Ballpark's Financing Arranged

[RecycleMichael]

The top picture is facing the shops on Greenwood and the bottom one is facing the expressway to the north.

I like that you can drive on the expressway and look down directly into the ballpark. I like that it goes down and keeps a low profil to not overwhelm the Brady and Greenwood districts.

I love the rooftop party areas that look down on the field but have the skyline and straight shot look down to the entertainment district.

[stymied]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

The top picture is facing the shops on Greenwood and the bottom one is facing the expressway to the north.

I like that you can drive on the expressway and look down directly into the ballpark. I like that it goes down and keeps a low profil to not overwhelm the Brady and Greenwood districts.

I love the rooftop party areas that look down on the field but have the skyline and straight shot look down to the entertainment district.

The top picture is actually facing Elgin on the west side.  They labeled it wrong.

[Ibanez]

What the hell? Did the design firm just dust off some old plans from the 1960's for this?

[Renaissance]

As soon as they named HOK I called this.

It's some fugly-donkey nastiness. Thanks for nothing. Try again.

MID-CENTURY MODERN FAIL.

This is not a ****ing Frank Lloyd Wright house.  Give me some arches and classic shapes with deco detailing.  Goddamn HOK--they have no stake in this project other than to make it look different and "significant" to toot their own horn.  This isn't about what Tulsa wants--it's about what the architect wants in order to get respect from other architects.

This is a direct result of the sub rosa nature of the entire project.  Instead of getting community input, somebody in the Mayor's office googled "minor league stadium architect," found HOK, and hired them before there was ever a Stadium Trust.  

In 20 years this thing is going to look incredibly dated.

[Ibanez]

quote:Originally posted by Floyd

As soon as they named HOK I called this.

It's some fugly-donkey nastiness. Thanks for nothing. Try again.

MID-CENTURY MODERN FAIL.

This is not a ****ing Frank Lloyd Wright house.  Give me some arches and classic shapes with deco detailing.  Goddamn HOK--they have no stake in this project other than to make it look different and "significant" to toot their own horn.  This isn't about what Tulsa wants--it's about what the architect wants in order to get respect from other architects.

This is a direct result of the sub rosa nature of the entire project.  Instead of getting community input, somebody in the Mayor's office googled "minor league stadium architect," found HOK, and hired them before there was ever a Stadium Trust.  

20 years ago this thing would have already looked incredibly dated.

Fixed that last sentence for you....

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

Poor try, Oil Capitol.

Adding words to your post later and then blaming us because you meant something more or less is a lame argument.

Now we have a poster who has answered all your questions and refuted all your claims.

The price of the new Driller Stadium is right in line with other projects, there clearly is fair way to compare them, the ballpark you cited was more expensive than you said, and there are a number of extras to the Tulsa one.

The ball is in your court. Do you want to say you were wrong, or do you want to claim we don't understand what context you were using?

What a sad, little, little, dishonest man you are.

(1)  I never went back to add any words to my posts

(2) the poster who "answered all my question and refuted all my claims"??  Are you referring to Michael Bates?  It is to laugh.  He answered one "question", if you will, that being the accurate cost of constructing the Springdale ballpark.  And my "claims" were his claims, entirely based on (and linked to) his earlier research.  He now has amended and revised his numbers regarding the Springdale park.  That still leaves all the others he researched that have substantially lower costs per seat than we are spending.  (and I love how you are now all about Michael Bates when you dismissed him as just a blogger a few posts back).

I fully acknowledge that with Bates' revised numbers, the cost of our ballpark appears to be in line with the cost of the Springdale park.  As Bates tells us, the Springdale park has a number of "upgrades".  It remains to be seen exactly what is included in our park, but I'm willing to believe they are building a park as good as Springdale's.  

3. Again, the cost of the ballpark we are building is clearly in line with the costs of the Springdale park.  There are plenty of others out there that appear to have been built (or under construction) at a lower per seat price.  Your line that the "ballpark cited is more expensive than said" is particularly laughable, given that what I said about its costs were what your new hero Michael Bates earlier said about its cost, and more so, given that it turns out the cost of the Springdale park is a mere $3 Million more than I quoted (again, based on Bates' earlier numbers), but $5 Million less than you repeatedly and dishonestly posted.

As to the "extras", as Bates posted, the Springdale park includes plenty of extras too.  Does our park include all of those, PLUS more?  You don't know, do you?  

For what exactly are you expecting an apology?  Should I apologize for questioning the great and powerful leadership of Tulsa, based on well-researched, cited, and linked numbers?  Or should I apologize for somehow being responsible for causing you to post your fantasies, lies, and distortions  (repeatedly posting higher costs for a ballpark when you knew it included construction of more than just the ballpark; posting prices for other ballparks as if they are comparable when you either knew and chose not to include their capacities, or did not understand that the size of stadiums is kind of an important factor when trying to compare construction costs  (e.g., the Gwinnett County Stadium... 10,000 seats and lots of upgrades but still only $5900 per seat compared to our $6600.) Likewise, the ballpark you referenced in Allentown apparently has 10,000 seats.  

