Stadium Trust? Bueller?

[Renaissance]

So, three years ago, the City of Tulsa formed a downtown Stadium Trust, amid broken contractual negotiations between TDA and Will Wilkins and tears being shed about "beautiful fabrics" by then-Mayor Kathy Taylor.

Where are the stadium district improvements for which we levied $30 million extra on downtown property owners?

Read the trust charter here: http://www.tulsaworld.com/webextra/content/items/TrustDoc.pdf

[Conan71]

I think it's filed with the same documents promising divestiture of other city properties in exchange for approving buying OneTech.

SFAIK, the only one left by the city was old City Hall.  Oh and Downtown Airpark which I believe the Osage Tribe picked up for a handful of beads and a bottle of ripple, roughly the same price paid for Manhattan Island (New York, not Kansas mind you.  I think We paid a few less beads for Kansas).

Never take the city at it's word.  Especially if it sounds like the deal makes total sense at the time.  Double especially if whatever they are trying to do appeals to your emotional side. 

[TheTed]

I wonder about this every time I go by the ballpark. I'm not expecting a miracle overnight. But I've seen literally nothing improved around the ballpark.

Still a gravel parking lot just to the west of the stadium. Still a decrepit building (The Hive) just west of the stadium and north of Brady. Still no through sidewalks in the area (but I think that's a separate issue). Even where there are sidewalks, they become parking.

The ballpark has definitely helped downtown, but the lack of any movement on surrounding properties more than a year after the ballpark opened is just ridiculous.

[SXSW]

I wonder about this every time I go by the ballpark. I'm not expecting a miracle overnight. But I've seen literally nothing improved around the ballpark.

Still a gravel parking lot just to the west of the stadium. Still a decrepit building (The Hive) just west of the stadium and north of Brady. Still no through sidewalks in the area (but I think that's a separate issue). Even where there are sidewalks, they become parking.

The ballpark has definitely helped downtown, but the lack of any movement on surrounding properties more than a year after the ballpark opened is just ridiculous.

Reminds me of another area near a similar sports venue at 3rd & Denver...

I'm hoping GreenArch, once built, is successful and leads to similar developments on the warehouse property south of the ballpark and something mixed-use with streetfront restaurants/retail on the empty lot to the west with either apartments or offices above.  Filling in those two properties would be a tremendous improvement.  

As for The Hive/Curly's, I think that would make a great location for the Mickey Mantle Museum that has been discussed.  It could be adjacent to the Race Riot Memorial next to Franklin Park to the north, both fronting Elgin.

I find it interesting that there is so much activity in Brady but none of it is by the ballpark.  The streetscape is ridiculous...so nice north of Archer and south of 1st but non-existent between the two over the tracks.  What's up with that?

[rdj]

The folks on the Stadium Trust are holding out hope for a national developer to come in and do a large scale development.  They want to see something akin to KC's Power & Light District, Louisville's Fourth Street Live or Baltimore's Power Plant Live.  It isn't a coincidence Mayor Taylor flew city councilors to those locations during the discussion of creating the trust, etc.  It also is not a coincidence that all of those developments were built and managed by the same company.

[DTowner]

Isn't it odd that city gov't/authorities/trust members, etc. only seem to get excited about the large scale "comprehensive" development plans, yet none of those plans has ever actually been done – even after announcement to great fanfare.  I suppose, to be fair, Place Once (which is really a local group) is about to finally break ground on one portion, but even its promoters now talk in terms of 3-5 years before the concept is completed – plenty of time for things to change/downsize, etc.  Meanwhile, the local, individual entrepreneurs keep battling away against the City's inertia and absurd zoning code hostility to slowly reform downtown, the Blue Dome and the Brady District into interesting, vibrant and somewhat eclectic entertainment zones.  As for me, I prefer the bottom up organic style of development that's occurring downtown as opposed to the monolithic and homogenous comprehensive plans that keep getting talked about but never ever happen.  Yeah, its taking longer to remake downtown than I want, but what we are getting is, in my opinion, a better and more authentic version of Tulsa than what any national developer will ever likely bring us.

