Drillers Downtown: Time Running Out

[Renaissance]

quote:Originally posted by inteller

Tulsa has two things to add to the incentive pot.

Jack

and

Squat.

Welcome your new Jenks Drillers....or maybe they will rename them the Jenks Riverwalkers....or Jenks Antiquers.

Wrong.

Tulsa can offer the Drillers lower rent and better digs.  

First, lower rent: the Jenks TIF is going to require that the stadium be under the ownership of a tax-paying entity, either the Drillers themselves or Lynn Mitchell's ownership group.  This means that the team will be facing a substantial hike in rent if they move to the suburbs.  Tulsa is already in the real estate business and in this case could place the stadium under city ownership, just as current Drillers Stadium is owned by the county.  Then they could set up a deal just like the current county, where the City would ask for cheap rent and a cut of concessions.  Hell, they could even place the land under County ownership for a pittance and ensure that it is sales tax free in perpetuity.  So put THAT in your incentive pot, bro.

Second, the Jenks stadium is going to be small and semi-isolated.  I don't know what size stadium the (hypothetical) Tulsa baseball developers would consider, but it would be more than 7,000, considering the downtown draw and alternative venue potential (see, e.g., the Willie Nelson/Bob Dylan show in 2004).  If I'm not mistaken, the Global plan was for 8500, and a more ambitious builder might shoot for Triple-A capacity in case a club opens up in the future.  Further, all the access infrastructure is in place (that underutilized Inner Dispersal Loop).  More seats + more access = more revenue.  So, um, add that to your incentive list as well, my man.

At this point it is self-evident that a downtown ballpark is more desirable than a suburban location.  The only question is whether Tulsa cares to give Drillers ownership that option.  Don't pretend, all things being equal, that the Drillers would choose the suburbs over downtown.  My complaint is that we aren't giving them that choice.

[inteller]

hahahaha.....I laugh at the futile grasping of straws.

[AVERAGE JOE]

quote:Originally posted by inteller

hahahaha.....I laugh at the futile grasping of straws.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Ignorance is bliss, so I can see why you're giddy.

[RecycleMichael]

This from today's Tulsa World...

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectID=11&articleID=071222_1_A1_spanc70268

Drillers noncommittal despite Jenks TIF

'Downtown puts them near an awful lot of population. Over 30,000 people work downtown. It's a high-profile location, given the arena.' Don Himelfarb on the Drillers and downtown Tulsa

By SUSAN HYLTON World Staff Writer
12/22/2007

The future home of the Tulsa Drillers is undetermined despite approval of a tax increment financing district that advances plans for a $1 billion attraction in Jenks, which includes plans for a baseball stadium. River District Development Group President Lynn Mitchell said there is nothing to announce yet regarding the Drillers. He said negotiations with the minor-league team are ongoing.

Meanwhile, the city of Tulsa wants to see the Drillers stay in Tulsa and move from their Expo Square location to downtown. Economic Development Director Don Himelfarb said the city has been negotiating with the team for nearly a year. "Downtown puts them near an awful lot of population. Over 30,000 people work downtown. It's a high-profile location, given the arena. We think it speaks to the vibrancy and the well-being of the city," Himelfarb said. He would not discuss possible downtown locations. "We have looked at every square inch of property that exists within the Inner Dispersal Loop," Himelfarb said.

Tulsa has hired a national firm to help market several potential development sites downtown. Two of the sites being marketed by the firm are large enough to house a stadium. One site encompasses 11 acres in the East Village. The other site is the 22-acre Evans-Fintube property, which is north of Archer Street between Oklahoma State University-Tulsa and U.S. 75. That site, however, is connected to Community Development Block Grant funding and may have development restrictions.

The Drillers signed a nonbinding letter of intent with the River District Development Group in August to create a 7,000-seat ballpark within the 300-acre, multifaceted venue in Jenks. Drillers President Chuck Lamson said after that announcement was made that the letter did not prohibit the team from looking at other opportunities. Lamson did not return phone calls this week.

The Tulsa City Council in August passed a resolution in support of keeping the team in Tulsa, and Tulsa Mayor Kathy Taylor has vowed to do everything she can to make that happen.

