Lamson's Lament

[rwarn17588]

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear

quote:Originally posted by Gold

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear

quote:Originally posted by Floyd

I don't usually engage you because it is rarely worthwhile.  But in this case . . .

You cannot cite a single example of a minor league ballclub whose attendance fell after moving into a new downtown venue.  This is because it does not occur.

The average minor league ballclub sees attendance increase by approximately 33% after moving to a new venue.  I know of no examples where, after such a move/attendance increase, attendance then fell to levels below that of the prior venue.

You are grasping for straws without doing your research.  Downtown baseball ALWAYS works--hence the push for it.  Why don't you come on down in two years and enjoy it?

Several reasons why the Drillers will have LOWER attendance downtown:

1.  Gasoline is now approx. $4.00 per gallon.
Are people going to drive downtown to watch a AA baseball team?

2.  Expect the $6.00 General Admission ticket prices to escalate, putting the price of General Admission tickets beyond the reach of more Joe Average Tulsans who are currently juggling higher prices for nearly EVERYTHING.

3.  There is, to put it mildly:  A parking PROBLEM.  

4.  People think Greenwood = The 'Hood.

5. The 'Hood = V.F.W.  

V.F.W. = Very FEW Whites.

See the Logic?


[:O]

You have no research, as Floyd points out.\

All the evidence points to the contrary.

Did you ever go to  Memphis before they built the ballpark?

Doubt it, you don't get out much.

It was much worse than the "hood" you call Greenwood.

Now that city is shining.

And their parking is MUCH worse than what you'll see downtown.

Floyd (and the city and the Drillers) gave you evidence and examples.

You have no counter-examples.

Just bigotry and hate.

[:O]

I think the DRILLERS believe they'll have less attendance, too.

Leave a 10,000+ seat stadium for a new 6,000 person capacity stadium is not the sign of an optimist.

On promotion nights, like free Q-T tickets, or $1.00 beer nights, they fill Driller Stadium.

10,000 = 6,000?

Not.

But, see, you're missing the point here.

Many, many of the new major-league ballparks have dropped the size of their stadiums from the older versions. St. Louis, Cleveland, Detroit, Baltimore, Colorado, Milwaukee, Pittsburgh and Philadelphia all traded in their old stadiums for new, smaller stadiums.

The reason: The owners can charge more for tickets for a better baseball-viewing venue, and the new stadium also were built with a bunch of high-dollar luxury boxes in mind. With those two factors, the smaller stadiums are definitely more profitable.

Don't think that the Drillers management isn't thinking of the same thing.

[Gold]

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear

quote:Originally posted by Gold

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear

quote:Originally posted by Floyd

I don't usually engage you because it is rarely worthwhile.  But in this case . . .

You cannot cite a single example of a minor league ballclub whose attendance fell after moving into a new downtown venue.  This is because it does not occur.

The average minor league ballclub sees attendance increase by approximately 33% after moving to a new venue.  I know of no examples where, after such a move/attendance increase, attendance then fell to levels below that of the prior venue.

You are grasping for straws without doing your research.  Downtown baseball ALWAYS works--hence the push for it.  Why don't you come on down in two years and enjoy it?

Several reasons why the Drillers will have LOWER attendance downtown:

1.  Gasoline is now approx. $4.00 per gallon.
Are people going to drive downtown to watch a AA baseball team?

2.  Expect the $6.00 General Admission ticket prices to escalate, putting the price of General Admission tickets beyond the reach of more Joe Average Tulsans who are currently juggling higher prices for nearly EVERYTHING.

3.  There is, to put it mildly:  A parking PROBLEM.  

4.  People think Greenwood = The 'Hood.

5. The 'Hood = V.F.W.  

V.F.W. = Very FEW Whites.

See the Logic?


[:O]

You have no research, as Floyd points out.\

All the evidence points to the contrary.

Did you ever go to  Memphis before they built the ballpark?

Doubt it, you don't get out much.

It was much worse than the "hood" you call Greenwood.

Now that city is shining.

And their parking is MUCH worse than what you'll see downtown.

