I think they were waiting for Lingo to move to their sweet new office-123 8th Street, so they could get started.

Thanks for the photos!

What you say makes perfect sense. When I was there in June I could see there was a substantial operation on the ground floor but I had not idea it was Lingo.


It will be interesting to see who they get for ground floor tenants. Really looking forward to seeing this building come back to life. Now, when the Dowell Center reopens there will be a total transformation and infusion of people into this recently completely dead area.

Will the street between here and the Braniff be redone through Project180 once both projects (or at least Sandridge's) is done?

Will the street between here and the Braniff be redone through Project180 once both projects (or at least Sandridge's) is done?

Yes, the plan is to redo all the streets around SandRidge except for Broadway.

This would be the last package under the current funding; let's just hope they don't run out before getting to it.

Real answer: Who knows.

The streetcar will at least come through on Robinson, so we know it will be redone for that.

Anyone know updates on this project?

They received approval for a minor design change a week or two ago, so it looks like it is slowly moving forward.

Somebody else mentioned that Lingo Construction has been using the ground floor temporarily while they ready their new building under renovation nearby.

Probably just a matter of coordinating a few things, because they seem to have everything pretty much ready to go.

...so it looks like it is slowly moving forward...

Sigh. 'Slowly moving' seems to be the way to describe all city development.

Is this peculiar to OKC? Or does all urban development these days proceed at a GLACIAL PACE.

It's so strange (and intriguing) to read of the old days (20's/30's or earlier) when entire city blocks were built up in just a couple of years. These days, a couple of years passes by just to see one particular building design go through a series of reviews, permit requests, impact analysis, more reviews, etc. etc. before a single shovel hits the dirt. That is, if the shovel ever does hit the dirt. It's a wonder anything ever gets built.

Sorry, I know this isn't specific to the Carnegie Centre. Just picked this as a spot to do a frustration rant.

It's the nature of urban development.

You are typically dealing with old buildings with all types of problems (asbestos, antiquated plumbing and electrical, etc.) and design restrictions.

Also, almost every renovation project involves subsidies and those always take quite a bit of time.

Even in the case of land that looks vacant, there are often issues with utilities, contamination and the like.


All this is why most developers stay in the suburbs where things are relatively straight forward. It takes someone with a real passion for urban development that have motivations beyond pure profit to pull these things off.

I will also say most developers are driven by getting things done; seeing their projects completed. So once the wheels are in motion, they are usually extremely motivated and doing their best to navigate all the mentioned obstacles. I'm sure in this case, Judy Hatfield is way more frustrated than anyone.

Thanks Pete. Yeah, that all makes sense.

My brain understands this completely. But my emotions don't. They just get riled up and frustrated. So... it's just a matter of keeping my emotions in check and my brain in charge (sometimes easier said than done).

I understand completely and I think most of us feel this way. It's to the point that most are pretty cynical until you actually see construction start, and even then that is not a 100% guarantee.

In following these redevelopment projects I've come to understand there is usually a lot going on that is not apparent, even with all of our eyes on permits and applications. There is just a ton of prep work and then constant adjustment / recalibration as they step through the process, because so there are so many variables that only reveal themselves as you take each step.

Remember that the Midtown Renaissance properties took FOREVER to move forward and now they are just cranking them out one after another, and doing them right.

Truthfully, I think in many ways it's almost preferable for these renovation projects to go slowly, because that seems the only way they are even done right.

When I first reported they were doing interior demo they worked hard for about 5 days then nothing since. Not all projects have to be slow ie 123 8th Street, The Tull Overhead Door/Good Egg building, ect.

Development doesn't have to be slow, just Oklahoma Development does....

Sigh. 'Slowly moving' seems to be the way to describe all city development.

Is this peculiar to OKC? Or does all urban development these days proceed at a GLACIAL PACE.

It's so strange (and intriguing) to read of the old days (20's/30's or earlier) when entire city blocks were built up in just a couple of years. These days, a couple of years passes by just to see one particular building design go through a series of reviews, permit requests, impact analysis, more reviews, etc. etc. before a single shovel hits the dirt. That is, if the shovel ever does hit the dirt. It's a wonder anything ever gets built.

