Paycom Center (formerly Chesapeake Arena)

[Snowman]

Why in the hell would they not put the big screen at the Grand Entrance? That is where it should be and maybe a smaller one or two on the north sides. This is the *Grand Entrance* afterall. Plus if they put it on the sw grand entrance it can be seen driving down the freeway. On the north side it will be invisible. Stupid stupid stupid.This city seems to have a very very hard time doing anything 1st class.

Until at least one if not more than one of downtown streetcar, the boulevard and/or C2S develop the vast majority of people will be coming from the parking garages north of the stadium. The freeway they can see it from will be shut down to be demolished soon and the convention center will have the block west of it a mess too, the boulevard is optimistically going to be done in 2014, it can not be scene by the new i40 alignment. For the next three or four years it is an Grand Entrance to Nowhere until other projects start being finished, it will be wired for a screen now later it can go in, making the components that have the shortest lifespan new when more people start actually using the entrance.

[dmoor82]

I had no idea people were actually looking at it.

^^Yep!!Good info on building heights!

[rcjunkie]

Why in the hell would they not put the big screen at the Grand Entrance? That is where it should be and maybe a smaller one or two on the north sides. This is the *Grand Entrance* afterall. Plus if they put it on the sw grand entrance it can be seen driving down the freeway. On the north side it will be invisible. Stupid stupid stupid.This city seems to have a very very hard time doing anything 1st class.

The only thing stupid is your comments/ideas, the S. side Grand Entrance is just that, an entrance, the N. side is where the street party/pre-game action is and will continue to be, therefore the big screen is going in the right place--the N. side.

[Larry OKC]

That isn't what the renderings showed, they clearly described the screen (where shown) as being part of the new South entrance. The South entrance will be the main entrance. The Mayor described it as a "postcard" type of thing. But you may be correct that the North placement is a temporary thing until it is built, and there is nothing stopping them from having screens on both sides of the building (other than funds).

[Larry OKC]

From another thread, since this one seems more appropriate to what was being discussed...

Please show me where someone said an arena should only last 10 years or where the Mayor said it would last only 5 years after renovations. There is no way Stern or Cornett said those things. Might want to check you facts, LarryOKC. Arenas should last about 25 years or so. MAPs 4 might be a good time to build a world class arena with the goal of it being completed by around 2030.

I agree, arenas SHOULD last 25 years or so, but the powers that be aren't of the same opinion. Have to remember that Seattle's Key Arena and OKC's Arena have remarkably similar histories when it comes to remodel/replacement time frames. The Key arena is only a few years older than the Ford. It was rebuilt from below the ground up in 1994 (a year after MAPS passed). The time frame for the Ford has been similar but even shorter.

I didn't say that the Mayor said it would only last 5 years after renovations (he did say it will be like a brand new building and should last 10 to 15 years). But why would a "like new building" last any longer than the real new building lasted before they he talked about replacing it? The article below is at the 5 year point and indications were made by the Mayor's office he was of the opinion 2 years before that. That means he was talking about this for a building that was only 3 years old!

Oklahoma City cautiously optimistic about Sonics' possible relocation (ESPN/AP, 11/2/07)

Cornett previously has said that "if you're dealing with an NBA team, there is going to be an expectation of a [publicly funded] practice facility," calling it "an entry-level part of negotiation" of any potential lease. He also has said city officials foresee a time when the Ford Center, which opened in June 2002, will need to be replaced with a newer facility.

But you may be saying, "That is at some unspecified future". OK, is this any better (before the remodel plan was revealed)?

OKC mayor denies talking to Sonics (8/28/07)

Cornett said. “But I have been very public about the willingness to consider building a new facility to replace the Ford Center.”

But Cornett realizes the Ford Center would need to be replaced in the near future if an NBA team were to relocate there, and he would consider proposing a tax measure -- that might include funding for a new stadium and convention center -- for a vote.

IMO, he knew replacing a nearly new building would be a much harder sales job with the voters for a couple of reasons. It would have been more expensive, costing 2 to 5 times as much (Bennett demanded a new arena costing in the $500MM ballpark in Seattle). That would have meant a longer 1 cent sales tax (which would have delayed the Chamber pushed MAPS 3 Convention Center even farther) or requiring a marked increase in the dedicated sales tax. Neither were desirable.