Floyd (and the city and the Drillers) gave you evidence and examples.

You have no counter-examples.

Just bigotry and hate.

[:O]

I think the DRILLERS believe they'll have less attendance, too.

Leave a 10,000+ seat stadium for a new 6,000 person capacity stadium is not the sign of an optimist.

On promotion nights, like free Q-T tickets, or $1.00 beer nights, they fill Driller Stadium.

10,000 = 6,000?

Not.

Signs that Friendly Bear is clueless:

He makes up facts.

Talks about things he doesn't know.

Fact: the Drillers rarely sell the place out (usually only on opening night, assuming it isn't too cold).

Fact: 10,000 is actually considered too big for AA baseball.  It's usually got plenty of seats available.

Fact: On dollar beer night, the place isn't sold out.  (Again, FB doesn't get out very much.)

Fact: Despite all that, the Drillers make plenty of money and have for years.

FB is wrong again.

Poor FB.

[:O]

[Gold]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

quote:Originally posted by Gold

Originally posted by Friendly Bear

Did you ever go to  Memphis before they built the ballpark?

Doubt it, you don't get out much.

It was much worse than the "hood" you call Greenwood.


[:O]

Yes, I was in downtown Memphis numerous times before the ballpark.

As for Memphis being worse than Greenwood, how could you tell? Both areas were/are quite dead and decidedly nonthreatening. It's kinda of like comparing 1.25 to 1 on a 10 scale. Differences were insignificant.

I wasn't asking you.

FB is the one who doesn't get out much, admits he knows nothing about baseball or the Drillers, but sees fit to talk like an expert.

The area for the stadium to be developed (LOL at Friendly Bear) isn't bad at all.  That's the point he was making.  In that part of the IDL, there just isn't much.  A few businesses open during the week, two churches, and OSU Tulsa.  

Compare that to downtown Memphis, which was ROUGH 15 years ago.  And, they have a worse parking situation (yet pack the park on the weekends).

I'm not sure where you came up with your numerical value system, but it isn't really representative of anything.

[rwarn17588]

quote:Originally posted by Gold

Compare that to downtown Memphis, which was ROUGH 15 years ago.  And, they have a worse parking situation (yet pack the park on the weekends).

Rough?

I was in downtown Memphis a bunch during that time period (gotta have the Rendezvous ribs, don'ja see), and that adjective never would have come to mind.

Sure, there were a few funky edges, but I found that charming more than repelling.

But I'm from the Midwest, and I've been in a lot of towns that are far, far worse. I guess my tolerance for rough neighborhoods is considerably higher than most.

[Gold]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

quote:Originally posted by Gold

Compare that to downtown Memphis, which was ROUGH 15 years ago.  And, they have a worse parking situation (yet pack the park on the weekends).

Rough?

I was in downtown Memphis a bunch during that time period (gotta have the Rendezvous ribs, don'ja see), and that adjective never would have come to mind.

Sure, there were a few funky edges, but I found that charming more than repelling.

But I'm from the Midwest, and I've been in a lot of towns that are far, far worse. I guess my tolerance for rough neighborhoods is considerably higher than most.

I'm thinking the walk from the Peabody to the Civil Rights museum.  It wasn't nice back then, but is much better now.  Beale Street was even kind of shady.

[cannon_fodder]

Memphis still is rough.  I stayed across the street from the new ballpark and got mugged in my hotel room.  The area between the Peabody, the ballpark, and from the Forum to the river is very tourist friendly... but much outside of that and it gets shady fast.

Standing and looking at the spot where Dr. King was shot I couldn't but think "oh, I can see a shooting taking place here."  And that's walking distance from Beale.  

They do a very nice job keeping those areas tourist friendly.  But straying too far it gets sketchy.  I can't say it' dangerous, but boarded up buildings, liquor stores that also sell gold spray paint (really), and bums were very common in 2005.  Just my interpretation from a visit, no offense meant.
- - - -

FB:  you are really grasping at straws here.  Your arguments in this thread are as follows -

1) The stadium lease expands from year-to-year to 30 years.  This is bad because there will be an opt our clause.

2) Attendance will go down.

