https://www.tnaqua.org/newsroom/entry/new-study-reveals-the-tennessee-aquariums-annual-economic-impact-tops-100-m

Here's an aquarium that no one mentions: the Tennessee Aquarium in Chattanooga. Population: 179,139. 700,000 visitors. $100 million dollars in economic impact. Been there a number of years ago and it was remarkable.

Think about a not so distant future when the Native American Cultural Center and OKC Aquarium are both running in a city of 643,000 with both attractions visible for I-40 and I-35.

a boondoggle? when did that open? didn't it run for many decades??? hard to call that a boondoggle...
No, the way it was created as Aquaticus the Dolphin Exhibit lasted from 1986-2001 when the dolphin program was cancelled because the dolphins were dying. It was a disgrace and a huge mess.

https://oklahoman.com/article/2750988/zoo-officials-discontinue-dolphin-show

1). The speed of the support that this proposal has garnered negates the point that 'no one' outside the zoo is asking for it. An aquarium has been proposed serval times with positive support.


Again, I say this as someone who would completely support this project being part of MAPS4, but judging the social media response of followers of OKCTalk is not and should not be how public policy is decided or how to determine the level of support among a) the citizens of OKC as a whole and b) the likely MAPS voter. And if we are going to do that, the reporting should have also mentioned that the Instagram comments, which are also substantially increased over other OKCTalk posts, appear to be majority negative, or at the very least 50/50, based on a quick scroll-through. Although Pete said upthread he was "trying to get exposure to a popular project" though so I'm not considering the original and ongoing story a news article but rather editorial/advocacy journalism (which is fine, but let's call a spade a spade). However, I do question how anyone knew it was a popular project prior to posting the story when the "only evidence we have [regarding the project's popularity] is the comments here and on social media, and it's overwhelmingly positive." I would quibble that the Instagram comments have not been "overwhelmingly positive" though more importantly, I reiterate the larger danger of accepting the social media reaction of followers predisposed to positively react to a social media post (to the extent "liking" a photo is making a statement in support of the project after (hopefully) considering the pros and cons associated therewith) as the opinion of the whole. Just ask Hillary.

No, the way it was created as Aquaticus the Dolphin Exhibit lasted from 1986-2001 when the dolphin program was cancelled because the dolphins were dying. It was a disgrace and a huge mess.

https://oklahoman.com/article/2750988/zoo-officials-discontinue-dolphin-show

so built for 5.2 million and generated $12,000 in revenue on the first day. so are you saying it ended up not making money? i'm actually curious why you think it was a waste of money, if it even for just 10 years was making a regular source of income. are there other article you can point to that talk about how the cost of the shows, wasn't enough to cover the expenses? i see this more as it was an unforced situation that occurred due to the death of the dolphins, but looked to be quite profitable, and proof that one probably could be successful in OKC again... i'm just curious how you are seeing this to come to your opinion, as my looking at the same numbers see that it wasn't a waste of money, and should be something we look at.

Again, I say this as someone who would completely support this project being part of MAPS4, but judging the social media response of followers of OKCTalk is not and should not be how public policy is decided or how to determine the level of support among a) the citizens of OKC as a whole and b) the likely MAPS voter. And if we are going to do that, the reporting should have also mentioned that the Instagram comments, which are also substantially increased over other OKCTalk posts, appear to be majority negative, or at the very least 50/50, based on a quick scroll-through. Although Pete said upthread he was "trying to get exposure to a popular project" though so I'm not considering the original and ongoing story a news article but rather editorial/advocacy journalism (which is fine, but let's call a spade a spade). However, I do question how anyone knew it was a popular project prior to posting the story when the "only evidence we have [regarding the project's popularity] is the comments here and on social media, and it's overwhelmingly positive." I would quibble that the Instagram comments have not been "overwhelmingly positive" though more importantly, I reiterate the larger danger of accepting the social media reaction of followers predisposed to positively react to a social media post as the opinion of the whole. Just ask Hillary.

The main point I was originally making in my first post in this thread was: what exactly is the balance for support for capital project vs. public service project? We don't have the polling numbers the city used to eliminate an aquarium before the public process started. We also didn't have a fully rendered proposal at that time. Even scientific polling can go astray when participants don't have a complete picture.

And after reading through the Instagram comments, a good chunk of the 'no' comments suffered from the other point I was making which was that that people were looking at it from an 'either' 'or' scenario particularly 'either an aquarium or an animal shelter'. We can do both.

The idea was killed and excluded from MAPS 4 before any serious proposal had been put forward. So, how do we really know what the support for or against really is? Instead, we're in a scenario where those in favor of the idea are debating people who are against it who are citing polling that we have not seen and that was taken before a serious proposal had been drafted.

1) likes on facebook isn't actually real support

2) Opening paid for is not the same as being profitable or low cost, Also, I'm not so much overly concerned with costs as I am very concerned with why on earth this should be a city property?!?!

3) Agreed, and exactly how does a fish museum with paid entry bennefit residents again?

If you would calm down, take a breather, and read this entire thread, I think you would find a lot of your "concerns" have already been addressed. Mocking Pete, screaming, and making vague statements won't help your cause. I have an issue getting too worked up and I need to respond in a more mature manner. It is something I am working on, you should too. :)

Pete said upthread he was "trying to get exposure to a popular project" though so I'm not considering the original and ongoing story a news article but rather editorial/advocacy journalism.

