New Downtown Arena

[PhiAlpha]

This is an extremely important point in my mind.

Based on the current roster the Thunder better be prepared to go well into the luxury tax if warranted. Right now we’re buying into the exposure and benefits of the NBA and it’s brand. Meaning playoffs, Finals, and a potential championship parade. While there are no guarantees it would be very disappointing if we fund this arena only to have ownership cheap out and pocket new TV money.

LOL there's never been any indication of a lack of planning well into the future for Presti and the rest of management. They've shown a willingness to go into the luxury tax with no plan to get below it for a long period of time before. They were prepared to pay the luxury tax until KD and Westbrook really started to physically decline which probably would've been from about 2015-2025 or 2026. No reason to assume they won't do it again if the roster talent is good enough, especially with all the draft picks and rights to young players we still have. I wouldn't be overly concerned about that.

[HOT ROD]

There ARE no plans. They literally cannot officially land on a location OR hire an architect to draw plans until taxpayers have approved the initiative. I’m not sure why this is so difficult for posters here to understand.

the chamber and the thunder CAN. also, it was proven that there were renderings of the original maps prior to that vote, likely created by the chamber (since apparently the city can't spend money before a vote. ..). Im not sure why you're so against renderings; It would move a few people that may accept the Thunder's minimal contribution if they could at least see what the vision is.

Why the city is not saying the location as the Myriad is beyond me, if they would announce the location (as the Myriad) THAT could solve the issue of why we need to start construction 3 years ahead of time (demolition, site prep) and take on some debt. In addition to why there isn't a rendering of what the new Thunder Alley and Arena district could look like when you consider not only the original maps and even the most recent fairgrounds arena had renderings prior to their vote - but also other major cities we're competing against have renderings prior to their stadium/arena votes.

Come on OKC, do you want this to pass or not? Give people a vision, confidence, of what they're voting on (esp since it is the most expensive project in OKC history) rather than a duck and hide approach theyre taking so far. ..

[PhiAlpha]

the chamber and the thunder CAN. also, it was proven that there were renderings of the original maps prior to that vote, likely created by the chamber (since apparently the city can't spend money before a vote. ..). Im not sure why you're so against renderings; It would move a few people that may accept the Thunder's minimal contribution if they could at least see what the vision is.

Why the city is not saying the location as the Myriad is beyond me, if they would announce the location (as the Myriad) THAT could solve the issue of why we need to start construction 3 years ahead of time (demolition, site prep) and take on some debt. In addition to why there isn't a rendering of what the new Thunder Alley and Arena district could look like when you consider not only the original maps and even the most recent fairgrounds arena had renderings prior to their vote - but also other major cities we're competing against have renderings prior to their stadium/arena votes.

Come on OKC, do you want this to pass or not? Give people a vision, confidence, of what they're voting on (esp since it is the most expensive project in OKC history) rather than a duck and hide approach theyre taking so far. ..

What renderings were released before any of the MAPS votes? The only thing I remember seeing were the core to shore plans that featured conceptual renderings of the park and convention center

[chssooner]

the chamber and the thunder CAN. also, it was proven that there were renderings of the original maps prior to that vote, likely created by the chamber (since apparently the city can't spend money before a vote. ..). Im not sure why you're so against renderings; It would move a few people that may accept the Thunder's minimal contribution if they could at least see what the vision is.

Why the city is not saying the location as the Myriad is beyond me, if they would announce the location (as the Myriad) THAT could solve the issue of why we need to start construction 3 years ahead of time (demolition, site prep) and take on some debt. In addition to why there isn't a rendering of what the new Thunder Alley and Arena district could look like when you consider not only the original maps and even the most recent fairgrounds arena had renderings prior to their vote - but also other major cities we're competing against have renderings prior to their stadium/arena votes.

Come on OKC, do you want this to pass or not? Give people a vision, confidence, of what they're voting on (esp since it is the most expensive project in OKC history) rather than a duck and hide approach theyre taking so far. ..

Were these legitimate renderings, or just placeholders that ended up nothing like the actual products? What good do those do? Very minimal, and only serve to piss people off when they don't end up like the renderings.