Sorry, I know this isn't specific to the Carnegie Centre. Just picked this as a spot to do a frustration rant.

No project has moved slower than this one....by a long shot

Went by there yesterday and too a very good look through the windows and around the back and there is absolutely nothing happening yet.

No signs of life or activity.

Sent you a PM Pete.

Went by there yesterday and too a very good look through the windows and around the back and there is absolutely nothing happening yet.

No signs of life or activity.

Sigh.

So which is of these two is faster:

development of the Carnegie Centre
http://www.theallianceokc.org/sites/default/files/files/images/Blog/Old%20Downtown%20Library.jpg

or this?
http://www.bitrebels.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Real-Snail-Mail-Delivery-1.jpg

(I'm putting my money on the snail)

Development of the rest of the abandoned old buildings in Bricktown could be slower.

I jinxed it.. Back to believing it when I see it lol

on the EDtrust agenda for next tuesday items IV E and F are for this project lowering the TIF dollars from 400k to 370k also states that construction is expected to start in the next 60 days

on the EDtrust agenda for next tuesday items IV E and F are for this project lowering the TIF dollars from 400k to 370k also states that construction is expected to start in the next 60 days

And now must be completed by Dec. 31, 2014.

Let's hope this project FINALLY gets going. Will bring a lot of life to that area and Robinson as well.

Not gonna happen. There are too many residential options now that don't require this amount of effort. No residential developer is gonna touch this thing until the market changes. And with some of the new projects in the area, that won't be any time soon. The Mercantile project is a death sentance for Carnegie.

bombermwc - no where in the history of America has housing led to a decrease in surrounding housing. The more downtown housing there is the higher demand goes and this might be one of the few examples in economics where an increase in supply creates an increase in demand. It won't be long until traditional economics takes over and demand drives the supply (we'll reach that point when projects are built without financial assistance).

Agreed with JTF. Especially since the demand for DT housing will bring with it, retail and general neighborhood-demand - which in turns brings more residential demand. It is basically a compounding cycle until the area starts filling up physically and by then you have a legitimate urban-life breathing city

to add to JTF and Anonymous:

particularly since there aren't many housing options IN THE CBD itself. I'd expect demand for this project to be at an all-time high now or once it publicly/officially moves into firm construction.

Supply doesn't create demand. Demand can create impetus for supply. Growing demand comes from the holistic growth of attractions downtown and increased awareness of lifestyle options available here. The issue is whether the growing demand is greater than the existing and growing supply. Also, whether this or the other projects compete for a specific niche in the demand to which this project is attractive. Markets are made up of many segments, so generalized statements about markets are overly simplistic and sound good, but not true.

Exactlly Rover. The CBD market is running out of people to put into the units. If that weren't the case, then we would still be springing up developments at the pace we had been. The other thing is the NEW developments are more economical than the re-hab ones like this. Especially considering the library wasn't built for residential. It's the same problem Mercantile is going to have. The benefit with Mercantile is that the foot traffic is better for non-business day folk so it's actually more attractive. You actually do have walking distance for entertainment and parking is easy.

Carnegie would require a LOT of money to put the conveniences in for this to work....heck the have to cut foles just to make a window. Mercantile is a wall of windows.

All you need to do is look at the housing bubble to see how that flawed logic in supply and demand works. That's how you end up with a million dollar condo that's really work 200K and then it goes for 150....ie Miami.

Exactlly Rover. The CBD market is running out of people to put into the units. If that weren't the case, then we would still be springing up developments at the pace we had been. The other thing is the NEW developments are more economical than the re-hab ones like this. Especially considering the library wasn't built for residential. It's the same problem Mercantile is going to have. The benefit with Mercantile is that the foot traffic is better for non-business day folk so it's actually more attractive. You actually do have walking distance for entertainment and parking is easy.

Carnegie would require a LOT of money to put the conveniences in for this to work....heck the have to cut foles just to make a window. Mercantile is a wall of windows.

All you need to do is look at the housing bubble to see how that flawed logic in supply and demand works. That's how you end up with a million dollar condo that's really work 200K and then it goes for 150....ie Miami.

With all this being said, i also should point out i have a track record for predicting these developments. So far i've been right in my predictions about 90% of the time.

This one's DOA.

