Since it's unlikely we'll hear much about the proposal for a "Downtown Soccer Stadium" in the east village anytime soon, might as well split off into a general discussion of whether MLS in Tulsa would be a good fit and what it would bring to the city. Tulsa's fallen off the radar screen for an expansion team. However, everybody thought Tulsa's bid was DEAD last summer at this time;
Then came this story in late August 2005 that surfaced in the Tulsa World:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=050828_Ne_A1_Plann42774&archive=yes
Then seemingly out of nowhere, a Tulsa group was courting MLS at MLS Cup in Frisco, TX last November and the rest of the story, well... here's hoping the story isn't over... yet... http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=051118_Ne_A1_Citym117&archive=yes
The World Cup has overshadowed a couple of nice developments. The Chicago Fire play their first game at Toyota Park tonight:
(http://chicago.fire.mlsnet.com/images/2006/05/31/vlawOUHE.jpg)
And the Rochester(NY) Rhinos of the USL played their first home game at PaeTec Park (ed: now Marina Auto Stadium) last week:
(http://www.somalirochesterny.com/marina_auto_stadium.jpg)
EDIT: 8/9/2009: only to update a couple of links/pics which no longer work
Are Americans Becoming Soccer Fans?
Parochialism Persists, But Ticket Sales, TV Ratings and U.S. Team Heroics Show Progress
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203609204574317122524606410.html
It's blooming Oklahoma....and Tulsa deserves this more than any other sports program outside of college football.
Can we please get ahead of the curve instead of playing the last one in the game?
$40 million for an expansion franchise. What would a soccer specific venue cost?
It seemed like everyone played soccer in Tulsa back in the early 80's. If we get a team, we should name it Tulsa United, not lightning, thunder, twisters or anything like that. It would certainly be better attended than the WNBA(though I am not against that). The field should be near or in Chandler park.
Chandler....we already have a place at 15th and Yale....
Quote from: FOTD on July 29, 2009, 03:18:35 PM
Chandler....we already have a place at 15th and Yale....
I've been suggesting it to the County Commissioners. I recommend that you do as well.
Quote from: TURobY on July 29, 2009, 03:34:57 PM
I've been suggesting it to the County Commissioners. I recommend that you do as well.
They'll only listen if sent a "cam pain" contribution....no thanks.
Quote from: FOTD on July 29, 2009, 04:39:20 PM
They'll only listen if sent a "cam pain" contribution....no thanks.
That is not true of Karen Keith at all.
I've actually gotten a lot of response from Karen Keith, Fred Perry and Terry Simonson.
It's a shame, FOTD, that you are too apatheic and cynical to be involved in local matters. You're energy and gusto, when aimed, are admirable and could be a real asset to the Tulsa area.
Why not put a facility on the West Bank of the river around 23rd? The amphitheatre is probably going away. It could serve multiple uses for concerts, festivals and local club use. Get rid of the concrete plant or the Public Works stuff and make good use of the land.
Soccer has a strong following here and we should tap into it.
Quote from: Floyd on July 29, 2009, 02:56:00 PM
$40 million for an expansion franchise. What would a soccer specific venue cost?
Probably around $75 Million plus land.
Quote from: waterboy on July 30, 2009, 12:27:28 AM
Why not put a facility on the West Bank of the river around 23rd?
Well, for the time being, the reason that won't happen is because the mayor's office could seemingly care less about the west bank. It isn't in the IDL!
New mayor coming into office soon... Maybe the city and new mayor could reconnect with the Branson Landing guys who whose proposal for the west bank was simply ignored by the current higher ups. A Tulsa Landing that included an MLS stadium sounds like an awesome idea to me.
Quote from: waterboy on July 30, 2009, 12:27:28 AM
Why not put a facility on the West Bank of the river around 23rd? The amphitheatre is probably going away.
On the amphitheater, it's not a matter of "if" it's "when". My source is pretty solid. Also look for the lagoon to get filled back in. (Lagoon in, lagoon out. Main Mall in, Main Mall out).
If that concrete plant is worth developing and could be profitable as something else, let a private investor pay the plant owners their exhorbitant ransom. Meanwhile, there's a city M & E facility I believe we were promised would be consolidated out with the OneTech purchase and moving maintenance ops to the old downtown airpark or was this just another iffy promise made by proponents of the 2007 river tax scam?
I'd be all for putting a multi-use stadium on the west bank, just so long as it goes on land we already own, or is part of a privately-funded MUD.
+1 on all counts Conan.
I'm curious if Kaiser still holds the option on the apartment complex over there. All those river plans seem so long ago . . .
Quote from: Floyd on July 30, 2009, 02:32:19 PM
I'm curious if Kaiser still holds the option on the apartment complex over there. All those river plans seem so long ago . . .
