University Town Center

[UrbanistPoke]

Private, non-OU funds for 80% of it. Not sure how you are missing that. And 20% public funding (TIF or bonds).

Not sure where your disconnect is.

No way... really? It's being paid for exactly by what I've been saying and everyone is... had no idea.

So that 80% in private dollars... that's just coming from magic though right? Or MAYBE it could be coming from the surrounding real estate development revenue... possibly (the main claim everyone is saying why it can ONLY be built at UTC). Mystery to me how you could come up with 80% of the funds privately and it not be a donor or donors willing to put up the cash - that if it was the case those same donors could also pay say 80% of it for an on campus arena, no?

[chssooner]

No way... really? It's being paid for exactly by what I've been saying and everyone is... had no idea.

So that 80% in private dollars... that's just coming from magic though right? Or MAYBE it could be coming from the surrounding real estate development revenue... possibly (the main claim everyone is saying why it can ONLY be built at UTC). Mystery to me how you could come up with 80% of the funds privately and it not be a donor or donors willing to put up the cash - that if it was the case those same donors could also pay say 80% of it for an on campus arena, no?

They could, yes. But OU doesn't want to. So they are funding this development instead. Like Pete said, there are numerous reasons an on-campus arena won't work. OU looked at multiple different sites. Most on-campus ones would fit a 7-8k arena. But OU wants bigger, since they are planning on having concerts and other events there. Who knows. But I think OU is wanting one thing and has donors lined up who will support OU either way.

[BoulderSooner]

Yes, OU had trouble selling out the stadium for one 3-5 year period from 1945-2023.

Yep we have other sports. You know why we talk about football? Because it pays for all those other sports with a bunch left over and basketball, the second highest revenue generating sport, can't generate enough revenue or donations to fund its own arena. OU's football program is the reason it's going to the SEC and the reason it's athletic department is about to make substantially more revenue than any of the Big 12 teams do...a number that will continue increasing while the revenue share per team in the Big 12 will decrease.

think about this every home game attendance in OU history since 1957 is larger then the BPS record attendance ..

[BoulderSooner]

that if it was the case those same donors could also pay say 80% of it for an on campus arena, no?

this is not donor money ..

[UrbanistPoke]

They could, yes. But OU doesn't want to. So they are funding this development instead. Like Pete said, there are numerous reasons an on-campus arena won't work. OU looked at multiple different sites. Most on-campus ones would fit a 7-8k arena. But OU wants bigger, since they are planning on having concerts and other events there. Who knows. But I think OU is wanting one thing and has donors lined up who will support OU either way.

This is not what everyone else has said nor Pete. The claim is a donor or donors support for an on-campus arena doesn't exist. The only options to build one at all is at UTC where they can leverage income from surrounding development to pay for it. Supposedly it would be paid for by "private" $$$ - well if donor support isn't there for an on-campus arena there isn't magically going to be ones for it at UTC. If there is donor support for an arena, building it at UTC is even dumber of an idea. OU has plenty of land to build a mixed-use development on. Even on the parking lots of the arena now or even a bit north. Not having available land on the OU campus is not an issue.

Again, if you want concerts it's going to have to be more than 10,000 seats. Not what they are proposing.

[jedicurt]

No way... really? It's being paid for exactly by what I've been saying and everyone is... had no idea.

So that 80% in private dollars... that's just coming from magic though right? Or MAYBE it could be coming from the surrounding real estate development revenue... possibly (the main claim everyone is saying why it can ONLY be built at UTC). Mystery to me how you could come up with 80% of the funds privately and it not be a donor or donors willing to put up the cash - that if it was the case those same donors could also pay say 80% of it for an on campus arena, no?

because it's not just an arena. it's a full development project that will include retail, etc. that makes it much easier to get private investment for. that is the difference. that is why it can't be done on campus, there is no money for just an arena from donors, the university has said this, and said that is why there won't be a replacement for LNC on campus (and even then it would be near LNC) for another 15-20 years, because of how they have projects already set up on the books.

but for an investment opportunity for a whole district that is diversified in all of it's revenue streams, yes, there is interest for people to invest in that.

so to clarify, OU isn't buying land in CC, that is a private development group. This whole project is being put together by another completely different private development group, and they are building more than just an arena, but allowing these investors to build into a complete district that they will be building, and that is why they are able to get that investment.

