If the Ford Center were built today and was a tad bigger with nicer amenities, it would cost at least twice as much. It is not cheaper because of how it is financed. Hell, OSU is spending $300 million plus on their stadium. We would have to spend at least half a billion to have a decent stadium... and if we don't have a team and won't for the next decade, we would need to build the stadium to the percieved standards of 2017.

I just think that $500 million plus would be better spent elsewhere.

Instead of using the word "trolley" for the downtown/inner city light rail, let's call it light rail or modern streetcar. I don't want some historic-style gimmicky trolley rolling through the CBD. If we do a "trolley" it would just be goofy.. By doing a real modern streetcar, we show that we're down with REAL transit. It just looks like it serves a real purpose, rather than just shuttling tourists around.

I'm glad so many people are listing light rail and commuter rail as priorities for MAPS3. I think that's what Mick wants to hear, actually..

Here's something fun to bring up:

"Why do we need a railed street car downtown? Rubber-wheeled buses that look like trolleys are a better option for downtown OKC." - Ernest Istook

Speaking of a stadium and the opportunities the I-40 realignment will present, there are several conceptual drawings on the okc.gov website that are part of the Core to Shore initiative:

City of Oklahoma City | Core to Shore (http://www.okc.gov/planning/coretoshore/visuals_data.html)

Here's a sample and I really like how they've grouped a new convention center with the Ford/Cox centers and how they've positioned the stadium to be within walking distance of Bricktown and the convention facilities... I also love the idea of a centralized transit center:

http://mysite.verizon.net/res17zef/coretoshore1.jpg

No wonder I like this rendering... It shows the stadium in a position I proposed almost two years ago.... :)

http://mysite.verizon.net/res17zef/stadium.jpg

And now for something completely different...


http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/8837/eaglelake5sl.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

I am so glad that pompous arrogant you know what didn't end up becoming our governor (Istook). He certainly took a political stand against funding light rail with government dollars. How he was able to justify to himself the government- subsidized billions and billions and billions he approved for highway funds is beyond me. Seems like the exact same thing to me. At least with light rail you can offset some cost by having people pay for tickets. Oh well, who ever said politicians were logical.

That's a good idea for the river extension? Where did that come from?

I will have a major proposal prepared soon.

It seems some people keep trying to tie a football stadium together with an NFL team. I don't see any reason to link the two. A 60,000 seat stadium has many uses and none of them have to do with the NFL. In fact, having an NFL team would limit the number of events that could take place there. NFL teams usually get a large cut of ticket sales and advertising revenue for non-NFL events. Here is just a quick list of stadium events.

Olympic festival/training, monster truck shows, MLS, concerts, high school football/soccer, college bowl game, BIG X11 championship game, OSU football, Tulsa football, ATV/motorcycle racing, NCAA soccer championship, BIG XII soccer championship, NAIA soccer championship, Division 2 football championship game, and political rallies.

On a side note the domed stadium in St Louis was first proposed as an extension of the convention center. City officials estimated the facility would triple the number of convention visitors. Later the Rams moved to St Louis.

^

I agree completely, Kerry.

There are plenty of cities that either built a stadium long before they got an NFL team, or still have one without that specific intention.

We certainly didn't need the NBA to build the Ford Center.

Cuatrodemayo, I hope you submitted that idea to the MAPS 3 website. VERY awesome idea!

i'd say that something in the 'cherokee gothic' style would be more appropriate.

Just for the record, Cherokee Gothic is medieval.

MalibuSooner, that image taken from okc.gov may already tell us what MAPS 3 has planned. If it's any indication, looks like the city is just making sure public support is in line with their thoughts.

If the image is any indication, MAPS 3 will contain the following 5 projects:

1. A new convention center
2. The new downtown Blvd.
3. Commuter rail linked with a new transit center.
4. Beautification between Union Station and the present Myriad Gardens
5. A football stadium.

