I think that proposal would be a winner.

As much as I like the development going on in downtown, I believe the city has to show a commitment to real investment outside of that area with this MAPS. Putting a big centerpiece project like this on the south side (even if it's barely on the south side) would be a statement. Historically the city basically ignores anything south of the river.

This would generate a lot of investment in that area, I think it would be very good for the city.

Same here.

The big issue with this proposal is that we don't know where it would go.

And no matter the location, there will be tons of additional costs which are simply unknown.


We shouldn't get ourselves into a similar situation as the convention center, where after it was approved, all the sudden we learned that a heavily subsidized convention hotel was a necessity, as was a parking garage and other things. The total bill for that project is about double what was pitched.

If this makes the final cut for vote, I hope we an honest account of those costs in advance.

If this makes the final cut for vote, I hope we an honest account of those costs in advance.

hahaha. you have big hopes sir... but sadly, i don't think there is a chance of them being granted

The big issue with this proposal is that we don't know where it would go.

And no matter the location, there will be tons of additional costs which are simply unknown.


We shouldn't get ourselves into a similar situation as the convention center, where after it was approved, all the sudden we learned that a heavily subsidized convention hotel was a necessity, as was a parking garage and other things. The total bill for that project is about double what was pitched.

If this makes the final cut for vote, I hope we an honest account of those costs in advance.

Why couldnt MAPs say we give you $** million and you have to promise a soccer stadium with ****** amount of seats. Any costs above that has to come out of Energy's pocket.

Why couldnt MAPs say we give you $** million and you have to promise a soccer stadium with ****** amount of seats. Any costs above that has to come out of Energy's pocket.

Because the city would own the stadium and we'd be stuck for the money if the Energy or other investors couldn't cover.

See the Whitewater facility, convention center and the American Indian Cultural Center as examples.

Anyone else concerned that the Mayor appears to be all in on the stadium? His social media seems to reflect that.

no because it would only be a small percentage of the overall budget.

Anyone else concerned that the Mayor appears to be all in on the stadium? His social media seems to reflect that.

He probably knows OKC is the largest city in America without a modern, mixed-use stadium of this variety. That is not a good thing. But like Ross said, it is maybe 10-15% of the total MAPS budget.

Let me rephrase. It rubs me the wrong way how intertwined him and the Energy seem to be on social media, rather than sitting back and letting the public decide. It's almost like they have read the negative feedback and are trying to spin it to how positive it will be. The fact that they are saying this stadium would get used 80 nights a year and each event would bring in ~$1 million seems like a big stretch to me. Plus, like Pete said, there will be tons of other costs associated with this as well.

Full disclosure, I am against it either way. I don't think we should finance something like this for a crappy D3 team that's part of a crappy MLS.

Mayor Holt was taking trips to visit other soccer facilities long before the MAPS process started.

This project is clearly the darling of the Chamber.

Let me rephrase. It rubs me the wrong way how intertwined him and the Energy seem to be on social media, rather than sitting back and letting the public decide. It's almost like they have read the negative feedback and are trying to spin it to how positive it will be. The fact that they are saying this stadium would get used 80 nights a year and each event would bring in ~$1 million seems like a big stretch to me. Plus, like Pete said, there will be tons of other costs associated with this as well.

Full disclosure, I am against it either way. I don't think we should finance something like this for a crappy D3 team that's part of a crappy MLS.

But again, it won't just be for that (as I have been told a ton of times).

I understand that. Let's focus on high school football games. With districts and schools building all new facilities for themselves, why would they want to play here and lose out on revenue? So the only thing would be state championships most likely, which get rotated between here, tulsa, and stillwater.

I understand that. Let's focus on high school football games. With districts and schools building all new facilities for themselves, why would they want to play here and lose out on revenue? So the only thing would be state championships most likely, which get rotated between here, tulsa, and stillwater.

Right now, even when they take things to neutral sites (like playoff semi finals) they just use high school facilities like Putnam City, which has more than enough capacity for anything other than the 6A final. And there is always Taft and Speegle and now PCW and PCN have very nice stadiums as do Edmond SF and North, with Memorial's stadium being done next year.

There is absolutely no need for another stadium for high school football; if anything we are way, way overbuilt considering all these schools play a total of 5 home games per year.

Now, they could move a ton of playoff games to this new stadium, but as mentioned you are just taking away a revenue source for these school districts and leaving empty dozens of pefectly good facilities.

So, take away high school football (and we should), what does that leave?

A soccer team that is lucky to draw a couple of thousand?

A live music venue? How many do we freaking need? We are just getting ready to open Scisssortail Park and we’ve got scores of others which generally go way underutilized, especially those that are outdoors.

Can't bring guns into a soccer stadium

This stadium will be for the Energy and any future incarnations.

Let them pay for it and stop trying to tell people it’s needed for these other uses, because we already have plenty of under-utilized facilities for those things.