[SXSW]

Isn't it odd that city gov't/authorities/trust members, etc. only seem to get excited about the large scale "comprehensive" development plans, yet none of those plans has ever actually been done – even after announcement to great fanfare.  I suppose, to be fair, Place Once (which is really a local group) is about to finally break ground on one portion, but even its promoters now talk in terms of 3-5 years before the concept is completed – plenty of time for things to change/downsize, etc.  Meanwhile, the local, individual entrepreneurs keep battling away against the City's inertia and absurd zoning code hostility to slowly reform downtown, the Blue Dome and the Brady District into interesting, vibrant and somewhat eclectic entertainment zones.  As for me, I prefer the bottom up organic style of development that's occurring downtown as opposed to the monolithic and homogenous comprehensive plans that keep getting talked about but never ever happen.  Yeah, its taking longer to remake downtown than I want, but what we are getting is, in my opinion, a better and more authentic version of Tulsa than what any national developer will ever likely bring us.

+1

While I would love to see things move faster it is pretty amazing how downtown has been transformed in the past 5 years, and will be exciting to see what happens over the next 5 years.  All organic and LOCAL development.  I say let the same thing happen around the ballpark.  It needs to happen as it's becoming a dead zone of development between what's happening west of there in Brady and south in Blue Dome.  It is the crossroads between the two districts..

[TheTed]

They want to see something akin to KC's Power & Light District, Louisville's Fourth Street Live or Baltimore's Power Plant Live. 

Ick. Crappy chains for suburbanites and tourists. I don't think any locals go to the P+L in Kansas City.

If you've got a few days, you can read up on their complaints with the Power and Light District.
http://forum.kcrag.com/index.php?board=44.0

[SXSW]

The old warehouses south of the ballpark at the SE corner of Elgin & Archer would make a great place for apartments: 2 sides would have skyline views and the other would overlook the ballpark.  Something like this proposed development in Denver:


The ballpark would have a MUCH more urban feel with 3-4 story buildings on those two sites with the skyline still visible above:

[erfalf]

Isn't it odd that city gov't/authorities/trust members, etc. only seem to get excited about the large scale "comprehensive" development plans, yet none of those plans has ever actually been done – even after announcement to great fanfare.  I suppose, to be fair, Place Once (which is really a local group) is about to finally break ground on one portion, but even its promoters now talk in terms of 3-5 years before the concept is completed – plenty of time for things to change/downsize, etc.  Meanwhile, the local, individual entrepreneurs keep battling away against the City's inertia and absurd zoning code hostility to slowly reform downtown, the Blue Dome and the Brady District into interesting, vibrant and somewhat eclectic entertainment zones.  As for me, I prefer the bottom up organic style of development that's occurring downtown as opposed to the monolithic and homogenous comprehensive plans that keep getting talked about but never ever happen.  Yeah, its taking longer to remake downtown than I want, but what we are getting is, in my opinion, a better and more authentic version of Tulsa than what any national developer will ever likely bring us.

In regards to DTowner. I totally agree with you that redevelopment cannot be forced, but has to happen organically. The best development is from local, creative, interesting people. In addition, Tulsa's most interesting places were all originally created this way as well, as small piecemeal developments. This also leaves the area (businesses don't stay forever) with good bones for creative people with more limited resources to come in a do something exciting. Look at the Brady/Blue Dome/Cherry St/Brookside/SoBo districts. All small scale commercial developments that have been redeveloped into what I would consider the hot spots of T-Town. Back in the day we used to create buildings that were human scaled at street level. Even larger buildings downtown (pre 1940's) kept this in mind. Even though they have larger footprints and far more vertical height, the street level is just as people friendly as most single story buildings. Why does the city need a huge development to occur? Look what small developments have done to spur economic activity in certain areas; some not particularly desirable before their arrival. The city leaders should be breaking down barriers at break neck speed especially for some of the local proven developers/entrepreneurs.

