MAPS 4 Stadium

[shadfar]

definitely need to go with option #2 (with the shade structures), would be a mistake without them.

[BDP]

I’d love for the stadium to host a college bowl game but it might be too small.

Average attendance was in the low 40k's across all bowl games last season, but there are a half dozen or so that had less than 20k.

Of those games, the smallest stadium capacity was about 15k (and it's in the bahamas). The largest was 65K (oops).

[king183]

That has been left out of all their presentations but that would be the logical site.

Where does Wiggins fit in? He said he plans mixed use development around the soccer arena, but I have no idea how he can say that if he doesn't know where it will be located. Is he the developer who is associated with the COOP?

[Pete]

Where does Wiggins fit in? He said he plans mixed use development around the soccer arena, but I have no idea how he can say that if he doesn't know where it will be located. Is he the developer who is associated with the COOP?

No idea at this point.

The only other place would be the Strawberry Fields area but they have spent a fortune on that land and I can't imagine how a large facility like this would work there

[Midtowner]

I see those nice midrise buildings around it. I couldn't see myself wanting to live next door to a stadium which hosts LOUD events late into the night. Residents raised a huge kerfuffle over the Lost Lake venue hosting loud concerts. Imagine the impact when those residents have paid $400/sq. ft. for their accommodations.

[Urban Pioneer]

There have been discussions of consuming the city park south of the river north of Capitol Hill between Robinson and Walker as an alternate location.

[Goon]

There have been discussions of consuming the city park south of the river north of Capitol Hill between Robinson and Walker as an alternate location.

Someone proposing this remembers that OKC extends south of the river? Outstanding!

[OKCRT]

No idea at this point.

The only other place would be the Strawberry Fields area but they have spent a fortune on that land and I can't imagine how a large facility like this would work there

The prices they are quoting in the article seems lite to me. I assume they are not factoring in the cost of the land and this project will take a large parcel. It will easily top out over 100 mil IMO. I don't see how it could be built on the Co-Op site with the price tag of that land unless they have a bunch of other private investors lined up to construct surrounding projects. So if this is included on MAPS I assume the land purchase will also fall under MAPS?

[Urban Pioneer]

...

[Urban Pioneer]

Someone proposing this remembers that OKC extends south of the river? Outstanding!

They think that it could be an ace in the hole on a shoestring budget. It's politically extremely palatable and they wouldn't have land acquisition costs. Plus it could help reinvigorate Capitol Hill overnight.

[Pete]

The prices they are quoting in the article seems lite to me. I assume they are not factoring in the cost of the land and this project will take a large parcel. It will easily top out over 100 mil IMO. I don't see how it could be built on the Co-Op site with the price tag of that land unless they have a bunch of other private investors lined up to construct surrounding projects. So if this is included on MAPS I assume the land purchase will also fall under MAPS?

You can bet that there would still be a healthy subsidy ask (TIF or otherwise) in addition to the MAPS funds.

[PaddyShack]

They think that it could be an ace in the hole on a shoestring budget. It's politically extremely palatable and they wouldn't have land acquisition costs. Plus it could help reinvigorate Capitol Hill overnight.

I would die for this to be in Capitol Hill. I have often thought about moving to the area just south of the river, but the current housing stock is not too great.

[OKCRT]

They think that it could be an ace in the hole on a shoestring budget. It's politically extremely palatable and they wouldn't have land acquisition costs. Plus it could help reinvigorate Capitol Hill overnight.

It would also make sense to to add some streetcar routes that run south to Capitol Hill area esp. if the stadium is built in that area.

[Pete]

Looked at their budget and there was no mention of land costs and parking was specifically excluded. So, those are 2 huge additional costs.

Also, this was in the council presentation:

[Goon]

They think that it could be an ace in the hole on a shoestring budget. It's politically extremely palatable and they wouldn't have land acquisition costs. Plus it could help reinvigorate Capitol Hill overnight.

If we're seriously sold on creating a #1OKC, this would certainly be a fantastic first step.

[Pete]

Here is the budget they presented in today's meeting.

[OKCretro]

the awnings or overhangs need to cover not just some of the seats but all of the seats. There are many soccer stadiums as well as new stadiums that do this.

Cant tell from the pictures but do they still have the field going east west and not north south? if they do, that is a huge huge mistake

[onthestrip]

There have been discussions of consuming the city park south of the river north of Capitol Hill between Robinson and Walker as an alternate location.

Why am I highly skeptical they would want to build this stadium south of the river? Especially when you have Wiggins talking about development around it. I assume Co-op site is the goal here and pretty much the only goal.

The prices they are quoting in the article seems lite to me. I assume they are not factoring in the cost of the land and this project will take a large parcel. It will easily top out over 100 mil IMO. I don't see how it could be built on the Co-Op site with the price tag of that land unless they have a bunch of other private investors lined up to construct surrounding projects. So if this is included on MAPS I assume the land purchase will also fall under MAPS?

