If you haven't seen it, Steve Lackmeyer did a great job covering the project presentations at www.okccentral.com.

Pete, Steve elaborates a little more here:

http://newsok.com/developers-pitch-housing-plans-for-old-mercy-hospital-site/article/3568726?custom_click=headlines_widget

How anti-urban is this statement? The "gated community" concept is so elitist and paranoid, to me.

Tanenbaum said he likes to control access to his projects, and that by including retail, he suggested customers might include an unwelcome element.

Read more: http://newsok.com/developers-pitch-housing-plans-for-old-mercy-hospital-site/article/3568726#ixzz1MaWeXv9g

I liked Chuck Wiggin's design best, but Marva Ellard's was certainly good enough to be in the discussion. My worry is that OCURA is dumb enough to fall for the smoke and mirrors of Henderson's design. "Fooled me once" don't really seem to be the watchwords here.
Nothing to worry about. We can trust them. All the data isn't in (we need to wait until they complete the projects to pass judgment). And if some things aren't built exactly "as sold", they will at least get built and they will have made the best project they could with the resources they had available. And their next project should be approved without question.

gated community with no retail is not urban at all.

Nothing to worry about. We can trust them. All the data isn't in (we need to wait until they complete the projects to pass judgment). And if some things aren't built exactly "as sold", they will at least get built and they will have made the best project they could with the resources they had available. And their next project should be approved without question.

Larry I get your mini MAPS analogy There are ways to cut corners that are acceptable and understandable, and there are ways that ruin the function of the project. You have to know when to pick and choose. Where housing is concerned, easethetics and function are the primary components and I pity those who think we don't need to worry about either.

Larry I get your mini MAPS analogy There are ways to cut corners that are acceptable and understandable, and there are ways that ruin the function of the project. You have to know when to pick and choose. Where housing is concerned, easethetics and function are the primary components and I pity those who think we don't need to worry about either.

LOL

I was hoping you might see it ;-)

No matter if private or public, they need to be held to the same standard. Deliver on what was promised, as promised. No smoke-n-mirrors, no promised grand renderings and state of the art/world class hyperbole just to make the sell. Truth in advertising. If they don't deliver, deny them the "second chance" or third or fourth....

LOL

I was hoping you might see it ;-)

No matter if private or public, they need to be held to the same standard. Deliver on what was promised, as promised. No smoke-n-mirrors, no promised grand renderings and state of the art/world class hyperbole just to make the sell. Truth in advertising. If they don't deliver, deny them the "second chance" or third or fourth....

I agree.. so Brooks/Henderson and Wiggin's projects should be eliminated from consideration.

LOL

I was hoping you might see it ;-)

No matter if private or public, they need to be held to the same standard. Deliver on what was promised, as promised. No smoke-n-mirrors, no promised grand renderings and state of the art/world class hyperbole just to make the sell. Truth in advertising. If they don't deliver, deny them the "second chance" or third or fourth....

Using your argument, we would simply stop passing MAPS projects. It's not as if we have a MAPS competitor who might deliver a superior product. This is an apples to oranges analogy.

Using your argument, we would simply stop passing MAPS projects. It's not as if we have a MAPS competitor who might deliver a superior product. This is an apples to oranges analogy.

We actually did but it was scrapped to make way for the new convention center.

We actually did but it was scrapped to make way for the new convention center.

Sorry, I must have missed that "plan" for the Ford site. All I ever saw was a general statement of vision with no details, timelines or financing. A real aternative has those things.

Ya, Kerry seems to believe that if the ford site wasn't going to become the cc that we would see in a years time a 40 story residential tower along with the best shopping center in all of okc.

Sorry, I must have missed that "plan" for the Ford site. All I ever saw was a general statement of vision with no details, timelines or financing. A real aternative has those things.

I just want to point out that you're implying that Hall was bluffing all along.

Sorry, I must have missed that "plan" for the Ford site. All I ever saw was a general statement of vision with no details, timelines or financing. A real aternative has those things.

Come on Rover - where is the Convention Center plan? All I have seen so far is some general statements of vision with no details, a fantasy timeline, and most likely a budget busting cost. The big difference - one was Fred Hall money and the other is tax money.

Ya, Kerry seems to believe that if the ford site wasn't going to become the cc that we would see in a years time a 40 story residential tower along with the best shopping center in all of okc.