Besides, smaller developments are far more democratic. It spreads the inputs and rewards around far more fairly than our elected leaders choosing preferred developers through backroom deals.

In line with this discussion, I do understand somewhat why the city would like large developments. Everyone is trying to create more downtown residents. Every city has this pie-in-the sky vision of a New York style community in their downtown. Some would even probably enjoy having the kind of activity downtown that they had in the 40's or so. All well and good, but it will never happen this way again. People back then used to live in far smaller spaces than most would consider living in now. Plus, today there are always automobile considerations for every residential development that was not necessary back then either. Today the average studio comes in at around 500 s.f. or so and one bedrooms for at least 700 s.f. There is a downtown building in Bartlesville that was converted into 12 studio apartments (less than 700 s.f. each). Historically it was a 50 room hotel (which makes each room about 150 s.f.). We will never have the type of residential capacity we used to without building vertically in a hurry; which for Tulsa is probably way down the line.

I'm not trying to play Debbie Downer here, but I always feel like cities need to create realistic expectations of what could occur. When the ballpark trust shows you this nice presentation of what the district will look like in the future, they need to be upfront and say more than likely this is probably 20 years down the road or so.

Just my opinion.

[Conan71]

Besides, smaller developments are far more democratic. It spreads the inputs and rewards around far more fairly than our elected leaders choosing preferred developers through backroom deals.

Bumgarner anyone?

Bueller?

[TheTed]

If we were ever to get a large-scale P+L-type district, I can imagine the angry council meetings already.

Current downtown bar/restaurant owners are gonna be extremely upset. The P+L was taxpayer funded. Any new large-scale development is probably gonna require incentives. And they're gonna want special treatment. P+L got the law changed to allow open alcohol within its courtyards.

So people who already invested in downtown are gonna be funding their competition. Yet another reason more organic development is a much better idea.

[erfalf]

Bumgarner anyone?

Bueller?

I'm not sure what you are referencing, but I was semi quoting Bull Durham. Ya know, "throw some ground balls, it's more democratic".

Another question...

Back in the 20's and 30's it was the norm to build individual buildings. I would consider this like a two story building with around 50' of frontage. Is this not economically feasible anymore? These are the types of buildings that get re-used over and over. Do all new construction projects have to be at least a half block or larger to make economic sense?

I understand for office space, attracting businesses to town usually requires a large floor plate/open floor plans. However for retail (at least the kind we would be attracting downtown) why could smaller projects not make sense? I would think it would also allow for phasing of projects if desired.

[sgrizzle]

This is the ironic part--the "stadium improvement district" or whatever they called made sense to exactly NO ONE who understood it--it was blatant "pay for play" by the donors in order to control the area around the stadium.  What is hacking me off is that the donors--the people sitting on the board of the stadium trust--have done NOTHING.  NOT ONE THING in their exclusive zone of control, except to keep out smaller, more organic developers who would have moved in by now.  It's a joke, and the city council should take up the issue. 

Their zone of control is the ballpark and not much else. The trust owns a couple of smaller buildings that are not directly adjacent and no-on has shown a real interest in developing. From any map I've seen, 120 N Elgin is not under their control.

[Conan71]

I'm not sure what you are referencing, but I was semi quoting Bull Durham. Ya know, "throw some ground balls, it's more democratic".

Another question...

Back in the 20's and 30's it was the norm to build individual buildings. I would consider this like a two story building with around 50' of frontage. Is this not economically feasible anymore? These are the types of buildings that get re-used over and over. Do all new construction projects have to be at least a half block or larger to make economic sense?

I understand for office space, attracting businesses to town usually requires a large floor plate/open floor plans. However for retail (at least the kind we would be attracting downtown) why could smaller projects not make sense? I would think it would also allow for phasing of projects if desired.

I was making a reference to the conspiracy theory we have on the board here that every development deal is a back room deal. 

There are some developers in Tulsa who seem to be pretty good at stacking the deck on the planning board so they can get whatever they want run through with minimal interference.