Good grief, all I meant is the aquarium had been mentioned here and elsewhere quite a bit and there seemed to be enthusiasm for it.

As for your attack on my credibility, that's way out of line.

judging the social media response of followers of OKCTalk is not and should not be how public policy is decided or how to determine the level of support among .

This has been address on this thread though. No one here is saying because of all the social media support we should use that to build it. It's the fact it has received all of this support and it wasn't even given a fair chance. Per a poster on this thread, there was a poll and it scored low yet we aren't able to see those results. We are supposed to just accept whatever he says(he is arguably one of the most credible posters here so no disrespect meant by that statement) and not ask questions?

I'd like to see the polls. I'd like to see how they were measured and what criteria/variables were used to determine support. This project should be given a fair review and more public polling done.

FYI, I encourage anyone here to message Mayor Holt. I did so and he was very responsive. I am quite critical of him on some things but I think he is doing a pretty good job overall and I really like how interactive he is with the general public. You can't get a hold of Mayor Garcetti's assistants.

No, the way it was created as Aquaticus the Dolphin Exhibit lasted from 1986-2001 when the dolphin program was cancelled because the dolphins were dying. It was a disgrace and a huge mess.

https://oklahoman.com/article/2750988/zoo-officials-discontinue-dolphin-show

Hopefully this is obvious to most, but dolphins are mammals not fish. The dolphin exhibit failed because it was a mammal exhibit that was built under the "sea world" and old zoo way of doing the things. The "aquarium" aspect was really just thrown in there with no real thought which is why it is closed now. The zoo has spent the past 20+ years making better habitats that doesn't just put animals in a concrete cage. The relics of the cat cages still sit behide the fence over there by the aquatics center. The sea lions will get their new habitat within the next 5 to 6 years.

Good grief, all I meant is the aquarium had been mentioned here and elsewhere quite a bit and there seemed to be enthusiasm for it.

As for your attack on my credibility, that's way out of line.

?

Where did I attack your credibility? That I took the content of the original story and the timing of its publication to have an editorial/advocacy slant rather than straight reporting? Not intended to be an attack on your credibility in the slightest - just my observation. And I don't think there's anything wrong with editorializing/advocating at all, though, as I'm sure you know much better than me (I'm far from a journalism expert) editorials and news reports are two distinct things with very different purposes and historically there has been a pretty bright line between them. In the age of internet news that line has become significantly more blurred and it's much more difficult to determine when someone is reporting and when they are editorializing/advocating. I don't see any harm in identifying the difference between the two. If you say you weren't advocating for a position or providing an opportunity to highlight the secrecy by which you believe the city council goes about its business by posting the story I believe you (and frankly it doesn't really matter what I think), but nothing I said was intended to attack your credibility - merely pointing out/asking questions to things that didn't quite make sense to me, which I would hope you would welcome as OKCTalk becomes more of a formal news organization (or at least that's how I perceive some of the changes over the last couple of years and which I think is great) while maintaining a direct line to "the top" (i.e., you) through this public message board.

There is something very wrong with dressing up opinion as news -- or intermixing the two -- and that's not what was done with the original article, which I didn't even write; nor did I influence any way.

My comments in the forum are just discussion, not journalism.

So, regardless of your intent, I take great issue with your characterization and couldn't let it stand without addressing.

What other project sparked 11 pages of discussion on here in 2 days? While I agree OKCTalk is not the city’s barometer, it is still relevant in the fact that this proposal does have a spark none of the others have. It should be given a chance.

What other project sparked 11 pages of discussion on here in 2 days? While I agree OKCTalk is not the city’s barometer, it is still relevant in the fact that this proposal does have a spark none of the others have. It should be given a chance.

^^^^ This

I take great issue with your characterization and couldn't let it stand without addressing.

You still haven't explicitly stated what characterization I made that you take issue with, though I'll assume I guessed correctly in my previous post. Regardless and to stop what could be endless back and forth on this topic, this will be my last post in the thread.

We're in complete agreement regarding the dangers of calling opinions facts and I'm glad it's something that you, and I'll assume your writers, take very seriously and I wish more people communicating on the internet would follow suit.

However, I would encourage you to re-read my comments. Nowhere did I say you (or whomever wrote the article I suppose) was stating opinion as fact. Instead, I stated that my opinion was that the article, and the timing of its distribution, was intended to advocate for a position and/or to spur a discussion of something that you advocate for quite often and not solely to provide information regarding the zoo's desire to include an aquarium in MAPS4 and that my preference (which I'll freely acknowledge is worth zero as it relates to how you run your business) is that, if OKCTalk is going to advocate for something it should say it's doing so to make the reader's life easier, especially when it's not completely clear. If you say I'm wrong, that's fine, I don't really care. But this is very very very different than me asserting that the author was presenting opinion as fact, which the author could do in either a news report or an editorial.


P.S. As I've said completely agree with Catch22 that the city council should re-consider this (due to their illuminati-like nature we of course don't know how much consideration it was initially given) and still think the aquarium and stadium on the COOP would be awesome.

Hopefully this is obvious to most, but dolphins are mammals not fish. The dolphin exhibit failed because it was a mammal exhibit that was built under the "sea world" and old zoo way of doing the things. The "aquarium" aspect was really just thrown in there with no real thought which is why it is closed now. The zoo has spent the past 20+ years making better habitats that doesn't just put animals in a concrete cage. The relics of the cat cages still sit behide the fence over there by the aquatics center. The sea lions will get their new habitat within the next 5 to 6 years.

