BOK Center v. Sprint Center

[MichaelBates]

Blake, I appreciate your thoughtful response, and I think you're onto something with your three-way division of Tulsans. In fact, I think it's reflected in the PLANiTULSA survey from 2008, where midtown and south Tulsans -- your groups A and B -- generally felt that their views were represented in the planning process, while north, west, and east Tulsans -- group C -- feel disenfranchised.

I think your description of group C is lacking. These people do love Tulsa, but perhaps they love it for different reasons than you do. Mostly they love it because it's home. They grew up here or somewhere nearby. The people they grew up with are here.  They do spend money with local businesses, but it may be the neighborhood barbecue joint where they can eat for $5 a head instead of some high-class midtown bistro where they'll get less food for three times the price (and feel out of place, to boot). I'm not sure how their neighborhood pride is any different than group A's downtown/midtown pride. Are group A people blameworthy because they don't take pride in Tower Heights or Red Fork?

They want city government to handle its basic responsibilities for public safety and infrastructure without digging deeper into their pockets. They aren't interested in being forced to subsidize the lifestyle of group A, especially when it seems that group A is making a lot more money than they are. They will only vote for such a proposition if they're convinced it will somehow generate jobs or bring in more tax dollars to pay for those basic services. That's how the arena was sold to enough of group C to pass -- that plus logrolling it with higher ed projects and downplaying it in the ad campaign. However warm and fuzzy the arena makes group A people feel, it hasn't created manufacturing or engineering jobs -- jobs that bring in far more new money to the local economy than tourism or entertainment ever will. And the best way for Tulsa to have turned that $200 million into better infrastructure and parks and public safety would have been to apply it directly to infrastructure and parks and public safety. The arena is a loser for the people in group C.

I don't buy the idea that the BOK Center made downtown's new hotels viable. The Courtyard and the old/new Holiday Inn fill a niche in the mid-range business hotel market, something previously unavailable downtown. Notice that investors chose to overhaul a couple of old buildings in the downtown core, with all their challenges and idiosyncrasies, rather than build a new hotel on bare ground right across the street from the arena with taxpayer assistance.

Now, regarding Blue Dome's fate had the BOK Center not been built, I think you sell yourself and your fellow entrepreneurs short. Blue Dome already had the kind of momentum and critical mass that districts like Cherry Street and Brookside had experienced years earlier -- without the aid of a major attraction. If you hadn't come to the Blue Dome District, someone else would have. If anything, Blue Dome's existence adds to the value of the BOK Center: An evening at a minor league hockey game is more appealing because it can be combined with a Joe Momma's cuban sandwich or sweet potato fries at McNellie's. Yes, there have been business failures in Blue Dome, just as there have been in Tulsa's other entertainment districts. (Think of all the changes Leon's has been through in the last few years.) But enough people are used to coming to Blue Dome for dining and entertainment that a new business has a shot at capturing some of the market that's already there. I'm sure that BOK and PAC events bring in business, but I've also seen Joe Momma's and McNellie's packed on nights when no events are scheduled. The Blue Dome District is an attraction in its own right.

Finally, you all are entitled to your feelings about the BOK Center, but it strikes me as sad that you'd rank a building designed by an out-of-towner, reusing elements he used in other cities (like the iconic glass wall on the PAC in Dayton, Ohio), filled with events that hundreds of other cities have, as cooler than one-of-a-kind places like Joe Momma's. I can imaging an out-of-towner envying Tulsa for McNellie's beer selection, the friendly vibe  and great coffee at Shades of Brown, or the history and atmosphere of Cain's Ballroom. It's people like Blake Ewing, Elliott Nelson, Melinda Borum, Cheri Asher, Brian Franklin, Scott Smith, Jim and Alice Rodgers, Mary Beth Babcock, along with earlier generations of entrepreneurs who make Tulsa cool in ways that no other city can duplicate.

I'll have to address the rest of Blake's points another time; there's laundry to do.