[UrbanistPoke]

this is not donor money ..

HAHAHA OMG. Can you not read or understand what the context of that last part of the sentence means... it's literally sarcasm.

You have other OU people saying though that this 80% in private money is not coming from real estate development around the arena. So it's just going to appear like magic. Half of you are saying oh I bet donors will pay for this and the other half are saying no donors aren't a part of this because no one would pay for an on campus arena. It's really a clown show here today. It's hilarious.

[BoulderSooner]

HAHAHA OMG. Can you not read or understand what the context of that last part of the sentence means... it's literally sarcasm.

You have other OU people saying though that this 80% in private money is not coming from real estate development around the arena. So it's just going to appear like magic. Half of you are saying oh I bet donors will pay for this and the other half are saying no donors aren't a part of this because no one would pay for an on campus arena. It's really a clown show here today. It's hilarious.

the 200 mil of public money is what is building the arena ..

[chssooner]

This is not what everyone else has said nor Pete. The claim is a donor or donors support for an on-campus arena doesn't exist. The only options to build one at all is at UTC where they can leverage income from surrounding development to pay for it. Supposedly it would be paid for by "private" $$$ - well if donor support isn't there for an on-campus arena there isn't magically going to be ones for it at UTC. If there is donor support for an arena, building it at UTC is even dumber of an idea. OU has plenty of land to build a mixed-use development on. Even on the parking lots of the arena now or even a bit north. Not having available land on the OU campus is not an issue.

Again, if you want concerts it's going to have to be more than 10,000 seats. Not what they are proposing.

Where are you getting that they are proposing a small arena? That hasn't been announced, at all. You're inferring something from nothing (pulling it out of your butt, to be more specific).

[UrbanistPoke]

because it's not just an arena. it's a full development project that will include retail, etc. that makes it much easier to get private investment for. that is the difference. that is why it can't be done on campus, there is no money for just an arena from donors, the university has said this, and said that is why there won't be a replacement for LNC on campus (and even then it would be near LNC) for another 15-20 years, because of how they have projects already set up on the books.

but for an investment opportunity for a whole district that is diversified in all of it's revenue streams, yes, there is interest for people to invest in that.

so to clarify, OU isn't buying land in CC, that is a private development group. This whole project is being put together by another completely different private development group, and they are building more than just an arena, but allowing these investors to build into a complete district that they will be building, and that is why they are able to get that investment.

If arena's paid for themselves with just private investment around them why is that not done everywhere?

So let's say hypothetically the new arena is $150 million, so you have $850 million in mixed-use private development around it. Back of the napkin analysis, if that $850 million is built out and stabilized between a mixture of retail, residential, etc. you'd have a blended cap rate around 5.50% probably (new multifamily is in the 4-5% while retail, office, etc. is over 6.5%-9%). You'd have somewhere around $47 million in net operating income to cover the debt service on the entire thing including the arena if it's not being covered by a donor and just leveraged by the private development.

Say 70% of that $850 million in private development is financed (LTV can vary from 50-85%) at 6.50% interest that is a debt service requirement of $38.7 million almost, remaining 30% come from investors who also typically want a return of at least 8% at minimum - return rates on equity can be 10% + typically. So the remaining $120 million of the arena if lumped in to be paid for by that private development ($30 million from TIF, etc. equals the $150 million total). The arena portion would have a debt service amount of $7.8 million at 6.50%. Most banks are giving financing out for stabilized properties closer to 8 or 9% currently just for everyone's info but I'm being generous assuming rates will come down a bit over the next 12-24 months which is likely.

$38.7 + 7.8 million = $46.5 million (nearly 100% of your net operating income). Ain't profitable and you aren't going to get a lot of private investors to kick in the 30% gap in the private development for less than a 1% return on investment.

