$B-B-BILLION Jenks River Development Lure Driller

[TheArtist]

I do think the baseball park could have been shuffled closer to the rest of the development. Could have put that parking on the North side on the south side of the stadium for instance. Having said that though. I do like the general idea of a ballpark being off to one side. Just have the main entrance and exit right onto an interesting streetscape. Its really not a large distance at all, but could easily have been a bit closer. Its better to have a ballpark off to one side because most of the time it would be a "blank space" to have to walk past, unless it had ground level retail and such, and thats not going to realistically happen.    

The rest of the plan however looks very good. Great layout of buildings, types of buildings and usages.  Better than many I have seen of this type.

Plus, whats the difference whether or not the ballpark is actually on the river or set back from it? Would you be able to see the river any more or less from the stands if it were closer? I think the ballpark is by the river because of the synergies the ballpark can have with the rest of the development. Which happens to be by the river. Its an occasional draw to help the development and it helps the ballpark to be near an interesting development like this.

I think this developer is hedging his bets and not relying on either the river getting a dam nor relying on getting the baseball stadium. That parking lot on the north can always be developed in the future if warranted.

[RecycleMichael]

I am a regional guy...I believe what is good for each helps all and I think that we need to have lots of common things and experiences as a region.

But this is baseball. It is different to me.

I love the Tulsa Drillers and don't want to share them. I want them in Tulsa.

Help me show the Drillers that Tulsans want them to stay. When the home team scores a run, we want home plate to be here in Tulsa.

[USRufnex]

I think we have a split decision...

http://kotv.com/news/local/story/?id=134447
----"The News On 6 was the first to tell you Monday that the Tulsa Drillers have signed a letter of intent with developers to possibly move to Jenks. The letter is said to be non-binding.

So we asked you, where would you prefer the Drillers locate? We listed three options on KOTV.com.

In more than 17 hours, 2,461 people voted on KOTV.com. About 40% chose Jenks. Thirty-two percent said the team should stay where it is. And 28% supported a move to downtown Tulsa."

------------------------------------------------

I smell a sweetheart deal in downtown Tulsa... dats whut ah smell... [}:)]

For me, I'd like a ballpark with 90-degree angles similar to Frontier Field (Rochester, NY) so it can accomodate a USL1 soccer team or maybe this for Jenks if they don't attract the Drillers....
http://www.charlestonbattery.com/stadium_overview.asp#poptop
***privately funded, BTW.

Umm.  Floyd.  This $1bil project without the stadium would be "walkable urbanity."  What I see is in Jenks is more walkable than most of south Tulsa.  The project is nice and yes, the stadium appears like an afterthought... wonder if the Drillers provided the stryofoam...    

A few years ago, the Chicago Bears had an offer from Gary, IN to build a domed stadium and Mayor Daley used the same tactic of threatening the team by forcing them to be called the "Gary Bears."  I walked today from Jenks to Tulsa, then walked back... hope they become an Evanston or an Oak Park... oh, and please don't compare a double-A minor league ballclub to the Cubbies... I grew up in Tulsa.  Most Tulsans who go to Drillers games are casual fans who have no clue whether the team is 4 1/2 games ahead or 7 1/2 games behind Springfield or Wichita or Arkansas...

If I want a downtown, urban feel... I need to at the very least be able to walk back and forth to the grocery store.  If I can do that in Jenks, it is NOT sprawl.  If I can't do that in "urban" Tulsa, it's not really very urban at all, now is it?

[Kenosha]

quote: I don't know the plan but the concept of a venue centered sports facility is simple; Patrons don't all arrive or depart the area at the same time; Some come early, enjoy the area, go to the game, and go home directly home afterwards; Some leave late and enjoy the are before leaving; And some come to the game and leave right after.

Ummmkay. I am going to have to go ahead and disagree with you on that.  

While I concur that patrons tend to arrive at random times, they do not, at these sporting events, leave at different times. 90% of these people leave after the game or concert is over. At the same time.

[Kenosha]

quote:Originally posted by AVERAGE JOE

quote:

That plan couldn't suck any worse.

Ballpark surrounded by a sea of asphalt next to a detention pond. It's a "river" location with most of the surface parking along the river and the ballpark hundreds of feet inland. How freakin' creative. Might as well put it in a cow pasture for as much as the ballpark interracts with the river. Terrible access too. Look at the tiny little roads leading to the ballpark and how few there are. Pinned in by the toll road.

Not walkable. Nothing to walk to. By the time you walk to the stuff to the north, you might as well drive there rather than walk all the way back to the parking lot. And you'd be a LONG way from Riverwalk Crossing.