[nathanm]

What you're missing is that the BOK Center (more correctly, the acts that play there) is what initially brings people into town, not Blue Dome, Brookside, or Cherry Street. Once they're here, we have a chance to capture their business and, if we're lucky, impress them enough to make them want to come back.

Also, I don't see how you can handwave away the impact that major events have on hotel occupancy, and therefore the economics of opening a new hotel.

[BKDotCom]

What you're missing is that the BOK Center (more correctly, the acts that play there) is what initially brings people into town, not Blue Dome, Brookside, or Cherry Street. Once they're here, we have a chance to capture their business and, if we're lucky, impress them enough to make them want to come back.

I could be wrong, but I don't think he's denying any of that.
I think he's saying that the number of people that the BOK center brings in + the business it generates + the entertainment it provides isn't worth the startup cost.

[Conan71]

The people of Tulsa were not given a straight up or down vote on an arena in 2003, despite calls at the time to have it stand on its own. It was packaged with money for area colleges and school districts, all lumped together as "economic development."

Over the years, the Chamber has tried to sell voters on the idea that spending money on convention centers and arenas will mean more dollars available for government services. (I seem to recall a billboard campaign to that effect.) But that argument only works if the incremental increase in tax revenue generated by a facility exceeds the tax money devoted to building it and running it. Otherwise, the smarter investment would have been to put the money directly into streets, public safety, and education.

And every town in Tulsa County benefitted multiple times with new facilities, as did our local colleges.  I didn't like the nature of the tax initially, but how can anyone argue with how much it's done to improve the cityscape and the uh countyscape?

[rwarn17588]

And every town in Tulsa County benefitted multiple times with new facilities, as did our local colleges.  I didn't like the nature of the tax initially, but how can anyone argue with how much it's done to improve the cityscape and the uh countyscape?

Denial isn't just a river.

[swake]

but how can anyone argue with how much it's done to improve the cityscape and the uh countyscape?

He is arguing because he spent so much time (and political capital) arguing it was going to be an complete failure and he turned out to be very wrong.

So now he's shifting his argument to one that admits the project's success, but now argues that the cost wasn't worth the success.

[JeffM]

My two cents:

There are a few different types of people in Tulsa

C. Everybody else. These folks live here for some reason or another. They don't really care about any of this stuff. They just want to go to work, come home, watch some TV, and go to the lake on the weekend. They may occasionally complain about roads or road construction, and they care about police only when they get a ticket or when they are a victim of a crime. Other than that, they don't care...and that's okay. As for pride? They may care more about the Sooners or Cowboys than they do about Tulsa. Tulsa's just a place to live. It suits them fine. They may like their neighbors or their church or their kids' teams, and they may even go downtown to a BOK event, but those things are all just a part of life and they don't connect their emotions for those things to their emotions for Tulsa. They may even be more likely to be proud of their specific neighborhood than they are of Tulsa as a city.

I know those are broad generalizations, but you get the picture...

Yes Blake, those are broad generalizations.  
And I think the majority of folks in group "C" would consider those generalizations to be a little condescending.

These people are just as "Tulsan" as anyone in this city.

Many of these people are lifelong Tulsans.  Many of them are older.  Quite a few of them are veterans and ex-military.  They've been around the block a time or two... and I like drinking with some of them at a Sweatin' Bullets concert every bit as much as I like hittin' up Blue Dome or Brady or Cherry Street or Brookside....

I would point out that the closer Tulsa County voters lived to the river, the more likely they were to vote for the river tax.  Simple, eh?  Let's not forget that there were "aginners" in south Tulsa and midtown.  And there were supporters in east Tulsa and north Tulsa.

If Kathy Taylor knew anything about this city, she could have made the river tax a citywide tax-- and it would have passed.  For it to pass countywide, she could have tried to make George Kaiser's generous donations into something that benefited more of Tulsa than just making sure the Arkansas River "has water in it."

How 'bout making sure McClure Park's pool "has water in it?"
How 'bout making sure an ably staffed police force can get to the scene of a crime faster than typical pizza delivery?