I wonder if Bob Howard Ford has any indication its location is blocked out as retail!!!!

Looking at the pics more closely, I'm afraid to say that this transit center might just be a parking garage for the convention center and/or football stadium. Anyone else have that feeling, or do you think it's going to be the center for commuter rail?

Patrick, that rendering and all the others found on the okc.gov site are merely broad concepts and not all of them contain all the components you listed, such as the stadium.

However, they do show a lot of sentiment towards razing the co-op and generally gutting everything (except Union Station) south of Reno to the river.


One common element is a huge, continuous park from the Myriad Gardens to the river. In terms of cost, this itself may require a good chunk of Maps 3 funds just do to acquisition of the land.


I have to say, I'm really impressed with the foresight being show by the city leaders and various concerned citizens. You can't do it if you don't dream it first, and I love the idea we have some grandiose, ambitious concepts being discussed.

Here are all 5 proposed images:

Plan 1:

http://www.okc.gov/planning/coretoshore/visuals/idea_1_full_size.jpg








Plan 2:

http://www.okc.gov/planning/coretoshore/visuals/idea_2_full_size.jpg




Plan 3:

http://www.okc.gov/planning/coretoshore/visuals/idea_3_full_size.jpg




Alternative A:

http://www.okc.gov/planning/coretoshore/visuals/alt_a_070110.jpg




Alternative B:

http://www.okc.gov/planning/coretoshore/visuals/alt_b_070110.jpg

Patrick, that rendering and all the others found on the okc.gov site are merely broad concepts and not all of them contain all the components you listed, such as the stadium.

However, they do show a lot of sentiment towards razing the co-op and generally gutting everything (except Union Station) south of Reno to the river.


One common element is a huge, continuous park from the Myriad Gardens to the river. In terms of cost, this itself may require a good chunk of Maps 3 funds just do to acquisition of the land.


I have to say, I'm really impressed with the foresight being show by the city leaders and various concerned citizens. You can't do it if you don't dream it first, and I love the idea we have some grandiose, ambitious concepts being discussed.

:iagree: :iagree:

I really like the revised plan with the three marinas. I like the canal extension, the marinas, the location of the convention center, the ampitheatre. I think it is spectacular.

Patrick,

I think the transit center is more inline with a rail station/bus staion/parking garage combo. I think its proximity to the railroad is a dead give-away. Since we know the city is already looking at a fixed guidway plan, it would only make sense to connect them all at a central hub. It would also be nice if the downtown transit center also featured a remote airline check in terminal. Even if it was only a self check-in kyosk with baggage check-in service.

Also, everyplan has the transit center. It seems OKC might actually get a rail system.

The Core to Shore website reads like Alternatives A and B are drawn from the three initial ideas. So IMO it's between those two. I also prefer A to B. It's more ambitious with the mixed use canal area, amphitheater, and marinas.

But there's one thing that concerns me: the North Shore area and large marina seem to me to represent too much private land in what should be a public space. I would add a school (elementary, performing arts, or design) to the North Shore neighborhood, along with an urban playground featuring bocce ball, basketball, and tennis courts. Maybe even some kids' playgrounds, horseshoe pits, and a giant chessboard and tables for chess. I would also clear the residential buildings going east-west around the big marina (leaving the north-south buildings) and have pedestrian plazas in their place. Other than that, this is a bang-up plan.

Here are the aspects I really like about Alternative A:

- Mercado district and plaza (though B has it too)
- Mixed use district running down Robinson in Hub Cap Alley; the buildings on Robinson ought to leave lots of space on the sidewalks for street furniture and alfresco dining, because the view to First National Center from there would be fantastic
- Distribution of retail throughout different neighborhoods
- Convention center facing the big park
- Big park's corner hotels on the boulevard
- Great alignment of Myriad Gardens and retail plaza down to the North Shore mall and beacon
- Pocket park alignment with big park circle and convention center
- Canal running through mixed use district

I think that a design school would be great.... The Oklahoma City School of Design.