Looks to me as though the ballpark is a complete afterthought in that plan. Like they had leftover land reserved for phase two and decided to plop a stadium on it. Not integrated well at all.

AJ...to me it looks like they designed the "Urban Village" and then, later, stuck the stadium on there.  And that in itself tells me a few things...

[brunoflipper]

quote:Originally posted by USRufnex

quote:Originally posted by brunoflipper

jenks should just get an mls team and leave the drillers alone...

Easier said than done.  The timing on this still smells like the Drillers want to use a potential move to Jenks against the city of Tulsa as "leverage" for a preferred downtown ballpark.  I don't think the Drillers want to pay a nickel of their own $$$ for a brand new stadium.  They've been doing just fine $$$-wise at the Fairgrounds for years now, thank you very much... I think their heart is set on the East End location after they tried to piggyback off Global Development Partners when the soccer deal fell through... And I think the Drillers want a higher cut of concessions (overpriced hotdogs, chips, pop & beer) than the city of Tulsa is willing to give them.  

The city wants to transform the Drillers from a Fairgrounds county-tax deadbeat to a downtown city-tax cash cow.  Funny how Mayor Taylor emailed her constituents to put pressure on the Drillers to locate downtown.  Notice how she didn't say anything about them staying at the Fairgrounds... that's because she's kicking them out!  And she didn't say anything about the river, because I bet the Drillers found the prospects of playing at 23rd and S. Jackson unacceptable for a variety of reasons... this is all about who pays and how much... and which location is ultimately acceptable...

this location east of OSU-Tulsa was quoted from KOTV... "Sportyart to the white courtesy phone, please... sportyart to the white courtesy phone..."


BTW, an MLS team would be much more expensive in many different ways.  The most obvious is that they would require a 20k-seat stadium versus 7k or 8k.  Tulsa's grassroots efforts at MLS have always been a day late and a dollar short... and as long as the city of Tulsa decides that a potential Major League Soccer team could or should play second-fiddle to double-A baseball, TULSA WILL NEVER GET A TEAM... EVER.

Tulsa could have had David Beckham and his international media/paparazzi entourage playing T-town a couple of times per year... I mean, we see Tiger Woods twice a decade, if we're lucky...

The Drillers have a team in Tulsa and an owner... Major League Soccer for Tulsa has neither.  

For your entertainment, here's Tulsa's current local ownership group for MLS... (tip your waiters, try the veal)...

1.  No comment.
2.  Speak with my lawyer.
3.  I signed a "confidentiality agreement."
4.  No really, I signed a "confidentiality agreement."  Get off my back about this.
5.  The Easter Bunny.
6.  The Tooth Fairy.
7.  Jimmy Hoffa.
8.  If you spill the beans, I'm gonna tell the media you voted democrat in two different states at the same time just like I did to... er, uh... <click>.

***I honestly don't know if "Corky" was part of the Tulsa group for MLS, he was just on my list of suspects... []

Of course, on Tues. night's News on 6, we get this...

http://kotv.com/news/local/story/?id=134394

quote:Don Himelfarb has been negotiating a deal between the city and the Drillers and he says his orders haven't changed.

"The mayor has said to me that we should leave no stone unturned in ensuring that Drillers stay in the city of Tulsa, and that more importantly we locate them within the IDL, downtown," Economic Development Director Don Himelfarb said.

If he fails it wouldn't be the first time the Drillers almost moved downtown. In 1997, a model was created for a sales tax vote called The Tulsa Project. The stadium was never built because voters rejected the tax. Last year, a developer's map showed a baseball stadium downtown in a project called The East End. The stadium would have been built east of 4th and Frankfort, but the deal fell through and a new developer bought the land for, among other things, a Wal-Mart Super Center.

Okay, if they mentioned the East End and failed to give credit to the soccer people who attracted the developers in the first place, that's forgivable... but when KOTV acts like the Drillers were promised a downtown ballbark for the 1997 Tulsa Project and then show a picture of this?!?!?...


"Doggone it Earl, that don't look like no ballpark to me... heh-heh, me neither..."

i was just saying that i'd rather have them bring in an mls team than have them steal the drillers... but i'm also convinced that a downtown, mls/baseball mixed use stadium would work... so what do i know...

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by Kenosha

quote:Originally posted by AVERAGE JOE

quote:

That plan couldn't suck any worse.

Ballpark surrounded by a sea of asphalt next to a detention pond. It's a "river" location with most of the surface parking along the river and the ballpark hundreds of feet inland. How freakin' creative. Might as well put it in a cow pasture for as much as the ballpark interracts with the river. Terrible access too. Look at the tiny little roads leading to the ballpark and how few there are. Pinned in by the toll road.

