|
Title: Should a baseball park be public? Post by: David Arnett on December 22, 2007, 10:56:20 am With continuing public discussion of a possible move by the Tulsa Drillers, the ten-ton gorilla in the room is the question: Who should pay for the stadium?
As a business, the Drillers are not making enough pure profit to afford their own stadium as most teams could not. Industry leaders suggest the costs to be between $22 and $25 million. The options then are public financing or a private developer that would include a stadium as a draw for a greater (retail, residential, whatever) area. If it is a private development then by rights where it is built should not be public business although fans will ultimately decide the success or failure of any choice. If public money is used, of course, the location could be determined by the public officials with public support, but few, if any, seem interested in raising taxes to pay for such a project. Is a baseball stadium a proper priority for public funding in Tulsa? Title: Should a baseball park be public? Post by: FOTD on December 22, 2007, 02:40:53 pm NO WAY! The government needs to stay away from interfering in free markets.
Tulsa has a large number of people who have been capitulated into the mega millions and billions during the Bush dynasty. Let them put their collective pocket books together, or better find an angel, like so many in other cities have done to get their names on stadiums. This city has so many more greater priorities. Surely, the Lorton family could step up to the plate and hit a home run with their network. They shoved an areema down our throats along with the Vatican's ambassador. Pray. Title: Should a baseball park be public? Post by: sgrizzle on December 22, 2007, 08:15:23 pm On one hand I would like for it to be public because I think in general it would open it up to more low/no profit events like high school baseball, etc. However, in this case, I think the Drillers would manage it fine themselves if they owned it. If some out of town developer owned it, then I'm afraid they would want too much off tickets and concessions to price games out of the reach of many in the local community.
Title: Should a baseball park be public? Post by: Wrinkle on December 22, 2007, 08:52:59 pm Forgot one option.
What's wrong with staying where they are? Title: Should a baseball park be public? Post by: guido911 on December 22, 2007, 08:55:47 pm quote: I will remember you said that, next time we have a discussion about health care, education, etc... Title: Should a baseball park be public? Post by: Conan71 on December 22, 2007, 09:08:06 pm quote: Aox seems to be selectively liberal, a poser liberal, if you will. [;)] Title: Should a baseball park be public? Post by: FOTD on December 23, 2007, 01:17:48 am Hey. No fair. Capitalism and free enterprise is baseball. Even if there is a powerless government commissioner.
Public education is a government duty and part of our fabric from day one. Even though, it seems baseball gets more attention. Medicare and medicaid were instituted after baseball and health care’s profitability comes at the expense of America. As a matter of fact, the government facilitated this mess, the many allowed conflicts of interest between big pharma and docs as with insurance companies and providers, so it's governments duty now to manage it. Hence, the health care industry needs intervention and tough oversight to protect America's citizens from abuses. You can't define me.....It's an enigma. The more segmented society gets, the less likely you will be able to label. Baseball fans are a small segment of our world in Tulsa. Taxpayers are a big segment. Proportionality? What's the cost for a good stadium? $30,000,000? That's nothing for well over 100 Tulsans today. Out them on it. Leave our tax rolls segregated from bleachers and beer. One last suggestion.....and FB would approve....Manhattan Stadium, Flintco Field, or Piercey Park . Title: Should a baseball park be public? Post by: tim huntzinger on December 23, 2007, 07:42:58 am 'Should a Baseball Park be Public?' by Timmy
I think a baseball park should be public. Baseball is American like apple pie and cars, and everyone should be able to afford to go. Lots of people enjoy baseball parks and if they were private only members would be able to see them. When I was little my daddy took me to a baseball park and it made me happy. I want everyone to be happy. If I owned a baseball park and it was private, I would still make sure that some people who could not afford to get in still would. Baseball is fun and seeing a baseball park may get more people playing baseball instead of Wii. I like Wii, my friend Billy has one, but it is not as good as baseball for real. A baseball park should be public because it is good for people to play baseball and see people playing it. Thank you. Title: Should a baseball park be public? Post by: swake on December 23, 2007, 08:14:53 am FOTD, Aox, whatever isn't a liberal.