Mitchell previously has said his research shows that the largest number of attendees to Drillers games share the River District's 74037 ZIP code in Jenks. The second-largest group has a Broken Arrow ZIP code, he said. Mitchell thinks a Jenks location would double the team's attendance. The Drillers are on a year-to-year contract at the fairgrounds, with the option of staying through 2012.

The Jenks City Council approved an 18-year TIF district for the River District Development Group on Monday. It diverts as much as $294 million in property and sales taxes earned within the district to pay for infrastructure costs of the development. In addition to a baseball stadium, plans call for 852,000 square feet of retail space, condominiums, hotels, offices, restaurants and a lake the size of a football field. No retailers have been announced, but Mitchell said developers want to draw companies that would be new to the region, such as Nordstrom's or Crate and Barrel. Mitchell said the group plans to break ground in March.

[TheArtist]

Why do we want the baseball stadium downtown? I would rather spend the time, money and effort on creating a wonderful urban neighborhood where people live, work, shop, enjoy the arts and other entertainment options.  A huge baseball stadium and its requisite parking would take up a lot of space. Now if it were just off to the north in the Fintube property, fine. But to plop it right down in the middle of where a liveable, walkable, urban district could be made would be a waste for that part of downtown imo.  The NW corner of downtown was a great place to put the arena for instance, its off in the corner where there are lots of other large, pedestrian unfriendly structures are. Yet you simply exit the building and in front of you is the start of what can become a more pedestrian friendly are. People dont like walking past large parking lots, parking garages, prisons, etc., or even an arena.  Nor do they want to walk past a baseball stadium and its parking to get from one place to another, one shop or restaurant to another. We talk about how the IDL breaks up the streetscape and connectivity. Placing a stadium and its parking in the wrong spot can be even worse. Many complained about the Wal-Mart and how it would destroy the walkable fabric and the urban neighborhood we are trying to create in that area. Wouldnt a baseball stadium and its parking be even larger and worse?  At least with the Wal-Mart there would be more people at more times than just the few times a year, in the evenings when a baseball game or some other rare event is going on.

Do we want to create a downtown that relies on spillover before and after a few games to go to shops and restaurants? Or do we want a sustainable, liveable, "urban village" with lots of people living in the area that support the local businesses naturally? Then including within and around that an arts district, college campuses, offices, parks, etc.

Even in the River District and the proposed Tulsa Landing developments they placed the baseball stadium, wisely imo, off to the side away from where you want the pedestrian friendly, living, part. Close enough to walk to and from each, but not bisecting or creating a gap in the middle.  

What kind of downtown do we want?  A place thats primarily visited by office dwellers then empties? A place that is visited by people going to the clubs and events at the arena, then empties? Or a place that is lively, beautiful, walkable and liveable all of the time? The more things that draw people downtown the better of course. But something that large that will be used so little put in the wrong place can do more harm than good IF you want to create a real urban neighborhood downtown where people will want to live, and not just a grouping of "attractions".  

Is this a place thats visited by suburbanites? Or lived in by people who want that city lifestyle? It can have both, but the balance of how much of each is important. I want it to be more of a real liveable, city than a place that is visited. And where we place the mix of those different things is also important.

I frankly think that baseball stadiums are "middle America" tacky right along with truck pulls, gun shows, and car racing. Though popular to many people, I dont think those are the kinds of things the typical urban city dwellers are crying out for, and I wouldnt want it in the middle of my downtown neighborhood. But I guess its going to boil down to what kind of vision each of us has for downtown? Is it the people who want to live in a city/urban environment who are wanting this baseball stadium downtown? Or is it the suburban family types idea for what they imagine a downtown as having? Do we want to spend our time and treasure creating a downtown that has things downtown living people would want so we can attract more of them, or what suburban type people who dont have an urban lifestyle mindset and priorities, want?

Whose voices are we going to give more weight to when considering what to do in downtown, those that live there and would like to live there, or those who do not live there and would never want to live there?  Are these voices for a baseball stadium, urbanites or suburbanites, pushing their desires and perspectives for a downtown that will be attractive to them? Each different group may have very different priorities on what they want or what would make an attractive downtown.  

