Downtown Stadium Plan by May 30th

[joiei]

Where is KOTV going in?  I thought it was that location.  I guess I could drive over and look it over for myself, doh.  So I KOTV going on that vacant lot between Detroit and Elgin next to the freeway?

[stymied]

quote:Originally posted by joiei

Where is KOTV going in?  I thought it was that location.  I guess I could drive over and look it over for myself, doh.  So I KOTV going on that vacant lot between Detroit and Elgin next to the freeway?

No, they are between Cincinnati and Boston and North of Cameron to 244.

[godboko71]

That is KOTV's new lot, right across form Gypsy Coffee House & Cyber Cafe 303 North Cincinnati Avenue

[dsjeffries]

quote:Originally posted by bacjz00
I'm sure most are tired of hearing me gripe, so if you're not interested in negative opinions on this deal it's okay to skip this post

If this indeed is the area, I'm still quite disappointed.  The massive Railroad right-of-way and high arching bridges which cross over the railways create a very distinct barrier between this ballpark location and the core of downtown and also the Blue Dome district.  

I'm very much against this.  I'm not saying that develompent can't sprout up around the ballpark, but it certainly can't "spill" over into the Blue Dome to further invigorate that development with the train tracks separating them.  

I would like to see the Blue Dome get more preferrential treatment in this whole thing considering the amount of investment that Tulsa business owners continue to make in that area.  

I just honestly don't see much of a Blue Dome tie-in here with the alleged location.  I can't see hordes of fans making the 2-3 block walk up and over deserted railroad tracks to enjoy live music and a beer after the game.

More later probably...just trying to be objective, so I apologize if I'm coming across TOO negative.  I have a heart for the Blue Dome in case you can't tell

I'm right there with you, bac.

The bridge does serve as a huge barrier between this part of downtown and Blue Dome, East End... I'm not sure it would completely keep people from making the walk, though.

I'm against this because of the proposed development at this site which would then be taken completely off the table if it were to proceed.  People had a proposal for the use of this site, a proposal that includes brownstones, shops, restaurants, and a hotel; a proposal that would've started rebuilding some sense of urban fabric in the area, created a three-dimensional, living neighborhood, that would expand on the few existing buildings LEFT in the area.

Sure, you might argue that if they really want all those things then they can push their development south instead, but why should we stop a positive neighborhood development from happening when there is a perfectly fine location for a baseball stadium in the East End?  Who are we to say, "No, you'll have to put your development that will create homes, retail and lodging somewhere else because I want to build a baseball stadium here, and I think it's a better idea than yours"?.  Are we going to continue to stymie efforts to revitalize the area?

Don't try to tell me that the building of the stadium will only spur interest in the Greenwood neighborhood--it's taking a huge chunk of land that they wanted to develop and telling them to go elsewhere.

"Imagine this with the Greenwood development", artist?  If this happens where that image indicates, there IS no Greenwood development.  I really don't understand why one would try to remove potential positive development.  If Greenwood could find another place, so can the Ballparkers.

The East End location wouldn't preclude any kind of planned development WHATSOEVER.

[chlfan]

Maybe this is why they wanted to take another 45 days, to make sure they take a look at all the possibilities. Having drawings made doesn't necessarily equate to a done deal does it? I think it's a good thing to have options so hopefully the powers-that-be are taking a long look at ALL of the pros and cons that each presents.

[brunoflipper]

quote:Originally posted by dsjeffries

quote:Originally posted by bacjz00
I'm sure most are tired of hearing me gripe, so if you're not interested in negative opinions on this deal it's okay to skip this post

If this indeed is the area, I'm still quite disappointed.  The massive Railroad right-of-way and high arching bridges which cross over the railways create a very distinct barrier between this ballpark location and the core of downtown and also the Blue Dome district.  

I'm very much against this.  I'm not saying that develompent can't sprout up around the ballpark, but it certainly can't "spill" over into the Blue Dome to further invigorate that development with the train tracks separating them.  

I would like to see the Blue Dome get more preferrential treatment in this whole thing considering the amount of investment that Tulsa business owners continue to make in that area.  

