What do you think of the new ballpark design?

[sgrizzle]

These pictures look a bit better to me:

[forevertulsa89]

Those pictures are alot better. There is now that somewhat central tower we were all talking about. It would appear that the outside of the ballpark is a continued work in progress with how fast they are putting it together. I trust HOK won't give us a crappy project. They are renowned for this kind of development and I doubt that they want a blemish on their record.

[carltonplace]

They are moving dirt today.

[TheArtist]

Here are the newest and older versions for comparison.





I do like the newer version better, more Modern Metro versus Retro "Old School" (pardon the pun). I like the addition of more of the contrasting black which actually does pull in a bit of a deco feel to the contemporary. I also like how they loosened up a bit and had some fun with the upper windows. Very nice. The main item I dont like on either the old version or the new one is the diagonal thing the "TULSA BALLPARK" sign is on. Hate to say it, but it looks cheap and takes away from the rest of the design.

Still curious to see what they put on the SW corner, if anything. Sculpture, water feature, gateway,,, would be nice to have something there imo.

[sgrizzle]

I'm pretty sure "tulsa Ballpark" is just there as a placeholder for exampe sign placement, not design or format.

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

I'm pretty sure "tulsa Ballpark" is just there as a placeholder for exampe sign placement, not design or format.

I figured that. Its the thing its on that I dont like. And no, I dont mean the whole stadium lol.

[dsjeffries]

Saying that new rendering is substantially different from the old one is like saying a '57 Belvedere underground is much different than one above ground.

This is the same tired design as before. The whole thing should be scrapped.

[sgrizzle]

I'm just happy to see changes being made only a about a week after the initial drawings were made.

[carltonplace]

Michael Bates chimes in: LINK

[cannon_fodder]

Still looks like an airport terminal to me.

Show that rendering to 100 people and ask them what the building is.  No one will guess baseball stadium.  Most won't guess a public gathering place of any kind.

[Gaspar]

LOL, If they are already moving dirt, then this plan was completed, priced, and approved a long long time ago.  A thousand decisions were already made, and our discussion here is meaningless.

We will get what we get.

Moving on. . .

[AVERAGE JOE]

quote:Originally posted by Gaspar


LOL, If they are already moving dirt, then this plan was completed, priced, and approved a long long time ago.  A thousand decisions were already made, and our discussion here is meaningless.

We will get what we get.

Moving on. . .

That's quite a leap. The seating bowl will be below grade, so there's a lot of excavation to take place regardless of what the design above grade ends up being. Just because they've started digging doesn't mean the whole design is a done deal.

[Wrinkle]

From a shear developer standpoint, looks like something to tear down in 10-20 years and replace with the $200 million version.

Really, thinking more major future was a large factor in current design, or "how little can we get by with and still call it a ballpark".

That's part of the problem with private development.

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

I thought this deserved a thread of its own.


It doesn't look grand in size, but it is hard to tell since I know that a large part of the stadium is below grade and the home plate is a couple of stories below street level.

What do others think of the design?

According to the Tulsa World, the playing field will be 13 feet below street level (i.e., approximately one story).

I liked the design, but Michael Bates makes some very good points in his critique.

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by Gaspar


LOL, If they are already moving dirt, then this plan was completed, priced, and approved a long long time ago.  A thousand decisions were already made, and our discussion here is meaningless.

We will get what we get.

Moving on. . .

That initial drawing posted here was drawn on December 5th and then revised again a few weeks later. Hardly set in stone.