I believe it was Warren, not Kaiser that had the option on it. Honestly I'd hate to see someone knock down Westport, it's the only complex that's actually situated on the riverbank, it's reasonibly well kept, and it seems to attract good renters.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 30, 2009, 02:37:34 PM
I believe it was Warren, not Kaiser that had the option on it. Honestly I'd hate to see someone knock down Westport, it's the only complex that's actually situated on the riverbank, it's reasonibly well kept, and it seems to attract good renters.
That's funny. My recollection is that the option was on the concrete plant, not the apartments, and that the city held the option. Maybe there were two options.
"The William K. Warren Medical Research Center has signed purchase options totaling $65 million to acquire the sites of the Westport on the River apartments and the Mid-Continent Concrete Co. for a proposed $788 million river development, it was revealed Wednesday."
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=061102_Ne_A1_Optio29493&archive=yes
Tulsa World Nov. 2, 2006
Quote from: Conan71 on July 30, 2009, 08:50:35 AM
On the amphitheater, it's not a matter of "if" it's "when". My source is pretty solid. Also look for the lagoon to get filled back in. (Lagoon in, lagoon out. Main Mall in, Main Mall out).
If that concrete plant is worth developing and could be profitable as something else, let a private investor pay the plant owners their exhorbitant ransom. Meanwhile, there's a city M & E facility I believe we were promised would be consolidated out with the OneTech purchase and moving maintenance ops to the old downtown airpark or was this just another iffy promise made by proponents of the 2007 river tax scam?
I'd be all for putting a multi-use stadium on the west bank, just so long as it goes on land we already own, or is part of a privately-funded MUD.
Yes, I agree with you on most of that. I recently talked to someone who knew of the Branson snub. He visited there recently and told me he was quite impressed with their operation and it was very busy.
Has any one considered that we could eminent domain the concrete plant if we can't find private funding?
Quote from: waterboy on July 30, 2009, 05:55:33 PM
Yes, I agree with you on most of that. I recently talked to someone who knew of the Branson snub. He visited there recently and told me he was quite impressed with their operation and it was very busy.
Has any one considered that we could eminent domain the concrete plant if we can't find private funding?
Um, you do realize that eminent domain isn't free, right?
The price for the concrete plant was inflated. Eminent domain would put it back into a fair and reasonable value.
Quote from: waterboy on July 30, 2009, 08:30:10 PM
The price for the concrete plant was inflated. Eminent domain would put it back into a fair and reasonable value.
You do remember the Denver Grill during the BOK Center land acquisition, right?
From a real estate development standpoint these posts are comical.
And from a tax paying citizen viewpoint these comments indicate an interesting irony. So many issues on the National scene get trashed over the expediture by government by several posties. Quite the flip when it comes down to the local level expenditures and the total lack of insight into funding future deferred maintenance items.
Besides, there's no way you can put anything attractive other than re mediated parks along the western edge. You go and breathe that crap while watching soccer.
One other point with regard to parking. The ballpark downtown will be adversely affected by the lack of nearby parking. Hopefully, TPA or a foundation will build one nearby quick and soon...or the Fairground have all that there already. It's really a no brainer.
It would be nice to see a soccer team the likes of 1980 back in town.
I would suggest no more parking lots or garages downtown, lets get people used to using "trolleys" and other mass transit. I have actually been happy to see how well Tulsans have adapted to the use of the shuttle buses and "trolleys" in the area. We used them when family came into town for Mayfest and friends for D-Fest. Its become part of the experience for me and the people with me. Hopefully over the years it will become a memorable tradition and second nature habit. Once you have done it a few times, its absolutely no big deal. Having the ballpark downtown will help get more people used to using the shuttles, and help the shuttles/trolleys stay in business. One more little step to getting mass transit started and woven into the nature of our city. Its good to start as early as possible for its easier that way in the long haul.
Quote from: FOTD on July 30, 2009, 09:02:14 PM
From a real estate development standpoint these posts are comical.
And from a tax paying citizen viewpoint these comments indicate an interesting irony. So many issues on the National scene get trashed over the expediture by government by several posties. Quite the flip when it comes down to the local level expenditures and the total lack of insight into funding future deferred maintenance items.
Great, contribute something substantive and explain why they are comical. What are we missing here?
Quote from: Conan71 on July 31, 2009, 09:46:24 AM
Great, contribute something substantive and explain why they are comical. What are we missing here?
You know zilch about development. You just come up with the grandiose picture in your alcohol splattered parched skull and think "why not?" without figuring the effect it has on the city over the long term. Too many duplicitous ideas and too little research to back any of it up.
Again, the irony of the National positions compared to the local situation is humorous. You are a hypo crit.
