One thing I do not get .... all that money plowed into acquisition, all that time,and money, leaving land and structures idle ... for this.
It isn't ugly. It isn't horrid. It also isn't all that special.


What's that saying? Oh yeah, better than crappy makes movers and shakers happy.

I have yet to see a rendering that visualizes the BS skybridge. Coincidence? I think not.

I have yet to see a rendering that visualizes the BS skybridge. Coincidence? I think not.

I hope they don't do a skybridge. People can use the sidewalk. We need more ground-level retail in this area, and I hope at least the parking decks have something integrated. I don't want a glass/concrete wall on this block.

OCURA has no purview here. This would be subject to DDRC alone.

There will be two skybridges: One between the tower and the north garage (across the alleyway) and another from the north garage to the Devon complex across Hudson (shown in green below).

The west garage will be attached at ground level to the tower.


This should surprise no one. Devon/Nichols said they wanted to be attached to the Underground system and part of the Devon TIF went towards the construction of the new skybridge from the rotunda through the City Center East Garage and into Oklahoma Tower.


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/hinessite3.jpg

Who here thinks this design is any better than the original Stage Center tower design we all hated? I don't.

Let me say that losing the very good urban fabric that is already on-site (and paid for) being lost for a parking garage taking up the whole block and a skywalk makes me wonder if I need to stop giving a **** about OKC.

OKC is making great strides, but if you expect this city to ever fully embrace urbanist ideals like European cities or cities in Ecotopia such as Portland and Seattle, you will be waiting a long, long time. Yes, there will be great urbanist projects here and there (such as the Wheeler district if it happens) and developments like the streetcar but on a grand scale I don't think urbanism will ever be a top priority here. That just isn't OKC. There comes a point where you have to accept that a city, no matter what you would like it to become, is what it is.

Back on this tower, it's definitely not bad. It's not unique at all and I am disappointed about the height. I think OKC is fast running out of opportunities to get something taller than the Chase Tower. This will still be a nice addition to the skyline though. Hopefully the owners go with an attractive lighting scheme to really make it pop at night.

Imagine what the skyline will look like even when this is getting built along with the Clayco towers. Five cranes on Hudson. That will make an impression to visitors just as much if not more than another 50 story building would.

The DDRC may ask for some changes to the final design. However, if they request the addition of some architectural feature, I am sure that will kick off a new round of hand wringing since in the eyes of some, the modern design will be corrupted. Would we support TIF money to increase the visual elements to this project?

I'm sure they will ask for tif either way

Who here thinks this design is any better than the original Stage Center tower design we all hated? I don't.

I think you should refresh your memory on what the original SC tower rendering looked like. This is more along the lines of what I was hoping that would look like when all was said and done. (I'm much happier with what Clayco eventually proposed.)

Do I wish it was taller? Sure. Do I hate that we're going to lose some older buildings? Absolutely. I think this is a perfectly fine building though and will look great with the rest of downtown.

I think all who are disappointed in this project need to do as Pete suggests and write the DDRC and well as the city council. As it has been pointed out that they have never denied demolishing anything historic but just as with the downtown boulevard the public voice can make a difference. The positives are we are getting a new office tower that will help downtown continue to grow west and south but the two parking garages are something that seem poorly thought out. To me the north parking garage is for Devon especially since the skywalk will directly connect it but i fail to understand why developers are unwilling to try underground parking. If they try to ask for TIF funding I would much rather there be a new emphasis on awarding TIF for something new and more costly like below ground parking to hopefully set a new standard and eliminate blocks of concrete walls. I am also curious if the parking garages are being set up so that new towers or housing could be built ontop in the future. To watch Pickard talk about setting the urban setting just makes me hope that there is much more at play here with the possibility of more towers on this block. With 5 new towers coming I think in the past we would have jumped at the opportunity to do whatever the developer wants to make it happen but this is our downtown and we know how important it is to get it right now.
Sites like OKCtalk allow us the opportunity and means to voice concerns and be more aware of projects months before they appear in the paper. I can't even imagine the 80s and finding about this type of project less than a week before the architect presents tot he DDRC in my morning paper. It would have been ludicrous, so for that thank you Pete for pulling in this information and keeping us aware and properly informed.