I agree that the zoo has come a long way in improving their practices and their image in the last 20 years, and I like the zoo. But, to me I still see no reason that we need to pay to build them a new facility downtown for them to run with city funds. The zoo is nice, it is attractive, seemingly well run and a nice attraction, and IMO an aquarium is not an essential capital improvement for the city center and could easily turn out to be a disaster.

Much like Urban Pioneer's wife, my first impressions were why is this being proposed downtown.

More I look at this project downtown, it makes a lot of sense. You could allow zoo goers with passes (free admission) or ticket stubs to enter the Aquarium on a discounted rate.

Of all the projects proposed for MAPS 4, this could be a real game-changer for Oklahoma City.

I've read 0 of the previous posts. Just wanted to chime in: Canal Extension. Aquarium. TAKE MY MONEY NOW, MAPS 4.

I agree that the zoo has come a long way in improving their practices and their image in the last 20 years, and I like the zoo. But, to me I still see no reason that we need to pay to build them a new facility downtown for them to run with city funds. The zoo is nice, it is attractive, seemingly well run and a nice attraction, and IMO an aquarium is not an essential capital improvement for the city center and could easily turn out to be a disaster.

Fair enough. That's a legitimate argument. I just don't really hold much weight in the argument that the current aquatics center at the zoo is evidence that a downtown aquarium would be a failure. They showed that they have learned their lessons from past.

I don't really know what the zoo's motivation to propose an aquarium or if they were directed to look in that direction by some members of the city's leadership. I think they got feedback from zoo visitors and started looking into building one at the zoo and realized the economics wouldn't work there. The idea sounded good enough by enough people to bring it up now for a site outside the zoo.

If this came from people other than the zoo, the city would still turn towards the zoo to run it.

Since this wasn't included in the proposal is this project officially dead for MAPS 4? Officially dead in general?

Since this wasn't included in the proposal is this project officially dead for MAPS 4? Officially dead in general?

Effectively, yes, but the official vote isn't until Tuesday.

I agree that the zoo has come a long way in improving their practices and their image in the last 20 years, and I like the zoo. But, to me I still see no reason that we need to pay to build them a new facility downtown for them to run with city funds. The zoo is nice, it is attractive, seemingly well run and a nice attraction, and IMO an aquarium is not an essential capital improvement for the city center and could easily turn out to be a disaster.

So check this out

http://oki-park.jp/sp/kaiyohaku/en/

Ocean Expo Park is in Okinawa and was the largest aquarium in the world until Atlanta built theirs. It opened right in the middle of November of 2002. By mid 2010, it had already eclipsed 10 million total visitors.

So, some background here. Okinawa is roughly a 2 hours flight from most mainland Japan. Maybe an hour flight from Yokohama and about 5 or 6 hours from Sapporo. Also, Okinawa is an island. It's not exactly super accessible. Ocean Expo Park and it's aquarium has become a massive tourist spot in Okinawa AND it's a solid 2 hour drive or more from downtown Naha (where the Okinawa Airport is, also the central hub of the island).

Point being, it's made Okinawa tremendous money and given them a ton of exposure. They had the whale shark exhibit before Atlanta did. If people would flock to Okinawa for an aquarium, people would certainly come here as well.

Since this wasn't included in the proposal is this project officially dead for MAPS 4? Officially dead in general?

I have a friend that used to work for the Zoo, and he was told that the Aquarium's exclusion from MAPS 4 *completely* killed the project. Reading between the lines of what he's told me, it sounds like this proposal was excluded from consideration very early in the MAPS 4 selection process.

Hmmm. After reading all the posts, can't we just make MAPS 4 a little longer and do everything we've got now, plus the aquarium? If MAPS 3 collected ~$800MM for 7 years, 9 months that's about $9MM a month. (During the Great Recession and an oil price collapse, mind you). Would it really be THAT big of a deal to just start with an extra year for MAPS 4? The synergy I see with the aquarium is that if it helps drive traffic and create more value for the canal/Bricktown area, further increasing returns on our original MAPS investment.

It’s a shame since an aquarium would benefit many more adults and kids than a damn fair coliseum or soccer stadium.

ok, I've read everything in this forum and I must agree with several posters on here who are making sense.

1) the aquarium didn't get a fair shake with MAPS 4. For whatever reason (which the Mayor and Chamber should be put on the spot to answer), it didn't make the "official list" of projects for presentation. However,

2) that doesn't mean the aquarium isn't viable or shouldn't be included. It would represent a great project for the canal (with an extension) having a destination at the other end for private development to in-fill. That and the design seems like a no brainer, and if presented I'm sure would have garnered public support in those presentations.

3) even if the "polls" say they are anti-downtown for this MAPS, there's no reason to think that we couldn't have ONE downtown attraction and all the others. It appears to me that EVERYTHING that was presented will make this maps, did anything get left off? Since this is the case, why not include the aquarium as well and just make it a 10-year $1.3B venture.

4) I've mentioned in other posts, but we I feel we could do without creating endowments to run city operations. Seems to prop up the banking industry under the guise of running the city. I'd argue a lawsuit could be intruduced if such endowments were made by taxes when that endowment itself could run city services for the period the tax is collected and then some. Why not just raise taxes or apply other funds for city maintenance and operations and use MAPS for capital projects like it has been intended.