He's a populist. Title: Should a baseball park be public? Post by: TheArtist on December 23, 2007, 09:55:56 am quote: Go play VolleyBall its cheaper and better exercise. I would be thrilled if the city bought us some restrooms instead of a line of porta-potties. A drinking fountain would be nice as would some bleachers. Definitely wouldnt cost 30 mill, wouldnt even cost 3 mill. A whole lot more people could play in the same area that only 2 teams could play in a baseball stadium. Thats supposing you want people to actually play and not sit around and watch. Besides that, Baseball sucks. Its more exciting to watch paint dry. Heck lets do that for people. I can splop a bunch of paint on something and everyone can sit around eating hot dogs and watch it dry. Much cheaper and more fun, ya cant lose. [:P] Title: Should a baseball park be public? Post by: RecycleMichael on December 23, 2007, 10:21:47 am There are very few stadiums, arenas or ballparks built today without public money. I would love to see someone step up with the entire $40 million, but realistically, it probably won't happen.
Public dollars built and operate the Performing Arts Center and the new BOK arena. Why would the ballpark be funded in any other way? Are the opera and the ballet worthy of public funding and baseball not? If I look at what Tulsans support, it would probably be the other way around. Many more of us have been to a Driller's game than to musical at the PAC. The key is to make sure that whatever public dollars get spent are used for more than just building a facility. The ballpark should be the anchor of a new concentration of hotels, retail, entertainment and housing for downtown. Title: Should a baseball park be public? Post by: waterboy on December 23, 2007, 11:36:16 am Bah, humbug. Stadiums have no business being publicly built or operated. The cost is irrelevant. Many think the current stadium is unworthy just because it isn't state of the art. It works just fine and turns a tidy profit. Sure it doesn't look as good as OKC's but the field is adequate and stadium seldom sells out.
Why, oh why, do we continue to think that new is better, that the wants of the few must be paid for by the many and that sports stadiums and arenas are a net economic gain for the public. All have been proven false or dubious. More people bike and run than watch the lovely sport of beer belly baseball. Spending the money on biking and running paths would make more sense...sell concessions along the paths to maintain them. If a stadium is economically viable it will be built with private funds. If not, it isn't desired by the public. Title: Should a baseball park be public? Post by: TheArtist on December 23, 2007, 12:08:13 pm quote: Who you askin? [8D] Title: Should a baseball park be public? Post by: David Arnett on December 23, 2007, 02:37:01 pm Great Comments
Let’s move the discussion forward. Given the response represented here both pro and con – would a public official that moved this question to a ballot for voters to decide be a hero or villain? Would they become good guys or evil agents of conspiracy because they facilitated a public vote on the question? Title: Should a baseball park be public? Post by: guido911 on December 23, 2007, 03:09:16 pm I have an idea, let's move the discussion away from anything you want to talk about.
Title: Should a baseball park be public? Post by: tim huntzinger on December 23, 2007, 03:36:01 pm GUIDO!! Here he is trying to control a forum thread and you whiz in the Wheaties! Just throw something up there! You should consider yourself fortunate that after four comments he is ready to move on! Eight more and he should be done!
'On Politicians who Try to Find Funding for Stadiums' by Timmy Politicians who try to find funding for stadiums are heros. Politicians are good people who try hard to help their people, and deserve credit. Finding funding is hard, and politicians work hard. Hard work like politicians do should be rewarded, especially if they are helping build baseball stadiums. Even if they opposed public funding, if they work hard they should be able to get a job with the stadium. Thank you. Title: Should a baseball park be public? Post by: TheArtist on December 23, 2007, 05:30:45 pm Despite my joking on the subject at hand, for I really dont either like or dislike baseball, its a neutral topic for me, my thoughts are this... If the Drillers can get a stadium in Jenks and Tulsa tax payers arent paying for it, great. I dont think that the expense it would take for us to pay for one would be worth it all by itself.
