New Downtown Arena

[Shortsyeararound]

LMAO. You're acting as if you've provided empirical "proof" that a new publicly financed arena will be a "bad investment." It will not, and we know it. If your goal is to raise the level of the debate, your arguments have not been compelling.

We know what the naysayers are going to say; their arguments are predictable. But, OKC residents know intrinsically how adding an NBA franchise, one which led to a best selling book about Oklahoma City, a cover story about our city on New York Times magazine, media coverage worth billions of dollars on multiple national and international outlets, is worth the investment. Frankly, a billion dollars isn't even that much for a 25-30-year venue for NBA and major concert events. It is the next logical step to take after having an arena on the cheap for about the same length of time.

Everything has improved in OKC since the Thunder came to town. Even our food scene is gaining national and international acclaim.

Your argument seems to be that all of these transformational things would have happened for OKC anyway without the NBA, and that is a laughable suggestion. Certainly you are the only person on this thread that seems to believe that.

I don't know when you moved to OKC, but I moved here in 1993, and things were really bad. We had one downtown hotel -- which managed to lose its flag from, gulp, Sheraton, because it was so run down. Automobile Alley was a wasteland. Midtown was a wasteland. The city couldn't even get the citizens to support school bond issues. Obviously, MAPS was a factor in turning that around, my first vote as an OKC resident in December of 1993.

And, Bueller, what was included in that MAPS vote? A spec arena. An arena that has changed our fortunes.

If you would actually bother to step off of your debate dais and do some basic Internet research, you will find numerous articles about companies putting OKC in consideration for expansion. You will find stories of artists and entrepreneurs moving here, or adding a location. You will of course note that the "can this little podunk town support an NBA franchise?" stories are gone now.

For those of us who have been here a while, we know that the NBA exposure has been absolutely transformational for OKC.

Finally, for one last time, I would like to see you argue that losing the Thunder would somehow be good for OKC and we would just move on down the road, because that is part and parcel of your claims.

I grad high school in 93 and our ceremony was at the Myriad/Cox/PSM. The area was desolate around, Bricktown had been going for a few years (Spaghetti Warehouse, Haunted Warehouse during Oct, a club called Pylon), midtown was prostitutes and rent by the hour motels, the Civic Center area had the rent boys, etc). Maps started the progress we see today of course, but the item not talked about is the Bombing. After that there was so much pride in our city and a movement to improve. IMO, I really think this was a huge catalyst for changing the perception of Okc. You may not remember but there was a huge hubbub about what Connie Chung said that upset locals and made me mad that we were looked at as inferior. Hosting the Hornets put us on the stage for greatness that allowed the possibility of gaining a pro team and being mentioned in articles for best places to live or secret gems. Articles that in our past would have never happened.
Polisciguy-
You want tangible proof- then seek out new Oklahomans and ask them when you are out.
One thing leads to another and having the Thunder helps grow our city.
On that note - the Okc bombing killed 167 plus the first responder for 168 but how many other people may have lost their life due to the event? I ask because a girl I was dating at the time lost her grandma hours later to a heart attack. My gf’s mom worked near there and her grandma could not get in touch and then had the heart attack. Related - I am sure. Tangible but not listed in the statistics.
I’m voting for the Arena because I believe the Thunder have been exceptional for Okc and the state.

[caaokc]

A thing that is cool to think about is if this arena opens in 2027 or 2028, that’s when SGA will be in his prime with the young players coming up as well

[Laramie]

And to be clear I am not trying to be an ass about this! I'm glad the Thunder will be here long term and will continue to take my family to games. I just think we need to critically examine the fact that a lot of the talking points that will come out - that the Thunder "spur economic growth" and "helped grow OKC's population" or that "the arena will pay for itself" - are wafer thin with no empirical evidence, just anecdotes, and that the actual data out there shows this will be a bad investment, financially, for the city. It's thus up to voters to really decide if things like civic pride, reputation, prestige, being a "big league city", continuing our well-earned feeling of superiority over Tulsa etc. are worth making a bad financial investment. Clearly for folks on this board, the answer is a resounding "yes," and I can totally understand that. I just want to make sure we're laying bare what the actual facts about this deal will be.