In plan A, it appears there are two hotels in the retail district along Reno. At least that is what the the pink color indicates in the plan B legend.

I think that a design school would be great.... The Oklahoma City School of Design.

:iagree::yeahthat:

Patrick,

I think the transit center is more inline with a rail station/bus staion/parking garage combo. I think its proximity to the railroad is a dead give-away. Since we know the city is already looking at a fixed guidway plan, it would only make sense to connect them all at a central hub. It would also be nice if the downtown transit center also featured a remote airline check in terminal. Even if it was only a self check-in kyosk with baggage check-in service.

Also, everyplan has the transit center. It seems OKC might actually get a rail system.

Nice observations, Kerry. Note that the latest plans call for a new corporate headquarters on Reno. MG anyone?

I still really hope the intermodal station is built in honor of the Cincinnati Union Terminal. That's just a fantastic building.

I prefer the design with the park taking up the entire strip between Walker and Robinson south of the boulevard. That is what I envisioned.

I like the location of the Convention Center on the west side of the tracks opposite the transit center. It would be cool if the two buildings had matching architecture, kind of like the Civic Center and City Hall. Some kind of Art Deco would be a really good choice.

One cool thing about the park going all the way from Walker to Reno is that that places Union Station centered at the end of the section north of I-40. Great placement for a museum of some sort.

I also like the Covention Center west of the tracks, in line with the existing convention center, and south of the Ford Center. I think we should leave the area east of the tracks for expansion of the Bricktown Canal, and the Bricktown area. That's why I like Alternative A.

I drove around downtown this afternoon, to try to visualize exactly where this would be, and exactly what was in those locations. For the most part, the convention center space west of the track is open. Most of the buildings on that track of land are dilapidated and could easily be condemned.

BUT, there are two areas I think are really in question here.
1. The Main Downtown OKC Postal Sorting Facility, which is currently located where this park is being proposed, between Robinson and Walker. The Postal Service has millions and millions of dollars invested in that facility, and I wonder if they'd move. I have overheard rumors that they're wanting to build a larger facility though, so maybe they could move, but where?

2. Also, getting the Co-Op to move would be a huge task. The Co-Op covers a lot of ground, and there's easily millions invested in the structures there. I really wonder if this is an option.

Patrick,

I think the transit center is more inline with a rail station/bus staion/parking garage combo. I think its proximity to the railroad is a dead give-away. Since we know the city is already looking at a fixed guidway plan, it would only make sense to connect them all at a central hub. It would also be nice if the downtown transit center also featured a remote airline check in terminal. Even if it was only a self check-in kyosk with baggage check-in service.

Also, everyplan has the transit center. It seems OKC might actually get a rail system.

I really really hope you're right Kerry! :) That sounds awesome!

Also, I like the way, both Alternatives A and B show extensions of the south canal under the new I-40 bridges, to meet up with Zone G of the canal from the river. Of course, due to elevational differences, they can't link, but we need those two segments as close as possible to create a better link between Bricktown and the river.

Yes, please, if we are going to have trolleys, then have trolleys. A bus is a bus by any other name....... And what is wrong with a cowboy theme anyway? Isn't that one of Oklahoma's big claims to fame? Art Deco is not a bad idea, I just don't want to abolish all the cowboy stuff. I moved here from Michigan telling everyone "I'm gonna be a cowgirl!" They were envious. Other places relate cowboys to Oklahoma.

Yes, please, if we are going to have trolleys, then have trolleys. A bus is a bus by any other name....... And what is wrong with a cowboy theme anyway? Isn't that one of Oklahoma's big claims to fame? Art Deco is not a bad idea, I just don't want to abolish all the cowboy stuff. I moved here from Michigan telling everyone "I'm gonna be a cowgirl!" They were envious. Other places relate cowboys to Oklahoma.