3) The DOT might tell the stadium to turn off the lights.

Now, #1 is predicated on #2.  For which all the evidence is to the contrary.  And #3 is just a shot in the dark (pun intended).  Certainly worth considering for the design team, but I doubt it counts as a real concern.  

Please, this is getting pathetic.  Just say you hate the idea of a new stadium and move on.  Or at least try to confine your angst to a thread, or two, or three.  See my comments on the "July 10th Vote" thread.  Lets discuss it there...

[Gold]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Memphis still is rough.  I stayed across the street from the new ballpark and got mugged in my hotel room.  The area between the Peabody, the ballpark, and from the Forum to the river is very tourist friendly... but much outside of that and it gets shady fast.

Standing and looking at the spot where Dr. King was shot I couldn't but think "oh, I can see a shooting taking place here."  And that's walking distance from Beale.  

They do a very nice job keeping those areas tourist friendly.  But straying too far it gets sketchy.  I can't say it' dangerous, but boarded up buildings, liquor stores that also sell gold spray paint (really), and bums were very common in 2005.  Just my interpretation from a visit, no offense meant.
- - - -

FB:  you are really grasping at straws here.  Your arguments in this thread are as follows -

1) The stadium lease expands from year-to-year to 30 years.  This is bad because there will be an opt our clause.

2) Attendance will go down.

3) The DOT might tell the stadium to turn off the lights.

Now, #1 is predicated on #2.  For which all the evidence is to the contrary.  And #3 is just a shot in the dark (pun intended).  Certainly worth considering for the design team, but I doubt it counts as a real concern.  

Please, this is getting pathetic.  Just say you hate the idea of a new stadium and move on.  Or at least try to confine your angst to a thread, or two, or three.  See my comments on the "July 10th Vote" thread.  Lets discuss it there...

Doesn't the highway in Austin run right next to the University of Texas' stadium?

Doesm't I-40 run right along the outfield in OKC?

You would only know that if you got out from time to time.

[rwarn17588]

quote:Originally posted by Gold

Doesn't the highway in Austin run right next to the University of Texas' stadium?

Doesm't I-40 run right along the outfield in OKC?

You would only know that if you got out from time to time.

Interstate 64/U.S. 40 also runs right next to the new Busch Stadium in St. Louis (and it's an elevated highway, too).

There were concerns about noise from passing traffic. But the architects used a big scoreboard as a shield. Noise is not a factor in the ballpark.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

quote:Originally posted by Gold

Compare that to downtown Memphis, which was ROUGH 15 years ago.  And, they have a worse parking situation (yet pack the park on the weekends).

Rough?

I was in downtown Memphis a bunch during that time period (gotta have the Rendezvous ribs, don'ja see), and that adjective never would have come to mind.

Sure, there were a few funky edges, but I found that charming more than repelling.

But I'm from the Midwest, and I've been in a lot of towns that are far, far worse. I guess my tolerance for rough neighborhoods is considerably higher than most.

+1

I used to go to Memphis on business about once a month or more often about 12 or so years back.  I never felt threatened in the downtown area after dark.  I would frequent the Peabody for their rooftop parties, Beale St., and other points downtown.  Worst thing I ever saw was a transient urinating on a parked car on a side street near the Peabody around noon one day.  Only time I was ever scared in MEM was when I took a wrong turn off Danny Thomas Blvd. into the projects about 10pm.  That was well enough outside the central business district.

Your argument of our new stadium being a rough area doesn't hold much water.  There's not a whole lot of housing near the proposed site.  As well, the area just west of TU could still be considered "rough" or "seedy" yet it doesn't keep people from going there.  Same can be said of the area UCLA and Vanderbilt are in in their respective cities, yet with a good income are still attracted to those areas.  

FB, the nature of Tulsa paying for a new stadium due to a fair board which prefers horses, parking lots, and pet leases with sloppy payment terms to preferred campaign contributors over proven renters sucks.

I'm not usually for a tax stick-up, but this is one case where I truly believe everyone can win.  The numbers are there to prove the benefit to ball parks in downtown areas becoming anchors for multitudes of re-development, restoration, and most important- head counts.  