Yes, my worry is they want the co-op site and will overpay for land acquisition and then have to do environmental clean up on top of that.

You can bet that there would still be a healthy subsidy ask (TIF or otherwise) in addition to the MAPS funds.

Another worry, as if a paid for soccer stadium isnt enough of a catalyst to develop around.

If we're seriously sold on creating a #1OKC, this would certainly be a fantastic first step.

All this said, I am coming around on the soccer part. I'd have no problems if we allocated 1/3 of MAPS money to Chesapeake Arena, Fairground arena and soccer stadium.

[BDP]

The presentation revealed two options to build the venue, each with new amenities and features. The first option represented a $37 million to $42 million investment for an 8,000-seat stadium that would accommodate soccer, high school football, rugby, lacrosse, concerts and festivals. It is estimated it would host more than 60 events each year resulting in an annual $60 million economic impact.

The second option presented was a $67 million to $72 million investment with 10,000 seats, shade structures, and other amenities to improve the fan experience. Additional restrooms would allow for crowds of up to 18,000. This option would include a larger stage sought by national music touring groups, and a secondary stage designed to seat 8,000. It is estimated it would host more than 80 events each year resulting in an annual impact of over $79 million.

Not that it's the only variable when evaluating civics projects, but it's interesting that they put the impact numbers that low. The state fair arena numbers were presented as $230 MM in direct revenue and a $400 MM impact at a cost of $95 MM.

The Energy only draws about 5k a game, right? So, it would definitely be dependent on other events to reach those numbers and, really, it would have to mainly be from those other sports they mentioned, as a lot of the entertainment events would just be cannibalized from the park's amphitheater.

I'd love to see this happen, so I don't want to get too pragmatic (lol), but it does seem to have a numbers problem unless I am missing something, or the MLS is more in range than I realize.

[sooner88]

Strange to me that they would not include parking in Option 1, but included it in Option 2. That's approx 10-15% of the total budget and makes Option 1 look 75% cheaper when in reality it's 50% (not including any costs for land acquisition).

[Colbafone]

Gotta say, I really like that 2nd option. Looks great. I love the shade it provides. Ideally for me, I'd still like to see them start out with a large capacity, but 10k right off the bat is pretty good. I love functionality of it, as a soccer stadium, an amphitheater, and the broader use for sports and other activities.

And we've all been thinking all along this would be in the Co-Op, but the more I read and think, this would be REALLY awesome south of the river.

[Quicker]

They think that it could be an ace in the hole on a shoestring budget. It's politically extremely palatable and they wouldn't have land acquisition costs. Plus it could help reinvigorate Capitol Hill overnight.

I think this is an excellent idea for the reasons you mentioned. it would turn me from a no vote to a yes...

[David]

There have been discussions of consuming the city park south of the river north of Capitol Hill between Robinson and Walker as an alternate location.

This plus a streetcar extension down to Capitol Hill is something I have been wondering about for a while, and may have even posted as a suggestion in the MAPS 4 Ideas thread.

[Quicker]

Here is the budget they presented in today's meeting.

Surface parking lots for 2750 cars? That’s a horrible idea in either location.

[Urban Pioneer]

Why am I highly skeptical they would want to build this stadium south of the river? Especially when you have Wiggins talking about development around it. I assume Co-op site is the goal here and pretty much the only goal.

Yes, my worry is they want the co-op site and will overpay for land acquisition and then have to do environmental clean up on top of that.

Another worry, as if a paid for soccer stadium isnt enough of a catalyst to develop around.

All this said, I am coming around on the soccer part. I'd have no problems if we allocated 1/3 of MAPS money to Chesapeake Arena, Fairground arena and soccer stadium.

Well, it's possible that Chuck Wiggin is just another go-to developer for comments in a press release. I had a meeting with several of the people involved who wanted to know how a streetcar extension could technically be built to get down there to service both this stadium and Capitol Hill. I just assumed that this Capitol Hill site would be brought up today. Perhaps they are holding back for a big public announcement or everyone is right and it is a shell game with the ultimate site being the COOP. I would just point out that Mayor Holt is pretty sensitive to the fact that the public doesn't want more downtown investment. Add to the fact that there wouldn't be the land acquisition costs, significant environmental concerns, and you have a large riverfront property that isn't bifurcated by the Union Pacific Railroad, I would say that that site is probably still in the running.

The way this is lining up is an overall MAPS proposal that is about 75% neighborhood and human needs and 25% arenas and stadiums if you use the low numbers. Neighborhood needs amounted to about 7% - 14% in MAPS 3 depending on how you define Senior Wellness Centers.

If the site does go south of the river that really resolves a political quandary with the general public and presumably would have a profound impact on Capito Hill reinvestment. I would assume that such a site would make it more somewhat more palatable for JoBeth Hamon although that might be a stretch considering her fears of gentrification issues.