I wouldn't rule it out yet. This location is becoming more and more attractive. It has sweet views of the old courthouse across the street to the west, and a nice skyline views to the south of the Braniff, Sandridge, First National and the rest of the NE section of the CBD. It's also got access to the uber popular Kitchen 324 across the street, and is a block or so away from the National Memorial and within walking distance from Deep Deuce and Auto Alley. I can see some Sandridge (or future mystery company) execs wanting to crash here with only a walk across the street to work.

Supply doesn't create demand. Demand can create impetus for supply.

Usually yes, but there are times when supply does generate demand. Another example is natural gas to power cars. There is almost zero demand for that right now, but if the supply is built it will create the demand - at least that is what the natural gas companies are hoping which is why they defict fund the attempt. As more people move into downtown it makes it a viable option for those who never considered living there before because it lacked basic necessities. For example, Person A won't move downtown because there is no grocery store. Now a grocery store exist (the supply) so person A will move downtown. From the grocery store owners perspective, they hope that providing the supply (in many cases deficit funded by a government agency) will cause the demand to materialize after the fact. If demand is sufficient the supply will be provided without incentives (usually).

While I understand what you are saying, I think that is a misrepresentation of how supply and demand work. Using your example, demand for lower price fuel/cng EXISTS NOW. Making the infrastructure so it can deliver to that demand is a response to that demand. But building the infrastructure with no demand does not CREATE the demand. The demand for downtown housing EXISTS NOW. The PARTICULAR SEGMENTS of the demand have to be met. Creating inventory will not increase the demand, but will match demand and supply if done properly. The point is, developers respond to demand. When they expand beyond that they go broke. That's why we have bubbles and bursts. Their option when they over saturate is to lower prices until they find the demand that is looking for cheaper options.

The good news is it doesn't appear we are yet at saturation of demand. But, we will start over-saturating SEGMENTS of the market if we aren't careful and that isn't good.

Anyway, I don't want to get caught up in semantics.

I strongly disagree with Rover. If that were the case, then we wouldn't have any new inventions because nobody would take a chance since there wasn't demand. Remember when typewriters were the norm and computers were not? Microsoft/IBM and Apple took a chance and CREATED demand for their products and introduced workplace productivity. Think there was demand for OIL before Henry Ford invented the car? Or Jet fuel before somebody invented the turbojet? I agree that in a normal economy, supply chases demand and that is certainly true in Vancouver, Chicago, New York and other urban CBDs - but downtown OKC is not a normal economy because it does not currently offer the standard of living that exists in other urban cities; so somebody in OKC has to take a chance to create that demand. ...

I think downtown housing availability (ie, supply) created demand. There isn't much CBD demand now, because there isn't anything there aside from City Place which is almost all gone. However, I imagine demand would be created IF supply of housing came onboard in the CBD.

Even the existing housing in downtown started somewhere, with the Deep Deuce apartments that created demand for urban living. Some of us actually MIGHT want to live in the CBD if the housing existed. That is how supply can create demand, people might want to see the product first before they want it.

If that were the case, then we wouldn't have any new inventions because nobody would take a chance since there wasn't demand.Go back and read that statement a few times, will ya. ;)

New creations fill demand not the other way around. But it doesn't mean demand doesn't grow. Computers were developed to fill the demand for the ability to perform complex tasks quickly. The demand was just being filled a different way, an inferior way.

Developers just need to keep identifying where the demand is coming from and finding ways to satisfy it in an economical way.

The idea that supply creates its own demand came from ideas of the mid 1800s regarding payment for comodities but successfully argued against by Keynes in the early 1900s. Since my degree in economics and finance was produced by Keynesian economist professors, I choose to think the way I do, I guess.

You guys are arguing in circles over nothing. New housing and other construction downtown affect demand. We can't predict how much demand will exist in the future for downtown housing, especially since we don't know what else is going to be built. There's more demand for housing in a growing and thriving downtown than there is for one that has no one there after 5 pm and no amenities. The more people we have living downtown, the more amenities it will be able to support. At some point we will exhaust the available demand, but that level of demand is directly affected by how cool it is to live downtown.

New creations fill demand not the other way around. But it doesn't mean demand doesn't grow. Computers were developed to fill the demand for the ability to perform complex tasks quickly. The demand was just being filled a different way, an inferior way.