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

Why do we want the baseball stadium downtown? I would rather spend the time, money and effort on creating a wonderful urban neighborhood where people live, work, shop, enjoy the arts and other entertainment options.  A huge baseball stadium and its requisite parking would take up a lot of space. Now if it were just off to the north in the Fintube property, fine. But to plop it right down in the middle of where a liveable, walkable, urban district could be made would be a waste for that part of downtown imo.  The NW corner of downtown was a great place to put the arena for instance, its off in the corner where there are lots of other large, pedestrian unfriendly structures are. Yet you simply exit the building and in front of you is the start of what can become a more pedestrian friendly are. People dont like walking past large parking lots, parking garages, prisons, etc., or even an arena.  Nor do they want to walk past a baseball stadium and its parking to get from one place to another, one shop or restaurant to another. We talk about how the IDL breaks up the streetscape and connectivity. Placing a stadium and its parking in the wrong spot can be even worse. Many complained about the Wal-Mart and how it would destroy the walkable fabric and the urban neighborhood we are trying to create in that area. Wouldnt a baseball stadium and its parking be even larger and worse?  At least with the Wal-Mart there would be more people at more times than just the few times a year, in the evenings when a baseball game or some other rare event is going on.

Do we want to create a downtown that relies on spillover before and after a few games to go to shops and restaurants? Or do we want a sustainable, liveable, "urban village" with lots of people living in the area that support the local businesses naturally? Then including within and around that an arts district, college campuses, offices, parks, etc.

Even in the River District and the proposed Tulsa Landing developments they placed the baseball stadium, wisely imo, off to the side away from where you want the pedestrian friendly, living, part. Close enough to walk to and from each, but not bisecting or creating a gap in the middle.  

What kind of downtown do we want?  A place thats primarily visited by office dwellers then empties? A place that is visited by people going to the clubs and events at the arena, then empties? Or a place that is lively, beautiful, walkable and liveable all of the time? The more things that draw people downtown the better of course. But something that large that will be used so little put in the wrong place can do more harm than good IF you want to create a real urban neighborhood downtown where people will want to live, and not just a grouping of "attractions".  

Is this a place thats visited by suburbanites? Or lived in by people who want that city lifestyle? It can have both, but the balance of how much of each is important. I want it to be more of a real liveable, city than a place that is visited. And where we place the mix of those different things is also important.

I frankly think that baseball stadiums are "middle America" tacky right along with truck pulls, gun shows, and car racing. Though popular to many people, I dont think those are the kinds of things the typical urban city dwellers are crying out for, and I wouldnt want it in the middle of my downtown neighborhood. But I guess its going to boil down to what kind of vision each of us has for downtown? Is it the people who want to live in a city/urban environment who are wanting this baseball stadium downtown? Or is it the suburban family types idea for what they imagine a downtown as having? Do we want to spend our time and treasure creating a downtown that has things downtown living people would want so we can attract more of them, or what suburban type people who dont have an urban lifestyle mindset and priorities, want?

Whose voices are we going to give more weight to when considering what to do in downtown, those that live there and would like to live there, or those who do not live there and would never want to live there?  Are these voices for a baseball stadium, urbanites or suburbanites, pushing their desires and perspectives for a downtown that will be attractive to them? Each different group may have very different priorities on what they want or what would make an attractive downtown.  

Dang, you're wordy! But you make some very astute remarks. I'm not sure the answers are going to  be forthcoming as these things seem to be decided without much public input. In the big picture, the Drillers would be comfy and successful in either location as their baseline support will endure reasonable travel to enjoy. Much like someone who wants a Maytag washer will bypass more convenient areas to find one.

Given that, it seems like a decision that will be made over cocktails, around lowcut dresses, amid lots of cigar smoke. The best offer takes them and I think Jenks has more to regret if they lose the team than we do.

[Renaissance]

We want the Drillers downtown because we want people downtown.  

We want people downtown because we want downtown to be healthy and vibrant.

We want downtown to be healthy and vibrant because that directly reflects on the city as a whole.

The better question is, why are you trying to build a whole new fake city in a hay field, 12 miles from the real thing?

