Consequences of Stadium District?

[MichaelBates]

Anybody who says the ballpark won't spur new downtown development and activity is a fool.

Those same naysayers said the same thing about the BoKcenter, yet Tuesday night we had a nice selection of restaurants open at night to choose from and my wife even got some shopping in before the show.

Michael, where are the new buildings downtown? The location of the BOK Center was established five years ago. Where is the new construction?

[Oil Capital]

Michael, where are the new buildings downtown? The location of the BOK Center was established five years ago. Where is the new construction?

I had a similar question.  I am wondering which of the "nice selection of restaurants" he thinks are there because of the arena.  (for the record, I am NOT one who thinks the ballpark will not spur any downtown development.  I think it probably will, because it is relatively well-located)

[Gold]

Michael, where are the new buildings downtown? The location of the BOK Center was established five years ago. Where is the new construction?

Wow.  Holy strawman.

Economic development doesn't always demand new construction.  That's not what he said.   In the last five years (and going back a little further), there has been a serious improvement of nightlife in downtown.  Before events, a lot of the businesses are hopping.  I went out for St. Patrick's Day, same night as the Elton John/Billy Joel show, and downtown was packed.  There was some serious cash made that night.

There is a lot more going on downtown than five years ago.  Two new hotels (Mayo and the Atlas Building) on the way.  Massive renovation of the Crowne Plaza.  Bars/clubs: McNellie's, Dirty's, Soundpony, Temple, Flytrap.  Restaurants: McNellie's, El Guapo, Joe Momma's, Dilly Deli, Boston Grill, Casa Laredo, Kokoa, Elote, the place in the basement of the Wright building (name escapes me), Lola's, Blue dome Diner.  Businesses: Dwelling Spaces.  Major music festival: D-fest.  Condos/lofts: Mayo lofts, Mayo Building Lofts, Philtower lofts, 1st Street lofts.   Cain's was refurbished and has become a major music venue.  There is more, but why pile on any further.

The irony here is that over the years, I've read you frequently attack the powers that be for tearing down old buildings.  Pretty much everything mentioned above involved redeveloping older properties.  Yet, you don't count that as economic development.  Unbelievable.  You have zero credibility, dood.

The ballpark will most certainly spur further development.  It's a hop, skip, and a jump from McNellie's.  It's going to be great to see. Too bad you have no civic pride.

[Oil Capital]

Wow.  Holy strawman.

Economic development doesn't always demand new construction.  That's not what he said.   In the last five years (and going back a little further), there has been a serious improvement of nightlife in downtown.  Before events, a lot of the businesses are hopping.  I went out for St. Patrick's Day, same night as the Elton John/Billy Joel show, and downtown was packed.  There was some serious cash made that night.

There is a lot more going on downtown than five years ago.  Two new hotels (Mayo and the Atlas Building) on the way.  Massive renovation of the Crowne Plaza.  Bars/clubs: McNellie's, Dirty's, Soundpony, Temple, Flytrap.  Restaurants: McNellie's, El Guapo, Joe Momma's, Dilly Deli, Boston Grill, Casa Laredo, Kokoa, Elote, the place in the basement of the Wright building (name escapes me), Lola's, Blue dome Diner.  Businesses: Dwelling Spaces.  Major music festival: D-fest.  Condos/lofts: Mayo lofts, Mayo Building Lofts, Philtower lofts, 1st Street lofts.   Cain's was refurbished and has become a major music venue.  There is more, but why pile on any further.

The irony here is that over the years, I've read you frequently attack the powers that be for tearing down old buildings.  Pretty much everything mentioned above involved redeveloping older properties.  Yet, you don't count that as economic development.  Unbelievable.  You have zero credibility, dood.

The ballpark will most certainly spur further development.  It's a hop, skip, and a jump from McNellie's.  It's going to be great to see. Too bad you have no civic pride.

Wow!  Speaking of strawmen and attacks on anybody expressing slight doubt...