If they get a better crowd in the Jenks area, and I think they will, that will be good for them and all of Tulsa. It will still be the Tulsa Drillers, they will get great crowds, lots of new life, a fresh start and be a bigger presence as part of something like that development in a high profile, lively new area. As for a baseball stadium downtown, my fear is that a baseball stadium all by itself will not do much for downtown. I dont see it doing all that much for where its at now to be frank. If it were part of a larger development then it could be a definite plus, for the development and the stadium would have enough synergy, buzz, and energy to become an actual draw. But again, a baseball stadium all by itself downtown would probably get less attendance and do less well than it would in Jenks. It would be a bit selfish to want it there in that instance. If the baseball stadium were part of a larger development in Tulsa along the river, or in downtown then I could see using some sort of tif or public funding mechanism to help things along. No reason to not at least do what Jenks is doing if we had the opportunity. A new baseball stadium by itself... no way. Its not as though they are really leaving. I would rather have them be more successful right across the river and take that 30 mill or whatever it is and do something else. That way you have both. Or buy up that cement property and get the 500 mill Tulsa Landing thing plus the baseball stadium there. That I would support. What was that property 60 mill? Lets see 30 mill for a baseball stadium by itself downtown... or... 60 mill for a baseball stadium AND 500 mill worth of development along the river. I know what I would pick. That development in Jenks actually presents the "powers that be" in Tulsa with a real opportunity to get something done in Tulsa. If the people of Jenks can pass a 290 million dollar tif for a 1billion dollar development along its river. Anyone who argued against a 60-90mill tif in Tulsa to get a 500 mill development along its river would appear absolutely pitiful. Title: Should a baseball park be public? Post by: guido911 on December 23, 2007, 06:30:55 pm quote: Sorry Tim. Free market controls "good", taxpayer-funded sports stadiums "bad." Is he gone yet? Title: Should a baseball park be public? Post by: RecycleMichael on December 23, 2007, 08:10:37 pm You can't argue with the success of the Oklahoma City ballpark. It costs $32.1 million and was the first MAPS project completed. It became the anchor and led to everything that is now Bricktown.
Title: Should a baseball park be public? Post by: TheArtist on December 23, 2007, 11:09:59 pm quote: Well actually.... I or my friends dont go to OKC or look at OKC as being a success because of the baseball stadium. Mainly its because of the living options they have in and around downtown/bricktown and the other Bricktown developments like the clubs, restaurants, canal etc. I know people who live in those condos and lofts. Nobody I know there has or would ever go to a baseball game. I dont care about the baseball stadium. I am not really even impressed with the bricktown canal. Its usually always empty when I have visited. It may be busy on a friday or weekend night and when I went once during their downtown art festival but to me that just shows its not real. Whats really going to turn their downtown around is when all that living gets finished and there are lots of people living there. Then it will really start to look, feel and live like a city. A lot of young people want to live in an urban environment, near the city lights and activities. Its nice to live in a downtown environment and have lots of restaurants nearby, a movie theater, shops, a grocery store etc. Bricktown offers some of that and helped spur the growth of more living options there. More living will then spur more shops, restaurants and so on. I dont see the condo crowd as being the baseball crowd. Do you? I may have you pegged wrong, but would you want to live in a loft apartment or downtown condo? The baseball stadium downtown did not by itself spur the growth they are seeing. It was a combination of things and I would say the more important of the two are the living and the shopping. A baseball stadium along with those things