The people in "group C" consider their lives and safety and the education of their children and grandchildren to be more important than subsidized downtown luxury lofts and mixed use development.... and they logically resent the political chest-thumping of downtown-only supporters and their patricians in the local pol bureaucratic merry-go-round and the private patronage sector.

They resent having their tax money used to dismantle their neighborhood's playground equipment in favor of a three-hole golf course.... they resent having their tax money used to fund the construction of a BMX park in their neighborhood in which none of the local kids skateboard.... they resent having to choose between a limo-liberal and a Southern Hills republican for mayor.... they believe rivers should be used for canoeing, swimming, camping, boating and fishing... and not as a backdrop for jogging....

They were just as angry, if not angrier.... than anyone from south Tulsa or midtown about the dismantling of Bells Amusement Park.  They have traditionally considered downtown to be highly unwelcoming and are more likely to choose a $5 Little Caesars pepperoni and a six-pack of Coors over a JoeMamma's specialty pizza and a couple of Marshalls'.... this doesn't make them any less "Tulsan" than anybody else, including those posting on this forum.... they will proudly choose Oklahoma BBQ over Phat Philly's, Tulsa-style chicken fried steak over downtown quiche, and the White River Fish Market over hipster sushi.... and I see more OU and OSU flags and bumper stickers in midtown and off Cherry St. than I do in Turley....

And being an older demographic, those I have spoken with are largely supportive of my efforts at bringing back the Roughnecks to the old ballpark at the fairgrounds.... it makes more sense to them than having the county tear it down the same way they did to Bells.... and a few were unsurprised to hear about the Murph-------cough, cough... er, uh... the fairgrounds' hardball tactics on lease terms for a pro soccer team...... and there's also a younger hispanic demographic in group "C" that likes this idea, too... ooops, spoke too much.... how much for one of those vintage Roughnecks t-shirts?  

[TheArtist]

Interesting how building and or widening more and more roads and intersections, in South Tulsa to build Mc Mansions and strip malls is seen as,,, I dont know, free perhaps?  But redeveloping older buildings like the Mayo (where the roads already exist)  into "luxury lofts" is a "subsidy"?  Encouraging mixed use, pedestrian/mass transit friendly, density so that people dont have to drive as much or as far is seen as inefficient?

When taxpayers dollars go to the status quoe, suburban lifestyle development its fine.  But when taxpayers want, what is really a small share of that pie, to go to support urban lifestyle development, its wasteful and suspect?

People in downtown and mid-town dont scream bloody murder every time millions are spent to build and or rehabilitate, residential streets.  It seems to just happen naturally and urban development is something out of the ordinary you have to ask, fight and beg for. But think about how many "homes" or how many streets are not having to be built or maintained with the addition of the residences in the Mayo Hotel and Mayo Building (plus the hotel and other businesses in them).  Its money going to help residences get built versus more streets getting built. One persons subsidy may be anothers necessity lol. You all dont need those expensive roads in South Tulsa anyway, isnt that what you all have those fancy SUV's for?  

[Conan71]

Jeff, I think everyone realizes Mayor Taylor had Mr. Kaiser's ear.

I'm still curious how such a sharp businesswoman and businessman would have made such a gross miscalculation in believing that this could only happen county-wide so she deferred to Randi Miller of all people. I'd always heard Mr. Kaiser approached the county first with the offer of his donation but your comments make me wonder why the city did not try to take the lead on the River Tax.

In hindsight, if we would have approved that tax, the road projects funding would have never happened and we sure as heck wouldn't have the ability to raise sales taxes very easily for other public safety and infrastructure needs.   

[Cats Cats Cats]

The NCAA tournament coming next year is a big deal too.  I wonder how many out of towners we will have in downtown Tulsa around the Bock Center?

[JoeMommaBlake]

Wow, lots to address. I'll do my best to respond to each of the comments.