If I wanted to be a dishonest poster, I could have posted the recently-built Kansas City, KS minor league ballpark, which was built for $13 Million (and, by the way, includes "extras" like capability to host soccer games and concerts).  But I honestly do not think it is comparable to the stadium we are building, so I didn't bring it into the discussion.

With Bates' revised numbers re:  Springdale, I am a good deal more comfortable with the the cost of our new park.  Hopefully, the "extras" we get in ours will be at least equal to those in the Springdale park and consist of more than "underground batting cages", infrastructure for concerts and infrastructure for soccer games (the first of which seems more like a waste of money than an "extra" and the other two of which are pretty much standard equipment for new ballparks.)

And to close on a happy note.  I really like the design.  Very cool, fitting for Tulsa, and different from the standard old-time ballpark designs.

[TheArtist]

Well, I have decided I like it lol. I like the mix of retro and contemporary. Though it doesnt fit with everything thats nearby, my expectation, and hope, is that what new development goes nearby will also be contemporary in nature. Some of the rehabs and new stuff that is going in now is often a mixture of modern and old, or very contemporary. This will also compliment the new Channel 6 building and the Matthews Warehouse/Philbrook Expansion. If they also do a complimentary contemporary development style with the property around it... we are going to have a very unique mix of buildings in that section of downtown from Brady to Greenwood to Blue Dome. Its as if 100years ago some simiar styles went in, then about 100years later a completely different set went in, with nary a peep from anything else in between.

Seems on here, one persons "old and out dated" is anothers "cool and retro" lol. Also seems that some of those that think this is old looking would have preferred that we had gone with an even older style? I get the context issue, but it looks like we are going to have a lot more contemporary and "retro 60s" type stuff in the area. So I think it will all work out. And yes, its definitely unlike any other ballpark I have ever seen. Tulsa unique. That whole area of downtown is evolving into something very unique, not a copy of something some other city has done (aka OKC blah) and I like that.

[RecycleMichael]

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital
I fully acknowledge that with Bates' revised numbers, the cost of our ballpark appears to be in line with the cost of the Springdale park...

...And to close on a happy note.  I really like the design.  Very cool, fitting for Tulsa, and different from the standard old-time ballpark designs.

Good enough for me. I apologize for being so defensive about the costs and trying to spank your comments so fervently.

I like the openness of the design. It looks inviting. I think it is going to be a very cool place to bring my family.

I already paid my deposit for 2010 season tickets.

[sgrizzle]

Crap, OC and I agree on things now.

[cannon_fodder]

My first thought was Frank Lloyd Wright also.  Can't say I don't like the design, can't say I like it either.  I will have to wait for a more detail drawing I suppose.    But by that rendering it does look very 1970's airport.

[Renaissance]

I mean, honestly--this would be a nice design for an airport terminal or a new high school.

But a sports venue?  Stadiums are supposed to inspire thoughts of greatness and hearken back to ages past.  ESPECIALLY baseball--a sport in which history has more meaning than any other.

Here's a test for you: if someone passes by a ballpark and says, hey what's that building--then you've achieved FAIL.  We need sense of place, not sense of grad student architectural achievement.

Now that I've gotten that off my chest, I'll wait for more renderings before continuing to complain.

EDIT:  I was really hoping for something that echoed the Fairgrounds Pavillion.

[sgrizzle]

I see elements of the fairgrounds pavilion. People seem to focus on one kind of Art Deco and this seems to have a lot of elements of Streamline Art Deco to me.

[Gaspar]

Very rectilinear.  I'd like to see more articulation that tells me it's a ball park and not another Borg cube.  Reminds me of a triple-blade razor.  Looks like it could hurt you.

Ball parks should be warm and permanent looking.  Brick and steel.  Boral brick with art-deco articulation would serve us far better than this design.  I don't see any grand entrances that stimulate the senses and force your eye up.  The engineered space should also serve as a design element.

I try to visualize a ballpark  with the eyes of a kid, and without the label, there is nothing in this image that tells the kid in me that this is a ball park or stimulates any amazement.

Just my opinion, I know that some of you love the Borg cube designs that are popping up like little square pimples all over the country.

[MichaelBates]

Floyd is absolutely right. This is going to wind up as one of Kunstler's Eyesores of the Month.

[carltonplace]

I don't hate it, I can see where they are going with it. It needs a grand entrance...something with an arch form to draw in the eye.

Artist or Gaspar, feel like adding a pretty door?