Because sports are life.
It would be nice if we left some of these areas (preferably around creeks) more natural with maintained dirt paths. Other than Bluff Creek I can't think of anywhere for kids to play and explore in the woods. I left out Hefner as most of the ancillary areas are littered with creeps.
Sports is also a public health and quality of life issue. Having more areas for structured sports and exercise benefits the community by improving the health of the community.
With that said, for many kids playing on a playground IS their exercise. For many, walking trails in unstructured parks IS exercise. So there is a place and a need for “non-sports” park spaces.
Martin Nature Park is a great park that achieves some of that natural play space for kids.
Not to me. It isn't my favorite project.
Maybe I was assuming a bit because all the Tulsa Metro HS stadiums are over 10K and I don't know the exact sizes here. But for major events you have OU, for smaller events you have UCO. Then you also have Edmond, Moore, Norman, Yukon, etc HS stadiums that are all in the ball park (I think) of 10K seats. There are probably already 20+ football stadiums in the metro, I really don't think we need another one. I can understand the desire for a soccer stadium and if it does a few football games fine, but we aren't hurting for places to have football now so it isn't a real selling point.
The unfortunate reality of South Lakes is that it is limited by its layout. The traditional park side was bifurcated from the soccer fields long ago, and really has become a single use site. As the parent of players there, I am glad for the amazing fields and complex we enjoy (despite the embarrassing lack of adequate restrooms/concession), but there is so much more they could have done had they planned appropriately.
That said, there is a bit of momentum with the city council of late in considering investments at both SL park and some parks on the north side that will benefit the existing usage of the soccer fields and the other park-related structures. For me, I want ALL of OKC represented in MAPS; investing in infrastructure (e.g. widening Meridian/S. 119, installing signal lights/parking improvements/park expansion) would be amazing for the area and show that city leaders consider things south of the river too when deciding on who gets funding for municipal projects.
As a resident adjacent to South Lakes and a parent of a child who is active in soccer I would like to add that widening Meridian is not a solution. That will only drive more traffic. There is ample overflow parking east of the fields in the park area. The issue is lazy people who don’t want to walk. We walk to games from our neighborhood. I would hope we could focus on connecting the neighborhoods to the park as opposed to widening the roads. The neighbors in the area are the main users of the park and as an immediate resident I think it is foolish to accommodate traffic over the neighborhoods. Additionally, widening will solve nothing unless you address the on/off ramps and bridges at I44 and 89th, 104th, 119th, 134th and 149th.
I also think it is dumb that we have two great parks in the area (Earlywine and South Lakes) with zero connectivity between the two and almost no connectivity to the immediate neighborhoods except by road. Also, zero connectivity to Earlywine golf course.
Also, the park and trails at South Lakes are highly utilized.
The big question with MAPS lies solely with all the collective voices of it's residents. Since I no longer reside in OKC, my hope is that OKC will continue to dream big and keep the momentum going! In the end, does the residents of OKC want their city to continue the renaissance and have a balanced agenda that will benefit all residents? OKC, you have come a long way, but you must continue to strive for improvement and have a focused vision!
Here's an idea.
How about dedicated biking and jogging trails that run through the south side up to the river, with pedestrian bridges to connect it to downtown? Basically, replace Brock Creek and Lightning Creek (more appropriately named Brock Drainage Ditch and Lightning Drainage Ditch) for their entire route, or at least down to I-240. They connect to several city parks, and with a park renovation program, it could be a really nice addition to the city.
I know those creeks actually serve a purpose, particularly during floods, but I think you could build a cap on top of it and retain its drainage value.
USSF (FIFA) Soccer field dimensions: The field dimensions are within the range found optimal by FIFA: 110–120 yards (100–110 m) long by 70–80 yards (64–73 m) wide. These soccer field dimensions are wider than the regulation American football field width of 53 1⁄3 yards (48.8 m), or the 65-yard (59 m) width of a Canadian football field.
American Football Field: When the "football field" is used as unit of measurement, it is usually understood to mean 100 yards (91.44 m), although technically the full length of the official field, including the end zones, is 120 yards (109.7 m).
A soccer stadium where the field is built to USSF FIFA regulations for pro soccer has the field capacity to more than accommodate an American football field. In essence, if you build the soccer stadium, you can easily retrofit it for American football.
Oklahoma City proposed MAP4 Stadium pics.
Why there's a need for a new soccer stadium:
This side of the placeholder stadium (above) has room for expansion; if expanded could increase seating to more than 20,000 minimum if it were rounded out as in the top pic above.
The MAPS 4 Stadium proposed meets these regulations. Taft Stadium's remodel was designed for American football and Track & Field events; its field is only 67 yards wide, three yards short of the minimum USSF standard. Taft Stadium official seating capacity is 7,500. The proposed MAPS 4 stadium would seat a minimum of 10,000 with ample room for expansion to meet MLS minimum seating capacity of 18,000.
You put soccer on you lose. We're ready for you punks this time.
funny stuff
I don't know why people are so against the soccer stadium. Seems there is more opposition to this than the horse related items. While I am for both, I think soccer is the only one that will benefit citizens in a way not tied to economic impact.
I think the soccer stadium on the cotton mill site would be a great amenity between the new park and the river stuff.
There are currently 5 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 5 guests)
Bookmarks