There wasn't really demand for an iPhone before the iPhone. But people saw it and wanted it, because it was awesome.

There wasn't really demand for an iPhone before the iPhone. But people saw it and wanted it, because it was awesome.

iPhones are very cool. I got an iPhone 5 about a month ago. Very neat phone.

This is an age old argument in economics, which drives which. It's also one of those things where one side will never agree with the other.

Personally, my view is that the demand dictates the supply. In speaking on the iphone, people wanted a phone that did things, apple gave them that. People wanted an alternative to it, so Samsang did it. People hated AT&T, so there became alternatives. Just because a product exists and the supply is there, does NOT mean that it is in demand. Having a product simply exist can cause it to immedately saturate its market and create an oversupply of the product, simply by being. If you want an example of that, you can look at the Apple Newton. The iPad is really round 2.

This is an age old argument in economics, which drives which. It's also one of those things where one side will never agree with the other.


I believe it is called Say's Law and its rejection is one of the foundations of Keynesian economics, and since I am not a Keynesian, it is okay for me to believe in Say's Law. Anyhow, my point really was that more housing creates more demand since the influx of new services to support the existing populations lends to the stability of the area, thus inducing more people to move downtown. It is ultimately a checken and egg situation, and in this case the City spend tax dollars to create the egg in hopes a chicken will grow.

Believing supply creates demand is why lots of projects go bust. Projections on business plans run amuck. Bankers who believe them. Developers believing their own BS. We don't want a bubble mentality here in OKC.

The last umpteen posts are WAY :ot:

Perhaps someone would like to start a thread called 'Economics Debate Class' and carry this argument out over there. And leave this thread for the Carnegie Centre.

See my argument in post #267, I thought it was a valid argument for the subject matter of the thread.

See my argument in post #267, I thought it was a valid argument for the subject matter of the thread.

Yes, I agree. This location may well fill this demand niche as it seems to enjoy a number of amenities desired by a target audience who would like the location and be willing and able to pay the higher price for it.

hence, this new supply will create demand at that location since it doesn't yet exist.

This subtopic doesn't seem to be going away so this will be my last post on it.

Induced demand - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand)


Induced demand, or latent demand, is the phenomenon that after supply increases, more of a good is consumed. This is entirely consistent with the economic theory of supply and demand...

See Also:
Downs–Thomson paradox
Externality
Lewis–Mogridge Position
Say's law
Positive feedback
Traffic flow
Schedule delay

There is ammunition for that for sure. If it didn't have some merit, then we would never see any changes from the current status....ie there would be no development.

However, in this case, we aren't starting a new trend, which is where Induced Demand really takes off. That happens more when there's somethuing new that wasn't available before. So, in this case, it would have been more applicable to the first couple of developments of high-end residential in the core. What of those are out there, have struggled to fill to capacity. Most of them really aren't in the CBD, but rather nearby. Whys is that? Well frankly, downtown sits in the 'tween phase of the previosly mentioned chicken and egg problem. Not enough people to warrant certain services (ie traditional and not specialty grocery). But no one wants to move there without those things. Heck, we can't get that in areas like 240/Sooner where density is at many times over what downtown can only dream of right now.

Once there have been a few developments of this type in the area, the latent demand is gone and it folds back into the traditional model. But, in this case, demand trumps supply. An oversaturation in supply simply causes the price to lower, not increase the use of the product. And when it's real estate, it increases the liklihood of the developer to go belly-up or be forced to sell at a loss of the ROI. Carnegie is going to fall into this category as the developer can't continue to hold on to it without bringing cash in from something. An empty building produces nothing but an expense in taxes. It will have to sell to someone else with some different vision for the building or the property.

A little knowledge, or a little Google, is a dangerous thing. Everyone is a skin deep expert. We've all become part of the "I believe it, and I'm never wrong, so it must be true" generation. That's why I am never wrong on the urban issues too. If you dont belive it, just ask me. Lol.

I believe it is called Say's Law and its rejection is one of the foundations of Keynesian economics, and since I am not a Keynesian, it is okay for me to believe in Say's Law. Anyhow, my point really was that more housing creates more demand since the influx of new services to support the existing populations lends to the stability of the area, thus inducing more people to move downtown. It is ultimately a checken and egg situation, and in this case the City spend tax dollars to create the egg in hopes a chicken will grow.

