Oklahoma City has been exploring the 'needs' for building a multipurpose (soccer, american football, track & field) stadium to support the future growth of sports (excluding baseball) in the central city area[1]. A stadium which could address the needs of soccer, american football[2] and/or track & field or build a multipurpose facility capable of supporting multiple sporting events. Keep in mind that should you decide on a large stadium, it is going to be difficult to attract some non conference games involving participation by Oklahoma State University (Boone Pickens - 60,000) and Oklahoma University's (85,000) scheduling if the capacity doesn't match or exceed those current figures. There have been NFL exhibition games played in the Norman and MLS exhibition games played in Edmond. Oklahoma City doesn't currently possess a stadium in the city limits capable of attracting any of the events mentioned. Your participation in the poll as well as responses will be appreciated. [1] Oklahoma river, bricktown, downtown or fair park. [2] High school, college, semi-pro and major professional football.
I voted for the 19,00 + for a couple of reasons; 1. If we EVER think we will be in the running for MLS, we would need it to be at least that size 2. At that size we could vie for certain college football games, such as the FCS Championship, which is now being held at Toyota Park in Frisco, TX. 3. State Championship football games could be played there, especially at the lower divisions. To me it would make for a much better experience for Class B-3A schools to play in a 20,000 seat stadium in the middle of OKC, than play at either OU or OSU in a fairly empty stadium.
Agree with ManuSooner in that a 19,000-plus facility would put us in the game. If such a stadium could be part of the MAPS IV ballot with a private-public partnership involving either McLaughlin's NASL group or Funk's Prodigal LLC., will put us back on the MLS's radar. You're looking at an estimated $200 million soccer specific stadium venue come 2017 ballot. The more uses for a stadium (concerts, large gatherings, outdoor rodeos etc.,) the better push it will have when bundled with other 2017 MAPS IV projects. We dodged a bullet in the 1997 NHL expansion derby when Nashville, Atlanta, St. Paul, MN & Columbus grabbed those four expansion franchises; this led to the NBA Hornets' trial run and the eventual relocation of the Sonics to Oklahoma City. Internet posters were claiming that the Hornets were headed to Kentucky. Louisville's proximity to Indianapolis Pacers (110-miles) and the ancient old 18,000-seat Freedom Hall was no match for OKC's 19,135-seat sparkling new Ford Center. The newly constructed Yum Center in Louisville does get them back on the NBA's radar. The reason that Oklahoma City was passed up in the '97 NHL expansion centered around the NHL's Board of Governors doubt that OKC could build a quality arena with a budget of $90 million. MAPS I called for a six-month extension to finished all the projects underfunded through cost overruns. We built a structure without all the bells & whistles and later voted MAPS for HOOPS, which was another extension to bring the NBA to OKC yielding an additional $120 million for arena upgrades & an NBA practice facility. It would be cost efficient to have one vote without having to have an election for an extension (MAP I) or arena upgrades (MAPS for HOOPS). With previous projects put before the voters let's hope that we are experienced in this department to allow for cost overruns. MAPS has made its impact on Oklahoma City and what can be done with public funding. It would be to our advantage to get an MLS-ready stadium built without having to go back to voters for an extension. Being able to have a year round menu of sports would be healthy for the financial success and economic impact the stadium will have on the central core. Current downtown parking is able to handle crowds of 15,000 - 25,000. More parking would need to be addressed in the event you have simultaneous events being held at the arena and stadium (30,000-40,000 combined).
Artists' conception of the San Jose Earthquakes stadium (18,000 seating capacity) which is being constructed at a cost of around $70 million which includes land acquisition. The San Jose Stadium appears to be very simplistic and low budgeted for an MLS team. Surely Oklahoma City will be able to come up with something much more elaborate and iconic if we invest $150 million toward a soccer specific stadium for the MAPS IV ballot coming 2017. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Jose_Earthquakes_Stadium
Yeah I really don't care for the horseshoe design. But they're getting a stadium, so who am i to criticize?