When most people think cowboy or Indian, they naturally think Hick, low educated, poor, people living in teepees, with no running water, run-down trailor parks, etc. If you have no idea what I mean, go spend a day in New York City, Chicago, or Los Angeles, and tell the people there that you're a "cowgirl" from Oklahoma. Seriously, there are some people on the coasts that actually think we still live on reservations in teepees, and they think lowly of us.

Maybe mranderson should go into more detail on the issue. He's been good at explaining it in the past! mranderson?

I like the idea of the football stadium being near the river but I think it makes more sense near downtown. With the existing parking garages near downtown it would reduce the need to build additional structures and would add another day of rvenue to the existing infrastructure. Since some of the lots are owned by the city the city would receives additional revenue.

I like the idea of Plan A. How awesome would it be to be driving down I-40 entering the crosstown and see a HUGE world class NFL stadium?!?! I do agree about it being more convenant for parking being in downtown... but i honestly can't think of a place big enough for one to be built. Plus, we for sure need to get rid of the Cotton Gin, it's an eye sore. What better than an NFL stadium? IMO.

I prefer Alternative A, with the new convention center located just south of the Ford Center and new downtown blvd. overlooking the park. I like that it expands Bricktown to the south along with an expanded Bricktown canal system. And all the new urban neighborhoods look great. That area just south of Myriad Gardens has tons of potential along the new blvd., I could see a highrise hotel (or two) and our long-awaited downtown Nordstrom going in that location. That area could be the retail hub for downtown with secondary areas in Bricktown (mostly south of the new blvd.) and along Broadway, Walker, and Robinson.

But there's one thing that concerns me: the North Shore area and large marina seem to me to represent too much private land in what should be a public space.

I think this is a valid concern, both philosophically and pragmatically.

First, is it right for the city to spend so much public money enhancing areas that will ultimately be developed by private interests? Is that the intended role of government? Personally, I think the government should enhance the city in terms of beautification and infrastructure as these are things we can all enjoy directly. I have no problem with the government using land to create public parks for everyone in the city to access. I think it becomes an issue when the government begins investing in these private ventures directly, especially when their end use is narrow in scope and/or restricted to private use. There is a degree of involvement that I think crosses the line. It would be a shame for the city to spend so much money on this area and then the public only has limited access to the developments.

Second, can we always trust the government to make the right decisions in terms of development. Will the city panic, as it has in the past, and finance suburban oriented retail like Bass Pro? Do we want the shore to simply be a shopping center dominated by black top parking and deep set backs? We can look at all the plans we want, but can we trust the government to actually execute the plans on which our support was formed? Can we trust the government to use publicly enhanced and assisted developments to foster unique development that Oklahoma City would not of otherwise seen in order to broaden Oklahoma City's living options and, ultimately, is investment appeal? If we can't, can the public assistance really be justified?

I think MPS was a success in the areas in which it concretely laid out XYZ what would be done. However, it also may not have produced the secondary results that were suggested. They can promise residential developments, but they can’t actually build them and we don’t really know what they’ll be when actually built by some third part private investor. I think that could be the only area where MAPS could be criticized. It seduced us with the promise of some types of private investment and suggested what it would be like. In some ways it was better and in others it fell short. So, when we develop MAPS III and, ultimately, vote on it, I think we need to be conscious of and differentiate between what we’re really voting on, what will actually happen as a result of that vote, and what is merely ideas or goals that we hope the measure will accomplish, but which isn’t guaranteed. We should realize that if MAPS III says it will build a park or enhance our public transit, those things will be built by its passage. If it says that it will create retail and residential investment of some sort in some location, I think we know now that there is no way that we can actually be sure exactly what that will be when we vote on it or if it will happen at all.

I think these questions must be considered in order to ensure that a balance is struck where every facet of our community can enjoy the benefits of their investment and that it results in the type of private investment that can, at this point, only be generated by such projects...

