New Downtown Arena

[PhiAlpha]

I wonder how much of an impact length of time in OKC has on this vote. And if I'm generalizing please let me know, but I think it's telling that some of the stronger advocates of this deal are folks who have lived here longer. One of the more common arguments here is about just how bad OKC was before MAPS/Thunder came to town. There's lots of allusions to how dead the town was, how little there was to do and how overlooked the city was by the country writ large. For these folks, the fear seems to be that if the Thunder leave, we're right back to the 1990s and the bad old days, as there's nothing else to do around here and our city core will wither on the vine and we will be a national afterthought, or even worse, another Tulsa. I think the specter of this past has overshadowed just how much OKC has grown and developed outside of the Thunder in the last couple decades. I read posts about how we have nothing else to do around here or how the Thunder is the only thing we have and I wonder if we're even living in the same city.

Meanwhile, some of the folks more skeptical of the deal seem to be more recent transplants (myself included - I moved to the area in 2015). For us, OKC has a lot of trappings of a modern, growing midsized American city. Speaking for myself, I've been to a handful of Thunder games but I also take my family to Scissortail Park and the Famer's Market there, to the Zoo, the Science Museum, musicals and performances at the Civic Center, countless little festivals and weekends at the Paseo and downtown and up in Edmond. We have Olympic events coming before the end of the decade, a massive facility opening up on the waterfront with Okana and countless other developments. All that is to say, if the Thunder leave, OKC is in a much better place today to weather their loss than a couple decades ago. However, as recent transplants we absolutely lack the memory or context of what this place looked like in 1990s and as result we downplay or ignore those older voices. This also leads to us diminishing or overlooking how much this team means to the more long-term residents as a keystone of OKCs comeback story, and that value cannot be captured on a balance sheet.

Note that this isn't saying one side is more right than other or one side's votes should matter more than others, just an interesting dynamic that I think might be at play here. Maybe this'll help us understand the other side better.

If you only moved here in 2015, I can definitely understand why this isn’t as big of deal to you as it is to most of us who grew up here or at least lived here prior to mid 2000s.

[April in the Plaza]

There are 32 teams. There is no way their expansion fee would be $8-12 BILLION. I wish everyone would just stop with the fantasy hyperbole.

Never said that. You should try reading the articles.

$4 Billion x 2 = $8 Billion
$5 Billion x 2 = $10 Billion

"And that is why an expansion fee in the $4 billion to $5 billion range is so important. It’s so much easier to pencil out the owners coming out ahead than if the fee were, say, in the $3 billion to $3.5 billion range."

Source: https://theathletic.com/4030329/2022...ion-hollinger/

"While there’s no timeline for NBA expansion, Las Vegas is widely expected around the league to eventually be awarded a franchise. If that happens, an ownership group would then need approximately $4 billion to cover the NBA expansion fee."

Source: https://sportsnaut.com/las-vegas-nba-expansion-update/

[SouthOKC]

Never said that. You should try reading the articles.

$4 Billion x 2 = $8 Billion
$5 Billion x 2 = $10 Billion

"And that is why an expansion fee in the $4 billion to $5 billion range is so important. ItÂ’s so much easier to pencil out the owners coming out ahead than if the fee were, say, in the $3 billion to $3.5 billion range."

Source: https://theathletic.com/4030329/2022...ion-hollinger/

"While thereÂ’s no timeline for NBA expansion, Las Vegas is widely expected around the league to eventually be awarded a franchise. If that happens, an ownership group would then need approximately $4 billion to cover the NBA expansion fee."

Source: https://sportsnaut.com/las-vegas-nba-expansion-update/

This isn’t Clays arena, it’s not Kaisers arena, and it’s not Aubreys heir’s arena. This belongs to and will be Oklahoma City’s arena. Similar to the time we bet on us and built the Ford Center without a major tenant. All in hopes we would land a professional hockey team, then low and behold we got something even better an NBA team. How’d that happen? It was because a city that had no business with a professional basketball team created its own luck. As Mayor Holt pointed out it’s nice that the owners are pitching in $50M towards the new facility something we didn’t have the first go round. Personally, I could care less if they stand to make $75M/annually and get a nice potential carrot of $300M+ “IF” the NBA decides to expand. I could care less if Tempe voted down their proposal, if NYC built Yankee stadium with private money, if Jerry Jones paid for half of Jerry World…I DONT CARE. This is OKC and we do things via MAPS and public funding so far it’s worked amazingly.

[SouthOKC]

If there’s one thing the last several years have taught me, it’s that it’s a good idea to just kinda trust people in power and assume they’re doing what’s in your personal best interest without question.

I tend to trust a mayor with a proven track record that’s telling us not to roll the dice. Before I would trust some biased opinions regurgitating a message from Oklahoma Progress Now about a better deal that’s supposedly out there.

[Rover]

Never said that. You should try reading the articles.

$4 Billion x 2 = $8 Billion
$5 Billion x 2 = $10 Billion

"And that is why an expansion fee in the $4 billion to $5 billion range is so important. It’s so much easier to pencil out the owners coming out ahead than if the fee were, say, in the $3 billion to $3.5 billion range."