could indeed help, however plenty of cities have gotten by quite nicely without a baseball stadium, yet no city will go anywhere without living and shopping options. I am not against a baseball stadium being there per say. I am just against it being there alone. It should be seen as icing on the cake, not the cake itself. This is what impresses me about OKCs downtown. This is what will make it really turn around. http://www.reinventokc.com/default.asp http://www.legacycommunities.com/aq_construction.html http://www.theloftsatmaywoodpark.com/ http://www.thecentennialonthecanal.com/index2.html http://www.themontgomeryokc.com/The%20Montgomery/Home.html http://www.themontgomeryokc.com/The%20Montgomery/Home.html http://www.centralavenuevillas.com/index.html http://www.deepdeuce.com/ http://www.theparkharvey.com/high-rise-features etc. etc. etc. Visitors wont make a real downtown. People living there will. You need people living in an area to support businesses. Just like in Jenks, the people moved there first, then came the shopping and amentities and a baseball stadium. You can go out to the edges of where the growth is, its almost always devoid of shopping, convenience stores etc at first, but once enough people start living there, the businesses follow. Something huge like Woodland Hills would be an exception, it leapfrogged the direction the growth was going. Broken Arrow, Owasso etc. same pattern. I have always thought we need to consider downtown as basically vacant land and grow it back naturally. By treating it like its an urban environment already, that perspecive causes you to not see the true picture and thus not the true solution for making a change. We will be trying gimmicks " remember the main mall" and not see what will make a lasting, real turnaround. Baseball park fine... but not a priority and it shouldnt be taking up more time, thought, conversations and effort than doing the other things that will really make a difference, regardless of what happens. Title: Should a baseball park be public? Post by: cannon_fodder on December 24, 2007, 09:24:17 am quote: To be fair, Baseball has LONG, LONG been the domain of government. Cities buying, funding, or otherwise providing stadiums. Public money luring teams to stay or bribing them to move. Heck, baseball even has specific federal laws exempting them from anti-trust. I'd say baseball is someone removed from a the free-enterprise system (for better or worse). That said, it IS still a business. I am not a huge baseball fan. But I can see other values in a baseball stadium: high school use, tournaments, the bedlam game, concerts, as a soccer venue, maybe even a tie-in to the convention center for large speaking events. Or, as discussed above an anchor for development. I'm not sure if the new stadiums in downtown Memphis, OKC, Des Moines or many other areas led to the development. But the truth is all of their downtown developments have been successful and all have included a stadium. The prospect at least deserves consideration. And in that light, I would be interesting in listening to proposals on the subject. As a business, I would expect a similar lease agreement that the Oilers, Tallons and other users of public facilities have. If a private venture, I would expect typical TIF incentives for any such major investment ($25mil of private new building downtown would be nice). I guess I'm on the fence and it would depend on the individual proposal. I would not be a big fan of raising taxes just for a stadium, but if a creative way to finance it was found I would not automatically oppose it. So, my answer to the question "should a baseball stadium be publicly funded" is a resounding - it depends. Sorry. [^] Title: Should a baseball park be public? Post by: David Arnett on December 25, 2007, 10:19:56 am Tulsa has public land available both in downtown and on the river banks. With a private contractor recently selected to market Tulsa’s public sites for development nationwide, some group may soon arise with a proposal at one location or another that would be multiuse and include a baseball stadium in Tulsa as, apparently, there is one in Jenks. The public land and possibly a Tax Increment Financing (TIF) district would not need a public vote as it did not in Jenks.