First of all, don't know of any major city where the arena actually 'paid for itself financially.'

Where in the bowels did you dig deep enough to say 'well-earned feeling of superiority over Tulsa,' this is as messy of a statement as a missed wipe.'

Thunder are Oklahoma's first and only major league sports franchise, supported by Tulsa entrepreneurs--Tulsa provides the greatest support for team outside of our locals.

Since you brought it up, can you name one city where a multi-million dollar arena or stadium has actually paid for itself.

Your best bet is to design an arena that will last over time (20-25 years), minimizing maintenance--upgrades every decade generally wipes out any gains cities make on these types of facilities.

Cities are not designed to make a profit; but to act as an Administrative town also have law courts, police stations, government departments associated with developmental works, etc. OKC addressed many of these items in previous MAPS Initiatives.

OKC is replacing the State Fair Arena (opened 1965) with a new $125 million coliseum that will be booked prior to its opening with rodeo related events.

Proud of Mayor Holt, because he wants to do it right this time, as eye catching as our Super Skyscraper--with a competitive venue living up to the higher standards of the NBA. Our arena should be a jewel among those MSA cities like Memphis, Salt Lake City and New Orleans below us.

[Dob Hooligan]

Man, I try to disengage gracefully and then we see this sort of stuff posted. Let's dive in.



How do you know it? I've cited numerous studies that show time and again these investments don't work out. You cite some sort of "intrinsic knowledge" without any actual leg to stand on. I strongly advise you to actually think critically about your assumptions and what you're basing them on, because what you cite (which I get to here in a second) doesn't actually work. And what was wrong with the methodology of the studies I've posted? What concerns do you have with their underlying theories and work?



The Thunder came to town in 2008-2009, the same year Barack Obama won the presidency. Maybe OKC's growth is due to the Obama era? Or the recovery from the 2008 recession? Or oil prices? Or countless other factors? In short, your argument relies upon post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy without actually showing that the Thunder caused this growth.



Care to point to some examples, especially ones that cite the presence of an NBA team as a deciding factor in their decision? I've done the courtesy of showing my research, asking you to do the same isn't unreasonable.




That's not my argument at all. What I'm arguing is that the Thunder should pay more, or that this money can be used in countless other areas that do spur economic growth, such as mass transit. If the Thunder are so essential to this city's economy and turnaround, as you claim, then it's on you to prove it, and to do so beyond claims of "intrinsic knowledge."

Again, it's fine if you want to say the arena is worth it for the fringe benefits of reputation and prestige, but if you're going to argue that this is a good financial investment then the onus is on you to actually back that up.

I have to take exception to mass transit being an economic benefit to OKC. Or rather, a front burner, important investment. I think OKC is a massive, plains, car centric city that is going to require massive investment to function at the scale required to be effective. OKC is over 600 square miles, is well served with cars, and our streetcar was a $125 million toy. Hard for me to believe we could build an effective system for less than $10 billion total. And I’m trying to understand how many of our 1.3-ish million people would be made better served and more fully employed. And how that drives population growth and wealth?

[Plutonic Panda]

Honestly I don’t agree with PoliSciGuy’s point and I absolutely support an arena and I do believe in the larger picture it would pay off for OKC but the burden of proof isn’t on him to collect. The point being made about a new Thunder arena having a positive impact is a claim being made by people who need to show proof and not criticize those asking for proof.

[jdross1982]

I have to take exception to mass transit being an economic benefit to OKC. Or rather, a front burner, important investment. I think OKC is a massive, plains, car centric city that is going to require massive investment to function at the scale required to be effective. OKC is over 600 square miles, is well served with cars, and our streetcar was a $125 million toy. Hard for me to believe we could build an effective system for less than $10 billion total. And I’m trying to understand how many of our 1.3-ish million people would be made better served and more fully employed. And how that drives population growth and wealth?