I know why Lynn Mitchell is doing it: to get rich.  More individuals make more money when the land is cheap and the government picks up the infrastructure tab.  That is the driving force behind American sprawl.  I only have a problem with sprawl when it sucks the life out of the urban core.  Why are you buying into Mitchell's suburban greed at the expense of the region?

[Renaissance]

quote:Originally posted by inteller

hahahaha.....I laugh at the futile grasping of straws.

Giggle all you want.  And then go flunk Business 101.  These are real concerns, and, as you see, the Drillers is still waiting on the city to present a plan.  

Lamson signing a non-binding letter of intent to move to Jenks, as we all said from the start, is leverage on Tulsa.  We shall see soon if any crowbar is big enough to break development deadlock in downtown.

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by Floyd

We want the Drillers downtown because we want people downtown.  

We want people downtown because we want downtown to be healthy and vibrant.

We want downtown to be healthy and vibrant because that directly reflects on the city as a whole.

The better question is, why are you trying to build a whole new fake city in a hay field, 12 miles from the real thing?

I know why Lynn Mitchell is doing it: to get rich.  More individuals make more money when the land is cheap and the government picks up the infrastructure tab.  That is the driving force behind American sprawl.  I only have a problem with sprawl when it sucks the life out of the urban core.  Why are you buying into Mitchell's suburban greed at the expense of the region?

I understand your desire to see downtown flourish, I want Tulsa to have a great downtown as well. But I think we have some differences in perspective on some things. So here is another wordy response, but just trying to get a point across that doesnt seem to be registering. Its like arguing with those people who complain that downtown doesnt have enough parking. They dont get "urban" places.

For one, sprawl does not suck the life out of the urban core. Some people want to live in the suburbs and have a suburban lifestyle, some people want to live in a dense urban area. They are different types of people with different likes and preferences. People who want to live in a city environment are not the ones flocking to the suburbs away from downtown.

When I look at places that have real, urban districts and central cores, those places are bustling because lots of people want to linger in those areas, live in those areas. An area can have attractions, but attractions do not make an urban environment. Lots of people do not an urban district make. Six Flags is lively but it is not urban. We have tens of thousands of people that already go downtown to work, but then they leave. Lots of people working in an area do not make it a real urban environment. Perhaps for an hour before and after work, and during lunch it has that "alive" feel to it. Adding a few more hours in the evening on the few evenings something would be going on at the ballpark would not really do anything either. How many people would that baseball stadium have brought to do downtown this month? last month? next month? Having a bunch of people hopping in their cars going to a game then hopping in their cars and going home, perhaps a number of them going to a restaurant or club before or after does not create an urban environment.  A real lively urban environment doesnt just have people popping in and out on occasion.

I was looking at a photo someone on another forum posted of a new library, in OKC I believe. They were all proud of how it looked. I thought it looked horrible, not because it was an ugly building per say, but because it was so pedestrian unfriendly. Much of the building at street level was a stark, boring wall, the entrance was boring, the streetscaping around it looked stark and uninviting. Next to it was a large parking garage, again nothing you or anyone else would want to walk past or that would entice someone to "stay and linger" for a while. You know how you hear suburbanites complain about how there is no parking downtown in Tulsa? Yet people who live in a "normal" city think thats absurd and that there is pleeeenty of parking?  That downtown library was designed by a "suburban thinker". The suburban person wants and expects to drive up and park right next to a place, go inside, then go back outside to their car and drive someplace else.  That downtown library was not urban in design, it was essentially suburbanity done BIG.  The person drives up and parkes in a BIG parking lot/garage, then goes in a BIG building, then gets back in their car and drives away. BIG does not equal urban.

Lively urban places and streets are pedestrian oriented not car oriented. Lively urban places are filled with people walking to and from places not driving to and from work, shopping, school, cafes and restaurants, entertainment, parks, church, friends, the barber, home, the library... etc. Lively urban places are NEIGHBORHOODS, urban main streets where people live. They live their lives on those streets.