I used baseball as an example because many are neutral on such a proposal. As we watch OKC, voters continue to pass city development issues and they are seeing the economic benefits multiply. Tulsa officials have been demonized (as in the River Vote) for even bringing such issues to the public. Voter support for development issues should be, in my opinion, easier to gather than support for basic infrastructure (repairing City of Tulsa streets) as that is a basic government service that should have been budgeted at a higher level over the last several decades by multiple administrations. Some strongly suggest that street repair will accomplish little, if any, multiplying growth within the local economy. However, the “they must be evil to put such a question on the ballot” voices within the community may have intimidated public office holders from moving development questions to the public realm. I hope not. Every time I travel near or across the Arkansas River, I get a little mad – a sand mad. For all of my life, the Arkansas River has remained the most obvious public development opportunity in Northeastern Oklahoma and everyone has failed to make it happen. Water in the river should be the objective, but there is no TIF potential because there is no commercial transaction to tax in the middle of a river. Let the cities do whatever they want on the banks of the river, but the greater community issue is to get water visible in the dang thing. But that is another thread for another time. Title: Should a baseball park be public? Post by: MH2010 on December 25, 2007, 11:02:22 am quote: I grew up in OKC so I got to see first hand the development of the downtown/bricktown area. So my views about this topic is different than others. I responded to the area like this, "Hey, there is cool things to do down here. Wouldn't it be nice to live down here so I don't have to drive all the way down here to do something and then drive all the way home!" Some of my other friends saw it like this, "Let's move down here, and they will only continue to build more stuff down here because more people live down here." Instead of looking at this thru the eyes of "which came first the chicken or the egg?", when talking about how to revitalize downtown (things to do downtown vs. places to live downtown). I think it would be better to look at this as, what kind of overall direction or mixed use plan (living and attractions) can we as the public buy into for downtown. The great thing about the OKC MAPS project was that there was a specific plan that was laid out way before the vote. The first MAPS project barely passed but when they had to ask for an extention for the 1st MAPS, it passed by a larger margin. The 2nd MAPS also passed by a large margin.(http://okc.about.com/od/citygovernment/a/okcmaps3.htm ) I think that is because people began to trust their city leaders with their money. I think that was the major problem with the river project vote. I think Tulsa county leaders had a hurried plan and tried to hit a one shot homerun without having proper planning or specific details. As a result, a large portion of the people in Tulsa County did not like the vague plan or simply did not trust them with their money. If the City of Tulsa could learn from this and put out a progressive specific plan and then only ask for the money for this specific plan or at least only ask for tax money in phases, I think it would probably work the same way it did in OKC. It would barely pass the first time, you have to get passed the doubters and "no tax" people then as the project was successful, the next phases would pass by larger and larger margin later. Title: Should a baseball park be public? Post by: chesty on December 25, 2007, 06:05:21 pm I have conflicting views on this subject and am still spending time thinking it over. I am usually a free market kinda person who believes that government and public money do not mix well with private business. Professional and college sports seem to bring an interesting dynamic to this discussion that does not exist in other markets.
One point I want to bring out is that Canada does not allow public money to be used for professional sports facilities. They are all privately owned by the teams owners. This has led to an exodus over the years of professional hockey teams to the US. It just seems unnatural for a HOCKEY team to move from Winnepeg to Phoenix. There are now only 6 teams in the NHL in Canada. The owners claim that one of the major reasons in the lack of public funds to refurbish or build new facilities. Title: Should a baseball park be public? Post by: waterboy on December 26, 2007, 09:55:13 am One has to ask why professional sports require public funding when similar businesses do not? Sports is a business. One that extorts public monies from its locales, yet offers no loyalty. A business that continues to offer little to the communities they serve other than the hope for enticing tourism to fund bars and restaurants. The reason the Canadian teams move to the states is that as a business owner you follow cheap, easy, "free" capital and labor. We are enablers of that movement. Somehow, otherwise staunchly capitalist people change their bootstraps philosphies and jump onto this bandwagon. Curious to me. The only publicly funded sports franchise that makes sense to me is the community of Green Bay owning the Packers. The exemptions from anti-trust that allow pro sports to be the great good ole' boy club they are were made 80years ago and not by disinterested parties. The issue needs to be revisited.