I just honestly don't see much of a Blue Dome tie-in here with the alleged location.  I can't see hordes of fans making the 2-3 block walk up and over deserted railroad tracks to enjoy live music and a beer after the game.

More later probably...just trying to be objective, so I apologize if I'm coming across TOO negative.  I have a heart for the Blue Dome in case you can't tell

I'm right there with you, bac.

The bridge does serve as a huge barrier between this part of downtown and Blue Dome, East End... I'm not sure it would completely keep people from making the walk, though.

I'm against this because of the proposed development at this site which would then be taken completely off the table if it were to proceed.  People had a proposal for the use of this site, a proposal that includes brownstones, shops, restaurants, and a hotel; a proposal that would've started rebuilding some sense of urban fabric in the area, created a three-dimensional, living neighborhood, that would expand on the few existing buildings LEFT in the area.

Sure, you might argue that if they really want all those things then they can push their development south instead, but why should we stop a positive neighborhood development from happening when there is a perfectly fine location for a baseball stadium in the East End?  Who are we to say, "No, you'll have to put your development that will create homes, retail and lodging somewhere else because I want to build a baseball stadium here, and I think it's a better idea than yours"?.  Are we going to continue to stymie efforts to revitalize the area?

Don't try to tell me that the building of the stadium will only spur interest in the Greenwood neighborhood--it's taking a huge chunk of land that they wanted to develop and telling them to go elsewhere.

"Imagine this with the Greenwood development", artist?  If this happens where that image indicates, there IS no Greenwood development.  I really don't understand why one would try to remove potential positive development.  If Greenwood could find another place, so can the Ballparkers.

The East End location wouldn't preclude any kind of planned development WHATSOEVER.

it is not replacing the grenwood plan... the greenwood plan was unfunded, pie-in-the-sky... that is why rueben wanted tda to give them that parcel for free... greenwood chamber does not have the money to acquire even the land, let alone build the development... it was all talk... there is no greenwood development...

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by bacjz00



I'm sure most are tired of hearing me gripe, so if you're not interested in negative opinions on this deal it's okay to skip this post

If this indeed is the area, I'm still quite disappointed.  The massive Railroad right-of-way and high arching bridges which cross over the railways create a very distinct barrier between this ballpark location and the core of downtown and also the Blue Dome district.  

I'm very much against this.  I'm not saying that develompent can't sprout up around the ballpark, but it certainly can't "spill" over into the Blue Dome to further invigorate that development with the train tracks separating them.  

I would like to see the Blue Dome get more preferrential treatment in this whole thing considering the amount of investment that Tulsa business owners continue to make in that area.  

I just honestly don't see much of a Blue Dome tie-in here with the alleged location.  I can't see hordes of fans making the 2-3 block walk up and over deserted railroad tracks to enjoy live music and a beer after the game.

More later probably...just trying to be objective, so I apologize if I'm coming across TOO negative.  I have a heart for the Blue Dome in case you can't tell

The crossing into blue dome (down elgin) is at-grade.

Next argument.

[RecycleMichael]

The Greenwood crossing is at street grade as well. I agree with bruno...this doesn't replace an actual development, just a dream with no funding.

I like the location. It is so close to OSU-Tulsa that their parking lots could be used. I still want to have them start their own baseball team. I wonder what the Athletic Director's job at OSU-Tulsa would pay?

[TheArtist]

I can understand wanting the Greenwood "plan", but it was just a hoped for, wish list, nothing that anyone had any money for. Plus there is still property just to the south on Greenwood itself where the same things could go, buildings that can be rehabbed into things, a hotel is supposedly part of the Ballpark, there is property just to the north of where the ballpark may go, etc. I still think you can end up with the same amount and variety of things in the Greenwood district, on Greenwood even, that their idea had,,, just not in the exact same spot.

And yes, there is no bridge there. Also the ballpark would be a block closer to Mc Nellies and the Continental in the Blue Dome, than to Lolas and Caz's in the Brady Arts. Sounds like someone is going into negative reaction mode without taking a breath and getting an accurate idea of what the situation in the area truly is.