For the record, I'm a Keynesian -- the only economic philosophy that has been proven to work -- and I agree wholeheartedly with this post.

For the record, I'm a Keynesian -- the only economic philosophy that has been proven to work -- and I agree wholeheartedly with this post.

really?? cause i thought the 1970's proved differently... Many economic philosophies has been "proven" to work over a certain period of time, the main issue has always been sticking to much to a certain economic philosophy and refusing to change fast enough to meet the new components of the economy. The issue is the economic philosophies don't evolve as fast as the economies who try to follow that theory.

Well, economic philosophies aside, this space should have no problem filling up as soon as it is done. Success breeds success.

For the record, I'm a Keynesian -- the only economic philosophy that has been proven to work -- and I agree wholeheartedly with this post.

LOL, right.................. Try Keynesian economics for your personal finances. Borrow until you can't borrow anymore, then never intend to pay your debtors back, and don't file bankruptcy.


really?? cause i thought the 1970's proved differently... Many economic philosophies has been "proven" to work over a certain period of time, the main issue has always been sticking to much to a certain economic philosophy and refusing to change fast enough to meet the new components of the economy. The issue is the economic philosophies don't evolve as fast as the economies who try to follow that theory.

THIS.

Now back to topic, I'm glad to see the Carnegie Center move forward.

When does construction start on this project? I know it was mentioned above somewhere but now I can't find it.

If success if defined by getting it leased, it should be successful if the execution is good and the pricing is right. Whether the owner can make money on it is always the question. If it fills up and the owner goes broke, is it a success? Fortunately, this should be a success for all.

really?? cause i thought the 1970's proved differently... Many economic philosophies has been "proven" to work over a certain period of time, the main issue has always been sticking to much to a certain economic philosophy and refusing to change fast enough to meet the new components of the economy. The issue is the economic philosophies don't evolve as fast as the economies who try to follow that theory.

Supply side economics for 2-3 decades caused massive debt, bubbles and bursts, and finally resulting bailouts. Not sure I would say supply side economics has proven to work very will.

Supply side economics for 2-3 decades caused massive debt, bubbles and bursts, and finally resulting bailouts. Not sure I would say supply side economics has proven to work very will.

pretty sure i never said it did either...

however there would be those who would argue that it did work up until the late 90's, and some more may even argue that the complete lack of fiscal responsibility by the W. Bush Administration was more to blame for what we saw from 2001-2008, and not the actual economic philosophy itself. So perhaps the issue with supply-side economics is that it didn't evolve in the 1990's to account for the dotcom boom, which this resulted in the bust, and that modern components were never adjusted for.... which i actually believe relates back to what i just said.

The issue with housing downtown is that it's more than simple "supply" and "demand". People do not have static, unchanging wants. We have conditional wants, influenced by hundreds of factors. I'll use myself as an example.

I am 34 and single. I live in an apartment outside of the downtown area. I would like to live downtown.

Barriers to downtown living: I don't make enough money to live where I want downtown in the lifestyle I would prefer. I will in a few years, but right now it would be a strain. Barrier: need more money. Downtown also lacks the amenities I would desire were I to live there. I want a grocery store, inexpensive places to eat open on the weekends, places to buy little things like light bulbs and other day to day necessities, etc. I want all the conveniences of the suburbs within walking distance of my downtown residence. Barrier: need more development downtown.

Then we have a time condition. I would like to get married and start a family in the somewhat near future. Unless I am already established with a home downtown, once I get married I will not choose to move there unless it becomes a good place to raise a family. Good schools, ample parks for the kids to run around in, a place to walk the dog, etc. Right now OKC has none of those things. So there's a time condition that even if I were to fall ass-backwards into money, Mrs. Right and downtown are in a competition for my future. Whoever gets here first wins.

There are 1.3 million people in the metro area who do this same calculation. Some of them, like my dad, you would have to pay for them to live downtown. They have no desire to live there at all. Others, like me, would seriously consider it if the conditions were right. And then there are those like Betts where the conditions are right. Every time a new development is built downtown, with new shops opening, more street traffic appearing, and price points adjusting, there is another group of people who say "okay, now downtown has what I need to live there". As the speed of development increases, each new group of people should get larger.