And yes Stern did say it (5/3/06), here you go...

David Stern, NBA Commissioner, testified before the Washington State Senate, Ways & Means Committee, that public officials should not expect stadium facilities to last more than eleven or twelve years.

That means they will probably last fewer than that.

Most importantly, what did Bennett have to say about the Ford Center? Seems he has gone back and forth on it:
Oklahoma City's NBA run ends (4/13/07)

Bennett said the size of Oklahoma City's television market, which was the primary reason the NHL passed on the city a decade ago, remains an issue, and notes that city will have to improve the Ford Center to an "NBA level" from a basic arena and build a practice facility to have a long-term shot at an NBA franchise.

Bennett opens up about Sonics' potential future (9/21/07)

"I absolutely know the team would be profitable in Oklahoma City," he said. "Oklahoma City is a viable, dynamic, growing market. And it's in an adequate building with a very willing city government and it would be the only pro sports team in the state. It would work. It would work today certainly a heck of a lot better than it would work here today.

What time frame has Bennett given before a new facility is "requested"? He has been decidedly nonspecific. I can understand how someone might think 20 years is a possibility but it depends on what Bennett's definition of the terms (again, non-committal).

Sonics owner wants public to pay for upgrades to Oklahoma City's arena (ESPN/Associated Press, Updated: 1/31/08)

Bennett, who sought public financing for an arena in suburban Seattle that would have cost more than $500 million, said the upgrades planned in Oklahoma City would be "exactly what we need for the foreseeable future."

Bennett a fan of proposed Ford Center improvements (Oklahoman, 2/1/08)

"We think that it is exactly what we need for the foreseeable future,"? Bennett said. "We believe this is the appropriate thing to do. We support it. We think that it will be a great building for a long time."

Bennett also made a statement to the effect that a new arena was needed here (unfortunately I don't have access to the article mentioned to be able to quote it).

I believe the rational that will be given for a new arena is seating capacity. After the improvements were made (removing 960 seats), the Arena went from being middle of the pack (#14), all the way down to #28. Dangerously close to the smallest arena in the NBA. A distinction shared with Seattle's Key Arena. Even if the Thunder go into a dry spell and attendance falls below the opt out clause in the lease (85% of the benchmark set), the same demands will be made here for more seats just as they were made by Bennett in Seattle. They will threaten to relocate (just as they did in Seattle).

[BoulderSooner]

a couple of things ... we are in the "range" of most of the nba 18k+ seats that is plenty big enough forever. When we do build a new arena it won't have any more than 18-19k seats ... it will have more high end seating because that is what generates the money. the OKC arena has put the team in a good position for the next 15-20 years ...

IMHO we will need a new arena in the 2030 time frame which means that the new arena will be a maps 4 project. the owners are all locals they all want okc to grow and the will never threaten to move the team

[Rover]

Back to the real topic....

When is the structure for the entrance supposed to start being erected?

[betts]

It looks like the footings have been poured, so I would guess soon. The cranes are in place.

[OKCisOK4me]

Why in the hell would they not put the big screen at the Grand Entrance? That is where it should be and maybe a smaller one or two on the north sides. This is the *Grand Entrance* afterall. Plus if they put it on the sw grand entrance it can be seen driving down the freeway. On the north side it will be invisible. Stupid stupid stupid.This city seems to have a very very hard time doing anything 1st class.

Instant satisfaction huh? Things have to be built first, and considering that this won't all be done until the season tips off in 2012, they are placing a screen on the northside until then so that fans in Thunder Alley can get a good view. Seriously...they will move the screen OR add another one in the original place intended once the south grand entrance is completed. Go hang out over there under I-40 this next season. Good luck not getting hit by a chunk of concrete from above!

[betts]

I believe the rational that will be given for a new arena is seating capacity. After the improvements were made (removing 960 seats), the Arena went from being middle of the pack (#14), all the way down to #28. Dangerously close to the smallest arena in the NBA. A distinction shared with Seattle's Key Arena. Even if the Thunder go into a dry spell and attendance falls below the opt out clause in the lease (85% of the benchmark set), the same demands will be made here for more seats just as they were made by Bennett in Seattle. They will threaten to relocate (just as they did in Seattle).

