As was the Hudson and its Silver Lounge, across Hudson on the east side of the street. That whole area boasted more red lights than white ones during the 50s. Is that the sort of history we want to memorialize?

Of course, the Skirvin also had more than its share of working girls slipping in for visiting oilmen, as did the Huckins... Trust an old police reporter on this kind of detail. However we certainly didn't publicize it. Bad for business, y'know!

Pretty common in any city. They don't call it the oldest profession in the world for nothing.

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/okctallest.jpg[/QUOTE]

Steve's article for tomorrow's paper has it listed at 433 feet now. I could have sworn I read it in one of his articles where he stated it was 443 but I haven't been able to find it again. 10 feet isn't a huge difference but it drops it to 6 tallest in the city.

Since the convention hotel is not even a sure bet yet, why is it anticipated size set at 20 stories? Steve has mentioned the 20 stories twice in recent articles. Does the design committee provide guidelines as to the height they anticipate approving?

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

Steve's article for tomorrow's paper has it listed at 433 feet now. I could have sworn I read it in one of his articles where he stated it was 443 but I haven't been able to find it again. 10 feet isn't a huge difference but it drops it to 6 tallest in the city.[/QUOTE]

I never reported it was 443. My figures are verified with the developers &
architects.

Thanks for the clarification.

Steve makes some excellent points in his article.

http://www.oklahoman.com/article/5376301?embargo=1


In no time since has downtown seen such a rapid expansion of its skyline as it did in 1931. That, however, is set to change, and the headline in 2017 may read “$1 Billion in Downtown Buildings in One Year!”

The growth that took place in 1931 came with consequences that dogged downtown for decades, most notably a lack of parking and a loss of what little downtown housing existed. While the I.M. Pei Plan and the Urban Renewal era of the 1960s and 1970s are widely blamed for the demise of downtown retail, one can look at the trend that already was taking place and acknowledge that the era of John A. Brown’s Department Store, Kerr’s and Rothschild’s was coming to an end.

The failure to consider implications of parking needs and traffic back in 1931 pretty much sealed the deal – more so when combined with the loss of the city’s streetcars in the 1940s.

Yes. I fully expect much of the surrounding neighborhoods to do well. I'm specifically addressing the CBD. Perhaps the plan isn't to attract many folks to live in the area. My point is that if that is a goal, then the street level should be the primary concern of every development. Because now you are dealing with people who will most likely walk to wherever they need to go.
There have been several residential conversions and proposed developments lately. Aren't the Civic Flats the 800 West developments in the CBD? Although I will say, it is a business district first.

Oops, looks like I remembered the height number wrong from the conversation I had with Steve over the weekend. I had thought he said 443, but in his article today it shows 433. My bad. Looks like you'll need to change your graphic, Pete.

Here is the corrected listing:

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

Well this became a major let-down. We're losing history for a bland shoe box. And not only a shoe box, but one with a plaza.....bleh.

Steve's article for tomorrow's paper has it listed at 433 feet now. I could have sworn I read it in one of his articles where he stated it was 443 but I haven't been able to find it again. 10 feet isn't a huge difference but it drops it to 6 tallest in the city.
You got that from one of my posts, which referenced Steve. I misremembered an IRL conversation I had with him over the weekend.

When does construction begin on these 5 buildings?

I mentioned that to date, Hines has not any sort of public assistance; TIF or otherwise.

I've also been told that they don't plan to seek any down the line.

So, how on earth does Clayco -- who is planning to build a very similar project right across the street -- justify the huge TIF request they have made?

They are claiming there is currently too big a gap in office, apartment and garage rental rates and the cost to build new.

However: 1) Most their space won't be available for at least 3 years; 2) all rates are climbing pretty rapidly; and 3) Obviously, Hines has found a way to make all this work (with the exception of the living units, which they don't plan to include). AND the land cost for Hines is about $6 million an acre vs. $1.3 million for Clayco.

At most, it seems the City should consider granting them the typical 5% amount which would be about $25 million vs. the $143 million they are asking.

Thanks for the update. The graphic in Steve's article also mentions the Clayco office towers (or at least the OG&E one) will be 390 feet, and the residential towers will be 320 feet. Not clear whether your figures or his are correct on those.

I mentioned that to date, Hines has not any sort of public assistance; TIF or otherwise.

I've also been told that they don't plan to seek any down the line.

So, how on earth does Clayco -- who is planning to build a very similar project right across the street -- justify the huge TIF request they have made?

They are claiming there is currently too big a gap in office, apartment and garage rental rates and the cost to build new.

However: 1) Most their space won't be available for at least 3 years; 2) all rates are climbing pretty rapidly; and 3) Obviously, Hines has found a way to make all this work (with the exception of the living units, which they don't plan to include). AND the land cost for Hines is about $6 million an acre vs. $1.3 million for Clayco.

At most, it seems the City should consider granting them the typical 5% amount which would be about $25 million vs. the $143 million they are asking.

Clayco can make the case in regards to residential. The office component is obviously looking if-y at the moment. The different is design though. A straight glass curtain wall is significantly cheaper than doing the detail that Clayco has showed in the renderings. Now, if the city does grant money for the office aspect they need to make sure the design is followed and Clayco doesn't cheap out on it.