I'm not personally a big baseball fan, I get bored with it too easily.  I doubt the relocation of the stadium would get me out to more than the one or two games I see a year now.  However, some of the associated development might get me downtown more often.  I'm betting though, it will see higher attendance numbers than what they have now.

That's been a proven formula in A, AA, AAA and MLB cities.  It just works.  

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

quote:Originally posted by Gold

Compare that to downtown Memphis, which was ROUGH 15 years ago.  And, they have a worse parking situation (yet pack the park on the weekends).

Rough?

I was in downtown Memphis a bunch during that time period (gotta have the Rendezvous ribs, don'ja see), and that adjective never would have come to mind.

Sure, there were a few funky edges, but I found that charming more than repelling.

But I'm from the Midwest, and I've been in a lot of towns that are far, far worse. I guess my tolerance for rough neighborhoods is considerably higher than most.

+1

I used to go to Memphis on business about once a month or more often about 12 or so years back.  I never felt threatened in the downtown area after dark.  I would frequent the Peabody for their rooftop parties, Beale St., and other points downtown.  Worst thing I ever saw was a transient urinating on a parked car on a side street near the Peabody around noon one day.  Only time I was ever scared in MEM was when I took a wrong turn off Danny Thomas Blvd. into the projects about 10pm.  That was well enough outside the central business district.

Your argument of our new stadium being a rough area doesn't hold much water.  There's not a whole lot of housing near the proposed site.  As well, the area just west of TU could still be considered "rough" or "seedy" yet it doesn't keep people from going there.  Same can be said of the area UCLA and Vanderbilt are in in their respective cities, yet with a good income are still attracted to those areas.  

FB, the nature of Tulsa paying for a new stadium due to a fair board which prefers horses, parking lots, and pet leases with sloppy payment terms to preferred campaign contributors over proven renters sucks.

I'm not usually for a tax stick-up, but this is one case where I truly believe everyone can win.  The numbers are there to prove the benefit to ball parks in downtown areas becoming anchors for multitudes of re-development, restoration, and most important- head counts.  

I'm not personally a big baseball fan, I get bored with it too easily.  I doubt the relocation of the stadium would get me out to more than the one or two games I see a year now.  However, some of the associated development might get me downtown more often.  I'm betting though, it will see higher attendance numbers than what they have now.

That's been a proven formula in A, AA, AAA and MLB cities.  It just works.  

The Numero Uno reason for the Drillers to stay at the Fairgrounds is an adequate stadium that is also DEBT Free.

Paid For.

Mayor Taylor's IDL Business Improvement District will be TAXING all Tulsans and residents of Tulsa County for the next THIRTY YEARS to build a new Driller stadium.  

NOT just the IDL property owners.

The selected area for the new stadium is located in PROXIMITY to an area that is not held in high regard by Mr. or Ms. Average Joe Tulsan.

To paraphrase our Mayor's response to her double-voting in the last Presidential election:  

That is CRAZY.

Comparing Tulsa to Okla City's or Little Rock's baseball situation is comparing apples to oranges.

Both of those venues, especially Oklahoma City's baseball stadium, were old and run-down.

It's a simple waste of taxpayer money to build a new stadium.

The deal with a move to Jenks would NOT work.  It is a Stalking House being used by the stadium promoters to sway public opinion in Tulsa.

There are simply NOT enough taxpayers located in Jenks to easily pay for a $30 million stadium.  Think of the CITY of Jenks; NOT Jenks School District.  It has a tiny population compared to Tulsa.

A BID or a TIF in Jenks could not easily raise enough money to handle the debt load.  

The voters would therefore have to approve a new Sales or Property Tax.

And, that's a risk.

I'd say at a minimum that only AFTER the Drillers announce they are moving to Jenks, and AFTER the voters in Jenks approve a tax to fund a new Driller stadium, THEN and only THEN even consider matching their Jenks offer.

Otherwise, Mayor Taylor's action is:

Premature.

Maybe she should study the Art of Negotiating.  She did a lousy job on the purchase of One Technology Center, paying 2-3x it's market value.