As far as OKC success, two things come to mind. One, they never looked to Tulsa as a model for how to fund their developments nor should we look to them. We are a different community with different politics and demographics. Two, that plan was greatly aided by the Murrah building disaster and its subsequent well planned memorial efforts. That created a steady stream of visitors which made the original Bricktown efforts more feasible. But I do agree MH, that small steps need to be made to establish credibility with our leaders and their plans. From the very start of the river vote I made that assertion and it still holds true. Title: Should a baseball park be public? Post by: David Arnett on December 26, 2007, 10:23:01 am Chesty, dittos on the “free market kinda person” and the dilemma on funding for some special projects. I do believe there is a need for public funds to support public need that CAN NOT be done with private capital and would support “infrastructure” projects much more quickly than “operational” increases in government budgets.
However, Waterboy Bates and others may want to follow the latest proposal in OKC that will, as I understand it, fund the operations of an NBA team – not a facility, but operations costs. Also, we look to OKC because they are ahead of Tulsa and their efforts are working. I brought my privately earned capital and moved both my home and business into downtown Tulsa five years ago – even before the Vision 2025 (http://"http://www.vision2025.info") projects were selected. At this moment, I don’t believe downtown should receive additional public funds for any project no matter how compelling. There are several things in the funded pipeline that when done will make a huge difference in downtown and private developers have an obligation to get their own acts together. I am currently the closest resident to the new BOK Center and while I have never been a big arena supporter, my enthusiasm is growing based on proximity and knowledge of the project. I was the public information manager for all the Vision 2025 (http://"http://www.vision2025.info") projects until I left that position recently to pursue new opportunity and advance Tulsa Today (http://"http://www.tulsatoday.com") which I have operated since 1996. I have written there several pieces that downtown folk or those interested in downtown may enjoy including; My pot hole (http://"http://www.tulsatoday.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1377&Itemid=2"), Downtown Wildlife (http://"http://www.tulsatoday.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1237&Itemid=2"), Downtown Living: A walking report (http://"http://www.tulsatoday.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1237&Itemid=2"), and Defending Tulsa (http://"http://www.tulsatoday.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=743&Itemid=2"). Other stories on downtown may be found by typing “downtown” in the search engine within that site. However, I believe there is a public need for the river and published so in “Conservatives should support river infrastructure (http://"http://www.tulsatoday.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1331&Itemid=2").” In my opinion, it was a disgrace upon all parties and the greater community that the River vote failed and I wrote about that in “River Review (http://"http://www.tulsatoday.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1365&Itemid=2").” I will write more on that later. Title: Should a baseball park be public? Post by: NativeTulsans on December 26, 2007, 12:43:38 pm Tulsa should have a baseball park downtown with retail and entertainment around it. I don't care if public money is used.
Title: Should a baseball park be public? Post by: FOTD on December 26, 2007, 01:42:37 pm Part of the problem with government lies in acting on what "should or shouldn't" be for everyone...See, I think the government shouldn't be in business building.
Title: Should a baseball park be public? Post by: waterboy on December 26, 2007, 02:42:38 pm I think that's the first time MB and WB were listed together as though we have similar outlooks! We share skepticism of government ability and responsibilities, but at vastly different levels. I'm also taller and shave regularly.
OKC may be making a popular, common decision in subsidizing the Sonics but that doesn't make it right or ensure its success. Remember why they even got the chance? The Sonics attempted to extort Seattle for another new arena if I remember right. That's a prediction for OKC in a few years if they don't cover their operational costs to the right tune. I would hope Tulsa would demand some pretty definitive answers as to how much quantifiable contribution to the community comes with providing a sports business its primary asset. And if they can prove their numbers I'll propose an enclosed bicycle/jogging path that would serve many more taxpayers than a stadium. Any body in? Title: Should a baseball park be public? Post by: David Arnett on December 28, 2007, 12:07:26 pm Hope I did not offend you with the grouping WB – heck MB and I were once friends – which goes to prove the old adage, “there are no permanent friends or permanent enemies in politics.”