Where did I ever say that? Alas, the whole purpose of MAPS was to spur downtown development and when the private downtown development starts to occur, the land is appropriated for more MAPS projects. Go figure. The boat house row is another example. The area is full of private development and MAPS is going to take the last remaining land available for private development - stupid. Build the water rafting experience somewhere else that needs the catalyst.

Come on Rover - where is the Convention Center plan? All I have seen so far is some general statements of vision with no details, a fantasy timeline, and most likely a budget busting cost. The big difference - one was Fred Hall money and the other is tax money.

I know that we clash a lot because we usually see things very differently, but this is a very poignant point that you've brought up.

I would just add that without implying that Hall was bluffing, the point that Hall's plans were just tentative is moot. Because in that case then tentative Fred Hall plans would still be pretty worthwhile for OKC. And I'm not sure I agree with the idea that Hall was bluffing.

Come on Rover - where is the Convention Center plan? All I have seen so far is some general statements of vision with no details, a fantasy timeline, and most likely a budget busting cost. The big difference - one was Fred Hall money and the other is tax money.

Analysis has been done on the cc, whether everyone believes the numbers or not. The process of locating has been progressing, whether anyone agrees with the outcome or not. The funds WILL be there, whether or not one believes in the EXACT amount or not. This project is moving forward with trying to establish a time-line, whether anyone will agree with that or not either. The Hall plan has not been revealed at all...just a "gosh we would like to do this sometime" plan. So far, the cc plan is much more believable and real. The Hall plan, if existing, has to include a valuation of the land for its development purpose. So far there hasn't been such a valuation made public. We don't know if the site is affordable for the cc OR the Hall plan.

I know that we clash a lot because we usually see things very differently, but this is a very poignant point that you've brought up.

I would just add that without implying that Hall was bluffing, the point that Hall's plans were just tentative is moot. Because in that case then tentative Fred Hall plans would still be pretty worthwhile for OKC. And I'm not sure I agree with the idea that Hall was bluffing.

If Hall would make their plans known, it could be germain to the discussion of site location for the cc. If the Hall plan is real and has a chance to increase city revenues and other investment dollars, then the loss of that income needs to be factored into the cost of picking that particular site. Halls lack of ANY real info speaks volumes. It appears they also believe they will make more by selling to the city than whatever they could make by developing the site. It appears that they are plenty happy not to develop it. Or else they would be making their case to keep it and put it to a better use. If they were truly serious and ready, why WOULDN'T they be lobbying for a location that benefitted their development plans, like the Cox site? Unless they do something pretty quickly, it appears they were all hat and no cattle.

Rover - where are the CC plans? I have not seen them and I don't think anyone else has either. How big is it, how tall is it, how much retail is included, what color is the building, how much does it cost, how many meeting rooms are there, what is the sq footage of the exhibiton halls? What if the CC comes back as costing the whole MAPS III $700 million - you still going to be in favor of it?


Clearly the CC plans and the Hall plans are at the same stage: They have a vague idea of what they want and a location picked. I'll be you Hall had an idea of what his would cost as well.

As the only source of the Fred Hall story, I will add this bit of reality into this discussion: after the story appeared, it became apparent that plans for developing the dealership site weren't as firm or advanced as indicated, and that Hall is not the only owner of that property.

So, you know about Hall plans that are more than a press release? Know anybody who has seen anything? Talked to any architects or engineers working on ANYTHING regarding it? Seen any economic analysis? Seen any budget, even a wag? If there is, it is a tightly guarded secret. And all the while they know the city is progressing with planning to use the site. It sure does look like the city got somewhat baited to take the site.

As the only source of the Fred Hall story, I will add this bit of reality into this discussion: after the story appeared, it became apparent that plans for developing the dealership site weren't as firm or advanced as indicated, and that Hall is not the only owner of that property.

Thanks Steve. Like I said, it doesn't matter anyhow because the site has been selected. I really need to stop letting myself get into this debate because the cost is going to come back so high it won't be feasable.

This is a fantastic discussion of the Mercy Hospital site!

If only we had a convention center or Ford site thread...

LOL. And I appologize. Sorry how it morphed.