^ Yeah...precisely. Those points are spot-on. :congrats:

I vote Alternative A. However, I notice the Vertical Landmark in the original 3 proposals has been replaced with a Beacon. This may just be a matter of semantics. I would be seriously dissapointed if the Vertical Landmark was eliminated. Maybe the Beacon and Landmark are actually one in the same.

Steering Presentations of Core to Shore:

Dec 13th Presentation (http://www.okc.gov/planning/coretoshore/documents/061213_steering_presentation.pdf)

Jan 10th Presentation (http://www.okc.gov/planning/coretoshore/documents/070110_steering_presentation.pdf)


The Jan 10th presentation presents the ideas of the committee toward what everyone seems to be aiming for. In that, they present examples of these ideas from around the world. The beacon is represented as a tower through examples such as the Eiffel Tower and Seattle Space Needle. Using examples such as world landmarks and famed city sites really shows you the direction they're aiming for. The whole project seems to be addressed as one massive landmark altogether.

While I'm not too sure how much of the area is exclusive to private use (which is why I propose that we keep only one marina in the expansion, at least on this side of the river) It is a valid concern. A consistent park extending to the river from the Myriad Gardens would be much more attractive than cramming a private neighborhood and marina there. I really can't see that concept lasting too long.

It should also be noted that Alternative A plans on almost doubling the size of Bricktown to the Coop site. In fact, it sounds as if the coop site has seen it's last years in our city. To me, that's the most impressive development idea yet.

As I've said earlier, each of the new plans calls for a corporate headquarters on Reno. Weather that's a development coinciding with MG's decision to locate their headquarters in OKC is for time to tell.

All in all, I can't wait to see next month's developments. Each month, the ideas collected become more impressive and yet more reasonable as they go on.

I'm not seeing this corporate headquarters you speak of...

They call for a corporate headquarters on Reno in the Jan. 10th presentation.

I like the idea of the football stadium being near the river but I think it makes more sense near downtown. With the existing parking garages near downtown it would reduce the need to build additional structures and would add another day of rvenue to the existing infrastructure. Since some of the lots are owned by the city the city would receives additional revenue.

Kerry, you are not alone on this football stadium issue. Can you or anyone else tell me why or how you think OKC would support a football stadium. Our state high school football isnt big enough to have a venue like this host the game, with OU's stadium so large and impressive and OSU's attempt to become more than a second tier football program, i dont think you are going to draw many games away from these several hundred million dollar venues, and if you think we need OKC bowl...i think patrick called it the homeland bowl...there is by far too many games in college football and if fort worth barely can support a bowl (which by the way, the seats were over 75% empty at) then OKC surely cant. There is too many traditional bowl games with serious sponsors that can afford to pay out 20 million to sponsor the bowl (i.e. Chick-fil-a, Outback steak house, capitol one) besides the even higher up BCS bowls. Now, on to NFL. Until OU football closes its doors, NFL will never work. Now add tulsa is on the rise and becoming a annual contender in college football mid-majors, and OSU will never win more than about 9-10 games, but they do carry a large fan support. The state of oklahoma cant support three Division 1 football programs, plus an NFL team.

So, besides all of that, what is the point of 3/4 billion football stadium? Unless Devon or Chesapeake want to foot the bill, i dont ever think it would be worth it. Even if the wrote the check for it, i still think it would be an embarrasment.

Here's an idea for the football stadium / convention center.

We could build a dome stadium, that would serve multi-purpose. Football Stadium, Convention Center, NCAA Basketball Final Four, and many more.

Also one other thing, we need to have a NBA practice facility.

I honestly don't see the practicality of a 60k football stadium either at this point, but I don't mind it being including in the planning. Basically, i think the opportunity cost is too high right now and I think we can use MAPS III to elevate and diversify Oklahoma City's living appeal in much more universal and effecient ways.