[UrbanistPoke]

Where are you getting that they are proposing a small arena? That hasn't been announced, at all. You're inferring something from nothing (pulling it out of your butt, to be more specific).

Talk to all your fellow Sooners on here about that, not me. HA. That info I'm repeating from others on here saying it will be around 8,000 seats or so which to me is dumb. If you want to get concerts and other benefits out of it, it has to be bigger. UT Austin's arena would be the model to look at for that. It also cost $375 million +

[UrbanistPoke]

the 200 mil of public money is what is building the arena ..

A full on clown show. When did this become public money paying for the arena? Everyone else is saying the max public investment is like $20-30 million via TIF and it's being paid for via private $$$.

If it's public money paying $200 million for an arena for OU to use at UTC, good luck ever getting that built. You really expect the 100,000+ non OU students that are residents of Norman to pick up the tab for OU when they couldn't get an on campus arena funded. Brilliant idea there. Just like it being paid for via 'private' investment too.

[Rover]

Talk to all your fellow Sooners on here about that, not me. HA. That info I'm repeating from others on here saying it will be around 8,000 seats or so which to me is dumb. If you want to get concerts and other benefits out of it, it has to be bigger. UT Austin's arena would be the model to look at for that. It also cost $375 million +

UT's Moody Center seats only 10,000 for basketball. OU's will likely be in that same area. And keep in mind that there are 20,000 more students at UT and is in the heart of Austin with 2.4 million people vs Norman with 130,000 (or even OKC metro with 1.4 million)

[chssooner]

Can we get this guy out of the thread? He knows it's $200 million pinochle funding, not $20 million. He keeps moving goal posts, and being kind of rude and snobby about his "knowledge". He hasn't raised one good point that Pete and others haven't countered multiple times, yet keeps cluttering the thread with regurgitated buzzwords and talking points that aren't true.

[HangryHippo]

Talk to all your fellow Sooners on here about that, not me. HA. That info I'm repeating from others on here saying it will be around 8,000 seats or so which to me is dumb. If you want to get concerts and other benefits out of it, it has to be bigger. UT Austin's arena would be the model to look at for that. It also cost $375 million +

Great comparison between OU and one of the two main universities in Texas with more money than god.

[Rover]

the 200 mil of public money is what is building the arena ..

That's not exactly what it says. And it will serve all of Norman, not just OU.

[Rover]

A full on clown show. When did this become public money paying for the arena? Everyone else is saying the max public investment is like $20-30 million via TIF and it's being paid for via private $$$.

If it's public money paying $200 million for an arena for OU to use at UTC, good luck ever getting that built. You really expect the 100,000+ non OU students that are residents of Norman to pick up the tab for OU when they couldn't get an on campus arena funded. Brilliant idea there. Just like it being paid for via 'private' investment too.

Spoken like a true OSU cowboy.

[BDP]

Mystery to me how you could come up with 80% of the funds privately and it not be a donor or donors willing to put up the cash - that if it was the case those same donors could also pay say 80% of it for an on campus arena, no?

It's just the difference between a donation and an investment. Don't confuse or equate the private investment into the development with booster money. It functions completely differently.

Most likely, this is just a commercial development group that believes they can include an entertainment venue and receive public assistance for that. OU basketball (and other indoor sports, I assume) are simply the anchor tenant. As for whether that is a good call for the University to participate, well, that would very much hinge on the terms of the lease, imo. The university does have some leverage in that because they own the land. So, it could be simply, "okay, you can develop the land, but we want an arena to be in the mix, we'll lease it for our teams and we can get public assistance to cover it." So, the University gets their land developed, the developers get some value add through public assistance, the athletic department gets a new facility, and the investors are hoping to get a return through revenue generated from the entire development mix.

So, there is no donor / booster opportunity cost going on here and this is the group that has emerged and is interested in developing this property in this way. So, "why aren't they doing this... why aren't they doing it over there... why not on campus... etc." is irrelevant as far as anyone knows, because this is the only group that is doing this. I'm sure if the campus corner developers were interested in building an arena for OU to use, the university would answer the phone. But this is where the school has some leverage and where there's investors willing to participate.