1000% agree. It would begin with Will Rogers to Tinker (connecting through downtown) and Edmond to Norman (connecting through downtown) but that alone would not come close to paying for itself. There would need to be spurs out to NW OKC, West from Will Rogers and even SW OKC. There would still need to be spurs in Edmond to gain additional riders and same with Norman. Like you mentioned, a minimum of 10 billion would be needed and NO WAY WOULD IT PAY FOR ITSELF! and oh btw, a massive amount of riders would come from the Thunder playing downtown along with all the concerts and events that would come from being in a new arena.

[chssooner]

Honestly I don’t agree with PoliSciGuy’s point and I absolutely support an arena and I do believe in the larger picture it would pay off for OKC but the burden of proof isn’t on him to collect. The point being made about a new Thunder arena having a positive impact is a claim being made by people who need to show proof and not criticize those asking for proof.

He is asking a question with no answer. He wants proof of something intangible, which, by definition, is just that, intangible, and can't really be supported by empirical facts. We have had plenty of anecdotal stories about the perception of OKC changing, which is what he was arguing at one point. Then he moved the goal posts.

[Plutonic Panda]

He is asking a question with no answer. He wants proof of something intangible, which, by definition, is just that, intangible, and can't really be supported by empirical facts. We have had plenty of anecdotal stories about the perception of OKC changing, which is what he was arguing at one point. Then he moved the goal posts.

I don’t believe what he is asking is intangible.

[chssooner]

I don’t believe what he is asking is intangible.

How do you prove with empirical studies, the perception of OKC has changed? It would have to be anecdotes and stories from outsiders, which this thread has plenty of. He didn't like that.

[PoliSciGuy]

No, I'm asking for empirical proof that this is a good financial move. I ceded that this bolsters prestige, perception, reputation, etc. but not at the rate of $1b.

We've had the Thunder for 15 years. If the only evidence of them being an economic boost to the region are anecdotes and T-shirts, then it's worth questioning just how valuable that boost has been.

[chssooner]

No, I'm asking for empirical proof that this is a good financial move. I ceded that this bolsters prestige, perception, reputation, etc. but not at the rate of $1b.

We've had the Thunder for 15 years. If the only evidence of them being an economic boost to the region are anecdotes and T-shirts, then it's worth questioning just how valuable that boost has been.

Again, you are so stupidly focused on the Thunder. The Thunder don't get to take this asset with them. OKC owns it. The arena hots 100s of events a year, all bringing in 10s of thousands of people, and the city makes money off every event. I don't, and no one does, aside from the city, access to the amount per event OKC makes on the arena. But it will pay for itself in the long-run. But just because the Thunder are the main tenant, it doesn't solely benefit them. Think of how much money goes to Tulsa for big concerts that don't even consider OKC for tour stops. I would say millions a year. Plus, those people stay in hotels, spending extra money they could spend in OKC at stores or restaurants. Keeping those people here for shows and events, and getting new events for the city, which new arenas do tend to get at a high clip, would greatly benefit OKC. It keeps more money here, and allows less spent in Tulsa or Dallas.

Is a $1 billion arena necessary? Maybe not. But go big or go home. If OKC can figure out a package to pay for this that doesn't just completely bankrupt the city (based on all I have seen, it won't hurt the city at all, basically), then shoot for the moon.

I know we won't agree on this, but that is my opinion. I don't have true #s that show it is a benefit to have a nice arena or to keep an NBA team in the city, but most sane people can understand both of those. Our arena is garbage when compared to most NBA arenas. Having ownership of the arena is a great feature, in my opinion. Allows OKC to work with whoever they want to manage the arena and schedule events.

All this is just arguing for arguing's sake, as the vote will very likely pass, fairly significantly. Why not hope for the best arena possible, to instill civic pride in OKC, and very likely (again, no proof, because that doesn't exist, and never will) spur immense development in downtown OKC.

[dankrutka]

I've read most of this thread and the general insults directed at PoliSciGuy are uncalled for. PoliSciGuy is asking a fair question about the real financial impact of the Thunder. I personally agree that financial impact of the team is probably overstated AND I also support building a new arena to keep the team in OKC because of a lot of the intangibles the team brings to the community (which PoliSciGuy concedes are important). A lot of these responses that call PoliSciGuy "stupid" concede his very points in their own post (e.g., "Is a $1 billion arena necessary? Maybe not."). The animus seems unnecessary.