[bacjz00]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

quote:Originally posted by bacjz00



I'm sure most are tired of hearing me gripe, so if you're not interested in negative opinions on this deal it's okay to skip this post

If this indeed is the area, I'm still quite disappointed.  The massive Railroad right-of-way and high arching bridges which cross over the railways create a very distinct barrier between this ballpark location and the core of downtown and also the Blue Dome district.  

I'm very much against this.  I'm not saying that develompent can't sprout up around the ballpark, but it certainly can't "spill" over into the Blue Dome to further invigorate that development with the train tracks separating them.  

I would like to see the Blue Dome get more preferrential treatment in this whole thing considering the amount of investment that Tulsa business owners continue to make in that area.  

I just honestly don't see much of a Blue Dome tie-in here with the alleged location.  I can't see hordes of fans making the 2-3 block walk up and over deserted railroad tracks to enjoy live music and a beer after the game.

More later probably...just trying to be objective, so I apologize if I'm coming across TOO negative.  I have a heart for the Blue Dome in case you can't tell

The crossing into blue dome (down elgin) is at-grade.

Next argument.

Fair enough...so perhaps the crossing is not as high as I imagined.  But do you all still not see the RR/ROW as a barrier to expansion into the core of downtown?  I'm willing to look at other angles here, I'm not trying to bully anyone from up here on my pulpit, lol.

[Renaissance]

quote:Originally posted by bacjz00

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

quote:Originally posted by bacjz00



I'm sure most are tired of hearing me gripe, so if you're not interested in negative opinions on this deal it's okay to skip this post

If this indeed is the area, I'm still quite disappointed.  The massive Railroad right-of-way and high arching bridges which cross over the railways create a very distinct barrier between this ballpark location and the core of downtown and also the Blue Dome district.  

I'm very much against this.  I'm not saying that develompent can't sprout up around the ballpark, but it certainly can't "spill" over into the Blue Dome to further invigorate that development with the train tracks separating them.  

I would like to see the Blue Dome get more preferrential treatment in this whole thing considering the amount of investment that Tulsa business owners continue to make in that area.  

I just honestly don't see much of a Blue Dome tie-in here with the alleged location.  I can't see hordes of fans making the 2-3 block walk up and over deserted railroad tracks to enjoy live music and a beer after the game.

More later probably...just trying to be objective, so I apologize if I'm coming across TOO negative.  I have a heart for the Blue Dome in case you can't tell

The crossing into blue dome (down elgin) is at-grade.

Next argument.

Fair enough...so perhaps the crossing is not as high as I imagined.  But do you all still not see the RR/ROW as a barrier to expansion into the core of downtown?  I'm willing to look at other angles here, I'm not trying to bully anyone from up here on my pulpit, lol.

I (tentatively) agree with bacjz00.  I'll hold any real criticism until I see plans or renderings.  As happy as I am that there will be downtown baseball in Tulsa, I have this sinking feeling that the city will end up having traded the best option for the cheapest.

[cannon_fodder]

1. I hope the layout has an aesthetic appeal.  An entrance that is both inviting AND directs traffic flow from the park to entertainment and other places to spend money (BrickTown ballpark did this well).

1.5 Along those same lines, place it within *very* easy access of places for people to spend money.  Some things are likely to pop up, but the entertainment centers of the Blue Dome and Brady are unlikely to shift TO this ball park.  So build it nearby.  I imagine a sports bar, restaurant, or even a hotel could pop up near it to fill in some space - but for gods sake place it where people can spend money.

2.  I hope they orientate the park so the outfield view is attractive.  We have a great skyline,  beautiful hills and terrain, and some ugly warehouses and freeways.  Please don't showcase the latter.

3. Place the park somewhere that visitors and passersby SEE it.  From the freeway, from their hotels, from the entertainment districts... such that even if they are NOT going to a game they can see our fabulous new venue and say "hey, I'll have to catch a game there sometime." Or at least see that Tulsa has things to offer.

4. Don't surround it with a sea of asphalt. It looks horrible, discourages density, is underused, and goes a long way of ruining the "park" feel of a ball park.  If you build it, they will find somewhere to park.  10,000 people or 5,000 cars is not that many parking spaces for any place down town to absorb within a reasonable walking distance.  Provide a drop off zone and close parking for people who need it - but the rest of us lazy bastards can figure it out.