You'd prefer to see a soccer stadium in a dirty smelly toxic environment paid for through taxes on citizens over having health care for 50+million of your fellow Americans paid for by corporate taxes and the wealthiest %1 of America?
Go figure.
Quote from: FOTD on July 31, 2009, 10:47:22 AM
You'd prefer to see a soccer stadium in a dirty smelly toxic environment paid for through taxes on citizens over having health care for 50+million of your fellow Americans paid for by corporate taxes and the wealthiest %1 of America?
Yes.
Quote from: FOTD on July 31, 2009, 10:47:22 AM
You know zilch about development. You just come up with the grandiose picture in your alcohol splattered parched skull and think "why not?" without figuring the effect it has on the city over the long term. Too many duplicitous ideas and too little research to back any of it up.
Again, the irony of the National positions compared to the local situation is humorous. You are a hypo crit.
You'd prefer to see a soccer stadium in a dirty smelly toxic environment paid for through taxes on citizens over having health care for 50+million of your fellow Americans paid for by corporate taxes and the wealthiest %1 of America?
Go figure.
And you prove your superior knowledge of development by using ad-hominems and straw man arguments. Thanks for sharing in such a substantive way we can all understand and appreciate.
Really, FOTD, you can do better than laugh at all of us. Its just thinking out loud anyway. BTW, I have gone and watched soccer games and breathed all that crap for the last two decades. The West Bank Soccer fields are nestled between Sinclair Refinery and a concrete trucking company. Didn't seem so bad. The parents were more dangerous than the air.
I went to the Roughneck games back in the 80s.
And thought that it was great fun and entertainment.
The problem is I am not sure that soccer has grown in popularity much since the NASL of back then. Sure Beckham may be todays answer to Pele, but one stars shoulders cant carry the load of a entire league.
We will never be where Europe is and always will be about Futbol.
I dont care how many US kids play soccer. The parents have the money and the NFL, MLB and NBA will always get it.
The Tulsa Roughnecks won the Soccer Bowl and Tulsa(the city)had no idea what they had accomplished.
I have no problem with the WNBA coming here but entertainment dollars are going to be few and far between.
MLS will struggle here, But they wont be alone.
Hmmmm..........
(http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l256/200sxturbo/stupid%20stuff/old_thread_alert.jpg)
Back in late 2005, Tulsa had a couple of aces-in-the-hole: Winnercomm and Lamar Hunt.
Lamar Hunt died and Winnercomm is no longer locally owned.
Back in 2005, Tulsa's bid was only 2 years removed from this MLS exhibition game at Skelly....
(http://www.kcpace.com/4_5_03_preki.jpg)
The game attracted 14,000 fans and 25% of this crowd signed up for season tickets... not just a signup, these folks gave out credit card and checking info... a couple of months later, the season ticket drive had around 5,000 but the MLS stadium didn't make the list of projects for Vision 2025, and MLS placed a team in Salt Lake City in 2005...
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_12934438
Tulsa also had a 2002 feasibility study done by Convention, Sports & Leisure, who did a telephone survey concluding a Tulsa MLS team would have a projected average of 14,600 fans per game... CS&L's feasibility study for the Kansas City Wizards projected an average of 12,000 fans per game.
I was happy to see former Mayor LaFortune show some due diligence in trying to get a team here-- MLS officials proactively contacted Tulsa within weeks of LaFortune taking office..... and I think the proposed site for a TIF district that included condos, retail, entertainment and a 20k-capacity stadium off 6th and Frankfort was a good idea and a good location... it still is... I like "walkable urbanity" as much as anyone, but that area is not the place for simple "gut-rehabs".... the buildings in question are unremarkable and likely would cost more to rehab than rebuild....
In 1976 and 1977, the idea of a successful high level pro soccer team in Tulsa was far-fetched... 1994- Tulsa was $1.8mil in Skelly Stadium renovations from getting a league owned MLS team... 2002- MLS demands a stadium because Skelly is too big--field is too narrow--press box doesn't have luxury suites/seating... 2005- city partners with DC United's new owners for TIF district in "East Village"... 2007- over $20mil spent to renovate Skelly Stadium- press box now has the same number of luxury suites as Pizza Hut Park in Dallas/Frisco, fixed seating reduced to 26,000, but the field is still too narrow and the turf has permanent markings.....
1996-no expansion fee... 2002, $10mil MLS expansion fee.... 2005, $15mil MLS expansion fee.... 2008-- MLS asked for $40mil but rumored fees paid were $35mil for both Vancouver and Portland, who will start play in 2011....
And so it goes......
Quote from: Conan71 on July 30, 2009, 08:50:35 AM
On the amphitheater, it's not a matter of "if" it's "when". My source is pretty solid. Also look for the lagoon to get filled back in. (Lagoon in, lagoon out. Main Mall in, Main Mall out).