I think you should refresh your memory on what the original SC tower rendering looked like.


Other than the height of the proposed PickardChilton tower, and some better Photoshop/artistic impact work, what makes it any better than this?

http://www.okctalk.com/attachments/development-buildings/5481d1387323671-og-e-tower-sc4.jpg

I also think that this tower and the 4 from Clayco all being along the streetcar route show how important it will be but also how important street interaction should be for such prime downtown land.

I also think that this tower and the 4 from Clayco all being along the streetcar route show how important it will be but also how important street interaction should be for such prime downtown land.

Who needs a streetcar when you have two massive parking garages on every square block?

Other than the height of the proposed PickardChilton tower, and some better Photoshop/artistic impact work, what makes it any better than this?

http://www.okctalk.com/attachments/development-buildings/5481d1387323671-og-e-tower-sc4.jpg

I would say its a significant step up from that.

Who needs a streetcar when you have two massive parking garages on every square block?

Exactly, why waste the streetcar going directly past it, it is no falsehood that we need parking downtown and I would love to be able to drive downtown(until we have some mass transit), park in a garage a few blocks from the streetcar and ride it to where I need it. But there is no reason that we should have 4 new(two with clayco and 2 here) all within a block of the route. I hope the DDRC at least mentions this.

I was hoping it would be somewhat closer in design to BG Group Place (630') in Houston, another Hines project

9760

I'm sure that by now many, if not most, of us have viewed the video on NewsOk that Steve Lackmeyer conducted.

First of all, I really like Steve and I enjoyed watching the interviews.

Here's what struck me. I haven't been home in a while, and it's been quite a long time since I've been on that particular block, but I was actually impressed with what I see as the existing "vitality" on that block. Now maybe most of those historic buildings are vacant, but the streetscape as it currently exists looks like an interesting and busy urban block. Different buildings of different ages and different heights. Most of what we see in the background of those interviews is going to go away in favor of a monolith glass tower and parking garages. The architect spoke to "respecting" historic buildings and "respecting" Devon. Important to "respect" Devon, sure, but my untrained eye doesn't see a lot of respect being given to the historic fabric.

I appreciate and love the comments from the two gentlemen praising OKC but wish one or the other one had addressed the cost-benefit, what we are gaining vs. what we are losing. It doesn't fit with the "rah rah" narrative of shiny, new, tall(er), but that equation should have been addressed.

Will this "hinge" as one of them put it create a downtown intersection that looks like a downtown intersection or a couple of similiar buildings that feel vaguely "corporate campus-like?" The jury is out.

I was hoping it would be somewhat closer in design to BG Group Place (630') in Houston, another Hines project

9760

YES....especially the integration with existing historic structures on both sides.

I was hoping it would be somewhat closer in design to BG Group Place (630') in Houston, another Hines project

9760

That would be amazing and it's really a shame they didn't do that instead. They could have went with a skinnier tower and saved the historic structures. My bet is that in Houston there was something in place that forced the developer to do that. It all goes back to what catch22 said about the fact that in OKC there is too much power concentrated in too few people's hands. Developers, ultimately, are in it for bottom dollar and nothing else. Until something changes with the leadership of OKC the head-scratching developments will continue.

This isn't a Hines project; it's a Devon project and always has been.

Hines staff have been working out of the Devon offices for at least a year.

Pete, any idea as to the size of the parking garages?

They are both 9/10 levels. Very similar to the existing Devon garage.

I am surprised, based on Pickard Chilton's experience in Chicago, that they didn't use the parking as a base structure for the tower. That's a universally applied design approach in Chicago for anything that has parking, which is more plentiful than you'd think.