Simply put $800 million in investment in this development does not equate to reallocation of $800 million in potential facility donation money. It's not automatically the same money and it functions completely differently.

You can say it's a bad investment, but saying that money can just be flipped to another location or turned into a straight out donation doesn't really make sense.

[BDP]

What everyone seems to be claiming when that's brought up is that the arena will be paid for by the surrounding development and income from the retail, apartments, etc. So a private developer will build the arena out of the kindness of their hearts and foregoing profit on surrounding development to make sure that happens according to many here. No help from OU at all, just a small $20-30 million help from City of Norman, County, etc.

This is kind of the structure of many large public/private developments where a venue is involved. The private developer(s) don't see the venue as something they are building out of the kindness of their hearts. They probably don't even see it as something they are building. They see it as an anchor attraction which, with a viable anchor tenant secured, can provide guaranteed traffic to their development several nights a year that is being built with public assistance.

If there's a private individual that can donate that much or several - it shouldn't be built in UTC.

It's not a donation. It's an investment in the whole development. That's just different money, even if it is the same individual, if you get where I'm coming from.

[ManAboutTown]

I'm amazed that a post about this proposed major development for Norman and the OKC metro took such a turn for the worse simply because the man's screen name includes the word "Poke."

Instead of questioning his numbers and his apparent knowledge of real estate, financing, and public projects, Urbanist was shouted down and dismissed because he's not a Sooner fan. That's sad. He's entitled to his own opinion, so attack him on his numbers or his research into other venues or whatever, not his lack of love for OU.

I think he makes a lot of sense, because this "If you build it, they will come" mentality has been proven wrong more than once, and definitely in Oklahoma. It's not as if this development is being built in a vacuum. OKC is experiencing growth in every quadrant and the barriers to success here are HUGE.

Just my 2 cents. Fire away.

[chssooner]

I'm amazed that a post about this proposed major development for Norman and the OKC metro took such a turn for the worse simply because the man's screen name includes the word "Poke."

Instead of questioning his numbers and his apparent knowledge of real estate, financing, and public projects, Urbanist was shouted down and dismissed because he's not a Sooner fan. That's sad. He's entitled to his own opinion, so attack him on his numbers or his research into other venues or whatever, not his lack of love for OU.

I think he makes a lot of sense, because this "If you build it, they will come" mentality has been proven wrong more than once, and definitely in Oklahoma. It's not as if this development is being built in a vacuum. OKC is experiencing growth in every quadrant and the barriers to success here are HUGE.

Just my 2 cents. Fire away.

He wasn't giving his opinion. He was blatantly misinterpreting quotes and blatantly giving false info (article said $200m in public funding, but he kept saying $20m). If he was less matter of fact, it would be fine. But he made it seem like OU was misleading people. And was antagonistic about it. He wouldn't bother to read rebuttals to his actual info presented, and went on about something that doesn't matter (bond ratings) for multiple posts.

That is why he got bashed. Not for his opinion or screen name. Him not wanting to have actual dialogue and showing bias is why we mentioned his name.

[G.Walker]

I am glad this is finally moving forward. This has been in the works for years, so people need to understand this just didn't spring up overnight. The original UNP masterplan always called for a mixed-used development like this when the plan was created in 2006. Now we are finally getting the UNP we were supposed to get, rather than the sprawled commercial strip mall it is now.

[ManAboutTown]

That is why he got bashed. Not for his opinion or screen name. Him not wanting to have actual dialogue and showing bias is why we mentioned his name.

We must have read different posts. Either way, name-calling and automatically perceiving bias in his posts because he's not a Sooner fan or alum doesn't make for healthy debate.

I agree that he did seem to get some facts wrong and he did get rather antagonistic, but he started getting bashed for being an OSU guy while presenting numbers and referencing other developments. To think he is against this development simply because he's an OSU guy or biased against OU is silly.

[UrbanistPoke]

He wasn't giving his opinion. He was blatantly misinterpreting quotes and blatantly giving false info (article said $200m in public funding, but he kept saying $20m). If he was less matter of fact, it would be fine. But he made it seem like OU was misleading people. And was antagonistic about it. He wouldn't bother to read rebuttals to his actual info presented, and went on about something that doesn't matter (bond ratings) for multiple posts.