Again, the people who want to live in a city environment are not the ones flocking to the suburbs away from downtown. If we want people to live in our downtown we need to do things that will make it a place those urban dwellers want to live in and can live in. A baseball stadium will not do that, nor will a mall, or a theme park or any number of things that I can think of that would get people to "visit" our downtown.  The best thing we are doing and that we need more of is to keep turning those large buildings into lofts and condos. We have seen that a huge number of offices and work places do not make a lively downtown, adding a bunch more things that will only attract people to "visit" will also not create a true urban environment. By adding more places for people to live, other businesses will begin to follow and urban dwellers will begin to see downtown as the kind of real urban environment they want and then the city will begin to grow that way. A baseball stadium will not entice me to live there. Focusing on things like a baseball stadium misses the point. Its like that library I talked about, it wont create an urban environment where people want to live. A person who would see that library as a great addition to a downtown shows that they do not understand what creates a bustling street or urban core. Not only are they doing the wrong thing, they are not able to see, and thus working towards, what should be done instead. If your thinking a baseball stadium will help downtown, it shows me that you dont know what makes a real downtown and thus you will not be pushing for the things that do.  

Lets not waste our thought, time and treasure on gimmicky crap.  Lets build a real city, with real streets, a real urban core. Look at cities that have the kind of density and walkable, lively areas we want downtown to be like. Even in a place like Paris there are areas that work and areas that do not. Many of the old areas that follow tried and true types of growth have bustling sidewalks. But if you look at areas that follow the contemporary fads, they are desolate and devoid of life. Look at why one street is always bustling and another is not. That "fake city" River District will have busier sidewalks than downtown Tulsa will have, even without the Baseball Stadium. The Baseball stadium will not make that development a lively place with lots of people out and about, the "main street" design and mix of shops, businesses, offices, living, etc. will. Downtown Tulsa can and should be more real and urban and bustling than that. Panicking over a baseball stadium is missing the mark.

Downtown Tulsa should not even be considering worrying about competing with places like the River District or a Tulsa Landing. Downtown Tulsa should be shooting for a completely different demographic, offering something so very different. Let those places attract the people they will.  Steady progress in the right direction is fine. Once a beautiful, proper downtown is created, it will be bustling and cherished for ages.

[Renaissance]

I was away from computers for a little while, but I'm back now.  

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

sprawl does not suck the life out of the urban core.

Except when it steals the minor league franchise from a city.

Look man, I agree with your basic points, although you're far too wordy in making them. But your denial of the fact that baseball stadiums spur downtown development borders on the absurd.  Have you not been to McNellie's?  Do you not the see the vast swaths of NOTHING down there?  It's NEVER getting filled in unless major, subsidized commercial development occurs.  NEVER.  GETTING.  FILLED.  IN.  Why can't you see that?  Why do you think downtown doesn't need baseball, and that it could be a negative?

This is why there is a sense of urgency regarding the stadium.  The Drillers could be the PERFECT filler.  It worked in OKC.  Worked in Little Rock.  Worked freaking EVERYWHERE.  BASEBALL TEAMS ALWAYS HELP DOWNTOWNS AND DOWNTOWNS ALWAYS HELP BASEBALL TEAMS.  Yes, those caps mean I'm raising my voice, because as much as I respect you and others who don't get the urgency of the situation, you're being very dense on this, so let me once again make the very basic points . . .

1)  There is lots of space downtown that will never be filled without major, TIF-subsidized, mixed-use commercial development.

2)  A baseball stadium is a proven way to spur major mixed-use commercial development.  It works everywhere it is tried.

3)  There just so HAPPENS to be a minor league team in this town looking to relocate to a new stadium.  Soon.  They might rather move downtown, but will probably move to the suburbs because that appears to be their only option.

PERFECT MIX OF NEED AND OPPORTUNITY.

AND YET IT IS GOING AWAY.

There are only two reasons this might not bother you.  You're either ignoring urban development realities, or you just don't care about the development of downtown.  I think you're so excited about this little suburban playground they're going to build out in a hay field that you're rationalizing the fact that it's going to occur to the direct detriment of downtown Tulsa.  But that's just a guess.

[RecycleMichael]

The downtown baseball stadium in San Francisco spurred development in an area that was struggling. Same with Denver and St. Louis and Baltimore and Pittsburgh.

I have walked back to my downtown hotel in each of these cities with hundreds of fans through an area of clubs and restaurants and new development.

Downtown baseball works.