5) I also am not bying the argument that the Zoo is funded so they don't deserve a shot with the aquarium. The fairgrounds is fully funded even moreso than the zoo, yet have come for project after project from MAPS whereas this is the FIRST the project the Zoo is. And since it's downtown and not at the Zoo complex; why shouldn't it be a MAPS project?

6) The argument from zoo subscribers about it being downtown - think of it this way, you want a world class experience for your city. You have a synergy developing of projects, hotels, attractions that exist downtown. This synergy creates critical mass where tourists can experience the best of OKC in one shot. Think of having the world class American Indian Cultural Center, the Boathouse District and Rapids, Bricktown and the canal extension, cc and Scissortail park, and eventual infill all as neighbors to this world class aquarium. Surely, the zoo will implement shuttles and/or this can help push for the Adventure District heritage rail line service.

7) also not sure why they have to vote on this Tuesday when the original deadline was September. .. Maybe Holt and chamber can provide answers to this as well as why the Zoo Aquarium was purposefully left off yet the very unpopular fairgrounds (and their pork barrel horse arena) must be on the list. ....

To sum things up. I don't see this as a mutually exclusive argument for MAPS, there's no reason why those who are against downtown development would vote no for this if the aquarium is included since most if not all of those projects will be implemented. However, I do see this MAPS being approved with flying colors if the aquarium IS included regardless of less/not popular items (fairgrounds arena, soccer stadium, etc) that I'd personally want excluded.

Why not go big, get another world class attraction. Zoo wants it downtown and I can see why with the synergy it would create linking everything together as a world class Oklahoma City experience.

People often complain about there being 'nothing to do in Oklahoma City', Even after visiting, and it's because there isn't an area of synergy or critical mass - this aquarium builds just that and if built as presented can be that WOW factor forever changing people's opinion of OKC as a destination.

Oh, and this time I would keep the name as "Oklahoma City Aquarium". This definitely should have the city's name on it.

ok, I've read everything in this forum and I must agree with several posters on here who are making sense.

1) the aquarium didn't get a fair shake with MAPS 4. For whatever reason (which the Mayor and Chamber should be put on the spot to answer), it didn't make the "official list" of projects for presentation. However,

2) that doesn't mean the aquarium isn't viable or shouldn't be included. It would represent a great project for the canal (with an extension) having a destination at the other end for private development to in-fill. That and the design seems like a no brainer, and if presented I'm sure would have garnered public support in those presentations.

3) even if the "polls" say they are anti-downtown for this MAPS, there's no reason to think that we couldn't have ONE downtown attraction and all the others. It appears to me that EVERYTHING that was presented will make this maps, did anything get left off? Since this is the case, why not include the aquarium as well and just make it a 10-year $1.3B venture.

4) I've mentioned in other posts, but we I feel we could do without creating endowments to run city operations. Seems to prop up the banking industry under the guise of running the city. I'd argue a lawsuit could be intruduced if such endowments were made by taxes when that endowment itself could run city services for the period the tax is collected and then some. Why not just raise taxes or apply other funds for city maintenance and operations and use MAPS for capital projects like it has been intended.

5) I also am not bying the argument that the Zoo is funded so they don't deserve a shot with the aquarium. The fairgrounds is fully funded even moreso than the zoo, yet have come for project after project from MAPS whereas this is the FIRST the project the Zoo is. And since it's downtown and not at the Zoo complex; why shouldn't it be a MAPS project?

6) The argument from zoo subscribers about it being downtown - think of it this way, you want a world class experience for your city. You have a synergy developing of projects, hotels, attractions that exist downtown. This synergy creates critical mass where tourists can experience the best of OKC in one shot. Think of having the world class American Indian Cultural Center, the Boathouse District and Rapids, Bricktown and the canal extension, cc and Scissortail park, and eventual infill all as neighbors to this world class aquarium. Surely, the zoo will implement shuttles and/or this can help push for the Adventure District heritage rail line service.

7) also not sure why they have to vote on this Tuesday when the original deadline was September. .. Maybe Holt and chamber can provide answers to this as well as why the Zoo Aquarium was purposefully left off yet the very unpopular fairgrounds (and their pork barrel horse arena) must be on the list. ....

To sum things up. I don't see this as a mutually exclusive argument for MAPS, there's no reason why those who are against downtown development would vote no for this if the aquarium is included since most if not all of those projects will be implemented. However, I do see this MAPS being approved with flying colors if the aquarium IS included regardless of less/not popular items (fairgrounds arena, soccer stadium, etc) that I'd personally want excluded.

Why not go big, get another world class attraction. Zoo wants it downtown and I can see why with the synergy it would create linking everything together as a world class Oklahoma City experience.

People often complain about there being 'nothing to do in Oklahoma City', Even after visiting, and it's because there isn't an area of synergy or critical mass - this aquarium builds just that and if built as presented can be that WOW factor forever changing people's opinion of OKC as a destination.

:yeahthat:

FYI, since Friday we've had a call into Mayor Holt to question him about how, when and why the aquarium was eliminated (at least in his mind) early in the process (his words on Twitter).

Just trying to find out what happened here and I hope he'll call us back before the vote on Tuesday.

I would not put that shiny blue light on the edge, it would distract drivers from being too bright and could hurt their eyes

I would not put that shiny blue light on the edge, it would distract drivers from being too bright and could hurt their eyes
Yes prob best to make sure all lights are turned off on all downtown buildings and the bridge after dark.