I'm not copying your entire post. Lots of nebulous statements there, some of which may have been taken out of context. For example, I would suspect David Stern might have been implying that arenas need updating every 10 to 12 years, not new construction, and it is likely updates need to be done every so often. Regardless, why spend all this time worrying about something that hasn't been proposed? If they do, they do and we can all discuss it to death then. If they don't, then there's been a lot of time wasted worrying about nothing. I agree with the people who say that a new arena is unlikely before 2030, which would make the present arena 28 years old. But, like your opinion Larry, it's only an opinion and worth no more consideration than any other.

[OKCisOK4me]

And if the arena is still home to the Thunder 28 years from now, it needs to be a gift by the owners, to the fans and taxpayers of OKC, to build and pay for a new arena themselves.

[Of Sound Mind]

And if the arena is still home to the Thunder 28 years from now, it needs to be a gift by the owners, to the fans and taxpayers of OKC, to build and pay for a new arena themselves.

Good luck with that. Seattle thought the same thing.

[betts]

And if the arena is still home to the Thunder 28 years from now, it needs to be a gift by the owners, to the fans and taxpayers of OKC, to build and pay for a new arena themselves.

I consider the $425 million the owners have already spent to buy the team, move them and settle the lawsuit with the city of Seattle to be their gift to the fans and taxpayers of Oklahoma city. I consider any new arena, if constructed within a reasonable period of time (not 5 to 12 years, but closer to 30) to be our thank you to the owners for bringing a team here at great expense and with the annual risk of losing millions. Reportedly, 20 of 30 NBA teams operated in the red this year. Most of them were the smaller market teams. We got lucky because we were in the post-season and people are going to games. Were that not the case, the Thunder would have been one of the 20 teams.

[OKCisOK4me]

Good luck with that. Seattle thought the same thing.

That's the whole point of the post, dude...

[OKCisOK4me]

I consider the $425 million the owners have already spent to buy the team, move them and settle the lawsuit with the city of Seattle to be their gift to the fans and taxpayers of Oklahoma city. I consider any new arena, if constructed within a reasonable period of time (not 5 to 12 years, but closer to 30) to be our thank you to the owners for bringing a team here at great expense and with the annual risk of losing millions. Reportedly, 20 of 30 NBA teams operated in the red this year. Most of them were the smaller market teams. We got lucky because we were in the post-season and people are going to games. Were that not the case, the Thunder would have been one of the 20 teams.

I understand what you're saying, but considering how much money they (the owners) can make, if they make anything at all (because lots of sports teams are a financial risk, therefore, you gotta have your own money well to back things up) then I think it's very reasonable, after 30 whole seasons, that the owners, or new owners, if the team is still here, should very well be able to afford and maintain a new arena for the team. That $425 million is a lovely $354.17 per person in the OKC metro area. Not to mention the money raised with extended Arena Tax, I'm sure out of towners paid a little with their retail dollars spent too.

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad I paid tax for the team to come here. New owners, if the team is still here, need to build and pay for their own house next time around. Tax payers shouldn't have to do it twice.

[Larry OKC]

I'm not copying your entire post. Lots of nebulous statements there, some of which may have been taken out of context. For example, I would suspect David Stern might have been implying that arenas need updating every 10 to 12 years, not new construction, and it is likely updates need to be done every so often. Regardless, why spend all this time worrying about something that hasn't been proposed? If they do, they do and we can all discuss it to death then. If they don't, then there's been a lot of time wasted worrying about nothing. I agree with the people who say that a new arena is unlikely before 2030, which would make the present arena 28 years old. But, like your opinion Larry, it's only an opinion and worth no more consideration than any other.

Betts, you know me better than that. I don't take things out of context just to prove my point. As I have said numerous times, my opinions/conclusions are based on the the histories at hand. When someone says that someone "never said that", if I remember the opposite, I am going to try to verify it and correct the inaccurate claim.