[Rico]

Might I just add.....

"Beisbol been very very good to me"  spoken by a famous retired player from somewhere in the southern hemisphere.

p.s.
For those that have noticed

sucks.....!

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by Floyd

I was away from computers for a little while, but I'm back now.  

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

sprawl does not suck the life out of the urban core.

Except when it steals the minor league franchise from a city.

Look man, I agree with your basic points, although you're far too wordy in making them. But your denial of the fact that baseball stadiums spur downtown development borders on the absurd.  Have you not been to McNellie's?  Do you not the see the vast swaths of NOTHING down there?  It's NEVER getting filled in unless major, subsidized commercial development occurs.  NEVER.  GETTING.  FILLED.  IN.  Why can't you see that?  Why do you think downtown doesn't need baseball, and that it could be a negative?

This is why there is a sense of urgency regarding the stadium.  The Drillers could be the PERFECT filler.  It worked in OKC.  Worked in Little Rock.  Worked freaking EVERYWHERE.  BASEBALL TEAMS ALWAYS HELP DOWNTOWNS AND DOWNTOWNS ALWAYS HELP BASEBALL TEAMS.  Yes, those caps mean I'm raising my voice, because as much as I respect you and others who don't get the urgency of the situation, you're being very dense on this, so let me once again make the very basic points . . .

1)  There is lots of space downtown that will never be filled without major, TIF-subsidized, mixed-use commercial development.

2)  A baseball stadium is a proven way to spur major mixed-use commercial development.  It works everywhere it is tried.

3)  There just so HAPPENS to be a minor league team in this town looking to relocate to a new stadium.  Soon.  They might rather move downtown, but will probably move to the suburbs because that appears to be their only option.

PERFECT MIX OF NEED AND OPPORTUNITY.

AND YET IT IS GOING AWAY.

There are only two reasons this might not bother you.  You're either ignoring urban development realities, or you just don't care about the development of downtown.  I think you're so excited about this little suburban playground they're going to build out in a hay field that you're rationalizing the fact that it's going to occur to the direct detriment of downtown Tulsa.  But that's just a guess.

I bet that development in Jenks will do perfecly well without the baseball stadium. It would do well in downtown, though not as well because of the demographics.

You stated "major, TIF-subsidized, mixed-use commercial development"  I agree that we need mixed use development. A baseball stadium by itself is not a major mixed use development.

You say that a baseball stadium spurs mixed use development wherever it is tried. I dont see it spurring anything of the kind where it is at now?

Why would it be any different there?

I see more people steadily going to the small Target over there than to the baseball games. We need a grocery store downtown. Yet the same people that were against the Wal-Mart, apartments, structured parking, possible other shops are now for a baseball stadium?

Are we also going to have structured parking for the stadium? If we are to have a baseball stadium I would prefer to pay for structured parking along with it so that you dont end up with an even larger swath of land thats not used most of the time. At least structured parking can be used during the day and months of the year when there are no baseball games and not leave a sea of desolation the rest of the time.  And please let it look nice and have businesses or something around it or at ground level. Honestly the only cities I have ever been to the baseball stadium and the area immediately around it was like a graveyard, including OKC, or there was no baseball stadium that I ever saw.

Anyone know what Jamie Jamesons opinion is on this matter?

[TheArtist]

Ok. I decided to see what could be creatively done to make a ballpark part of what I want downtown to be like. An urban walkable neighborhood.  I have to head to dinner here in a bit but I have already run across some very interesting designs.

I do NOT want anything like this...

http://z.about.com/d/architecture/1/7/h/i/DolphinStadium.jpg

However... I would become excited about something along these lines.

http://greensboring.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1890

http://www.newurbannews.com/MeriamBallparkMar05.html

http://www.ballparkwatch.com/stadiums/new/frisco.htm

http://www.livelyomaha.org/Civic_Omaha/NorthDowntown.html

will do some more searching

[Rico]

"You say that a baseball stadium spurs mixed use development wherever it is tried. I dont see it spurring anything of the kind where it is at now?

Why would it be any different there? "  < The Artist



Have you considered the zoning and the amount of residential property around the existing field?

Then their is the County/City Fairgrounds property...



Makes me wonder......