No matter what, it would have to be a multipurpose facility, but even then it is a very cometitive market for these events. It seems the availability of stadium facilities is growing much faster than the supply of events to fill them. Now, that's a completely anecdotal and, honestly, uninformed observation on my part. If someone could provide numbers to the contrary, I'd certainly reconsider my position.

But even if the viability of such a venue could be proven such that the return on investment without a permanent tennant could be positive, we still need to ask if that's the best place to put those dollars. I think the average cost of stadium construction in the 90s was around $200 million. Once that stadium is built, you're probabaly looking at about an average of $50/ticket to an eventb there. I am not against stadiums or stadium subsidies on principle, but I do think Oklahoma City has many other areas it could address with that $200 million, the benefits of which every Citian and our vistitors could enjoy for much less or for free.

I would prefer people not mention ticket prices for major concert and sporting events in reference to Oklahoma City, at the concern that we may or may not be able to support $50 or $40 ticket prices. OKC supports the hell out NCAA sporting events, and those aren't cheap. Even at OSU, the premium seats are in the hundred of dollars range, perhaps more. So we can obviously support it.

But BDP has a good point. A 60K football stadium is awesome, but VERY expensive to build. We can't do what we did with the Ford Center, built at less than $100 million with not much architectural appeal. Instead, why don't we use the money to enhance Ford Center? It would be much less costly, and we would have a very classy facility for the NBA or NHL. And, the sound system can be revamped.

First, is it right for the city to spend so much public money enhancing areas that will ultimately be developed by private interests? Is that the intended role of government? Personally, I think the government should enhance the city in terms of beautification and infrastructure as these are things we can all enjoy directly. I have no problem with the government using land to create public parks for everyone in the city to access. I think it becomes an issue when the government begins investing in these private ventures directly, especially when their end use is narrow in scope and/or restricted to private use. There is a degree of involvement that I think crosses the line. It would be a shame for the city to spend so much money on this area and then the public only has limited access to the developments.


I think these questions must be considered in order to ensure that a balance is struck where every facet of our community can enjoy the benefits of their investment and that it results in the type of private investment that can, at this point, only be generated by such projects...

Very well said, BDP. This is a big concern of mine as well. What I have always thought is funny is that in local matters, so-called "conservatives," run to city hall every time they want to build something of any consequence. They want hand-outs for this and for that and to expand over here and landscape over there. Of course, this is all done with a straight face as if taxpayers are expected to capitalize their private enterprise.

{EXAMPLE: Stadium financing around the country is out-of-control as the municipal government has been expected to ask taxpayers to pony up while the millionaire owners rake in all the profits. If the city builds it - they should own it. That's why I am Green Bay Packers fan, the only city-owned big league sports team around.]

The city needs to spend its money on updating infrastructure, and all the other things every city struggles to finance, before handing over taxpayer dollars to millionaire profiteers who seek to capitalize their business on the backs of taxpayers.

---------------------

They want hand-outs for this and for that

aka The "pro-business" platform.



I would prefer people not mention ticket prices for major concert and sporting events in reference to Oklahoma City, at the concern that we may or may not be able to support $50 or $40 ticket prices.

Just to clarify, I wasn't trying to speculate on whether or not Oklahoma City could consitently sell 60,000 $50 tickets. I just meant that in the evaluating the opportunity cost of spending the $200 million dollars on a stadium, you have to consider that even after paying taxes for x amount of years to build the stadium, you have to pay again everytime you want to enjoy that investment.

I'm not saying that is a reason to flat out not do it, I'm just saying that you have to weigh that opportunity against using the same money to build parks and green belts or improved infrastructure that anyone can enjoy anytime for free (free, that is, after the initial tax investment) or for a nominal fee.

I vote for Alternative A, but we need to find a place for an NBA practice center near the Ford Center.