I think your description of group C is lacking. These people do love Tulsa, but perhaps they love it for different reasons than you do. Mostly they love it because it's home. They grew up here or somewhere nearby. The people they grew up with are here.  They do spend money with local businesses, but it may be the neighborhood barbecue joint where they can eat for $5 a head instead of some high-class midtown bistro where they'll get less food for three times the price (and feel out of place, to boot). I'm not sure how their neighborhood pride is any different than group A's downtown/midtown pride. Are group A people blameworthy because they don't take pride in Tower Heights or Red Fork?

If it sounded like I was suggesting that group C didn't love Tulsa, I apologize. I just don't see how you're getting that. Just because they don't care about where the arena is doesn't mean they don't love Tulsa. They love Tulsa for different reasons than I do? Because it's home? It's my home too. I grew up here, too. I grew up with people who are here. I spend money at my neighborhood BBQ joint, though it always costs more than $5 (I need to know your BBQ joint, I guess). I don't eat at high-class midtown bistros. I'm proud of my local neighborhood and of another local neighborhood in which I own some property. What reasons do you think I love Tulsa?

I also didn't mean to make any assertions as to where these folks live. I said Groups A and B tend to live in Midtown and South Tulsa respectively, but didn't mean to insinuate that Group C folks can't also live in those same areas. There are Group C people living in my midtown neighborhood. My point is that there are people who live in Tulsa who are just doing life without any major opinions about the details of the city unless something directly and immediately affects them. I don't understand why Michael would ask if group A is to blame for not caring about Red Fork. Did I insinuate that there was something wrong with Group C for caring about their specific neighborhood? I think you guys are reading me wrong. Group C is just fine with me. They make up the majority of Tulsans. They work, they play, they do their thing in town and they're happy. They aren't logging on to any message boards to chat about Tulsa. They're just going about life the way most people do. That's all. I've read back over what I originally wrote a few times and still can't figure out what JeffM thinks is condescending. I didn't say there was anything wrong with that group or that there was anything wrong with caring more about OU and OSU than about the details of what happens in Tulsa. It's what I expect out of most people, frankly. After reading your post, I assure you that you and I aren't talking about the same people. The people you described have opinions about the details. Parks, rivers, soccer, etc. all matter to the folks in your group. So, let's call Jeff's group...group D. Done.

They want city government to handle its basic responsibilities for public safety and infrastructure without digging deeper into their pockets. They aren't interested in being forced to subsidize the lifestyle of group A, especially when it seems that group A is making a lot more money than they are. They will only vote for such a proposition if they're convinced it will somehow generate jobs or bring in more tax dollars to pay for those basic services. That's how the arena was sold to enough of group C to pass -- that plus logrolling it with higher ed projects and downplaying it in the ad campaign. However warm and fuzzy the arena makes group A people feel, it hasn't created manufacturing or engineering jobs -- jobs that bring in far more new money to the local economy than tourism or entertainment ever will. And the best way for Tulsa to have turned that $200 million into better infrastructure and parks and public safety would have been to apply it directly to infrastructure and parks and public safety. The arena is a loser for the people in group C.

Are you suggesting that The Arena was built to accommodate the lifestyle of group A? I think you're way off. Have you been to a BOK event? I beg you to come downtown and hang out next time there's a BOK concert. Also, the Group C you guys are describing...some sort of lower-middle class redneck group that refuses to eat at bistros (which is not how I intended to categorize them)...that's who goes to Oilers and Talons games....at The BOK Center. They always seem really really happy to be there.

As for the suggestion that spending $200 Million on parks and public safety would've done more to bring engineering jobs to Tulsa...I'm super confused. Are there engineering firms out there begging for better parks? Are there corporations passing Tulsa by for other cities because our crime rate is too high and our grass is too tall at out city parks?

All I hear about is conventions choosing other cities over ours because our downtown doesn't have the entertainment and hotel options that other cities have. I hear about companies caring about a city having enough night-life and urban residential to appeal to their young employees and that they consider those types of things when looking for a place to locate....I don't hear anything about parks. In fact, the last time we had an opportunity to improve our largest park, the one adjacent to our largest natural resource and that touches west Tulsa, south Tulsa, and midtown, the majority of our area's public said "no thanks." It could be argued that the momentum from that investment, combined with positive things already happening in Tulsa, would've accelerated the positive infill to a whole new level.