MB never said there had been no improvements to downtown.  I agree his implication that only new construction counts was unfortunate, but, other than the general feeling of improvements being on the way, I think it's a bit of a stretch to credit the arena for many of those recent and upcoming improvements, especially those that long preceded the arena.

[Gold]

Wow!  Speaking of strawmen and attacks on anybody expressing slight doubt...

MB never said there had been no improvements to downtown.  I agree his implication that only new construction counts was unfortunate, but, other than the general feeling of improvements being on the way, I think it's a bit of a stretch to credit the arena for many of those recent and upcoming improvements, especially those that long preceded the arena.

I'm pretty sure a lot of those investments had a lot to do with the arena.  Bates contends that the only fair indicator of economic development is new construction and my post was about economic development in the past several years that used existing buildings.  It's not a strawman argument at all; it directly contradicts his assertion that there must be new construction for economic development to occur.

[cannon_fodder]

While I agree with your point Gold, Bates does have a point in-so-much as the arena was sold with a vision of "cranes over downtown."  That can be blamed on an old administration, I grant you.  But nonetheless, the illusion was we build a new arena and the empty spaces downtown start to fill in.

Particularly the one right next to it where they tore down the crap hole tower apartments so a developer could put in a hotel.  Which sits empty.

Also, we abandoned the old city hall in part so a developer could move in.  The old city hall, which sits empty.  And that can't be at all blamed on the former administration and, for the record, no way the City ever really thought someone was looking at the property in the near future.  In which case the deal never did make any sense (adding property to the inventory, no matter how good a deal we got on it, still adds expense).

The common thread between the BOK Center, the BOk master lease on the New City Hall and the BOk financing for the new ballpark?  Don't want to put on a tinfoil hat, but certainly the influence is unmistakable.  Which is why I'm happy Bates at least keeps his eye on things.  This transaction is starting to concern me a bit more as I struggle to understand the ins and outs (accounting, finance, and law degrees.  Still not sure on what trust has authority over what, what money is given, who funds what, who the loans are actually from or to, what land they will take and what will be through zoning . . .).   Transparency of finances and influence is all I ask for.   

and I still support the ballpark,  fwiw.

/tangent

BAH!

I agree.  Downtown in my short time here has started to come to life.  If Bates is arguing that downtown hasn't picked up in the last 5 years he is wrong and really needs to go downtown on a Saturday.  And while I agree with you, gold, that development in old buildings should come first I must state that development around the arena was oversold. 

I hope our improvement continues and accelerates.  More and more downtown is becoming a destination to go do things, not just to work.  Add some more people living downtown and we could hit the much fabled critical mass.

[Oil Capital]

I'm pretty sure a lot of those investments had a lot to do with the arena.  Bates contends that the only fair indicator of economic development is new construction and my post was about economic development in the past several years that used existing buildings.  It's not a strawman argument at all; it directly contradicts his assertion that there must be new construction for economic development to occur.

So... let me get this straight.  It's not a strawman argument to attack an assertion that the other side never made?     Interesting theory.  Or is it that in your mind an argument that would otherwise be a strawman argument ceases to be one if it is used against a strawman argument?  ;-)

And by the way, this board only respects irrefutable facts  ;-)   Do you have anything, anything at all, to support your assumption that those developments were related to, let alone caused by, the arena?

[Gold]

While I agree with your point Gold, Bates does have a point in-so-much as the arena was sold with a vision of "cranes over downtown."  That can be blamed on an old administration, I grant you.  But nonetheless, the illusion was we build a new arena and the empty spaces downtown start to fill in.

Particularly the one right next to it where they tore down the crap hole tower apartments so a developer could put in a hotel.  Which sits empty.

Also, we abandoned the old city hall in part so a developer could move in.  The old city hall, which sits empty.  And that can't be at all blamed on the former administration and, for the record, no way the City ever really thought someone was looking at the property in the near future.  In which case the deal never did make any sense (adding property to the inventory, no matter how good a deal we got on it, still adds expense).