Is history guaranteed to repeat itself in every detail? No, but it does have the annoying tendency to do just that.

It has happened in the past.
The lease is written to allow for it (actually requires it, so it has been "proposed")

We will just have to wait and see when the talk of a new arena or another round of $100MM improvements are talked about.

[Larry OKC]

I consider the $425 million the owners have already spent to buy the team, move them and settle the lawsuit with the city of Seattle to be their gift to the fans and taxpayers of Oklahoma city. I consider any new arena, if constructed within a reasonable period of time (not 5 to 12 years, but closer to 30) to be our thank you to the owners for bringing a team here at great expense and with the annual risk of losing millions. Reportedly, 20 of 30 NBA teams operated in the red this year. Most of them were the smaller market teams. We got lucky because we were in the post-season and people are going to games. Were that not the case, the Thunder would have been one of the 20 teams.

More unsupported opinions. All indications about THIS team (from the owners themselves) indicate the opposite. Go fish.

[betts]

Right now, Larry. Small market, remember? Tiny tv contract, average ticket prices, no big sponsors who aren't team owners except Devon and they haven't bought naming rights. We're the third smallest market and probably have the second lowest per capita income. We're two mediocre seasons away from red ink. I believe there's plenty is supportive data for my assertion whereas yours is hearsay.

I also think we don't have to look very far to see what Clay Bennett's response would be.

[metro]

Why in the hell would they not put the big screen at the Grand Entrance? That is where it should be and maybe a smaller one or two on the north sides. This is the *Grand Entrance* afterall. Plus if they put it on the sw grand entrance it can be seen driving down the freeway. On the north side it will be invisible. Stupid stupid stupid.This city seems to have a very very hard time doing anything 1st class.

Go back and read the first 11 pages and you'll find your answer. 80% of the people will enter on the north side until the highway is torn down. People driving 60+ mph on the highway above sign level aren't going to see a sign geared towards pedestrians. Again, one will be added on the SW corner when the time is right with new boulevard and central park. Show us any arena in the country that is "1st class" that gears video boards to cars on the freeway.

[metro]

That isn't what the renderings showed, they clearly described the screen (where shown) as being part of the new South entrance. The South entrance will be the main entrance. The Mayor described it as a "postcard" type of thing. But you may be correct that the North placement is a temporary thing until it is built, and there is nothing stopping them from having screens on both sides of the building (other than funds).

Don't believe everything mayor Mick Buy-a-PR job says

[dankrutka]

The north entrance screen is not temporary. It is the only one going up initially. They stated this long ago. When the time is right they have set it up so it will be easy to add a screen to the south entrance.

[rcjunkie]

The north entrance screen is not temporary. It is the only one going up initially. They stated this long ago. When the time is right they have set it up so it will be easy to add a screen to the south entrance.

You are correct, the screen has been planned for the N. side from the beginning, as it should be. The N. side is, and most likely always will be, where the street party, pre-game festival happens, proper place for the "big screen".

[OKCRT]

When they were showing the renderings of the refurbished arena they had a big screen at the Grand Entrance. Looked pretty cool IMO. I said OK I am in for that so cast my yes vote. Now they are putting the video board on the north side? I guess when they drumming up support the arena rendering would have been rather plain if they showed a video board somewhere other than the Grand Entrance. The video board is what gave it the cool factor and I am sure pushed some to vote in favor of the tax. So it appears to me that we were misled.

[OKCisOK4me]

Dude, there are two boards!!! You can type awfully well, but you obviously can't read.

[Rover]

When they were showing the renderings of the refurbished arena they had a big screen at the Grand Entrance. Looked pretty cool IMO. I said OK I am in for that so cast my yes vote. Now they are putting the video board on the north side? I guess when they drumming up support the arena rendering would have been rather plain if they showed a video board somewhere other than the Grand Entrance. The video board is what gave it the cool factor and I am sure pushed some to vote in favor of the tax. So it appears to me that we were misled.

Yeah, they misled you. LOL. I am sure they said, heh we know the economy will tank in a year and collections will come up $20 million short, but what the heck, let's show them the board anyway just to get Maps3 passed.

You can't be that cynical can you?