Source: https://theathletic.com/4030329/2022...ion-hollinger/

"While there’s no timeline for NBA expansion, Las Vegas is widely expected around the league to eventually be awarded a franchise. If that happens, an ownership group would then need approximately $4 billion to cover the NBA expansion fee."

Source: https://sportsnaut.com/las-vegas-nba-expansion-update/

It doesn’t indicate an expansion fee of $4 Billion. It says some team might get a sale price of $4 Billion. All the more reason we needn’t tempt the Thunder owners to sell to owners who move it to cities where it would get more revenue and be worth much more. Or, if you are right, to buy it to save from having to pay expansion fees… just buy a team.

Thanks for the info which supports the value of keeping them in the city and why we should make a deal.

[April in the Plaza]

It doesn’t indicate an expansion fee of $4 Billion. It says some team might get a sale price of $4 Billion. All the more reason we needn’t tempt the Thunder owners to sell to owners who move it to cities where it would get more revenue and be worth much more. Or, if you are right, to buy it to save from having to pay expansion fees… just buy a team.

Thanks for the info which supports the value of keeping them in the city and why we should make a deal.

Yeah, it does. You should try reading it again.

[BDP]

If the owners were like "we'll contribute $400M and keep the terms of the lease similar, but we want the Cox site" I'd say that's probably a good deal.

What's a good example of that happening in the league?

From what I can tell, and full details are sometimes hard to come by, when a team has contributed that much, they end up with significantly more (or total) participation in all arena operations than what's in the Thunder lease. The precedent seems to be that if ownership contributes upwards of 50%, the city forfeits participation in direct revenue from arena operations.

[BoulderSooner]

What's a good example of that happening in the league?

From what I can tell, and full details are sometimes hard to come by, when a team has contributed that much, they end up with significantly more (or total) participation in all arena operations than what's in the Thunder lease. The precedent seems to be that if ownership contributes upwards of 50%, the city forfeits participation in direct revenue from arena operations.

this is correct .. his example doesn't exist anywhere

[OkieHornet]

I know this is apples to oranges, but still sports venue-related. The Tampa Bay Rays baseball team is going to build a new stadium in St. Petersburg.

"the stadium is expected to have a fixed dome roof and artificial turf field, seat around 30,000 and cost in excess of $1.2 billion, with contributions from the team, St. Petersburg and Pinellas County. He (principal owner) also said the team expected to “pay for half or more” of the stadium project, and that the Rays were talking to investors to contribute to the $600 million or more cost in exchange for shares in the team."

[Teo9969]

What's a good example of that happening in the league?

From what I can tell, and full details are sometimes hard to come by, when a team has contributed that much, they end up with significantly more (or total) participation in all arena operations than what's in the Thunder lease. The precedent seems to be that if ownership contributes upwards of 50%, the city forfeits participation in direct revenue from arena operations.

My point is that it's not the ownerships decision on the site. To that end, we should not utilize the most prime real estate in the state of Oklahoma.for a stadium whose success will be entirely unaffected by it's location (assuming the location is reasonable). It's a way for OKC to reduce opportunity costs and given the enormity of the budget here, we need to make the right decision and put it on the coop site.

[TheTravellers]

My point is that it's not the ownerships decision on the site. To that end, we should not utilize the most prime real estate in the state of Oklahoma.for a stadium whose success will be entirely unaffected by it's location (assuming the location is reasonable). It's a way for OKC to reduce opportunity costs and given the enormity of the budget here, we need to make the right decision and put it on the coop site.

How would the co-op site get cleaned up and who would pay for it?

[SouthOKC]

My point is that it's not the ownerships decision on the site. To that end, we should not utilize the most prime real estate in the state of Oklahoma.for a stadium whose success will be entirely unaffected by it's location (assuming the location is reasonable). It's a way for OKC to reduce opportunity costs and given the enormity of the budget here, we need to make the right decision and put it on the coop site.

I’m not against the city considering alternative locations within the downtown area. However, it’s not a huge cost to the city with the prairie surf building. Also, it’s putting what will be the nicest facility in the region outside of Texas in the most prime piece of real estate. What better location to build off? You say it’s success is unaffected by location but it’s had no development plans and sits within blocks of other undeveloped parking lots.

I personally don’t understand the obsession with the COOP site. I don’t think that’s going to be as cheap as you think to acquire. Also, why that spot over nearly anywhere else along the river front etc… Is it because it’s leveled and you can visualize it better? Have you compared any other locations?

[David]

COOP site would be a massive mistake. Land acquisition costs, remediation costs, we'd waste millions picking that option for no good reason.

[BoulderSooner]

we need to make the right decision and put it on the coop site.

that would not be a good location for this arena

[HangryHippo]

that would not be a good location for this arena

Why not?

[Canoe]

How would the co-op site get cleaned up and who would pay for it?

Do we have an estimate on the cost to clean up the site?

[BoulderSooner]

Why not?

much further away from both parks and the omni .. for starters ..

which with how this development is all going to come together we wan this more centralized ..

[Teo9969]

much further away from both parks and the omni .. for starters ..

which with how this development is all going to come together we wan this more centralized ..