[Urbanized]

the chamber and the thunder CAN. also, it was proven that there were renderings of the original maps prior to that vote, likely created by the chamber (since apparently the city can't spend money before a vote. ..). Im not sure why you're so against renderings; It would move a few people that may accept the Thunder's minimal contribution if they could at least see what the vision is.

Why the city is not saying the location as the Myriad is beyond me, if they would announce the location (as the Myriad) THAT could solve the issue of why we need to start construction 3 years ahead of time (demolition, site prep) and take on some debt. In addition to why there isn't a rendering of what the new Thunder Alley and Arena district could look like when you consider not only the original maps and even the most recent fairgrounds arena had renderings prior to their vote - but also other major cities we're competing against have renderings prior to their stadium/arena votes.

Come on OKC, do you want this to pass or not? Give people a vision, confidence, of what they're voting on (esp since it is the most expensive project in OKC history) rather than a duck and hide approach theyre taking so far. ..

Good grief. I'm not against renderings. I am explaining why there is no budget yet to have architectural work done. The City can't spend on the issue until it passes. Nobody else is going to pay for detailed renderings on a City-funded and City-owned project, either.

What you can bet is that they have a comprehensive listing of desired things like square footage, number/size of premium spaces, loading docks and much more that have come courtesy the NBA and/or consultants, all based on best practices. Those will ultimately be used by architects - once they are hired - to determine the reality of the building, combined with site location and ancillary development.

It's a false statement to say that MAPS projects had renderings with any level of detail pre-vote. In some cases there were artist conceptual drawings of what a building MIGHT look like, but those were guesses, not plans. I wouldn't be shocked if there will be something similar in campaign materials for the arena vote, once those are released. But don't expect that the building would end up looking like anything that is dreamed up before architects actually take on the project, AND before the site is selected.

Speaking of which, they haven't come out and said it will be on the Myriad/Cox/Prairie Surf site BECAUSE THAT HAS NOT BEEN DETERMINED YET.

Once again, the City cannot act until the vote is passed. And at that point there will be a selection process of some sort. There are a number of variables that could influence where the building goes. Those of course include whether or not the City owns the property, which clearly makes the Myriad site appealing a pretty good site to bet upon. But other factors include demolition expense, elapsed time for demolition, existing leases, potential location expenses if moving a tenant, need to relocate or replace mechanicals that run through the basement of that building (if chosen), potential environmental challenges, potential for land swaps, contiguous development options, needs/desires for other buildings such as convention center or convention hotel expansion, timelines for one location vs another, and on and on and on. These things will take much due diligence. I'm sure some of that is going on as we discuss this issue.

Mayor Holt has said time and again that the site has not been selected, though insists that it will be downtown. You should believe him.

This discussion has become ridiculous and tedious. Folks need to bone up on civics.

[Dob Hooligan]

Help my memory, was the convention center "moved" from the Fred Jones Ford site before or after a vote?

[PhiAlpha]

Help my memory, was the convention center "moved" from the Fred Jones Ford site before or after a vote?

It was moved back and forth several times after the vote. I don't think a specific site was mentioned until after it passed.

[Urbanized]

^^^^^^^^^^
The current site of the convention center was shown in some of the early drawings, but that was mainly because it had already been identified as a future location for the cc during the City's extensive Core2Shore planning exercise. The City was already quite certain that the location of Scissortail, too, for the same reason. That park location was largely driven by land vacated during the I-40 relocation and construction of the boulevard.

That said the cc DID jump around a bit during consideration and the selection process and wasn't landed on with certainty until years after MAPS 3 was passed.

[Urbanized]

Also notable that the City did not begin site acquisition for the park and cc until after the passage of MAPS 3.

[warreng88]

Help my memory, was the convention center "moved" from the Fred Jones Ford site before or after a vote?

The original MAPS3 and core to shore video showed it east of the park. When the yes vote came through, the city had several sites in mind for the convention center including the current location, west of the arena (REHCO lot), north of BT parking lot (this came with an expanded Skirvin idea) and the producers CO-OP, just to name a few. There were renderings for the CC on the REHCO (Fred Jones Ford site) lot with the contiguous space being underground and a break on the ground level as to not create a super block and an area where people could pass between Scissortail park and Myriad Gardens. At the end of the day, the cost of the land was too high and they had already secured most of the last east of the park.