And, "settling" for $7.1 million a $7.1 million claim for something that the City did not legally owe is not very good negotiating.  

It was, however, a good CAPITULATION.

Say, wasn't she a Director of the bank just before becoming our Mayor?

Just a another coincidence....

[:O]

[JCnOwasso]

Tulsa does need a new baseball stadium.  Drillers stadium is nice and all but it is not very accessible.  244 and 51 come within a few miles of it, but you then still have to traverse the street traffic of yale, harvard, 15th, 21st or however you choose to get there.  then you still have to get into the parking lot which could end up being on the horse track... not bad really.  But when you leave you have to contend with the other 2500-10k (opening nite, firework nites) people trying to leave the fairgrounds at one time.

If you put the new stadium where it is proposed.  It is actually in a better position for people to reach it.  The only people who are really put at a disadvantage are those within 3 miles of the stadium.  A downtown stadium is not going to discourage people from coming... actually it might encourage.  It is an all highway shot from anywhere in the metro area.  It might increase the amount of draw from the farther off areas like bartlesville/sandsprings/sapulpa/jenks/bixby/owasso.

After reading some of the replies I am wondering if some of you even frequent the downtown area.  I have spent many a weekend down there due to my wifes new hobby and I have been pleasantly surprised.

Also, from the beginning I have been completely against the vision 2025 program and the desire of the City of Tulsa to develop the Downtown area.  The arena project was a horrible idea and poorly executed (cost plus contracts???). Tulsa does not have the proper mechanisms in place to handle such type of contracts.  The Mayor is the final approval authority for any large dollar contracts.  The business aspects of this town are as bad as I have seen (maybe outside of the "Big Dig").

But with all that being said, if they are going to go through with it, they might as well not half donkey it.

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by JCnOwasso

Tulsa does need a new baseball stadium.  Drillers stadium is nice and all but it is not very accessible.  244 and 51 come within a few miles of it, but you then still have to traverse the street traffic of yale, harvard, 15th, 21st or however you choose to get there.  then you still have to get into the parking lot which could end up being on the horse track... not bad really.  But when you leave you have to contend with the other 2500-10k (opening nite, firework nites) people trying to leave the fairgrounds at one time.

If you put the new stadium where it is proposed.  It is actually in a better position for people to reach it.  The only people who are really put at a disadvantage are those within 3 miles of the stadium.  A downtown stadium is not going to discourage people from coming... actually it might encourage.  It is an all highway shot from anywhere in the metro area.  It might increase the amount of draw from the farther off areas like bartlesville/sandsprings/sapulpa/jenks/bixby/owasso.

After reading some of the replies I am wondering if some of you even frequent the downtown area.  I have spent many a weekend down there due to my wifes new hobby and I have been pleasantly surprised.

Also, from the beginning I have been completely against the vision 2025 program and the desire of the City of Tulsa to develop the Downtown area.  The arena project was a horrible idea and poorly executed (cost plus contracts???). Tulsa does not have the proper mechanisms in place to handle such type of contracts.  The Mayor is the final approval authority for any large dollar contracts.  The business aspects of this town are as bad as I have seen (maybe outside of the "Big Dig").

But with all that being said, if they are going to go through with it, they might as well not half donkey it.

With our High Maintenance Mayor Taylor, about half an donkey is what you can expect after she finishes taxing it off.

[]

[Conan71]

FB, you are correct, there is essentially nothing wrong with the current Driller's stadium except for one thing:

The fair board does not want baseball at Expo Square any longer.  They want horses, Murphy Brothers, and parking lots to park horse trailers and Murphy rides.  

There's really no other choice for the city.  I totally agree with the absurdity in how quickly stadiums and arenas become "obsolete" all over the country.  The Pyramid in Memphis was the major arena for barely 14 years (if that) when Fedex Center opened.

No we didn't need this stadium, now we do.  The Drillers could have easily gone to Jenks, don't think it was just a bluff.  

I truly believe this is one rare instance where local government will take a sh!t burger and turn it into prime rib.