So, you know about Hall plans that are more than a press release? Know anybody who has seen anything? Talked to any architects or engineers working on ANYTHING regarding it? Seen any economic analysis? Seen any budget, even a wag? If there is, it is a tightly guarded secret. And all the while they know the city is progressing with planning to use the site. It sure does look like the city got somewhat baited to take the site.

Read my comment again ... I would be shocked if there are architects, engineers or anyone else hired to do anything in relation to this site other than the consultants hired by the city to look at it for a convention center.

So in light of all these comments - all we have is a part owner of the land making what turns out to be off-the-cuff comments and the MAPS III sub-comittee wanting to buy the land for a convention center. Land use aside - I still don't know how they connect 2 parks, the Ford Center, an inconic blvd, a multi-story parking garage, a convention hotel on that site, and make all 4 sides presentable - all for $280 million.

As the only source of the Fred Hall story, I will add this bit of reality into this discussion: after the story appeared, it became apparent that plans for developing the dealership site weren't as firm or advanced as indicated, and that Hall is not the only owner of that property.

Ah ooooook then. Well alrighty then. I guess that just leaves the obvious question, in your opinion did Hall lead you on a fishing trip, or are we just going to have to make that conclusion ourselves?

Based on what I've been told, etc., I'd say there were discussions that followed his initial comments and new thoughts arose...

Faced with the high capital costs and semi high risk of the large scale multi-use development I bet they would much rather turn a handsome easy profit by selling to the city.

So, you know about Hall plans that are more than a press release? Know anybody who has seen anything? Talked to any architects or engineers working on ANYTHING regarding it? Seen any economic analysis? Seen any budget, even a wag? If there is, it is a tightly guarded secret. And all the while they know the city is progressing with planning to use the site. It sure does look like the city got somewhat baited to take the site.
It wouldn't be the first project that had some preliminary work done on it and nothing public made of that work. I have lost track of how many proposals that I have done site planning and preliminary design for that the work was never released for public consumption. The purpose was for pricing/feasibility purposes only and never meant to go public. Most of us knew that going into the project and never discussed those projects publicly....if we wish to do more work with them. We are waiting to start on a project down here in Texas where the original firm was fired for publicly mentioning the project after the owner told them not to from the beginning.

Some of it is to keep speculation quiet on property and not create unrealistic expectations that can't be done and sometimes the owner just doesn't want publicity until they are much further along. The new race track here in Austin was one of those situations, there were parcels they were close to acquiring and didn't want speculation driving up the price. The announcement by F1 almost a year ago did exactly that, disrupted some of the timing that they desired and it cost them some more money, but work had already been happening on the design front well before the announcement.

My god, people. Take your discussion about the Ford site to the Ford site thread and take your discussion of the convention center to that thread. It's really not that difficult.

This is the Mercy Hospital site thread. We have 4 major proposals being considered right now, all of which have pros and cons related to future housing development downtown. Steve had a nice write-up of how those presentations went. How about we discuss that?

My god, people. Take your discussion about the Ford site to the Ford site thread and take your discussion of the convention center to that thread. It's really not that difficult.

This is the Mercy Hospital site thread. We have 4 major proposals being considered right now, all of which have pros and cons related to future housing development downtown. Steve had a nice write-up of how those presentations went. How about we discuss that?

I agree. So what would you like to discuss about them? Get it going again.

I agree. So what would you like to discuss about them? Get it going again.

From what I hear, the Brooks/Henderson presentation of their proposal, "The Edge," was the most impressive. The only major concern expressed by the panel was lack of retail along walker. I know several people still have concerns that they're presenting a great idea and model, but will do what they did with Legacy: scale down the project and build something unlike what they promised.

The other issue is this: everyone but Tanenbaum said will be relying on HUD funding, which will take at least one year to secure, according to the developers. That means the project wouldn't be completed for about 1000 days. Personally, I found Tanenbaum's proposal to be pretty weak due to its perceived lack of density, but, on the other hand, he's ready to begin building now--or so he claims.

is a gated community with zero retail the better use for that location? If so, that it is also the faster to go up is a plus. If not, is getting a lesser use up faster even a plus?

no skin in the outcome, just asking.

is a gated community with zero retail the better use for that location? If so, that it is also the faster to go up is a plus. If not, is getting a lesser use up faster even a plus?

no skin in the outcome, just asking.

all of these are going to be "gated" communitys ... with controled access and parking

It would seem any retail can be segregated adequately from the living areas with appropriate security structure. This is done all the time. So I think the idea that retail would compromise that is a smoke screen. Who are the undesirable elements that Tanenbaum was using as a scare tactic? I think he just didn't want to deal with having to be in the retail leasing business or to design something that accomodates both. That is why he can build it cheaper. It would just be another apartment complex...only called urban because of its location.