Now theoretically there is a certain population where these developments decrease demand. There could be people who want the convenience of living in a city that is dead after 5 pm, and like the ambiance of an abandoned building next door, with the friendly chatter of homeless people fighting under the bridge down the street. These people miss the good old days of OKC. But I think that group is very small.

There is demand that exist for housing right now, people like Betts who are actually ready to move right at this moment. But there is a lot more demand out there simply waiting for one or more conditions to become right. If I'm going to take the financial hit to move downtown, I want the convenience of living in mini-New York City, either right away or in the near short term future. I work downtown and sometimes I come in on the weekends, and I know what our downtown is like. We need a lot more people before I would want this.

The more development we get, the right kind of development, and eventually we'll get where I would choose to move downtown. As downtown improves, more people will want to live here. Places like the Carnegie Centre would be baby steps towards that ultimate goal. Will supply eventually outstrip demand? It might. I'm not sure how many $500,000 Brownstones this city can support. But we'll see. I think it's more a matter of meeting the conditions of the existing demand.

As someone who lives in Midtown quite comfortably, its understandable to want to wait until things reach a certain point before deciding to move. At the same time, nobody is getting any younger, as you pointed out. I also find the fact that you want all the suburban conveniences at a suburban price to be a bit unrealistic. A "mini-New YorK" as you described is going to cost New York money.

Moving into a downtown environment outside of super-established urban areas, particularly outside the Midwest and Northeast, is always going to be a leap of faith. You may be a very old man before you get EVERYTHING you want, and frankly, thats true of a lot of things in life. Moving down here is a lifestyle decision, one in which many benefits are not necessarily tangible. For me, I can sleep in because my job is a 5 minute commute (vs. 35-50 each way from where I was living in Norman). Likewise I can get a lot more work done since my office is just around the corner and can swing in and get stuff done easily. I save a fortune in gas, which more than makes up for any increase in housing costs. I love the fact that I am surrounded by people in my age and my life stage. I am pretty much within walking or a short taxi ride from the most high profile restaurants and events in the city, if not state. And because of this my social life life improved dramatically. For all of this, I'll be okay living a bit further from the nearest Target or Chick-fil-a.

If those things are not worth it to you, no harm no foul. But its on you to figure out what's important to you. You can always do what a lot of people do and live on the periphery of downtown, in OKC that would be Jefferson Park, Paseo, Gatewood, etc. and get a cheaper option thats a bit closer to suburban amenities and shopping. At the same time, me and most people I know have adapted nicely to living downtown and its trade offs.

The point is that there is demand conditioned upon certain factors. Right now there's somebody out there who says "I'll move downtown when they get a CVS." There's another guy who says "I'll move downtown when there's a diner open on the weekends." As downtown fills up, more of those requirements will be met, which will lead to more people moving there.

Wait....why doesn't CVS just open now? Of course, if they open it is sure they will have enough business to make a profit. Build it and demand will follow supply. Build anything and it will be profitable. Shoot, build two or three and sell three times as many. Demand will follow. Start any business and it will sell its product. Do I have that right. Doesn't matter the product or how many competitors, just open up and sell, sell, sell.

Demand is not static, with regards to downtown housing, which is why it is so difficult to determine. Suppose we get a new mystery tower with a lot of new employees. Demand will increase for downtown housing, but what kind and how much? People's attitudes towards living downtown are changing. We might hit one of those mathematical points where demand snowballs. Or not. What I have noticed is that developers seem to keep developing until something stops renting/selling because supply has exceeded demand. I'm not sure I've ever seen them stop in time. I believe developers to be an optimistic bunch.

Wait....why doesn't CVS just open now? Of course, if they open it is sure they will have enough business to make a profit. Build it and demand will follow supply. Build anything and it will be profitable. Shoot, build two or three and sell three times as many. Demand will follow. Start any business and it will sell its product. Do I have that right. Doesn't matter the product or how many competitors, just open up and sell, sell, sell.

Sorry, this market is oversaturated with smartass comments. Demand is real low right now.