Definitely voting a hard no until the Hall Capital Crew decides to include an actual BLC project for our consideration.

You can still do the Aquarium. The Zoo receives 1/8 cent permanent sales tax funds which IIRC equates to $12.4 million a year, a figure that excludes donations.

If the Zoo were to build on city-own land off north of I-40 overlooking the expressway or south of Oklahoma River near the AICCM, they could build an $80 million Aquarium, probably save an estimated $6 - $10 million on land acquisition, set up to pay off in 20 years or less. Factor in admission fee collections, discounts to annual pass holders this is doable.

Also there's 2028 MAPS 5, success of the Aquarium lead to ultimate expansion and early payoff with passage of a MAPS 5 initiative to include a larger Aquarium.

Article on the Zoo's funding back in 2012 (7 years ago):
Oklahoma City councilman questions dedicated zoo funding - https://oklahoman.com/article/3689227/oklahoma-city-councilman-questions-dedicated-zoo-funding

I love the people degrading the idea of an aquarium here as a "shiny thing" as if this shiny thing wouldn't be the absolute most popular overall destination on all of the downtown area.

I love the people degrading the idea of an aquarium here as a "shiny thing" as if this shiny thing wouldn't be the absolute most popular overall destination on all of the downtown area.

*And* exactly what MAPS was formulated to build.

FYI, since Friday we've had a call into Mayor Holt to question him about how, when and why the aquarium was eliminated (at least in his mind) early in the process (his words on Twitter).

Just trying to find out what happened here and I hope he'll call us back before the vote on Tuesday.

I would use the OKCTalk twitter and quote tweet his tweet about how this was eliminated early and ask him how, when and why it was eliminated that way. Having 13,000+ people see that question would hopefully get him to answer.

I'm voting no on this and any future MAPS initiative with no aquarium. This would easily have been the most popular item on the MAPS agenda and it gets left out in favor of a horse arena for tourists and a minor league soccer stadium? What a joke. Maybe this vote fail and the Council can come back to us with projects people want.

I hope MAPS4 passes regardless, as I still think it's a net good thing, but can you imagine the message sent if this is the MAPS package that fails to pass.

No aquarium, no bueno for may family's vote. One of the main reason many people distrust the Maps program is due to corporate leveraging and politics. I can't think of any reason for this to be quickly discounted except for promises around using that land for the soccer stadium development and/or private development which hasnt been announced. Seems fishy to me.

I hope MAPS4 passes regardless, as I still think it's a net good thing, but can you imagine the message sent if this is the MAPS package that fails to pass.

Yep, it'd be the same message that OKC has been putting out for decades - we don't care about doing the basic things (social and infrastructure) a city should do for their citizens. As I've said many times, I hate that we've had to use a completely inappropriate source of funding for those things, but if it's the only option we apparently have at this point, we need to use it, we're decades behind on some things... Maybe 8 years will be enough time for our city leaders to figure out how to do things right and keep doing them for the foreseeable future.

hopefully everybody saying no aquarium no vote is also emailing their councilperson and CC'ing the mayor so that that feedback is registered somewhere more official. It's important that they get that feedback officially.

hopefully everybody saying no aquarium no vote is also emailing their councilperson and CC'ing the mayor so that that feedback is registered somewhere more official. It's important that they get that feedback officially.

Nah, pissing and moaning, but not taking action, is the preferred outlet for people.

I hope MAPS4 passes regardless, as I still think it's a net good thing, but can you imagine the message sent if this is the MAPS package that fails to pass.

I'm with you, bro +1

No aquarium means a no vote.

Nah, pissing and moaning, but not taking action, is the preferred outlet for people.

No just tweeting.

Great Gazette interviews wih Holt and JoBeth Hamon where they are quoted extensively on the process.

JoBeth says the slate was pretty much decided in April, long before the public meetings.

Holt simultaneously cites polling and minimizes it when discussing which projects were included:

https://www.okgazette.com/oklahoma/maps-package/Content?oid=6505934

Yep, it'd be the same message that OKC has been putting out for decades - we don't care about doing the basic things (social and infrastructure) a city should do for their citizens.
But that is not true and you saying that there are no other ways to generate that funding is bull as many other cities can do it. You seem to imply that is someone votes no on this MAPS they don't care about "basic things" and that is incorrect.

That said, I have come around to hoping this passes because I believe this will make the city better, but lets not kid ourselves. There are other ways to do it.


hopefully everybody saying no aquarium no vote is also emailing their councilperson and CC'ing the mayor so that that feedback is registered somewhere more official. It's important that they get that feedback officially.

Completely agree. I messaged Mayor Holt and he was very responsive. I wasn't the biggest fan of some of his answers as I think some of them were incorrect but overall letting the city know your displeasure goes a long way.

I'm voting no on this and any future MAPS initiative with no aquarium. This would easily have been the most popular item on the MAPS agenda and it gets left out in favor of a horse arena for tourists and a minor league soccer stadium? What a joke. Maybe this vote fail and the Council can come back to us with projects people want.

The aquarium, as proposed, might be the coolest of the three and no doubt would bring some tourist dollars, but what about it makes it a fundamentally stronger project than "a horse arena and minor league soccer stadium", especially to the degree that one would hold other projects hostage until it's included?