Price - Let see, Chicago just announced they want to build a new 80,000 seat stadium for their 2016 Olympic bid. Price $366 million. A far cry from $750 million comment. I have no illusion of OKc landing an NFL team so there would not be any reason to build to NFL standards. With that out of the way, the cost will come way down.
Football Stadium Digest -- Chronicling the Future of Football Stadiums (http://www.footballstadiumdigest.com/)

As for the bowl game part. The Liberty Bowl in Memphis and the Citrus Bowl in Orlando are complaining loudly about needing a new facility to play in. Orlando had vote and the residents turned down a Citrus Bowl plan. The mayor of Memphis proposed a new stadium to replace the Liberty Bowl but it is not being well received. With a decent facility there would be a good oppertunity to land an existing bowl game.

Until OU football closes its doors, NFL will never work.

I completely disagree with this statement. If Lousiana can support both the Saints and LSU, I know we can support both NFL and college football.

Football in Oklahoma is HUGE! Let me say that again......football in Oklahoma is HUGE. There are tons on NFL fans in Oklahoma....it has by far more interest than any other major league, even the NBA.

I don't think the issue is whether we could support an NFL team. I think the issue is more whether we could attract an NFL team.

Are there any cities our size that are planing or building a stadium for no apparent reason?Let me say this,if there ever was a chance OKC would land a pro franchise I would be all for a tax to build a stadium.I like the convention center , transit center, and the beacon.

Are there any cities our size that are planing or building a stadium for no apparent reason?Let me say this,if there ever was a chance OKC would land a pro franchise I would be all for a tax to build a stadium.I like the convention center , transit center, and the beacon.

St. Petersburg, Florida built what is now Tropicana Stadium, orignally the Suncoast Dome with no tenant. It took ten years for the Devil Rays to enter the league. So, if you build it, they WILL come. It was an investment that paid off. Yes. It took time. Many wise investments do.

I say build it. It also shows good faith and Oklahoma City being serious about major league sports and mega events. If we do not build it, we will be passed by like we are 99% of the time.

Oh. St. Petersburg is about the same size as Oklahoma City. I know. You will claim the entire Tampa Bay area. No. St. Petersburg built it, not the entire bay area.

St. Petersburg, Florida built what is now Tropicana Stadium, orignally the Suncoast Dome with no tenant. It took ten years for the Devil Rays to enter the league. So, if you build it, they WILL come. It was an investment that paid off. Yes. It took time. Many wise investments do.

I say build it. It also shows good faith and Oklahoma City being serious about major league sports and mega events. If we do not build it, we will be passed by like we are 99% of the time.

Oh. St. Petersburg is about the same size as Oklahoma City. I know. You will claim the entire Tampa Bay area. No. St. Petersburg built it, not the entire bay area.

Now we're back to baseball with Tropicana Field (regarded as the worst stadium in Major League Baseball).

Apples and Oranges. From Wikipedia regarding St. Petersburg:

"As of 2004, the population recorded by the U.S. Census Bureau is 249,090, making it the fourth largest city in the state of Florida. St. Petersburg is the second largest city in the Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater metropolitan area, which is composed of roughly 2.6 million residents,"

You have to compare the size of the metro areas. As you see above, St. Pete, far from being "about the size of Oklahoma City" has a population of only 249,000. But a metro of 2.6 million? The viability of MLB could hardly be disputed. Who built it has little to nothing to do with it. If Tampa wasn't next door, do you think MLB would have gone to a city of 249,000 just because they built a stadium?

---------------

I'm torn on the stadium issue. I agree with Patrick that if we got NFL, we'd support it. It just seems highly unlikely that we'd get an NFL team in the next 30 years.

And I just don't know that there's enough of the other big events to support it.

Now we're back to baseball with Tropicana Field (regarded as the worst stadium in Major League Baseball).