The common thread between the BOK Center, the BOk master lease on the New City Hall and the BOk financing for the new ballpark?  Don't want to put on a tinfoil hat, but certainly the influence is unmistakable.  Which is why I'm happy Bates at least keeps his eye on things.  This transaction is starting to concern me a bit more as I struggle to understand the ins and outs (accounting, finance, and law degrees.  Still not sure on what trust has authority over what, what money is given, who funds what, who the loans are actually from or to, what land they will take and what will be through zoning . . .).   Transparency of finances and influence is all I ask for.   

and I still support the ballpark,  fwiw.

/tangent

BAH!

I agree.  Downtown in my short time here has started to come to life.  If Bates is arguing that downtown hasn't picked up in the last 5 years he is wrong and really needs to go downtown on a Saturday.  And while I agree with you, gold, that development in old buildings should come first I must state that development around the arena was oversold. 

I hope our improvement continues and accelerates.  More and more downtown is becoming a destination to go do things, not just to work.  Add some more people living downtown and we could hit the much fabled critical mass.

I've seen that "cranes" quote come up on places of such renowned credibility as the Tulsa World comments section.  I went to a lot of V2025 stuff and I can't recall anyone ever saying anything like that.  Is there a source for that, or is that urban myth?

The old Towerview site and the old City Hall site are legitimate points.  But that doesn't mean economic development hasn't occurred, isn't occuring now, and/or won't occur in the future.  

The Towerview deal, to me at least, sounds like the powers that be are being very careful with what proposals they take.  I wish it would move along faster, but part of that has to be the financial mess and part is that right people are doing their jobs (which they are accused of not doing whenever a certain sest of folks in town doesn't like what they did).

The City Hall building is a whole other ball of wax.  I've thought that was a goofy idea all along.  Who would want to put a hotel between two courthouses?   That's going to take some creativity.

Bottom line, it was a cheapshot at RM.

[Gold]

So... let me get this straight.  It's not a strawman argument to attack an assertion that the other side never made?     Interesting theory.  Or is it that in your mind an argument that would otherwise be a strawman argument ceases to be one if it is used against a strawman argument?  ;-)

And by the way, this board only respects irrefutable facts  ;-)   Do you have anything, anything at all, to support your assumption that those developments were related to, let alone caused by, the arena?

You aren't worth the time.  Go back and look at Bates' cheapshot at RM.  It assumes you have to have new buildings for economic development.  My point was in direct contradiction.

The arena is most certainly part of a downtown development plan and I doubt most of these investors would have stayed away if they thought downtown was some sort of hovel that so many of the tinfoil hate crowd pretend it to be.   Many of these places do serious business when there are events at the BOK; all benefit from increased traffic and interest downtown. 

You really don't have a point, but if you want to keep posting to make yourself feel important or that you have one, go ahead.

[Oil Capital]

You aren't worth the time.  Go back and look at Bates' cheapshot at RM.  It assumes you have to have new buildings for economic development.  My point was in direct contradiction.

The arena is most certainly part of a downtown development plan and I doubt most of these investors would have stayed away if they thought downtown was some sort of hovel that so many of the tinfoil hate crowd pretend it to be.   Many of these places do serious business when there are events at the BOK; all benefit from increased traffic and interest downtown. 

You really don't have a point, but if you want to keep posting to make yourself feel important or that you have one, go ahead.

Oh but I do have a point.  My point is that MB did NOT say there had been no economic development downtown.  Certainly by the standards employed by you, Hoss, RM, and many others of the old guard on this board, Bates' post was far from a cheap shot.  In fact, I fail to see how it was a cheap shot by anyone's standards.  It was a clear, challenging question.  You now want to ascribe it solely to some "tin foil hat" crowd, but we were very definitely and clearly told at the time of the arena campaign that it would spur new construction downtown.  While it was under construction we were told repeatedly that there was great interest in developing a hotel on the TowerView block by many developers... etc etc etc.

I have no doubt whatsoever that these businesses benefit from events at the arena. But that is quite a different thing from saying they exist BECAUSE of the arena.  Yes, the arena is part of a downtown development plan that is overall making some good progress.  But it's a bit difficult to give the arena itself very much credit when almost none of the developments that have occurred are even in the "arena district."

