Any overage from the sales tax also must be put toward improvements and maintenance.
It's all just a huge self-generating fund that has to be spent on the arena and to the benefit of the team ownership group.
I said it at the time and I'll say it again: it's by far the worst deal a city has ever signed with an NBA team.
Jenni Carlson interviewed the new architect.
Here are some of the highlights:
- First renderings are expected this summer
- No preconceived ideas; will spend months listening to the the city and Thunder
- It should be threaded into the city fabric, not plunked down
- Everyone wants something unique and world-class
- Outdoor space will bring in the existing gardens/park
I'd love to learn what you guys think about this article:
https://www.marketplace.org/2015/03/...inners-cities/
I think OKC and smaller cities are different in that the value is the name recognition.
People in the Philippines or Estonia already have heard of Los Angeles and Chicago, but OKC is new to them. That might elevate the city as a whole and bring some investment from people who also otherwise would not have heard of OKC.
Whether the cost is worth it is the argument. I've already said my side, but I do hope that we get the best possible stadium and that im wrong.
Yes, let’s relitigate an argument we had in the first 35 pages of this thread over the entire second half of 2023 based on an article that’s 9 years old...
PoliSciGuy and others made some fairly strong arguments against this (and public financing for stadiums in general) earlier in the thread. You can review those and the responses to them if you want to see what people here think about the premise of the article you linked.
Let's try a newer article then: https://journalistsresource.org/econ...lic-financing/
Again, what is the point of going back and rehashing an argument we had before the vote last year? This is movement for the sake of motion, at this point. Whether in favor or not, the vote passed and is binding. So it is an exercise of futility now.
I am all out of idioms to describe it.
Again, when you have medium size cities under 2 million MSA population like Memphis (1,335,674), Oklahoma City (1,477,926) and Salt Lake City (1,267,864) with major league franchises trying to compete with cities on that next level; yet have cities like Louisville (1,365,557), Birmingham (1,184,290) and Tulsa (1,044,757) who may or may not be aspiring to lure their first big league franchise for international exposure. Louisville is as major league as you can get in horse racing, but OKC edged out Louisville to temporarily host the NBA Hornets.
Take our sister city of Tulsa, they have two more Fortune 1,000 companies than OKC who has the state's only Big League franchise. Metropolitan Areas & Fortune 1000 Companies: https://proximityone.com/metros_fortune1000.htm
Tulsa is also on the verge of attracting some very large high paying jobs which could boost the area's tourists base.
Tulsa loves to compete with cities above them. They have the BOK Center (BB 17,839. IH 17,096) which could be used to temporality house an NBA or NHL team like OKC did with the Hornets.
Tulsa seized on the opportunity to bring the State's 10,000 attendee FFA convention to Tulsa when OKC couldn't guarantee them future dates in Paycom Center. Yet, our city was more centrally located to support this huge state convention--will there be dates available in the new OKC billion arena to offer the FFA when their contract expires in T-Town?
Are they going to be able to host concerts or play hockey in the new arena or is it basketball only?
I’m not certain about its suitability for hockey, but it will definitely be able to host concerts. Although the initial cost is estimated at $900 million to $1 billion, I believe we’ll end up spending around $1.2 to $1.5 billion. I would imagine it will incorporate technology from both the new Intuit Dome in LA and have the architecture of the Chase Center in SF.
Honestly, who cares about the FFA convention when you have an NBA franchise? Tulsa can keep that. OKC is about to build a $1 billion arena, something Tulsa could only dream of, not to mention our new convention center. I’d bet my next paycheck that the year it’s completed or the year after, we’ll host the NBA All-Star game. Let that sink in—anyone who doesn’t think that’s a big deal is out of their mind! That will be the single biggest event the state has ever hosted, along with OKC having the '28 Olympics. The comparison between OKC and Tulsa is outdated. Since getting the Thunder, OKC’s trajectory has far surpassed Tulsa’s. Anyone who thinks there’s still a comparison is living in the past.
These articles are ridiculous. Are they truly saying LA and Chicago would be better off without sports teams?? Laughable.
Yes, they are major world cities from an economic scale, and Chicago would still be the #1 US business destination and LA would still be the #1 entertainment destination. But would either city be better off without their multitudes of pro-teams?
Even more laughable is the implication the first article makes that downtown LA is worse off with Staples Center (whatever it's called now) given the relocation there of the Kings and Lakers. ... Or that Inglewood is better off without the Lakers at the Forum. ... These people must be smoking crack, seriuosly.
As was already mentioned by the sane people on this forum (my opinion) - the NBA has provided far more than economic benefit to OKC since we've had them in the form of the Hornets and especially the Thunder, it isn't even worth debating. I mean, OKC being mentioned with the likes of Chicago and LA in the same breath, speaks incredible volumes. And we only have one pro team, imagine if we had two. We've also had the benefit of having good teams just about the entire tenure, or at the minimum, OKC has always been the media darling of sort of 'america's team'.
Think Louisville wouldn't like that?
Oklahoma City, the RENAISSANCE CITY!
Echoing what PhiAlpha graciously said. We sparred a lot about this topic earlier when the voting was ramping up. In short, they're not outright economic winners (my point) but there are intangibles they provide that for smaller cities like OKC are worth the economic cost (others' responses). You can read the, uh, spirited back and forth in the old thread here: https://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=47184
It's not really worth relitigating here since the vote is done and the stadium is on its way to being built.
Hope that paycheck is not your main source of income.![]()
We would love to host an NBA All Star Weekend to show case our city.
Oklahoma City doesn't meet the hotel criteria for hosting an NBA All Star Game. OKC would need 6,000 luxury hotel rooms comparable to the 605 Omni; probably 5 hotels - Sheraton 395, Wyndham Grand 311, Courtyard by Marriott 225, Colcord 108 and the Hilton Skirvin 225 would qualify. That's five DT hotels totaling 1,264 luxury rooms plus our largest 605 room Omni = 1,869 which means we are 4,131 luxury hotel rooms shy of being considered for an NBA All Star Weekend.
The 404 room OKANA resort is more than 3 miles from DT and doesn't qualify by NBA All Star standards.
Let's get that 10,000 attendee FFA state convention we lost to Tulsa back in our city. That's probably 5,000 hotel room nights x three days (15,000 room nights) added to our local economy.
I was just thinking about how different the new OKC arena might be from the BOK Center in Tulsa. Built for $178 million ($264 million today), the BOK Center set a high standard, but OKC’s new $900 million arena will have so much more to work with in terms of design, space, and technology. It’ll be interesting to see what almost four times the money can do.
There are currently 25 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 25 guests)
Bookmarks