I wasn't comparing the condition of the ballparks in LR or OKC to the present condition of Driller's Stadium, not even remotely.  You are ignoring the cogent and valid point myself and others are making that baseball is a winner when it moves downtown.  OKC's franchise has thrived since they moved the team downtown from the fairgrounds.  

Here's the point you ignore:  Look at all the other prosperity which has popped up around the ballpark in Bricktown.  That was still one hell of a blighted area not 15-20 years ago.

[JCnOwasso]

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear

quote:Originally posted by JCnOwasso

Tulsa does need a new baseball stadium.  Drillers stadium is nice and all but it is not very accessible.  244 and 51 come within a few miles of it, but you then still have to traverse the street traffic of yale, harvard, 15th, 21st or however you choose to get there.  then you still have to get into the parking lot which could end up being on the horse track... not bad really.  But when you leave you have to contend with the other 2500-10k (opening nite, firework nites) people trying to leave the fairgrounds at one time.

If you put the new stadium where it is proposed.  It is actually in a better position for people to reach it.  The only people who are really put at a disadvantage are those within 3 miles of the stadium.  A downtown stadium is not going to discourage people from coming... actually it might encourage.  It is an all highway shot from anywhere in the metro area.  It might increase the amount of draw from the farther off areas like bartlesville/sandsprings/sapulpa/jenks/bixby/owasso.

After reading some of the replies I am wondering if some of you even frequent the downtown area.  I have spent many a weekend down there due to my wifes new hobby and I have been pleasantly surprised.

Also, from the beginning I have been completely against the vision 2025 program and the desire of the City of Tulsa to develop the Downtown area.  The arena project was a horrible idea and poorly executed (cost plus contracts???). Tulsa does not have the proper mechanisms in place to handle such type of contracts.  The Mayor is the final approval authority for any large dollar contracts.  The business aspects of this town are as bad as I have seen (maybe outside of the "Big Dig").

But with all that being said, if they are going to go through with it, they might as well not half donkey it.

With our High Maintenance Mayor Taylor, about half an donkey is what you can expect after she finishes taxing it off.

[]

I don't disagree, but I believe she is better than the "old money" mayor that we had before (never elect a person that has portions of the city named after a family member... SEE:GW Bush).  Then again it is all about the "good ole boy" network.  Do what we can to help our friends.  Who cares about screwing the citizens.

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

FB, you are correct, there is essentially nothing wrong with the current Driller's stadium except for one thing:

The fair board does not want baseball at Expo Square any longer.  They want horses, Murphy Brothers, and parking lots to park horse trailers and Murphy rides.  

There's really no other choice for the city.  I totally agree with the absurdity in how quickly stadiums and arenas become "obsolete" all over the country.  The Pyramid in Memphis was the major arena for barely 14 years (if that) when Fedex Center opened.

No we didn't need this stadium, now we do.  The Drillers could have easily gone to Jenks, don't think it was just a bluff.  

I truly believe this is one rare instance where local government will take a sh!t burger and turn it into prime rib.

I wasn't comparing the condition of the ballparks in LR or OKC to the present condition of Driller's Stadium, not even remotely.  You are ignoring the cogent and valid point myself and others are making that baseball is a winner when it moves downtown.  OKC's franchise has thrived since they moved the team downtown from the fairgrounds.  

Here's the point you ignore:  Look at all the other prosperity which has popped up around the ballpark in Bricktown.  That was still one hell of a blighted area not 15-20 years ago.

The Oklahoma City downtown baseball stadium capitalized on the synergy that the private RISK-TAKING entrepreneurs had already invested in Bricktown.

Entities like Spaghetti Warehouse, Piggies and Cocina de Mina took a gamble, and it paid off for them.

LATER, MAPS built on the success achieved by these entrepreneurs, and the city was READY for a new stadium to replace a delapidated stadium located at the OKC Fairgrounds.

Tulsa city government is trying to do things backwards.

Tulsa is trying, repeatedly, with a dumb strategy of:

BUILD it and they will COME.

Rather than, they are now coming, let's BUILD on where they are coming to.

Like Blue Dome and Brady District. That's where the Arena should have been built.  

Not sandwiched on three sides by government buildings......