If that concrete plant is worth developing and could be profitable as something else, let a private investor pay the plant owners their exhorbitant ransom. Meanwhile, there's a city M & E facility I believe we were promised would be consolidated out with the OneTech purchase and moving maintenance ops to the old downtown airpark or was this just another iffy promise made by proponents of the 2007 river tax scam?
I'd be all for putting a multi-use stadium on the west bank, just so long as it goes on land we already own, or is part of a privately-funded MUD.
Would those ideas really add up to finding the public and private funds necessary to get this kind of project off the ground and provide any sort of incentive to build a stadium?... in this economy?.. and I didn't even realize Tulsa had Metro Utilities Districts? Or does "privately-funded MUD" mean something else? Because of the bad economy, I understand the lack of interest in TIF districts at this point in time. But wouldn't a TIF and other incentives be a "must" to construct any sort of high profile project, even without a stadium?
Just so you know, alot of my venom in previous "MLS in Tulsa" posts dating back to 2005/2006 (including this thread when I originally started it)...... was due to the insistence that there was some sort of acceptable political compromise that could allow for a multi-use stadium to house both the Drillers and an MLS team. There were links and pictures posted of those multi-use stadiums... and one example that was often used to advance that argument was PG&E park in Portland.....
MLS to Portland: Yes, the Beavers Gotta Move!11:24 AM May 29th, 2009
http://blogs.wweek.com/news/2009/05/29/mls-to-portland-yes-the-beavers-gotta-move/
Portland City Council OK's Remodel of PGE Park For Major League Soccer5:59 PM July 23rd, 2009
http://blogs.wweek.com/news/2009/07/23/portland-city-council-oks-remodel-of-pge-park-for-major-league-soccer/
When you watch webforum threads veer off into politically correct or politically popular groupthink territory..... yet you know.... FOR A FACT.... that a new soccer stadium/ballpark to be shared with the Drillers, will NOT get Tulsa an MLS team.... you let people know about it, in no uncertain terms.
So, then the argument starts to evolve from calling it a "soccer-specific stadium" (the term preferred by MLS and coined by Lamar Hunt).... into calling it a "soccer-only" facility. Advancing that debate to its logical conclusion, guess what?
We are now building a "baseball-only" facility downtown.And if you haven't noticed, most new NFL stadiums are being built with wider sidelines to accommodate soccer-- (i.e. international exhibitions, national team games, possible future World Cup games, and in Seattle's case, an MLS team).... hard to find dependable stats, but Skelly Field at Chapman Stadium is about 64 yards wide, when pro standards (MLS, USL, FIFA) call for playing fields of at least 70 yards and no more than 80 yards wide....
Which brings us to this:
Voting down the River Tax had its consequences. IMO, this west bank project was one of them. And those Branson people can just as easily build this kind of stuff in Jixby/South Tulsa or BA or Owasso..... And what is there for infrastructure? One bridge that would connect the west bank to the city?
But hey, if a USL-1 team that attracts 5 or 6 or 7 or 8,000 fans per game needs to move away from the fairgrounds at some undetermined date and the Branson people want to build a stadium to house them as part of their proposal.... then sure, why not?
The "MUD" I referred to meant mixed use development. Might not be an appropriate acronym...oops.
Fast-forward two years, and even with the river tax, it's possible this Branson Landing still would not happen since it was proposed as private/public. If the BL folks lost their source of funding or couldn't secure something, we'd still have the same river bank on the west side only the county would be collecting their extra regressive tax.
No, the wheels weren't coming off the national economy at that point, but there were signs the lug nuts were loose. The city, to date, has still not made good on promises to vacate the M & E facility which leads me to believe there was a whole lot of lily-guilding going on between the river tax, the move to OneTech, and the seemingly continual stream of plan renderings coming from the river tax propagandists. I still have a picture of Randi Miller in her office with her toadies trying to come up with all sorts of hooks on a daily basis to get people to vote for that sh!t burger of a package.
Don't get me wrong. I've been on record as saying I'd love a stadium on the west bank, I truly would. I simply think any measure or idea to date that's gone in that direction has been either corrupt or very ripe for it. The county had no business jumping in the middle of the river tax package. It took a lot of audacity to think that the successful V-2025 vote would translate to success for pretty much a Tulsa-only project. All the Sand Springs, Jenks, and BA/Bixby parts of the project were obvious afterthoughts and those people saw through it.
Well, I don' think you can blame the county for proceeding forward with a county wide river package/vote. Blame those at the City that didn't have the courage to roll it out as a City package. I still can't figure out why we can't take what we learned from the failed County wide vote (which is that a City package would have passed) and re-launch the package as City only...