Please critique this low budgeted MLS venue that if built in Oklahoma City would lose half its value when the first wind comes sweeping down the plains.
alright then. I HATE it! It looks cheap. it looks like its being built by the lowest possible government-contracted bidder. I HATE that it's not enclosed at the one end. It looks like 3/4 of the TEMPORARY stadium that Vancouver played in for awhile! I think it looks like what non-soccer fans think of when think of a soccer stadium; "awww, it's so....cute...Isn't that nice that they got a place to play their little game"
It's what they can afford but I think the finished product won't look that cheap as you think. Also keep in mind, not building one end really makes it a 24k seat stadium with 6k seats not built yet. This design allows for expansion with minimal redesign work. If things really take off that side would be made even bigger.
Penske, you're measurements for expansion are indeed practicable. San Jose is a very large market, a fraction of the San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland MSA of 4.5 million residents. There's money where you have a core like the Silicon Valley. That minimal redesign (expansion) work will probably exceed the original cost of the stadium.
Not sure I follow. Are you saying the expansion is going to cost more the the stadium, really can't tell until that happens five or ten years in the future. The redesign work I really was referring to is the fact they've left the end open so all they need to spend money on to expand is determining how they want to integrate not the existing structure vs taking down some of the existing structure. If they make any future expansion more expensive is anyone's guess.
Construction costs are skyrocketing. If it takes five to ten years to expand from 18,000 to possibly 24,000 seats; you bet it's going to cost just focusing on today's rising trends in construction. I realize that the San Jose Earthquakes are averaging in the neighborhood of 13,000 in Stanford Stadium their current temporary home. The NHL Sharks are operating at 100% of seating capacity. I was expecting their MLS team to really roll out a second-to-none facility.
Actually, SJ only plays a game or two in Stanford. They play their home guys now at Buck Shaw Stadium and the capacity is 10,525
I kept seeing Buck Shaw Stadium appear and when I saw the seating capacity 10,525; I thought, they are over capacity, so I went to the San Jose Earthquakes' official website and it showed that Stanford Stadium was where they now played. I didn't think to check out the box scores.
The only game they play at Stanford is when they host the Galaxy; all the rest at Buck Shaw.. 2015 can't get here soon enough (opening of their new stadium).
From what I understand, the unfinished end IS left open for a future expansion. The Quakes don't bring a bunch of revenue (like most MLS teams) and the ownership doesn't have the deepest pockets. I've never been to another MLS stadium, so its hard for me to compare the SJ conceptuals to a current stadium, but it is an absolute 100% upgrade from Buck Shaw stadium. We will see.....
What would I like? Obviously, the larger stadium. It's more likely we end up with a 5-10,000 seater that is able to expand up to 20,000 if a move to MLS is imminent. Keep in mind, besides the Sounders, whom play in an NFL stadium, the next largest average attendance is the LA Galaxy who pulls in 22k and some change. It's simply not feasible to START with a capacity of 19k.
I'll just repost what I said before: I voted for the 19,00 + for a couple of reasons; 1. If we EVER think we will be in the running for MLS, we would need it to be at least that size 2. At that size we could vie for certain college football games, such as the FCS Championship, which is now being held at Toyota Park in Frisco, TX. 3. State Championship football games could be played there, especially at the lower divisions. To me it would make for a much better experience for Class B-3A schools to play in a 20,000 seat stadium in the middle of OKC, than play at either OU or OSU in a fairly empty stadium.
We could build 7k-seater stadium that would be expandable to 20,000 and that would be fine with MLS officials. I don't think small class high school football games or FCS college football games would be enough to start with a 20k stadium, but there are obviously more options besides that. With the new concert venue at the old downtown airport, concerts are likely out, however.