[warreng88]

Chad beat me to it...

[PhiAlpha]

Also notable that the City did not begin site acquisition for the park and cc until after the passage of MAPS 3.

It's almost like you need to have the funding and general plan locked down/approved before you can start spending money. Weird how that works.

[warreng88]

Question because I don't know: the city is saving $70 million from the MAPS4 vote. Could the city spend that on renderings for the new arena? Since that was specified for the arena, would the council have to vote to use some of that money for renderings for the new arena?

[SouthOKC]

LOL there's never been any indication of a lack of planning well into the future for Presti and the rest of management. They've shown a willingness to go into the luxury tax with no plan to get below it for a long period of time before. They were prepared to pay the luxury tax until KD and Westbrook really started to physically decline which probably would've been from about 2015-2025 or 2026. No reason to assume they won't do it again if the roster talent is good enough, especially with all the draft picks and rights to young players we still have. I wouldn't be overly concerned about that.

I agree. I believe they will go into luxury tax based on the established history.

However, someone did raise the topic and it’s a fair point. I think there is a far greater likelihood they won’t go into the luxury tax vs. moving the team. Also, how far are they willing to go into the tax? Again 3 players could put you there within the next 5-6 years. They have several other very talented players that will expect to be paid too. There is established history with that too, in the case of James Harden.

By uniquely publicly funding 95% of the arena we the people are placing a lot of trust in a private business. The opportunity to capitalize on greater tv money and lower payroll through player trades is a real possibility.

[Laramie]

Question because I don't know: the city is saving $70 million from the MAPS4 vote. Could the city spend that on renderings for the new arena? Since that was specified for the arena, would the council have to vote to use some of that money for renderings for the new arena?

We all want to know the answer about the $70 million as well. Also the $50 million that the ownership group has promised to contribute.

[Urbanized]

^^^^^^^^^
I haven’t spoken with anyone regarding the specifics of this part, but my assumption is that - again - it would be considered inappropriate for the City to tap those funds UNTIL such time as the issue has been passed by voters.

Let me just say here that as taxpayers we should be greatly relieved that the City generally cannot spend significant taxpayer dollars on speculative projects. If the City went out and spent millions of dollars on plans for a building that in the end was never built, the scandal would be great, and richly deserved.

If the arena effort did not pass, I believe that the $70 million could theoretically be restored to Paycom funding, though what a bitter pill THAT would be.

[SouthOKC]

^^^^^^^^^
I haven’t spoken with anyone regarding the specifics of this part, but my assumption is that - again - it would be considered inappropriate for the City to tap those funds UNTIL such time as the issue has been passed by voters.

Let me just say here that as taxpayers we should be greatly relieved that the City generally cannot spend significant taxpayer dollars on speculative projects. If the City went out and spent millions of dollars on plans for a building that in the end was never built, the scandal would be great, and richly deserved.

If the arena effort did not pass, I believe that the $70 million could theoretically be restored to Paycom funding, though what a bitter pill THAT would be.

This isn’t a MAPS project and this isn’t a speculative build. If it’s a spec build then how are there tentative lease terms?

This is a private entity telling the city to fund 95% of new building. A building to meet their specific needs as a franchise of the NBA. There isn’t anything you can compare this to based on the nature and scope of the “request.”

[Mountaingoat]

This isn’t a MAPS project and this isn’t a speculative build. If it’s a spec build then how are there tentative lease terms?

This is a private entity telling the city to fund 95% of new building. A building to meet their specific needs as a franchise of the NBA. There isn’t anything you can compare this to based on the nature and scope of the “request.”

Thats pretty normal for professional sports facilities.

[HOT ROD]

Exactly, this is not MAPS. And as I said, the CHAMBER and TEAM could and should come up with renderings. I don't know WHY people on here keep harping about the CITY coming up with renderings. I'm saying the Chamber and Team should IF they want to guarantee this to pass.

There has to be something, otherwise, what is the comp for $900m minimum? It;s a tough sell to ask for $900m when we literally have no idea what will be built or where, only when. This sounds like a slush fund, the largest single expenditure in city history - yet the team and chamber can't share what it is they want? At least the fairgrounds had renderings far before the MAPS vote - and I harp on the Fairgrounds lack of transparency probably more than anyone yet they had renderings somehow (and I thought they are a city agency).