We have to start incorporating and using parking much more efficiently. I agree that parking is integral to the equation for real estate in OKC - this may be the one area where downtown should be experiencing a natural advantage over the rest of the city, with the ability to partner on parking, share it at different staged hours, and now design can really mask garages well.

This isn't a Hines project; it's a Devon project and always has been.

Hines staff have been working out of the Devon offices for at least a year.

Larry Nichols, AICP. It all makes sense now. No sense wasting further breathe or keystrokes.

They are both 9/10 levels. Very similar to the existing Devon garage.

We'll, there is a need for parking, but let's hope for some retail or restaurant spaces at street level.

I was letdown by the design at first but it is growing on me.

So is our skyline gonna resemble someone flipping the bird from certain angles once all the buildings get built? One man's pyramid design is another man's middle finger.... amirite?

Larry Nichols, AICP. It all makes sense now. No sense wasting further breathe or keystrokes.

I've already heard that there will be no/little resistance to the demolitions and plans.

I've already heard that there will be no/little resistance to the demolitions and plans.

This is not surprising in the least. These things are decided ahead of time, the approval will be a formality.

These companies are NOT going to be embarrassed in public meetings. They have the nod to make a presentation to complete the formality.

But, when small guys risking their life savings and dedication to get something going, they have endless hoops to jump through and multiple continuances. Guyetes on 23rd comes to mind.

Remember, part of the land they plan to build on is owned by the City of OKC, so they've obviously been working with City Hall for some time.

Also, they filed to close an easement next to the bus station last Friday and when I made an open records request I was told it wasn't an "official' application yet.

No matter it was already entered into the City's system, which is how I knew about it in the first place.

Could this be "The Project that made Russell Claus give up on OKC and go home"?

Could this be "The Project that made Russell Claus give up on OKC and go home"?

What good is being a professional city planner, if Larry Nichols the supreme city planner of his downtown? I respect the man for his outstanding accomplishments in the O&G field, and the excellent company he built over the years that has become a tremendous corporate citizen of OKC. He takes care of his people. But he literally knows jack-squat about city planning. The city listens to Nichols on planning issues more than they listen to someone with a Masters degree in city planning. Would Nichols listen to Claus on horizontal drilling techniques?

That was probably the boulevard. But can ya blame him? He's now living it up on the beach down under while we're confusing growing pains for growth. We are missing the forest for the tree due to our lack of planning.

Some of you are just so constantly miserable and complaining about everything I wonder how you even wake up in the morning.

So what happens to MBG with all this adjacent office and parking garage construction? For the answer I direct your attention to Love Park and Rittenhouse Square in Philadelphia. We paid for and envisioned Rittenhouse but they are creating Love.

What's positive here?

I'm reminded of the long-running local motto that "better than crappy, makes us happy." Now, with skyscrapers.

So what happens to MBG with all this adjacent office and parking garage construction? For the answer I direct your attention to Love Park and Rittenhouse Square in Philadelphia. We paid for and envisioned Rittenhouse but they are creating Love.

I don't know why you keep repeating that there are going to be parking garages constructed fronting the Myriad Gardens. That is blatantly false.

On a side note, are we also getting a Crate & Barrel Outlet store in the Devon garage storefronts? Is that how they plan to win us over to this plan?

Article Photos: New Oklahoma City skyscraper means demolition of historic downtown buildings Gallery (http://newsok.com/gallery/articleid/5375863/pictures/3516398)

I was hoping it would be somewhat closer in design to BG Group Place (630') in Houston, another Hines project

9760

You and I both! I posted that on page 34, I was really wanting that

At 442 feet in height it's equivalent to 33 stories tall, not bad. Could have been smaller and may even be taller when its all said and done. I would have liked about 40 stories, but I'm happy with it. Should help with balancing out the skyline.