Now, regarding Blue Dome's fate had the BOK Center not been built, I think you sell yourself and your fellow entrepreneurs short. Blue Dome already had the kind of momentum and critical mass that districts like Cherry Street and Brookside had experienced years earlier -- without the aid of a major attraction. If you hadn't come to the Blue Dome District, someone else would have. If anything, Blue Dome's existence adds to the value of the BOK Center: An evening at a minor league hockey game is more appealing because it can be combined with a Joe Momma's cuban sandwich or sweet potato fries at McNellie's. Yes, there have been business failures in Blue Dome, just as there have been in Tulsa's other entertainment districts. (Think of all the changes Leon's has been through in the last few years.) But enough people are used to coming to Blue Dome for dining and entertainment that a new business has a shot at capturing some of the market that's already there. I'm sure that BOK and PAC events bring in business, but I've also seen Joe Momma's and McNellie's packed on nights when no events are scheduled. The Blue Dome District is an attraction in its own right.

Michael. I respectfully disagree with a good amount of that. I'm not selling anyone short. I love the Blue Dome and think we've come in to our own. I'm very proud of our little district and am optimistic that it will one day soon be Tulsa's best place to eat, shop, and play. I know what was done before the arena and some of it (McNellies) was indeed special. It wouldn't, however, be what it is today without help. Steve Kitchell's stuff was there (may they rest in peace), Goodfellas (sniff), 1974, Outlaws Ranch, etc. The Blue Dome was a club district...a kinda sketchy one. It was only significant because it allowed for multiple club developments in concentration with much cheaper rent than anywhere else. Those busineses turned over all the time and had the cops called out every weekend. There were shootings and even an unfortunate death. Comparing that Blue Dome to the one that exists today...the one with Lee's Bikes, Fleet Feet, Boomtown Tees, Dwelling Spaces, Joe Momma's, El Guapos, The Dilly Deli, Yokozuna, Blue Dome Diner, The Dust Bowl, Enso, Flytrap Music Hall, IDL Ballroom, Candy Bar, Dirty's, etc. is crazy. Seriously. Not even close. You say if I hadn't come down here, someone else would've. Who is that, I ask? I've been downtown a year and a half and until the last 6 months, the only new businesses in the Blue Dome District to open other than The Flytrap were Elliot's. Businesses haven't been rushing down to the Blue Dome District until very recently.

So...lastly. Let's look at the economic impact of the BOK center as a falling domino. You're right if you need the next domino in the line to be the end all. I, however, believe there's a long line of them waiting to fall. We need that big one to fall, so that the next one can fall and then the next and then the next. There's been talk on this thread about McClure park and jobs and streets and cops, etc. A Tulsa with an arena is more likely to be able to provide those things. . . not for any direct reasons, but rather for some notable indirect ones. Arenas contribute to the attractiveness of a city for businesses looking to locate jobs. Arenas attract people from rural  areas to the city where they spend money in hotels and restaurants, therefore generating sales tax revenue. Arenas help people to be proud of their city in ways they weren't before. They keep people here for events and concerts instead of allowing them to visit nearby cities.

I'm lucky. I have a wonderful vantage point. I get to meet people face to face every time we have an arena event. They come in smiling. They even leave smiling sometimes... They tell me how incredible it is that The American Idol tour, or Paul McCartney, or PBR, or Neal Diamond is in Tulsa. They love this. They aren't just mid-towners. These are people from all around. People from Bartlesville regularly come to downtown to spend their cash. This is not the issue you want to be right on. It's all I'm saying. You have too notable a voice, Michael. You've earned the right for your opinion to matter to a large audience. What value is it to Tulsa to continue to work to discredit the merits of The BOK Center? I don't understand why you would keep fighting this battle. What's the value of convincing us that the arena was a bad idea? So we won't vote on another one? So we won't buy the lie that large projects like that can be good for the city? Can someone give me an example of a large city that practices sound government, keeps taxes low, provides no frills, no bells and whistles, just runs a nice solid efficient government and focuses on parks and public safety? Can someone give me an example of an American city that's growing, that's wonderful and beautiful and clean with smooth streets and water-filled pools...but that spends no money on attractional items?