How is this development going to come together? You seem to know more than has been announced to the public.

All we know right now is that we're voting on an arena that's an improvement over Paycom with nicer suites (and ostensibly a better concourse and bowl setup). That's it.

Cox site needs something that brings thousands of people to those 4 blocks all day, all night, every day of the year. It sounds like we're getting something that brings people less than 100 evenings per year and sits vacant during the day.

[Teo9969]

Do we have an estimate on the cost to clean up the site?

If cost to purchase and clean up is under $200M, we should go to the coop.

[BDP]

Cox site needs something that brings thousands of people to those 4 blocks all day, all night, every day of the year. It sounds like we're getting something that brings people less than 100 evenings per year and sits vacant during the day.

What exactly are you talking about that would bring thousands of people all day, all night, everyday of the year. Is there even a proposal for such a thing on the table?

Also, why not just put whatever that is on the Paycom site and now you have both, right across the street from each other and you'd have thousands of people coming to that area all day, all night, every day of the year and, on top of that, you'd have thousands of additional people coming there 100 evenings a year.

I mean, as long as we're just using our imaginations.

[Teo9969]

The proposed arena is imagination at this point. $1.2B can realize a lot of imagination.

At any rate, Pete has already raised the concern that using the Cox site would be in direct conflict with the previously paid for planning study: https://www.okctalk.com/showthread.p...13#post1243813


OKC should use the Sony Center in Berlin as a template for what we could do on the Cox site: https://youtube.com/watch?v=61_FIiua...ZNsU_BLmt9-5U_

You could easily fit 1,000 apartments along with a HQ level office space, hotel, and copious amounts of entertainment on this site, all in the heart of downtown. If 1,000+ people live there and 2,000+ people work there, that pretty well covers all day, all night, every day of the year.

It's not like we've ever put the Cox site out for RFP, so asking why there isn't a proposal is not particularly relevant.

[goldenHurricane22]

The proposed arena is imagination at this point. $1.2B can realize a lot of imagination.

At any rate, Pete has already raised the concern that using the Cox site would be in direct conflict with the previously paid for planning study: https://www.okctalk.com/showthread.p...13#post1243813


OKC should use the Sony Center in Berlin as a template for what we could do on the Cox site: https://youtube.com/watch?v=61_FIiua...ZNsU_BLmt9-5U_

You could easily fit 1,000 apartments along with a HQ level office space, hotel, and copious amounts of entertainment on this site, all in the heart of downtown. If 1,000+ people live there and 2,000+ people work there, that pretty well covers all day, all night, every day of the year.

It's not like we've ever put the Cox site out for RFP, so asking why there isn't a proposal is not particularly relevant.

I'm curious what the time scale would be for something like this to be feasible to developers. If any of the other sites in that study were starting to build out on their own, then I'd be more in favor of this approach. If someone was to come into town wanting to build, I'm guessing a private developer would rather take the site in between Myriad and Scissortail before the Cox site--less demolition. That said, seeing how pretty much all the OKC districts still have empty lots to fill, I'm guessing it would be another 10-20 years before something of that scale would become enticing to developers without sizeable city assistance. Granted, the Boardwalk towers in Bricktown could be the ignition source for other developments (sometimes it really does come down to "if you build it, they will come"), albeit showing that likely each of those areas in the study will need sizeable TIF to get developed.

[Teo9969]

10-20 years is a totally reasonable amount of time to wait. We get one shot at the next development since it will likely stand for 100+ years.

[BoulderSooner]

How is this development going to come together? You seem to know more than has been announced to the public.

All we know right now is that we're voting on an arena that's an improvement over Paycom with nicer suites (and ostensibly a better concourse and bowl setup). That's it.

Cox site needs something that brings thousands of people to those 4 blocks all day, all night, every day of the year. It sounds like we're getting something that brings people less than 100 evenings per year and sits vacant during the day.

you are missing the biggest city need for a new arena .. .

which is the loading docks / set up area ...

the peake currently can NOT host back to back events .. because of loading and set up space .. that is a major issue for OKC .. and events .. and a huge reason why we need a new arena .. .

the suites are not really an issue ...

the new arena will have tons more restaurants bars/clubs the 300 level of the new building will actually have bar / restaurant space .. the peake doesn't and that space is for the lowest priced tickets ..


there are different big plans for the co-op site ..

[mugofbeer]

I know this is apples to oranges, but still sports venue-related. The Tampa Bay Rays baseball team is going to build a new stadium in St. Petersburg.

"the stadium is expected to have a fixed dome roof and artificial turf field, seat around 30,000 and cost in excess of $1.2 billion, with contributions from the team, St. Petersburg and Pinellas County. He (principal owner) also said the team expected to “pay for half or more” of the stadium project, and that the Rays were talking to investors to contribute to the $600 million or more cost in exchange for shares in the team."

I'll comment because l've seen their current dome. When you travel around FL you see concrete domed sewage treatment ponds. The St. Pete dome was built to withstand hurricanes and looks exactly like a giant sewage teatment pond. They very badly need something more positively iconic.