[FOTD]

Downtown has definitely picked up in the two blocks near city hall known as "The Blue Dome" area during lunch. The ice cube will need maintenance up keep beyond the pale.

Have not traveled over to the old city hall to see what effect the churning has had there.

Rooting for the Drillers. Have doubts.

BOK Arena is first class. Terrific structure. No legs.

Slow go....area is too taxing on the property owners.

[Oil Capital]

Downtown has definitely picked up in the two blocks near city hall known as "The Blue Dome" area during lunch. The ice cube will need maintenance up keep beyond the pale.

Have not traveled over to the old city hall to see what effect the churning has had there.

Rooting for the Drillers. Have doubts.

BOK Arena is first class. Terrific structure. No legs.

Slow go....area is too taxing on the property owners.

Yes, I'm sure removing hundreds of employees has done a lot to boost the vibrancy of the area near the arena.  ;-)   That should help them attract restaurants, clubs, and hotels to the neighborhood... 

[RecycleMichael]

I know the night time downtown restaurant business improves greatly on BokCenter event nights. I also know that the local restaurants that have concessions inside the center are very happy at these new sales as well.

I have been hearing rumors about the Towerview lot and the one to the north about to be announced as well.

I think the credit market problems have been a major factor in the failure to see (cranes) in the air to date.

[cannon_fodder]

I've seen that "cranes" quote come up on places of such renowned credibility as the Tulsa World comments section.  I went to a lot of V2025 stuff and I can't recall anyone ever saying anything like that.  Is there a source for that, or is that urban myth?

Quick google search shows that it was a lie frequently used by Bill LaFortune.  A reacquiring theme in the run up to and to tout the success of V2025, as exemplified in the bracketing State of the City addresses:

The past year has been a good year for Vision 2025. Most projects are well underway, but it's not just cranes in the air that are important. We now see Vision 2025 serving as the focal point for private sector interest in Tulsa. Over the past three months, the level of private sector interest in Tulsa has never been higher . . .

Mayor Bill LaFortune,  State of the City Address, 2005.  Available at:
http://www.cityoftulsa.org/News/Archives/StateoftheCity2005.asp

Putting cranes in the air will be a
visible sign of progress and it was a great visual for our citizens to rally around during the
campaign. But I firmly believe the goal that resonated with voters was creating an environment
where our children and grandchildren will find quality jobs, a vibrant regional economy, and as
many put it, "cool things to do." We have some cool things to do now, like the Oklahoma
Aquarium, our great Zoo, Brookside, Cherry Street, Philbrook and Gilcrease.

Mayor Bill LaFortune,  State of the City Address, 2004.  Available at:
http://www.cityoftulsa.org/OurCity/Mayor/documents/StateofCity2004.pdf

I can also attest to doing lunches and other events (I was working for a big Lafortunte Booster at the time) in which the phrase was used by both he and his press secretary (I think that's who it was).   Karen Keith also used the line several times in her support.  Might not have been part of an official campaign, but it was around prominently. 

[Gold]

I read those quotes as referring to the actual V2025 projects, like the arena.  And I didn't get into this conversation knowing I'd have to defend Mr. LaFortune's statements, so I'll pass and hope you don't mind. 

I think we both agree that economic development doesn't require new buildings.  There is a lot of under-utilized space in downtown and it would be a shame to let it go to waste.  What I think will really set downtown Tulsa's entertainment district apart is that it will be fairly spread out to allow a decent amount of infill; it will also be convenient for big events that need to utilize multiple venues (D-fest).

One of the things I've really liked about watching the progress downtown is the creativity in some of these investers, whether it be the set-up at McNellie's to fact the guys at Soundpony had to get a new address from the post office.  There's something pretty neat going on down here.  If some of you folks haven't check it out yet (or refuse to because you're too high and mighty), you really should, especially if you have written a bunch of columns about why it's important to re-use older buildings.