5. Go all out or don't go at all.  It doesn't need to be massive.  It doesn't need to be marbled or gilded.  But add a few features (fountain, kid park, grass areas for blankets, allow picnics) and design it to be interesting.  Why replace an existing functional structure with another bland product?

/my buck-0-five

[bacjz00]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

1. I hope the layout has an aesthetic appeal.  An entrance that is both inviting AND directs traffic flow from the park to entertainment and other places to spend money (BrickTown ballpark did this well).

1.5 Along those same lines, place it within *very* easy access of places for people to spend money.  Some things are likely to pop up, but the entertainment centers of the Blue Dome and Brady are unlikely to shift TO this ball park.  So build it nearby.  I imagine a sports bar, restaurant, or even a hotel could pop up near it to fill in some space - but for gods sake place it where people can spend money.

2.  I hope they orientate the park so the outfield view is attractive.  We have a great skyline,  beautiful hills and terrain, and some ugly warehouses and freeways.  Please don't showcase the latter.

3. Place the park somewhere that visitors and passersby SEE it.  From the freeway, from their hotels, from the entertainment districts... such that even if they are NOT going to a game they can see our fabulous new venue and say "hey, I'll have to catch a game there sometime." Or at least see that Tulsa has things to offer.

4. Don't surround it with a sea of asphalt. It looks horrible, discourages density, is underused, and goes a long way of ruining the "park" feel of a ball park.  If you build it, they will find somewhere to park.  10,000 people or 5,000 cars is not that many parking spaces for any place down town to absorb within a reasonable walking distance.  Provide a drop off zone and close parking for people who need it - but the rest of us lazy bastards can figure it out.

5. Go all out or don't go at all.  It doesn't need to be massive.  It doesn't need to be marbled or gilded.  But add a few features (fountain, kid park, grass areas for blankets, allow picnics) and design it to be interesting.  Why replace an existing functional structure with another bland product?

/my buck-0-five

I couldn't POSSIBLY agree with you more on all points.  #4 and #5 are no small matters.  Tulsa should try to hit a "home run" (sorry)architecturally with this ballpark and create something that is once again iconic.  Something that borderlines on a destination even while baseball isn't being played.   And having an area at the ballpark that is family friendly is very important.

[TheArtist]

I am not expecting iconic with this. Its likely to be a small stadium and also, since its not tax funded but funded through donors and business interests, they will probably make sure its practical and "handsome" but not have a lot of extra expense to make it fancy.

If I were to paint a best case scenario, I would hope that it be brick, not old timey brick like "Bricktown" but contemporary with perhaps a nod to some art-deco elements.  It would be nice if at least one side, on one street, have street level retail. It would would be nice if the south side of the stadium had retail so that it would tie into the little strip on Greenwood Ave, the north side have the hotel and the west side have a nice sidewalk with trees and lighting. The South West corner would have a fun, welcoming entrance with an open courtyard space in front.

[bacjz00]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

I am not expecting iconic with this. Its likely to be a small stadium and also, since its not tax funded but funded through donors and business interests, they will probably make sure its practical and "handsome" but not have a lot of extra expense to make it fancy.

If I were to paint a best case scenario, I would hope that it be brick, not old timey brick like "Bricktown" but contemporary with perhaps a nod to some art-deco elements.  It would be nice if at least one side, on one street, have street level retail. It would would be nice if the south side of the stadium had retail so that it would tie into the little strip on Greenwood Ave, the north side have the hotel and the west side have a nice sidewalk with trees and lighting. The South West corner would have a fun, welcoming entrance with an open courtyard space in front.

Perhaps "iconic" was the wrong choice of words.  I suppose I wouldn't intend for this ballpark to be studied by future generations of architecture students.  However, I think it's important that it have a grand entrance or something that has a certain wow factor.  

It would be nice to see people lured to it by its design and not see it just get bypassed on days when there are no games.  Making it a part of a bigger development of course would encourage that further.