As civics projects, the arena and some sort of stadium would no doubt have community uses in addition to their core functions and, at least in terms of the arena, significant return on investment in terms of economic impact. Again, I'm not knocking the aquarium based on its own merits, but I think it would only function as an aquarium, right? Basically, it's a subsidized tourist attraction. While the arena and a stadium would both have multi-use components, some of which would serve the needs of the community at large in a participatory manner.

But that is not true and you saying that there are no other ways to generate that funding is bull as many other cities can do it. You seem to imply that is someone votes no on this MAPS they don't care about "basic things" and that is incorrect....

If it wasn't true, we wouldn't have to use MAPS funds to fund "basic things". MAPS is supposed to only be used for certain things, and it's not what we're using them for this time. Again, from okc.gov - MAPS (Metropolitan Area Projects) is Oklahoma City's visionary capital improvement program for new and upgraded sports, recreation, entertainment, cultural and convention facilities.

And I'm not saying that there are no other ways, I'm saying that OKC has chosen *not to use* the other generally accepted ways that other municipalities fund social services, bike lanes, sidewalks, bus stops, streetlights, etc. (bonds, permanent taxes of various sorts).

And I'm not implying that if someone votes no, they don't care about the "basic things", I'm saying that if MAPS4 doesn't pass, the message it sends will be that OKC in general, en masse, as a whole entity, doesn't care about social services, sidewalks, bike lanes, streetlights, etc.

You get an F for the first part of your post, nothing was right in it.

Great Gazette interviews wih Holt and JoBeth Hamon where they are quoted extensively on the process.

JoBeth says the slate was pretty much decided in April, long before the public meetings.

Holt simultaneously cites polling and minimizes it when discussing which projects were included:

https://www.okgazette.com/oklahoma/maps-package/Content?oid=6505934

Great article. JoBeth confirms what many of us suspected: that these projects had already been chosen and the process was not as open and transparent as Holt (and some of his reporter friends) were claiming. The presentations were merely a PR campaign rather than a "vetting" of the ideas.

It's also interesting to note that Holt specifically mentioned "a world-class aquarium operated by the zoo, possibly downtown' in his State of the City address in January.

That was the only time the online input of citizens was ever mentioned and the exact results of that process were never shared in any other way.

But by April when they had pretty much narrowed down projects to the 16 that would be given formal presentations (according to JoBeth in that article) -- and which turned out to be the exact projects on the MAPS 4 slate -- the aquarium was completely gone.


This answers the question about why we didn't hear more about it. They had done those renderings and videos last year, the project showed up on the online citizen input process enough for the mayor to mention it, yet for reasons that are still not clear, it was not allowed to go further.

And to claim there wasn't support of the council seems odd when Nikki Nice is the one that included it at the end of the last pubic meeting, the only reason we are talking about this in the first place.

The aquarium, as proposed, might be the coolest of the three and no doubt would bring some tourist dollars, but what about it makes it a fundamentally stronger project than "a horse arena and minor league soccer stadium", especially to the degree that one would hold other projects hostage until it's included?

As civics projects, the arena and some sort of stadium would no doubt have community uses in addition to their core functions and, at least in terms of the arena, significant return on investment in terms of economic impact. Again, I'm not knocking the aquarium based on its own merits, but I think it would only function as an aquarium, right? Basically, it's a subsidized tourist attraction. While the arena and a stadium would both have multi-use components, some of which would serve the needs of the community at large in a participatory manner.

MAPS is exactly for things like a World Class Aquarium and this would bring the tourists and folks from all around spending their money downtown and generating revenues. A soccer stadium is not going to generate the revenue like a World Class Aquarium would. They can tout all types of other events at a soccer stadium but most of those other events held there would just be taking from other venues. One would think that the powers that be would want the most bang for the buck. An Aquarium would payoff for years to come and become a destination for folks coming into the City.

The aquarium, as proposed, might be the coolest of the three and no doubt would bring some tourist dollars, but what about it makes it a fundamentally stronger project than "a horse arena and minor league soccer stadium", especially to the degree that one would hold other projects hostage until it's included?

This will be my kid's only opportunity to be able to really experience what marine life looks life without a trip out of town. The next MAPS project slate probably won't be for another at least 6 years. And it's my vote, so I'll absolutely hold other projects hostage as to my vote. From the look of this forum, I'm not the only one. I am generally in favor of MAPS, but there's nothing at all in this slate of projects that I'm even a little bit excited about and there's absolutely nothing preventing the City from sending these projects to a vote of the people individually and there's nothing preventing the City from sending a different slate of projects to the people with an aquarium on it... or at the very least, let's not claim we're having a public discussion of these projects and only allow public presentations of the projects deemed fit to go forward by the powers that be.

Just FYI, this MAPS would run 8 years and commence next April.

This will be my kid's only opportunity to be able to really experience what marine life looks life without a trip out of town. The next MAPS project slate probably won't be for another at least 6 years. And it's my vote, so I'll absolutely hold other projects hostage as to my vote. From the look of this forum, I'm not the only one. I am generally in favor of MAPS, but there's nothing at all in this slate of projects that I'm even a little bit excited about and there's absolutely nothing preventing the City from sending these projects to a vote of the people individually and there's nothing preventing the City from sending a different slate of projects to the people with an aquarium on it... or at the very least, let's not claim we're having a public discussion of these projects and only allow public presentations of the projects deemed fit to go forward by the powers that be.

That's cool. I was just curious as to what the philosophy behind your position is. I certainly wasn't trying to challenge your right to vote your conscious or anything.