That is why he got bashed. Not for his opinion or screen name. Him not wanting to have actual dialogue and showing bias is why we mentioned his name.

Hate to break it to you but that is what others were saying and I was just responding to the various claims being made by others. Yes, $20 - 30 million is one of main variations of claims made by others - maybe those were typos and they left off a 0, I don't know. Everyone is saying I'm moving the goal posts (irony of that is not lost as with many other statements - this isn't football still). I brought up many different issues and address several claims being made and my opinions and some facts about each.

My stance is the same whether it's $200 million or $1 in public money or even if it was $0 and all donor money. If this can be done via TIF, a TIF or similar structure this can be figured out for a better location. You really think UTC is a better location than on or near campus? If so, great. I think it's dumb - difference of opinion. I think OU can do better. Like what ManAboutTown said, all the OU people saw a slight criticism and flew off the rails over it because I'm an OSU fan/alumni. It frankly was hilarious to watch and sad - don't take everything so personal. This board is like a mob - if you say anything Pete or regulars don't like they like to gang up on everyone. Great way to encourage interaction with the site BTW Pete to act like that to people who drive your ad revenues. I've literally said nothing negative about OKC and somehow now I'm an OKC hater who probably lives in Tulsa? LOL. I work in both cities and own properties in both OKC, Tulsa and other places in Oklahoma. I have lots of opinions because I think Oklahoma can do better and be better. I don't hate OU no matter how much you all want to believe OSU fans lives revolve around you all too, it doesn't. I have far, far harsher opinions of OSU sports.

I still think this is a bad investment and depending on final structure of the deal could be very bad for Norman and bad for OU financially and guess what? Even OSU fans help fund OU via tax dollars and we should all be concerned how each university chooses to spend money and whether it is responsible or not.

I have concerns that the arena is too small for concerts. Too far from campus to get student to be remotely interested. Etc. Etc. There isn't a arena style single venue in the US that is booked with concerts/other events that is this size and is a net positive in revenue/feasible. Why? Like I said before that was ignored, bands and artists that tour in venues of that size go to places that are built specific for music/performances. They can not afford to tour in sub 10,000 seat venues and have mobile stages, etc. It is not profitable. They are forced into booking venues at casino performing venues, performing arts centers, amphitheaters, etc. that have stages and full A/V etc set up already. Arena's are not that.

At 8,000 seats this would barely be bigger than Union High Schools UMAC (about 6,500 seats). Same size as University of Tulsa's Reynolds Center (little over 8,000 seats). How many concerts and events do they have every year? Mabee Center in Tulsa would be bigger (little over 10,000 seats) than this if 8,000 seats is the final number. 10,000 seats would probably be ideal and use the design of the Moody Center in Austin - it was built with being a flexible venue. The seats and layout of the bowl seating was built to maximize being able to get over 10,000 in the building for concerts and thus being able to book tours that places like this wouldn't be able to or UMAC, Reynolds Center, Mabee Center, etc.

[jedicurt]

We must have read different posts. Either way, name-calling and automatically perceiving bias in his posts because he's not a Sooner fan or alum doesn't make for healthy debate.

I agree that he did seem to get some facts wrong and he did get rather antagonistic, but he started getting bashed for being an OSU guy while presenting numbers and referencing other developments. To think he is against this development simply because he's an OSU guy or biased against OU is silly.

yes, we must have read different posts, because most of the posts were about him making claims that OU was going to have to pay for all of this, OU was buying land in Campus Corner, and many other things that just weren't true. very little did people post about his username or question his expertise. i said he must not know much about real-estate, because he clearly didn't have any clue as to what he was talking about, and he just came back that he worked in the industry, and then just kept making up things and not actually listing to facts.

he claimed to be objective in the same post where he proposed his clearly subjective opinions that were already disproven. so yes, we read different posts. all i saw was a troll who didn't actually want to have a conversation and just doubled down when his opinions were met with facts