Back to the subject of a baseball park – OKC built an identity downtown when there was none. They were in far worse shape than Tulsa’s downtown is now before they began and that, I suspect, was an advantage as they solicited public support. The entertainment and sports venues work together with residential housing and, in this case, residential followed public investment in OKC venues. To accomplish a vibrant downtown, residential heartbeats are necessary. Most, if not all cities, promote convention and large venue entertainment for their downtowns because it brings people into the core when the regular customers (downtown office workers) are not there and the infrastructure is underused. This also supports weekend retail in downtown. During the last Tulsa Tough rally, visiting racers were impressed with how attractive, fun and clean downtown Tulsa seemed to them. Tulsans sometimes miss the quality of what exists now (Brady, Blue Dome, etc). Currently developers are building more residences – some funded in part by Vision 2025 – and there is “buzz” about more development from the city’s effort in marketing available city owned land. Within a large “master development” in the northeastern quadrant of the core there might be room for a stadium (baseball, soccer, football or a combination) as an anchor entertainment draw. An anchor feature or facility is critical just as an anchor tenant is to a shopping center. Maybe a stadium is not the best destination attraction for downtown Tulsa which is a long way around to say, I may be on board with an enclosed track. Or is there some other thing that would be better? What do we want downtown's identity to be – not for just one segment of the community, but as a regional draw? Title: Should a baseball park be public? Post by: FOTD on December 28, 2007, 12:16:22 pm The Brady district is best suited for a regional draw..... with the least amount of investment by the government and the Brady already has two anchors. A Race Riot Museum could herald the age of tolerance while serving as a third anchor...next year look for the addition of the Mathews project. Get rid of the industrial uses and you're almost there....
Title: Should a baseball park be public? Post by: waterboy on December 28, 2007, 02:46:56 pm quote: None taken. I will repeat though, that OKC's experiment in downtown building was greatly aided by the Murrah memorial and its national draw. Suddenly, a rubber wheeled trolley was feasible. Horse drawn carts and a blue tinted open drain pipe with barges was...feasible. I am not too sure that without that unfortunate tragedy that the downtown redevelopment would have gained success so quickly. And keep in mind that they are not inundated with revenue sapping casinos that surround Tulsa. There will undoubtedly be a push to locate another casino within the downtown Tulsa area. My mantra? "We aren't like OKC, don't look to their development as a format for ours" Or any other non-similar city for that matter. Title: Should a baseball park be public? Post by: Renaissance on December 28, 2007, 03:04:29 pm The empty blocks of the east side of downtown are not going to fill themselves in our lifetime without a comprehensive plan and government subsidy.
Every single city that has built a baseball stadium downtown has seen successful development associated with that stadium. Tulsa is not so unique that that success could not be replicated here. Need, meet opportunity. Development on the east side of downtown needs a spur. The Drillers are looking for a new home. 2 + 2 = . . . the Drillers moving to the suburbs? Only in Tulsa County. Title: Should a baseball park be public? Post by: TheArtist on December 28, 2007, 06:12:50 pm My main concern is about that east end area being a quality walkable district. Doing it right can make us heads and shoulders above other cities, and it doesnt have to be hard or expensive to do. I want and hope for Tulsas downtown to be of superior quality. And that can indeed include a baseball stadium. But what KIND of baseball stadium is more important to me. Those renderings I showed of the kind of designs I liked were for stadium that were around the size 7-11 thousand people, and price range 30 mill that we are talking about for our downtown. We are a small city and that huge Petco stadium or Denver stadium arent exactly in the same types of areas and realm we are talking about for Tulsas downtown.