I realize others feel the same way, as well, but you were very emphatic and absolute, so I just responded to you. I wasn't trying to single you out or anything either.

Great Gazette interviews wih Holt and JoBeth Hamon where they are quoted extensively on the process.

JoBeth says the slate was pretty much decided in April, long before the public meetings.

Holt simultaneously cites polling and minimizes it when discussing which projects were included:

https://www.okgazette.com/oklahoma/maps-package/Content?oid=6505934

So?? W-H-Y did we have "public" hearings then?

If they were decided in April, then that means this MAPS is nowhere near the transparency claimed by the mayor.

I for one call for it to fail not only without the aquarium but also if it includes endowments. Otherwise, this is no longer visionary transformational for the city but becomes the real $1B handout Ed has been talking about.

Remove the endowments and find real solutions to fund operations and maintenance. Let the private sector create endowments (like is supposed to) and/or the city can raise hard taxes if parks and civic buildings need O&M budget.

I'd also remove the BRT component of transit and have that go to real buses, structures, and sidewalks/lighting since that WONT be near close to anything BRT.

I'd also argue removing the soccer specific minor league "stadium" as well as the fairground's horse arena - both of which claim to be multi-purpose but clearly both are specific to their own interest.

Removing endowments and the BRT aspect might get a Yes vote, but definitely would with the aquarium.

At the very minimum, the mayor should delay the vote to allow a proper presentation from the Aquarium so it can be included. Make Maps 4 10-years if need-be and raise tax by 0.25% to cover the missing O&M the more than $75M "endowments" (almost 10% of the MAPS budget - btw) is supposed to cover.

MAPS 4 needs a transformational project - the aquarium fits. Maps was not intended to be used for day-to-day civic issues but for buildings/venues/attractions.

MAPS is exactly for things like a World Class Aquarium and this would bring the tourists and folks from all around spending their money downtown and generating revenues.

That's interesting. That's the broader sort of "mission statement" for MAPS that I was curious about. That is, is the civic component, outside of ROI, not relevant to voters when it comes to evaluating MAPS projects.

If MAPS is primarily about "bring[ing] the tourists and folks from all around spending their money downtown and generating revenues." Then:

1) How does this disqualify the "horse arena", when the horse industry is one of the biggest proven generators of outside tourist revenue we have? It kind of seems like, by that criteria, it would be the key MAPS project.

2) Wouldn't the ubiquity of aquariums set the bar super high for this one to achieve that? When someone says "World Class Aquarium", I think of Monterey Bay and the Shedd Aquarium. I'm not sure what's been proposed is in that class, but maybe I don't fully grasp it. (EDIT: Obviously not definitive, but this list (https://worldcitiesranking.com/best-aquariums-top10/) actually only lists the Shedd as "honorable mention" and doesn't mention Monterey at all. So, I guess I've never even been to one. Ha.).


A soccer stadium is not going to generate the revenue like a World Class Aquarium would. They can tout all types of other events at a soccer stadium but most of those other events held there would just be taking from other venues. One would think that the powers that be would want the most bang for the buck. An Aquarium would payoff for years to come and become a destination for folks coming into the City.

I in no way doubt that a good aquarium would be a successful attraction. I am interested, though, in the idea that MAPS projects are mainly to be public enterprise investments and civic use is not a primary component of consideration. MAPS was originally developed as a quality of life improvement initiative in reaction to losing competition for business looking to locate here due to a "low quality of life". To me, that implies a civics component, beyond just direct ROI.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I do think what is proposed would be cool and serve to boost quality of life. I would vote for a MAPS that included it and would have loved to have seen it included, but I can't see it as quintessential as others do. At least not to the level that MAPS is not worthy of support without it.

And, in a way, it may actually be something that makes the most sense as a public/private venture, especially if it has the direct revenue potential many seem to feel it does. Maybe some corporate entity will step in to help make it happen... maybe help with land purchase and let the zoo develop it. I think this process has certainly elevated the profile of this project (which may be why Nikki Nice found a way to get it presented, even if DOA as far as a MAPS project. If it gets built, it should be the Nice Aquarium) and, even without making it on the actual MAPS initiative, may eventually lead to it becoming a reality. I think such a scenario could also apply to the State Fair Arena.

In a way, this would be the true sign of the long term success of MAPS. If OKC gets to the point where it can have a world class aquarium started through a gift, as the Shedd Aquarium was, then I think we'll know it has all truly paid off on a much bigger level.

I'd also argue removing the soccer specific minor league "stadium" as well as the fairground's horse arena - both of which claim to be multi-purpose but clearly both are specific to their own interest.

All your funding points are more than valid, as usual, but why would you disqualify the stadium and arena if they are "specific to their own interests", but not the aquarium for the same reason, when, clearly, the aquarium can be nothing but specific to its own interests.

I can understand being skeptical of any promises by any proposal as to what it will be used for, but the arena is actually already used for and by multiple interests. I am more skeptical of how the stadium would be used, as there's no track record, but of the three there really is only one that could basically be used for one thing, and that's the aquarium.

I totally get the concerns with the funding, the process, transparency, and even MAPS as method for funding anything in general, but I guess i'm missing the functional comparisons being made.

The aquarium, as proposed, might be the coolest of the three and no doubt would bring some tourist dollars, but what about it makes it a fundamentally stronger project than "a horse arena and minor league soccer stadium", especially to the degree that one would hold other projects hostage until it's included?