It doesn't really bother me that the residences are "gated"; really can't tell since most of the these proposals are built to the street edge. You'd only know it's gated if you attempted to enter the inner courtyard, residential entry ways, or the parking garage. Which you really shouldn't be entering if you're not a resident anyways. I'm hoping for retail though with The Edge if in anyway possible.

It doesn't really bother me that the residences are "gated"; really can't tell since most of the these proposals are built to the street edge. You'd only know it's gated if you attempted to enter the inner courtyard, residential entry ways, or the parking garage. Which you really shouldn't be entering if you're not a resident anyways. I'm hoping for retail though with The Edge if in anyway possible.

Well if you're worried about quality at the Central Avenue Villas you should reconsider Brooks/Henderson "The Edge" and the Tanenbaum "Connection" projects. Tanenbaum's new construction project "The Lincoln" is very cheaply constructed and I have a friend who moved from Legacy Arts because of numerous maintenance problems including 3 water break issues all originating from other adjacent apartments.
I am incensed that Henderson says sorry 'bout that I'll do better next time.

Well I don't necessarily prefer The Edge, but I'm saying that if it's the clear favorite, I hope they at least address the lack of retail. To be clear, I haven't made a personal preference of proposals for the Mercy Site. I'm just anxiously waiting to see who gets it. Regardless, it's so disappointing to hear rumors of these new "urban", "high-quality", and not to mention over-priced developments already having maintenance issues.

Is Legacy Arts considered "high quality"? Not from what I have heard. Hope we get it right in Mid Town though.

It does seem like Wiggin has by far the most urban proposal.

Is Legacy Arts considered "high quality"? Not from what I have heard.

Umm. If they're marketed at as "luxury apartments", then I would expect damn high quality work, wouldn't you?

Yes, but unfortunately "Luxury" is a term thrown about freely when it comes to housing. Depends on your definition. Some complexes consider it to be a luxury if they have what most consider to be basics (working plumbing, no leaks, working heat/air, dishwasher etc).

Yes, but unfortunately "Luxury" is a term thrown about freely when it comes to housing. Depends on your definition. Some complexes consider it to be a luxury if they have what most consider to be basics (working plumbing, no leaks, working heat/air, dishwasher etc).
Yep....Unless it is built as a tax credit property pretty much any apartment development now is touted as "luxury" whether it deserves the title or not. Construction quality is usually not a high priority as most things built now are built to a temporary status level.

Yes, but unfortunately "Luxury" is a term thrown about freely when it comes to housing. Depends on your definition. Some complexes consider it to be a luxury if they have what most consider to be basics (working plumbing, no leaks, working heat/air, dishwasher etc).

Well, we can all agree that Legacy markets itself as "luxury" yet is not, however the point about the disappointing problems is a strong point because of the rents they are charging. $939-$1,119 for 1 bedroom, and $1,309-$1,519 for 2 bedrooms.
http://www.legacyatartsquarter.com/LegacyAtArtsQuarter/Floorplans.aspx

It's a shame too, because it's a great location.

Yep....Unless it is built as a tax credit property pretty much any apartment development now is touted as "luxury" whether it deserves the title or not. Construction quality is usually not a high priority as most things built now are built to a temporary status level.

How can you say that? This is a great example of luxury in Mustang, Oklahoma.

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=35.392006,-97.721361&spn=0,0.009602&z=17&layer=c&cbll=35.392112,-97.721362&panoid=mwK3jzTq7PXCT0Ek_NtI-w&cbp=12,34,,1,-10.84

And it has a McDonalds across the street as a bonus.

Well, we can all agree that Legacy markets itself as "luxury" yet is not, however the point about the disappointing problems is a strong point because of the rents they are charging. $939-$1,119 for 1 bedroom, and $1,309-$1,519 for 2 bedrooms.
http://www.legacyatartsquarter.com/LegacyAtArtsQuarter/Floorplans.aspx

It's a shame too, because it's a great location.