A lot of people have been pushing real hard for that area of our downtown to have a specific quality to it. A baseball stadium there, depending purely on its design, can be a stunning start down that road, or it can stand in the way of that direction and impede it. Though it may spur growth and "improve" the area. I, and a lot of other people, just dont want any old growth for growths sake. Especially when with just a bit of extra effort something really wonderful and above average can happen there. You may think OKC or those other cities you mention have good things going... but, let me tell you, there are some really clever people in this town who have looked long and hard at how to do things, who have some great ideas. And if we dare to listen to them and what they have learned, we can create something better than what you can envision because you may just have not had that exposure and experience. I try explain how we can do something great, people show me examples of things that dont fit or arent nearly as nice as what I am trying to get at. We can pretty much be first and one of a kind. We can be what OTHERS point to as a good example and even regret that they didnt do. And in comparison, those places you once thought were great, will seem as pitiful as how I see them compared to what I can see that we CAN really do. I believe one of those small stadiums that I showed they said it could be done for about 30 mill, INCLUDING the buildings and shops that wrapped around it. Actually the article I read said just over 20 mill. These are all around the price and size range we would likely be talking about for Tulsa. Some, imo, are more superior than others. But you can get an idea of whats possible and what a baseball park with buldings wrapped around or incorporated into it can look like. (http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/4930/omahaperspectiveballparkr4.jpg) (http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/9173/towncenter2wg2.jpg) (http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/3816/interiorcfterracebx7.jpg) (http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/1878/colorfacadejpgw300h204bl0.jpg) (http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/2711/winstonsalemballparkni3.jpg) (http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/2879/friscoballparkwn7.jpg) (http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/8114/baseballsmalltz5.jpg) This last one is my least favorite. But even here, with a bit of tweaking to make a more dramatic and enjoyable front entrance and having nice looking 2 or even 3 story shops around it, it could be quite nice. Here is a little video I found that has some info about "public spaces" in general. First few minutes are a bit dry but there are some good points in it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1ZeXnmDZMQ Title: Should a baseball park be public? Post by: FOTD on December 28, 2007, 06:45:33 pm Architects and their crayons! Great imagination!
Looks like Jenks Riverwalk South...payolla and make it happen. More like $100,000,000 to bribe enough users....no doubt the church will need donations too. Title: Should a baseball park be public? Post by: TheArtist on December 28, 2007, 07:04:05 pm quote: I was just trying to point attention to the baseball stadium and the buildings that are part of it. Title: Should a baseball park be public? Post by: waterboy on December 29, 2007, 12:04:39 pm quote: I understand the need for a jolt in that part of downtown. It's like the old joke about the guy propositioning a woman who when offered $20 for the deed, responds "What kind of woman do you think I am??" We're past that stage honey, we're negotiating price now. My only concern is that Tulsa only gets a cut of concessions which may or may not even cover our cost. The response is that there are many other synergistic type benefits from the location downtown. My feeling is that those should be quantified and proved in some way. Otherwise the Drillers are simply playing both sides and we are part of a sales game. We're so afraid we might lose them that we could make an offer that can't be justified. Lately it appears that voters seem wary of poorly justified public programs. Just sayin'. Jenks is a gamble for the Drillers. We're just finishing an Arena that will draw from all over and spark the downtown area. The Drillers may see that as benefit don't you think? Title: Should a baseball park be public? Post by: TUalum0982 on December 29, 2007, 02:04:53 pm quote: I agree with everything you said above. Like I have stated before, its not like they are moving to Bentonville or Bartlesville. They would be moving 12 miles south. Title: Should a baseball park be public? Post by: Wilbur on December 29, 2007, 05:39:41 pm quote: Jenks seems to have the opportunity/ability to develop a stadium with private dollars, so why can't Tulsa? If there is no developer willing to make the commitment/risk, then that should tell the rest of us taxpayers that maybe this isn't a sure thing, thus we should not be risking taxpayer dollars. And government should not be funding entertainment. That is the job of private industry. And what happens when the Drillers leave Tulsa? Taxpayers are stuck with a baseball stadium with no one playing in it. Look around at the league Tulsa plays in and see how many teams have moved. There is nothing that holds these minor teams to a city except the prospect to earn money. I'm confident, if the Drillers got a better deal someplace far away from Tulsa, they would move in a heart beat. Fan loyalty doesn't pay the bills. The government shouldn't either. |