The new skyline is still pretty tough to imagine with all of these new glass curtain walls to the SW of the skyline, in contrast to the old concrete and mortar skyline.

The new skyline is still pretty tough to imagine with all of these new glass curtain walls to the SW of the skyline, in contrast to the old concrete and mortar skyline.

But all four of Clayco's aren't even glass...

I remember ones gripe about Clayco was that it was not a glass curtain like all the new buildings in other cities. I think OKC has a nice mix of glass and other materials, although I would like to see the Continental Resources and the Sheraton buildings reclad in something more modern or anything else.

What good is being a professional city planner, if Larry Nichols the supreme city planner of his downtown? I respect the man for his outstanding accomplishments in the O&G field, and the excellent company he built over the years that has become a tremendous corporate citizen of OKC. He takes care of his people. But he literally knows jack-squat about city planning. The city listens to Nichols on planning issues more than they listen to someone with a Masters degree in city planning. Would Nichols listen to Claus on horizontal drilling techniques?

This:yeahthat:

The Sheraton, yes. It is a brutally ugly color. The Continental Resources building just looks straight from the 80s. That's not a bad thing. A city needs different eras of architecture.

--

I've given this new design a lot of thought.

Pros:

It's a pretty decent height. Of course we'd always like taller, but 440 feet or so isn't bad. It will be a noticeable addition to our skyline.

It's sort of speculative office space. We all know that Devon and BOK are going to be taking up the space, to the point where the building is pretty much already full even before it's completed. Still, having more generally available commercial space is a good thing. If this succeeds and our vacancy rate remains low, it makes it more likely that we'll get more towers in the near future.

Since this is pretty much a Devon project, I'd expect they'll ask for little in TIF money. They want to proceed full speed ahead, so funding is probably already done.

I actually do like the design. Not every building has to be something that stands out. This will add some good filler to our skyline without really attracting a lot of attention to itself.


Cons:

There is nothing at all about this design that requires tearing down One North Hudson. Nothing. The angle at which the building is set on the block could be taken out, and there'd be enough for the old Hotel Black to remain right where it is. Just build it straight instead of at an angle and it fits fine. Right now this is the skyscraper equivalent of a guy who parks his car at an angle and takes up two parking spaces.

With some adjustments to the layout and design, the old Motor Hotel could be saved as well. While it currently has somewhat limited functionality, it is in use and is structurally sound. The tower could sit on lots 12, 13, and 14, with the west parking garage taking up 9, 11, and 16. The addition of two or three floors of underground parking, or perhaps having a few floors of the tower itself be parking, could give you the same number of parking spaces on a smaller area.

Too much focus has been on "paying respect to the Devon tower". I understand that Devon is basically paying for this, and Jon Pickard doesn't want to take anything away from his big project, but there's a lot else in this city besides that tower. How about paying respect to the history of the city by leaving some of the old buildings alone? Apparently that's too much to ask.

--

The biggest problem I have is that it would be so easy to save some of these structures and they still aren't doing it. One North Hudson isn't hurting anybody. I'm not going to complain about the height, except that this design isn't really remarkable in any way. It's just an office building. It's not a work of art. It's not especially tall. There's nothing wrong with that, but why do we have to make any compromises for an unremarkable building?

^^^^

:congrats::congrats:

I assume the hotel tower will be painted like the Century Center. That may make a big improvement.

I read Curbed religiously and I cannot think of one development in those cities at least that is tearing down fully functional buildings for a parking garage. Economically speaking, you are substituting something that has a much higher cash flow potential with something that is not. And we are talking about places that really do have serious shortages of parking.

I mean, it really is a lovely design. Don't know if anyone has seen Lever House in NYC but it is really one of the more graceful buildings in Midtown Manhattan. This would be a great proposal in any other part of downtown. But the site plan here is just atrocious.