[Laramie]

When we begin seeing architectural and design work (late 2023) on this $1 billion arena then voters will decide if it's worth the Big League hype. It's obvious that Mayor Holt has seen something.

[TheTravellers]

... The arena hots 100s of events a year, ...

Um, no. setlist.fm shows 9 events there in 2023 so far. That's in addition to the Thunder games, of course. Not going to bother going back further, because 100s of events per year is nowhere close to what it has probably ever had any year since it's been built. And yes, I know that doesn't include graduations, etc., but there's just no way it hosts 100s of events per year.

[Pete]

Looks like Paycom has 20 events scheduled for the last 5 months of the year:

https://www.paycomcenter.com/events-...vents/calendar

[Rover]

PoliSciGuy isn’t stupid. He parrots the same point of view of many. He wants proof that doesn’t exist. Using that measuring stick, almost any public works is questionable. What is the economic return on a park? Why do we have an airport when a majority of OKC residents never fly? What is the economic viability of building sidewalks when most or many people won’t use them. What is the economic viability of a fire station? Most of us will never have a fire, so why do we pay for all those that do?

A competitive modern city has amenities. If we wish to compete in the higher levels, we should have comparable amenities, shouldn’t we. It isn’t just about the Thunder, though the Thunder has positioned the city in the top tier of US cities in the minds of millions. It is about all sorts of amenities… art museums, performance halls, arenas, airports, parks, etc.

[Pete]

Oklahoma City -- and more precisely, Oklahoma Citians -- continues to invest in itself and the results are inarguable.

Most aren't old enough to remember the malaise from the mid-80s through the 90s but trust me, there is almost no way to put it into present-day context. It was just so incredibly bad... Bad enough that arguably the person that loves it the most (yours truly) left for 25 years, something I never thought I'd do.

Just look at Tulsa. A very nice city and they are doing some great things but there is no question it was a better city with a much better reputation than OKC in the 1980s. Trust me, I heard it all the time from my Tulsa friends while at OU and I couldn't really argue with them.

Now Tulsa is merely trying to catch up, but they never will because OKC raced ahead and keeps growing and improving at a fast rate.


In other words, the city that chose to invest in itself earliest and continually is the one that now has a lead that it will never relinquish. And not just because of what we did in the past, but due to what we will continue to do.

Simply put, OKC spent the money and then made our own luck with first the Hornets and then the Thunder. And similarly, the investment in the river and the whitewater facility is going to bring the freaking Olympics to town!

Anybody that has lived here for more than 10 years understands the value of being a Big League City and also understands the related cost.

[PoliSciGuy]

PoliSciGuy isn’t stupid. He parrots the same point of view of many. He wants proof that doesn’t exist. Using that measuring stick, almost any public works is questionable. What is the economic return on a park? Why do we have an airport when a majority of OKC residents never fly? What is the economic viability of building sidewalks when most or many people won’t use them. What is the economic viability of a fire station? Most of us will never have a fire, so why do we pay for all those that do?

A competitive modern city has amenities. If we wish to compete in the higher levels, we should have comparable amenities, shouldn’t we. It isn’t just about the Thunder, though the Thunder has positioned the city in the top tier of US cities in the minds of millions. It is about all sorts of amenities… art museums, performance halls, arenas, airports, parks, etc.

Nah, that's not a good comparison. For all those public works, who is the Thunder in those analogies, the private company that gains hundreds of millions due to the public use of funds? Parks and sidewalks boost property values, which in turn generates more tax revenue. Fire stations lower insurance costs and prevent widespread destruction from fires - an ounce of prevention being cheaper than a pound of cure and all that. For the airport, you can clearly see their budget and income in public documents like this one, and that's not counting the tertiary benefits that comes with that facility. Where can I find similar documentation about Paycom and the Thunder?

Your examples abstract away too much. The unique issue with the new arena is that its construction will significantly increase the value and profit of an organization that is only contributing pennies on the dollar that the public is spending. That organization seems to be seen as a panacaea in this thread - an organization that has amazingly increased our population, bolstered our economy, been the singular cause of businesses coming to Oklahoma and revitalizing downtown - yet that perception doesn't have any actual empirical backing to it beyond some sort of divine intuition.