Let me rephrase. It rubs me the wrong way how intertwined him and the Energy seem to be on social media, rather than sitting back and letting the public decide. It's almost like they have read the negative feedback and are trying to spin it to how positive it will be. The fact that they are saying this stadium would get used 80 nights a year and each event would bring in ~$1 million seems like a big stretch to me. Plus, like Pete said, there will be tons of other costs associated with this as well.

Full disclosure, I am against it either way. I don't think we should finance something like this for a crappy D3 team that's part of a crappy MLS.

On another note. Was not a fan of the threats Funk was making about moving the team. Be more like the thunder, put forth your proposal, explain why you need it and why it’s necessary, and let the public debate it. Not ONCE has anyone from the thunder made any threat of moving implied or otherwise.

BFD is our tier 2 soccer team relocates to....where exactly? There’s already 40 teams, they’re running out of cities.

BoulderSooner, this I'm in total agreement with you on. You may a see a bigger stadium with more amenities depending on the option 2 funds, be it $60 million or $72 million with a developer who wants this project. You might be surprised to see something more in line with this:


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/stadium080619h.jpg
20,000 seat venue, if the land price is right

You would think MAPS designers learned one thing from the original MAPS, provide yourself a good cushion for estimates to prepare for cost overruns.

If Funk would seriously pursue an MLS franchise I think a first class 20-25k seat stadium downtown would pass with OKC putting up 50-70% financing and Funk (or whoever the owner would be)putting in the balance. The USL is what it is and most folks look at that as minor league and will be turned off. They should get serious about MLS if they are touting expanding to 40 teams then OKC should have a legit shot.

If Funk would seriously pursue an MLS franchise I think a first class 20-25k seat stadium downtown would pass with OKC putting up 50-70% financing and Funk (or whoever the owner would be)putting in the balance. The USL is what it is and most folks look at that as minor league and will be turned off. They should get serious about MLS if they are touting expanding to 40 teams then OKC should have a legit shot.

+1

BTW, everything other than the 6A football title game (and semis) was played at high school stadiums last year. And those two exceptions were at U of Tulsa which has way more capacity than 10,000. So those games probably wouldn't move anyway because what is being proposed wouldn't be big enough. Plus, this would be primarily a soccer field, which is much wider than a football field and tends to make a bad fan experience because you are so far removed.

Even the 6A-II title game was played at Owasso High.

The high schools that host playoff games (even the neutral field variety) get the revenue. So now we are going to take that away by moving games to wherever this facility lands?


This is not like the state basketball tourney were half the teams play more than one game and some play 3. And some schools have both boys and girls teams represented. Football games are one-and-done. Even if you advance, it's a week later. So people would drive in for the game and likely drive right back home, as most these games are finished by 9PM. The teams definitely don't stay overnight. At best you get some people staying for one night.

One alternative that would require OSSA approval would be to stack several championship games on the same day. Texas does this now. That way you get a massive influx of fans coming to town. Of course their would be a need to alternate with Tulsa on a yearly basis with half the teams here and half in Tulsa. However with two division 6 groupings each venue would have either a 6A or 6B game every year.

One alternative that would require OSSA approval would be to stack several championship games on the same day. Texas does this now. That way you get a massive influx of fans coming to town. Of course their would be a need to alternate with Tulsa on a yearly basis with half the teams here and half in Tulsa. However with two division 6 groupings each venue would have either a 6A or 6B game every year.

Beyond the 6A title game, no Oklahoma HS football games draw many fans. It's nothing like Texas.

And the low attendance is a big driver behind the recent wave of OKC area stadiums; in the old days schools like PC West could have never accommodated the crowds on campus. Now, they can easily do so because they (and PC North) draw under 1,000 instead of the 5-6K of the 60's, 70's and 80's.

Similarly, there was absolutely no reason for the Edmond schools to keep playing at UCO. Way, way too big for their needs (and BTW, that's a great facility if for high school title games, arguably better than TU, which is way too big).

The stadiums at Mustang and Yukon are new, big and beautiful.

Attendance is very low everywhere apart from a few of the Tulsa-area mega-schools that have chosen not to split their high schools.

Banking on football games for future use seems like a bad idea, isn't there some study done recently that shows parents are becoming less likely to encourage their kids to start football due to long-term head injury concerns? Plus, who actually cares about highschool football other than maybe Texas? I feel like football, especially highschool level is a dying product.

If we can get major music festivals landed at a venue like this, then it would be very cool. But that sort of thing comes with a lot of stuff that OK/OKC may not be too fond of.

High school football isn't dying... Or else phantoms voted for all those levies paying for some fairly impressive stadiums around OKC. And I can't fathom any HS team forsaking a home playoff date to use a bastardized soccer stadium for a venue. So we're left with the rationale of spending $$$ ok on a 10,000-seat arena that'll be lucky to be 20% occupied at best once in a while for soccer?? No, thanks. Sorry, Mayor Holt, but I can't jump on board for this.