I can answer that. The aquarium would be a world class addition to Oklahoma City and is not being side-stepped or bait-and-switched like the other two.

The Fairgrounds Arena (now being call the "OKC Fairgrounds" arena - get real!!) is also stated as MULTIPURPOSE but its design is clearly for horseshows only! And the fairgrounds have a revenue source and have come to the MAPS plate far too many times especially for the ridiculous "park" they've created. Again, nothing world class nor transformational about this either.

The soccer stadium is stated as a MULTIPURPOSE stadium to be home to the minor league OKC Energy; which is already home in OKC and would remain minor league (so nothing new/better), and a 10,000 seat stadium would not be anything "world class" or transformational and definitely couldn't be used for anything else (too small for concerts or meaningful football).

Now, if the stadium were say 30,000 expandable to 60,000 for a state championship or bowl game then that's transformational since OKC has neither. If the stadium would be part of a package to secure MLS designation for the Energy that too could be transformational. None of this is the case with a 10,000 seat stadium. Sorry.

Take the aquarium, as presented already has that WOW factor and would extend the canal to have a destination. That by itself makes it trump the other two, but also consider the fact that it'd be the biggest in Oklahoma and one of the best in the region with the Zoo running it - that makes it world class and highly transformational while at the same time also giving OKC yet another apex attraction and providing a 'connection' to the Boathouse district, Canal, river, and AICCM as well as Bricktown to the Adventure district.

If it were me, I'd have MAPS 4 be the following:

MAPS 4: $750M/7 years
* $90M Aquarium (showpiece, keeping in-line with the MAPS brand. Itself likely ensuring passage)
* $10M Canal Extension to Aquarium
* $65M Transit (less the "BRT" crap)
* $120M Parks (less the Endowment)
* $40M Innovation District ((less the Endowment)
* $75M Mental Health + Homeless facilities (instead of either-or, combine the two functions since most homeless need services and have more than one location)
* $60M Youth Centers (less the Endowment unless the purpose is to have them free for children)
* $15M Senior Center (no Endowment, sorry)
* $80M Sidewalks, Bike Lanes, Trail connection (ensure every section arterial and school/library/center has full length, Bike Lanes in dense corridors in the inner core/Trails connections in less dense suburban OKC and near parks)
* $20M Lighting (ensure every section artery in OKC has street and pedestrian lighting full length)
* $100M Beautification (trees along every section artery, signs and statues for placemaking, public art and foliage at gateways and freeway interchanges [instead of empty grass], soundwalls to hide industrial areas along interstates, neighborhood specific streetscapes/furniture - Will Rogers World Airport (OMG, so UGLY now), OCU, Asia district, 39th street, Eastside, Capital Hill, ect)
* $20M Victim Services building
* $35M Animal Shelter
* $20M Clara Luper and Freedom Center (no endowment)

AND increase city sale tax rate by 0.10% for O&M (instead of endowments). There would still be room for RTA (esp with gas tax increase and the state allowing property tax for regional transit). In fact, OKC should look to raise the gas tax a little bit now, to help fund EMBARK. ..

All your funding points are more than valid, as usual, but why would you disqualify the stadium and arena if they are "specific to their own interests", but not the aquarium for the same reason, when, clearly, the aquarium can be nothing but specific to its own interests.

The stadium and arena are purporting to be "multipurpose" and not specific to just soccer and horse-shows, yet that's what their designs are. The aquarium is not purporting to be anything other than, an aquarium (not multi- this or that).

This is why I would disqualify those but not the aquarium since it is the one being honest about what it will be. No bait and switch with the aquarium. No pretending to be a 'olympic swimming pool' either, just an aquarium.

The other two camps know they wouldn't get the votes as a '10,000 minor league soccer' home to the existing OKC Energy or a 15,000 (or whatever) horse show arena, so they need to 'say" they're "multipurpose" - playing on OKC's hopes for football games and large concerts (neither of which a 10K stadium would facilitate) or "a new home for the big house basketball" (which the horse show arena would not come near close to).

The stadium and arena are purporting to be "multipurpose" and not specific to just soccer and horse-shows, yet that's what their designs are. The aquarium is not purporting to be anything other than, an aquarium (not multi- this or that).

This is why I would disqualify those but not the aquarium since it is the one being honest about what it will be. No bait and switch with the aquarium. No pretending to be a 'olympic swimming pool' either, just an aquarium.

The other two camps know they wouldn't get the votes as a '10,000 minor league soccer' home to the existing OKC Energy or a 15,000 (or whatever) horse show arena, so they need to 'say" they're "multipurpose" - playing on OKC's hopes for football games and large concerts (neither of which a 10K stadium would facilitate) or "a new home for the big house basketball" (which the horse show arena would not come near close to).

OK.

I don't really have an emotional connection to any of them.

As for honesty, wellllll... I think that's always an issue with MAPS. Some of it has panned out and some of it hasn't. I guess I just don't see how the stadium or the arena couldn't be multi use. That is, I don't see anything that fundamentally prevents them from being so. Now, will they actually be managed that way? I have no idea. That's probably more of a trust issue and I can see why anyone would be skeptical about that, especially in the case of the stadium. I don't really see why a new arena would be exclusive to the horse industry as the current one isn't.

But, yeah, there's always a faith element to any of this, and if you can't trust it, I get that.