[Jake]

Now Tulsa is merely trying to catch up, but they never will because OKC raced ahead and keeps growing and improving at a fast rate.

In other words, the city that chose to invest in itself earliest and continually is the one that now has a lead that it will never relinquish. And not just because of what we did in the past, but due to what we will continue to do.

Simply put, OKC spent the money and then made our own luck with first the Hornets and then the Thunder. And similarly, the investment in the river and the whitewater facility is going to bring the freaking Olympics to town.

Look at the list of projects for OKC’s MAPS vs Tulsa’s “Improve Our Tulsa” projects and other previous packages. While OKC was approving its first MAPS, Tulsa resoundingly voted no on a similar plan. And they’ve voted down several other ones over the years.

It’s fascinating to think were Tulsa would be today had they invested in themselves sooner.

[Rover]

Nah, that's not a good comparison. For all those public works, who is the Thunder in those analogies, the private company that gains hundreds of millions due to the public use of funds? Parks and sidewalks boost property values, which in turn generates more tax revenue. Fire stations lower insurance costs and prevent widespread destruction from fires - an ounce of prevention being cheaper than a pound of cure and all that. For the airport, you can clearly see their budget and income in public documents like this one, and that's not counting the tertiary benefits that comes with that facility. Where can I find similar documentation about Paycom and the Thunder?

Your examples abstract away too much. The unique issue with the new arena is that its construction will significantly increase the value and profit of an organization that is only contributing pennies on the dollar that the public is spending. That organization seems to be seen as a panacaea in this thread - an organization that has amazingly increased our population, bolstered our economy, been the singular cause of businesses coming to Oklahoma and revitalizing downtown - yet that perception doesn't have any actual empirical backing to it beyond some sort of divine intuition.

Face it, there is no logic, facts or rational argument that would shake you from your opinion. Fine. You can spin, ignore and obfuscate. But for what. You don’t appreciate what being in the NBA list of cities does for OKC and you wish to ignore the other events an arena hosts, so power to you.

[PoliSciGuy]

No I’ve been pretty consistent in saying that empirical proof that the arena will bring in $1b in revenue or that the Thunder generate that much income for the city would make me reconsider. It’s why I’ve been asking for it. Instead all I get in return is abuse and gross distortions of my positions, like your post, or anecdotes.

[Shortsyeararound]

No I’ve been pretty consistent in saying that empirical proof that the arena will bring in $1b in revenue or that the Thunder generate that much income for the city would make me reconsider. It’s why I’ve been asking for it. Instead all I get in return is abuse and gross distortions of my positions, like your post, or anecdotes.

So you are voting no for the arena, moving on.

[mugofbeer]

No, I'm asking for empirical proof that this is a good financial move. I ceded that this bolsters prestige, perception, reputation, etc. but not at the rate of $1b.

We've had the Thunder for 15 years. If the only evidence of them being an economic boost to the region are anecdotes and T-shirts, then it's worth questioning just how valuable that boost has been.

As emperical evidence - This doesn't apply to OKC, but Taylor Swift's 2 concerts at Mile Hi Football Stadium @70,000 / per concert is estimated to have had a $140 million economic impact in the metro. That's not Chamber of Commerce propaganda.

[Laramie]

The new arena on existing land (4 square block PSM) will save $150 - $175 million.

New arena construction costs will be $800 million - $1 billion range. Demolition costs as high as $15 million; also there's room to sell parcels.

Safe to budget on the higher figure--avoid a Paycom Center repeat.

Like many committed life-long residents, build something reflective of the direction we want our city to be in the next decade. Focus on Milwaukee and the next level of NBA cities.

[kevin lee]

Speaking of reflective,I was in Nashville and saw renderings of their new downtown Titans arena that's ready to be built. I don't have time to dig for renderings but it's $2.1 billion for a 60000 seat arena. If we could do something similar but on a smaller scale it would be the best outcome possible. I never seen an arena use it's surroundings as an advantage.