Again, could the Chamber and/or Team put something together? Similar to the MAPS Conceptual video rendering.

[Laramie]

True, this is not a traditional MAPS format 'Pay as you go.' Taxpayers are being asked to extend the MAPS 4 Sales Tax to pay off a TBD loan.

We should have a full picture of how this development will be funded once a site is selected.

[Urbanized]

This isn’t a MAPS project and this isn’t a speculative build…

By “speculative” I meant that the City would be spending taxpayer dollars on a project that they only are hoping will pass, with no guarantees that it will. That would be poor stewardship of public funds.

[Urbanized]

Had an interesting conversation yesterday evening with someone very close to the arena effort. One of the things that was pointed out to me when we discussed the desire some have to see premature renderings - months or even years before the actual design work will be done - is that no qualified architect would be willing to give up their chance to bid on the full project for a few thousand bucks of work. That is, any architect who drew pretty pictures for an ad campaign would thereafter be excluded from bidding on the full design package (worth millions).

Meaning - again - that there ARE no plans to show off, that there WON’T BE plans to show off (until real design work is done, post-approval), and that any images you would see in campaign materials could not possibly be a representation of the actual building.

Another way to say it: as a City project, design work for the arena will be subject to a competitive selection process. If someone was tasked with creating a conceptual for a taxpayer-funded building yet to be approved by voters, they’d be excluded from the selection process, when it happens. Otherwise other firms could make the (strong) case that the initial designer had an unfair inside track.

Again, the question is a simple one: do we want to remain an NBA city, and home to the Thunder? If so, it will require a modern NBA facility. Don’t vote “no” for any reason OTHER than you believe it’s OK for the team and league to depart OKC, because at the end of the day, that will be the result of a no vote.

[PoliSciGuy]

What an incredibly over-simplistic and condescending way to describe the opposition. There are lots of reasons to vote no that don’t even involve the Thunder. Folks can vote no because it’s the single largest outlay of public funds for an NBA/NHL arena. Folks can vote no because they think that money can be better used elsewhere. Folks can vote no because of the lack of transparency on numerous aspects of the deal. Claiming that folks are only voting no to kick out the team misses the point entirely, which is odd because that point has been made dozens of time now in this thread for those who have read it.

[Rover]

What an incredibly over-simplistic and condescending way to describe the opposition. There are lots of reasons to vote no that don’t even involve the Thunder. Folks can vote no because it’s the single largest outlay of public funds for an NBA/NHL arena. Folks can vote no because they think that money can be better used elsewhere. Folks can vote no because of the lack of transparency on numerous aspects of the deal. Claiming that folks are only voting no to kick out the team misses the point entirely, which is odd because that point has been made dozens of time now in this thread for those who have read it.

Then SIMPLE truth is they may have various reasons they want to vote no, but the results of failure is the likely relocation of the team if a deal can’t be done. It’s unlikely to be a protracted process of vote, restructure, vote, restructure, rinse and repeat. The deal won’t be negotiated by all the citizens, but by their representatives. And now, their representatives are saying they believe this to be the appropriate deal.

[Urbanized]

What an incredibly over-simplistic and condescending way to describe the opposition. There are lots of reasons to vote no that don’t even involve the Thunder. Folks can vote no because it’s the single largest outlay of public funds for an NBA/NHL arena. Folks can vote no because they think that money can be better used elsewhere. Folks can vote no because of the lack of transparency on numerous aspects of the deal. Claiming that folks are only voting no to kick out the team misses the point entirely, which is odd because that point has been made dozens of time now in this thread for those who have read it.

Incredible irony here regarding simplistic and condescending reductions, and once again, completely wrong in your assessment.

I’m not at all diminishing the reasons someone might WANT to vote “no.” What I’m saying is that an informed no vote must also accept that the team WILL leave as a consequence. Anyone who wants the team to stay but thinks they can vote no as a method of sending a message, or somehow reshaping the negotiation; if they believe there will be “do-overs” or another chance to get this done, they’re gravely mistaken.