GULP. 2 to 3 times what I pay for a 2 bedroom. I would agree, it better be dang luxurious for that price point. Yet I am sure others will say that is typical price just to live in Downtown (no matter what the quality/luxury level).

No, those prices are in line with the Montgomery just 2-3 blocks down Walker, and none of these problems there. You can find a nice, stylish 1 br apartment downtown for $700-800 without all of the problems at the Legacy.

How can you say that? This is a great example of luxury in Mustang, Oklahoma.

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=35.392006,-97.721361&spn=0,0.009602&z=17&layer=c&cbll=35.392112,-97.721362&panoid=mwK3jzTq7PXCT0Ek_NtI-w&cbp=12,34,,1,-10.84

And it has a McDonalds across the street as a bonus.

Nothing say luxury like being behind an auto parts store.

Is this the same site we are still talking about (dated 11/7/98)?

Developer Envisions Housing At Old Mercy Hospital Site

Oklahoma City has a suitor for a blighted north downtown block that once was the home of Mercy Hospital.

Old Mercy Redevelopers, a partnership led by Nicholas J. Preftakes, promised to replace the dilapidated hospital with $11.8 million in housing....
...
Preftakes' proposal includes 16 two-story townhomes, 72 "city villas" and 52 apartments. A 260-space parking garage on the block would be restored, if possible, with nine lofts added to the roof. About 1,600 square feet on the garage's first floor would be reserved for retail use.
The hospital property is just south of the historic and affluent Heritage Hills neighborhood, a couple of blocks northeast of St. Anthony Hospital and within walking distance of a planned $38 million, 500-employee federal complex.
Preftakes pledged to complete the project within two years of the city delivering him "a buildable site."

Read more: http://newsok.com/developer-envisions-housing-at-old-mercy-hospital-site/article/2632367#ixzz1OIXJFpoy

Big Urban Renewal meeting today?

Ellard/Tannenbaum out

Wiggin/Hendersen in

Final decision at meeting in two weeks.

Wow! That's huge! I like the two remaining concepts.

Urban Renewal will continue talks with two developers on MidTown site in Oklahoma City
Two of four competing MidTown developers will get another month to state their case on why they are best suited to build apartments on an Urban Renewal site where two previous housing proposals failed in Oklahoma City.

BY STEVE LACKMEYER slackmeyer@opubco.com Oklahoman Leave a comment
Published: June 10, 2011


Two of four competing MidTown developers will get another month to state their cases on why they are best suited to build apartments on an Urban Renewal site where two previous housing proposals failed.



Read more: http://newsok.com/urban-renewal-will-continue-talks-with-two-developers-on-midtown-site-in-oklahoma-city/article/3575838#ixzz1OsOc8vaO

also of note is that brooks/henderson are adding 7,200 sqft of retail back on walker in their project .... that makes them tied IMHO ... the winner should be whomever can get their project started/finished first

I did get to talk to Gary Brooks. He seems very excited about the streetcar coming by the property. I had not met him before and he seems to be a really nice guy.

The Wiggin people took off before I had a chance to talk to them. Regrets to Marva Ellard and Stephen Tannebaum. They both had great project ambitions and hopefully will use the knowledge elsewhere.

I did get to talk to Gary Brooks. He seems very excited about the streetcar coming by the property. I had not met him before and he seems to be a really nice guy.

The Wiggin people took off before I had a chance to talk to them. Regrets to Marva Ellard and Stephen Tannebaum. They both had great project ambitions and hopefully will use the knowledge elsewhere.

i wish one of the other 3 would aquire the big block 10th to 11th between harvey and hudson and build a project there

Who owns it?

After looking on the county assessor's site, it looks like Midtown Renaissance owns most of the block. There is this project that is in their future lineup as well that I've never heard anyone mention: 11th Street Lofts (http://midtownr.com/ViewProperty.aspx?id=12)

Yes, but that would be an existing structure conversion. I've seen the building depicted in that sketchup on that lot, so I wonder how they might incorporate that into maybe a new development?

I would hope they'd be willing to sell the rest of what they own on the block to someone like Tanenbaum or Ellard. I don't think a new, added-on development is consistent with Midtown R's portfolio of historical renovation.

Very true. Maybe even scrap and sell that project all-together to allow for the contiguous use of the entire block?