Apples and Oranges. From Wikipedia regarding St. Petersburg:

"As of 2004, the population recorded by the U.S. Census Bureau is 249,090, making it the fourth largest city in the state of Florida. St. Petersburg is the second largest city in the Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater metropolitan area, which is composed of roughly 2.6 million residents,"

You have to compare the size of the metro areas. As you see above, St. Pete, far from being "about the size of Oklahoma City" has a population of only 249,000. But a metro of 2.6 million? The viability of MLB could hardly be disputed. Who built it has little to nothing to do with it. If Tampa wasn't next door, do you think MLB would have gone to a city of 249,000 just because they built a stadium?

---------------

The question I answered was about a stadium. It was not about any specific sport. Both baseball and football are played in stadiums.

Plus. I said St. Petersburg built the stadium. Not the entire bay area. In addition, if you look at the entire area Oklahoma City draws fans from, it it far more than the 2.6 million you mentioned. We have the entire state plus parts of surrounding states.

Lastly. Sports leagues have gone to areas of 250,000 or so in the past. Case in point. Green Bay. One of the most successful NFL cities.

Whoa people...lets clarify a couple of issues.

I'm a huge fan of football, baseball,basketball, heck, even tennis.

The new dallas cowboy stadium pricetag is at 1.2 billion and they are still working on dirt work. I am glad chicago through out the 366 million number, but lets be real, it will never get finished for at least 500, probably more. and how much was arizona's new field?

Why build a field for MLB/NFL team when a.) we cant even sell out redhawks tickets, b.) there has been no talk of a new nfl expansion team c.) we dont have the corporate base to support NBA/MLB/NFL. d.) what about the ball park in downtown now? leave it to be torn down in 20 years?

Why not use maps 3 for real improvements that are needed. What about our roads? There terrible. No fix for those in the future. What about our teacher pay? still in middle of the teacher pay bracket. (did you know in texas, most teachers are starting at 40k now. I would guess oklahoma is around 28-30 now. Thats a big problem.

Heres an idea, use 1/4 for education pay, 1/4 strictly for road improvements, 1/4 for future use (light rail studies, trolly, etc.) and 1/4 for bricktown improvements (i.e. infastructure for new area, utilities for new area, land acqusition for parks).

Lets just pretend the stadium was a good idea for a minute, dont you think that the 750 million, (or less as some people think) could be spent instead to give our teachers a raise. What 30,000 teachers maybe, 5 thousand a year raise, thats 1.5 million a year. wow, to fund that for 50 years, for 75 million dollars, thats sounds awesome, not to mention, did you know that the interest on that money would probably create a self sustaining fund. Actually, i just created a spreadsheet to show this. If we put in 10 million a year for just 5 years, we would create an endowment fund that with interest, in 30 years, with taking out 2.5 million a year for teacher pay, in 30 years would have 841 million left over! were talking about a 50 million a year for 5 year investment to help our teachers forever!

Now, please someone argue with that!

MAPS is for capital projects. Salaries must come from other places.

I think the mayor said Maps has always been about bricks and morter,its about building things. Teacher pay should be taken care of at the capitol.Thats a state issue IMO.

I agree. It is something we need to do, but not the city. It's too complicated because of multiple districts and overlapping. If that wasn't part of MAPS for Kids, it's not going to be part of MAPS 3.

Lastly. Sports leagues have gone to areas of 250,000 or so in the past. Case in point. Green Bay. One of the most successful NFL cities.

Yes, in what - 1922? Green Bay could not support the team without Milwaukee. Don't get me wrong - Green Bay is my favorite team, and for one reason: they are the ONLY city-owned, non-profit professional sports team.

----------------------------

I think the mayor said Maps has always been about bricks and morter,its about building things. Teacher pay should be taken care of at the capitol.Thats a state issue IMO.

Not entirely true, the mayor said MAPS in the past was primarily Bricks and Mortar projects, however a MAPS 3 initiative wouldn't have to be (i.e. better city services or creating needed positions to be a competitive city).

I do agree that teacher pay raises is a state issue, not city.