The buzz-worthy cities in America over the last five years, Austin, Portland, Denver, Scottsdale, etc. all have something in common and it's not a tidy efficient low tax government or a renewed focus on parks. It's that they foster a largely desirable way of life by investing creatively into their city. Man, I sound like a Democrat right now... My apologies. I promise I don't mean to. Their govt. works in tandem with entrepreneurs and developers to continue to create very attractive places for people to be.

Our arena is an important color on the canvas. It's making people believe in a more vibrant and colorful Tulsa and one can't put a value on that.

No more long posts from me. Sorry 'bout that.

[YoungTulsan]

I just heard your new ad on the radio today about the local economy Blake..  Were you inspired by this thread to make it or has it been playing before today?

[BKDotCom]

No more long posts from me. Sorry 'bout that.

Another well written post.
JoeMammaBlake for Mayor!

[JoeMommaBlake]

I just heard your new ad on the radio today about the local economy Blake..  Were you inspired by this thread to make it or has it been playing before today?

It's been running for a while. I'm just not creative enough to have more than a few soap boxes to stand on.


Thanks for the kind words, BK. Not sure I'm up for being the mayor just yet. That just doesn't look like a fun job to me right now.

[Conan71]

You have too notable a voice, Michael. You've earned the right for your opinion to matter to a large audience. What value is it to Tulsa to continue to work to discredit the merits of The BOK Center? I don't understand why you would keep fighting this battle. What's the value of convincing us that the arena was a bad idea? So we won't vote on another one? So we won't buy the lie that large projects like that can be good for the city? Can someone give me an example of a large city that practices sound government, keeps taxes low, provides no frills, no bells and whistles, just runs a nice solid efficient government and focuses on parks and public safety? Can someone give me an example of an American city that's growing, that's wonderful and beautiful and clean with smooth streets and water-filled pools...but that spends no money on attractional items?

The buzz-worthy cities in America over the last five years, Austin, Portland, Denver, Scottsdale, etc. all have something in common and it's not a tidy efficient low tax government or a renewed focus on parks. It's that they foster a largely desirable way of life by investing creatively into their city. Man, I sound like a Democrat right now... My apologies. I promise I don't mean to. Their govt. works in tandem with entrepreneurs and developers to continue to create very attractive places for people to be.

Our arena is an important color on the canvas. It's making people believe in a more vibrant and colorful Tulsa and one can't put a value on that.

No more long posts from me. Sorry 'bout that.

Michael and Blake, thank you both for taking the time to write well-reasoned posts.  Michael, with all due respect, I think you are still approaching the impact of the BOK Center from a hypothetical point of view whereas Blake has seen on a nightly basis what the BOK means to his business. 

Prior to V-2025 passing in 2003, the Blue Dome was hardly "vibrant".  Arnie's had relocated there due to a tiff with the landlord on Cherry St.  At that time you had Arnie's, the pawn shop to the east, and I think Route 66 diner, plus Kitchell's various clubs and about anyone else David Sharp and Michael Sager could attract with cheap rent, in other words, not tennants with staying power. It was a sketchy area.  McNellie's did not open until 2004.  I'd love for Nelson to chime in and give some perspective as to whether or not the V-2025 projects weighed on him to bank so heavily on the Blue Dome in subsequent investments.

You are going to be hard-pressed to find a more recent business owner in the downtown area who will say the BOK Center and V-2025 improvements (Mayo included) didn't weigh on their decision to locate downtown.  Those businesses become the collection points of new revenue and are truly the payback for creating an arena.  I think it shows an overall pride in the area we would not have seen with our crumbling civic center.  Speaking of, civic centers have been a part of human culture ever since man decided to live in communities together.