Not walkable. Nothing to walk to. By the time you walk to the stuff to the north, you might as well drive there rather than walk all the way back to the parking lot. And you'd be a LONG way from Riverwalk Crossing.

Looks to me as though the ballpark is a complete afterthought in that plan. Like they had leftover land reserved for phase two and decided to plop a stadium on it. Not integrated well at all.

AJ...to me it looks like they designed the "Urban Village" and then, later, stuck the stadium on there.  And that in itself tells me a few things...

like...    C'mon man, what does that tell you?

[waterboy]

What is that chunk of water in the upper right hand corner. Makes it look like the land on the north of the Creek turnpike is flooded.

[pmcalk]

quote:Originally posted by USRufnex
The city wants to transform the Drillers from a Fairgrounds county-tax deadbeat to a downtown city-tax cash cow.  Funny how Mayor Taylor emailed her constituents to put pressure on the Drillers to locate downtown.  Notice how she didn't say anything about them staying at the Fairgrounds... that's because she's kicking them out!  

What do you mean?  The mayor has authority to kick anyone off the fairgrounds.  That's entirely up to the fairboard.

[pmcalk]

City Council votes on a resolution tonight supporting the Driller's in Tulsa:

http://www.tulsacouncil.org/pdfs/meetings/Addenda/CC%2008-23-07-6-ad.pdf

Not that it means anything, but shows that the city is taking this very seriously.

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

quote:Originally posted by USRufnex
The city wants to transform the Drillers from a Fairgrounds county-tax deadbeat to a downtown city-tax cash cow.  Funny how Mayor Taylor emailed her constituents to put pressure on the Drillers to locate downtown.  Notice how she didn't say anything about them staying at the Fairgrounds... that's because she's kicking them out!  

What do you mean?  The mayor has authority to kick anyone off the fairgrounds.  That's entirely up to the fairboard.

PM, I think you mean the mayor does not.

Again,

The city had nothing do with Bells moving, and currently has nothing to do with the Drillers. The Fairgrounds is not even in the city of Tulsa, it's un-annexed land (for two more years), and the fairgrounds is actually owned by the county, it's not just in the county, it's owned by Tulsa County. Even after annexation by the city in two years, the county will still OWN the fairgrounds.

[Townsend]

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

City Council votes on a resolution tonight supporting the Driller's in Tulsa:

http://www.tulsacouncil.org/pdfs/meetings/Addenda/CC%2008-23-07-6-ad.pdf

Not that it means anything, but shows that the city is taking this very seriously.

Does it mean anything at all?  

What will this resolution provide?

Will Roscoe vote for or agin' it?

Someone peed in your popcorn...this and more coming up on news at 9.

(edit)  I guess I should follow up the smarta$$ comments with asking if it really means anything.

Does it really mean anything?

[jackbristow]

This is all about private investors making business decisions.  Jenks is booming.  The Jenks Riverwalk and Aquarium are successful.  There are young families galore in the the suburban areas and the area will just continue to grow.  This PRIVATELY FUNDED development will prosper for these reasons.  

Downtown doesn't have the momentum that Jenks does right now and that is why there isn't more private investment going in there yet.  Maybe the publicly funded stuff will help, but it is all about business and bringing private money in.  The demand for downtown is waning and that is why it is taking public money to make anything happen there.  It just isn't attractive enough to private investors and developers...yet.

[pmcalk]

quote:Originally posted by swake

PM, I think you mean the mayor does not.

Oops.  Yeah, that's what I meant.

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by jackbristow

This is all about private investors making business decisions.  Jenks is booming.  The Jenks Riverwalk and Aquarium are successful.  There are young families galore in the the suburban areas and the area will just continue to grow.  This PRIVATELY FUNDED development will prosper for these reasons.

And there's something else I want to address.

The idea that this is a "private" development that doesn't cost any tax dollars. While that is true on the face of it, understand this. Jenks has very good schools, the streets are all recently paved, Jenks has the lowest crime in the metro, and more factors that all lead to the demographics that make a "private" development like this possible.

Something else Jenks has, is the highest overall taxes in the entire region, if not state. And Jenks still has all the same operational budget problems Tulsa does. Jenks certainly is paying for this project, just not directly.

If Tulsa were to bring it's property tax rates up to what people in Jenks pay, the capital projects that could be done in the city would be amazing. But most of the same group that is against the river (and everything) would be against that tax increase too.

These are the same people that had the "Do The River First" signs during the vote for 2025. The argument for them changes, but it's always "no", and you get what you pay for. Always.