The thing that really gets me is they are not even trying to make this any palatable. Why not enlarge the west garage so the Auto Hotel won't need to be demo'ed? Why not incorporate the garages with some sort of mixed use development? Why (as Hoyasooner pointed) angle the building at all? There are SO many things that can be done here and they aren't even trying.

This whole design is like two giant middle fingers in your face.

Could this be "The Project that made Russell Claus give up on OKC and go home"?

Probably this and the 2 Clayco proposals. I can tell you this, these three projects have me seriously reconsidering how much I wish to return to OKC. I really hoped OKC was turning the corner on urban design, site planning, and place-making but in reality - it isn't. I think that instead of hoping OKC turns into a place I want to live that I just move to a place that already is a place I want to live. Larry Nichols is OKC's version of Emperor Napoléon III and Baron Haussmann rolled into one but he just isn't good at it.

Thank goodness for larry nichols!!!!!

Well, if the footprint that Pete put up on page 36 is correct, I am very sad to see Walker between Main and Sheridan turned into parking garage alley. If Walker was lined with commercial, I would be okay with the whole thing. I do like the angle, I think it will look good from MBG. I look at it this way:

Devon: Takes up 3 city blocks, 1,800,000 sf and disturbs main street. (600,000 sf/block)
499: Takes up .8 city blocks, 750,000 sf (I added 50,000 sf for the first two floors and commercial) and it keeps the grid. (937,500 sf/block)

So at least we are improving somewhere. I haven't mentioned anything since the time I brought up the idea of turning the Bricktown Canal into America's largest swimming pool, so if my numbers aren't correct, please don't come burn my house down.

Having the "Parking Garage Ally", it also makes even less sense that they did not keep the grid verses swerving the main course of traffic from the boulevard's west side further south

Like the building design, HATE the demo'ing of key important historic structures, especially for parking garages. There is no reason they can't locate some of the parking a block or so away on a vacant lot, or even use the Auto Hotel that has historically been used for the same purpose. Really ruining what little we have left of historic fabric, and turning us into a minuscule Dubai with large corporate urban campuses.

That tower would fit where the north garage is planned, and then a slightly larger garage could have been built to the west of One North Hudson and the Auto Hotel. They could also put a couple of levels underground to maximize the parking and have the same number of spaces they are planning now (or close to it) while preserving the two biggest buildings. That would have been a good compromise for demolishing the bus station and the other three buildings and what most people assumed would happen all along.

I'm quite sure the driving force is to create a cohesive Devon campus along Sheridan will all parts facing the Myriad Gardens

So the question is, if it seems 80% of this board's participants hate this project (even though we have a Vast appreciation and respect for Larry Nichols & Devon), how are the people who run downtown design review supposedly going to push this through so they can start construction ASAP?

When they get a planning staff report back that highlights conformance and/or non-conformance with both the letter and spirit of our design review ordinances, complete with the planning staff recommendation, what then happens? What weight will that have? If they include some minor tweaks to the site plan, what is the likelihood that Pickard Chilton can make those tweaks within their timeline?

It will go the way it always goes: Professional planners with specific education and training in these matters will meticulously scrutinize and document how the proposal goes against countless guidelines that were adopted after a ton of work and thought, recommend the committee decline the request, and after lots of furrowed brows and hang-wringing the committee will approve anyway.

Pete - I don't think anyone wants to stop Devon, even if only out of respect for what they've done for us. But if this was done professionally and respectfully, why wouldn't they be amenable to a few design review changes? They should even be able to provide design approval with a development agreement outlining the changes at the same time, and this can still be fast-tracked.

The committee did pretty much insist that Devon add those temporary window boxes along Hudson with the ability to add retail later. I think that was the only real change that was made due to committee input.

So, I would expect if there are any recommendations they will be very minor.

Really, all they need is the demolition approvals in January in order to move forward. As you recall, they made a bunch of changes to Devon Energy Center over time and long after they had their initial approvals. Changes are required to be submitted, but they were all rubber stamped; i.e. were approved administratively without going to the formal meeting.