Actually, I think it WOULD be enough to get the stadium built. I hate to burst anyone's bubble, but almost all of the "Soccer-Specific Stadiums" in the country are used for other things. That's how they got built in the first place. And just the older ones, Toyota Park in Frisco is used by Frisco schools for football. They also now host the FCS Championship game every year. BBVA Compass Stadium in Houston is used by a small black college for football. That was one of the stipulations for building it. Red Bull Arena is used for concerts. Stub Hub Arena in LA is used for EVERYTHING, including the X-Games. Look, I'll take anything! But I just think that we have a better chance to get the city to make it part of a future MAPS vote if we can say "Look at what all we can do with this stadium..." Otherwise we have a 7K stadium that can't be multi-purposed UNTIL and UNLESS MLS comes calling. Anyway, that's my 2 cents
I agree with your sentiments. One prevailing theme however, is that those are all MLS soccer teams. Oh, without a doubt, if a stadium were to get on MAPS, it would have to be multi-purpose. That's a no-brainer. There are a lot of moving parts, and it all depends on who/how it's funded as well.
It's being built by a notoriously cheap owner, on land that he was able to acquire at pennies on the dollar, thanks to the City of Sad Jose being saddled with the site after the FMC plant that built the Bradley Fighting Vehicles ceased operations. Just wait until you hear their notoriously bitchy fanbase bitch about it once it's done. I think it will look cheaper, because they are skimping on the finishes Now, that's not what it makes. It makes it an 18,000 seat stadium with an open end. There wouldn't be any "re-design", unless the original structure were changed, and there would be no reason to do so, Unlikely. An end stand would be limited in height due to compromised sight lines. Not so much. It's also a market that has largely ignored the Quakes and their predecessor, the Clash, for various reasons. I'm going to make a Sports Animal Bold Prediction that San Jose won't need to expand for 20+ years after the facility opens. They've never shown any propensity to sell out even Buck Shaw, or Spartan Stadium before that, unless LA is in town, or your have a star like Beckham/Blanco showing up. There's a lot at play with the Sounders fanbase that isn't necessarily apparent. It remains to be seen how well that fanbase stays with a sustained down period. When they were a USL team, they struggled with a attendance of around 2000 Of course it is. 1) It won't 2) It won't happen in that time frame. It's a little bit more difficult than that. Future construction is always more expensive as a function for $$$$/per SF, or in this function, $$$$/per Seat Correct, none of the supposedly soccer specific stadiums that MLS built are single tenant structures, otherwise, they would never host more than 25-30 events a year.
That's not exactly accurate. Ive been following attendance for.the last two years ans they habe pretty consistently sold out Buck Shaw
They seem to have about 10% of their fans that show up dressed as empty seats. I'm fairly certain that they'll be putting 13,000 in it regularly, and possibly adding if they don't make a lot of the mistakes of other MLS teams have made just after opening new stadia, and sell it out when LA or a famous DP player shows. But 18,000 isn't likely, given the thriftyness of the Ownership and the general cluelessness of the FO
Prodigal LLC has partnered with ADG, Inc., a locally owned architecture firm, to design and build a soccer specific stadium to house Prodigal's United Soccer Leagues professional franchise. Rhiannon Walker, Oklahoman reporting: Video in this link: http://newsok.com/multimedia/video/2551159591001 Funk's plans to get Oklahoma City MLS ready: "We are privileged to be a part of this important project for Oklahoma City," Scott Dedmon, Design Director and principal at ADG, Inc said. "When we designed the Chickasaw Bricktown Ballpark it set a new standard for Triple-A Baseball. We expect to do the same for USL PRO Soccer. This will be an exciting new sports venue for Oklahoma City and will express the growth of our city."--Newson6 (Tulsa). Initial plans for the facility call for it to seat 7,000 fans, with the capability to expand to 20,000, which is the minimum size a franchise must have to be considered for an expansion team in Major League Soccer (MLS). In terms of the stadium styles, Funk said he likes the L.A. Galaxy's multipurpose facility, design and sidelines, as well as the look and design of the Seattle Sounders' stadium. Given the opportunity, Funk would like to visit those facilities along with the Portland Timbers' and Charleston Battery's buildings.--Oklahoman, July 16, 2013
Charleston Battery 'Blackbaud Stadium:' A 5.100-seat stadium. This stadium has seats and not rodeo bleachers. Just think what we could get if the NASL builds a 9,000-14,000-seat facility? and/or Funk builds a 7,000 to 12,000-seat facility?