Residential wise, going vertical and using steel and concrete raises multifamily cost significantly and there really isn't any new examples of this in Oklahoma to date. The rental rate threshold for this is an average of $2.00 per square feet. Most urban apartments in Oklahoma City currently have an average of $1.50 - $1.70. They are taking a gamble that the market will embrace this to be able to live in a high-rise. With the $2.00 per square feet average, keep in mind that a typical studio would probably be $2.50 per square feet ... and at say 450 square feet unit size that's $1,125/month without utilities. That's means you need to have at least an annual salary of about $45,000 to afford that assuming you have no major debts.

Clayco can make the case in regards to residential. The office component is obviously looking if-y at the moment. The different is design though. A straight glass curtain wall is significantly cheaper than doing the detail that Clayco has showed in the renderings. Now, if the city does grant money for the office aspect they need to make sure the design is followed and Clayco doesn't cheap out on it.

Residential wise, going vertical and using steel and concrete raises multifamily cost significantly and there really isn't any new examples of this in Oklahoma to date. The rental rate threshold for this is an average of $2.00 per square feet. Most urban apartments in Oklahoma City currently have an average of $1.50 - $1.70. They are taking a gamble that the market will embrace this to be able to live in a high-rise. With the $2.00 per square feet average, keep in mind that a typical studio would probably be $2.50 per square feet ... and at say 450 square feet unit size that's $1,125/month without utilities. That's means you need to have at least an annual salary of about $45,000 to afford that assuming you have no major debts.

This.

The Clayco proposal is a good deal beyond what is being proposed on the Preftakes site in both scale and quality. I am sure if the original concept that everyone hated was being proposed, there would be little or no TIF money requested. What is being proposed is two high-quality office mid-rises and OKC's first real prospect at getting high-rise residential. I am sure that is why they are requesting TIF money.

This.

The Clayco proposal is a good deal beyond what is being proposed on the Preftakes site in both scale and quality. I am sure if the original concept that everyone hated was being proposed, there would be little or no TIF money requested. What is being proposed is two high-quality office mid-rises and OKC's first real prospect at getting high-rise residential. I am sure that is why they are requesting TIF money.

Tons of assumptions with zero facts to support.


I am working on the getting the Hines numbers so we can compare.

What was done at Devon Energy Center was not just simple glass curtain wall. There was a lot of design detail and external stainless steel.

I'm not convinced the Clayco office buildings would be any more expensive to build. The Devon complex was $750 million for 1.9 million square feet and Hines said 499 Sheridan will be very similar.

Tons of assumptions with zero facts to support.


I am working on the getting the Hines numbers so we can compare.

What was done at Devon Energy Center was not just simple glass curtain wall. There was a lot of design detail and external stainless steel.

I'm not convinced the Clayco office buildings would be any more expensive to build. The Devon complex was $750 million for 1.9 million square feet and Hines said 499 Sheridan will be very similar.

Did you read what I posted?

The residential component is extremely risky. They are going to be asking rates that are 20% higher than anything currently existing in the entire state.

Office, based one your numbers... that means Devon built their HQ for $394.73 per square foot. If Clayco did the same, and was able to secure a 30 year note for 4% (highly highly unlikely) and the Clayco buildings were built for the same per square foot number they would need to achieve rents of $22.79 NNN in order to break even. < that number has never been hit in the State of Oklahoma in a speculative building. In reality with a higher interest rate you are pushing rental rates closer to $30.00 NNN and there isn't a sign property currently existing in the State of Oklahoma that has achieved rental rates at $30.00 Full Service, let alone NNN.

The Hines project will qualify for a lower interest rate from a bank if it has 100% committed. Clayco does not. Also, if Devon (which I highly suspect) is a large equity partner in 499 W Sheridan, that again drops the risk and compresses the number to achieve the needed IRR by Hines to make the project profitable.

^

I really appreciate the input and the discussion. Was not addressing you, but rather bchris; the fact the Clayco proposal is a "good deal beyond" Hines. I'm pretty sure that is going to prove to be false. In fact, just comparing the office buildings, I wouldn't be surprised if 499 Sheridan turns out to be more expensive than the Clacyo buildings.

I'm working on getting exact numbers rather than speculating.

But remember, Clayco is asking for TIF funds for ALL four of it's buildings, not just the ones to the south and not just residential. And at this point, the OG&E HQ building would have at least as much in the way of announced committed lease space as the Hines project.

Devon is certainly behind the Hines project in some way but OG&E is also behind the Clacyo deal. We'll never know the exact arrangements so as the City of OKC which is busy trying to figure out what is fair in terms of the Clacyo request, you can't factor that in. All they are being told is that both of these developments are by private development companies.

What makes them historic?

They are (1) old buildings, that represent (2) a specific period in history, (3) and a style of architecture and construction (4) that is no longer in use, and (5) is of limited quantity in the city.

I think #2 and #5 are especially significant in this case. The design and elements used in the Union Bus station are now especially rare in this city and no one even tries to mimic it any more.

The thing that strikes me about this block as well is that, taken as whole, it's one of the last blocks that represent a time before urban renewal when downtown Oklahoma City was developed and functioned as a vibrant urban center for the city without having some master plan for it. It's sort of ironic that as downtown has been revitalized due to the return of urban elements, the prevailing thinking among some developers is that the best way to do that is to destroy what is left from the time when this happened organically. That's not to say that this is the best example of Oklahoma City's urban past. Today, the best place to see that is in old post cards and photographs.

Hopefully, Park Street's retail hopes can be realized, as today it still has the most "big city" urban feel to it. Even the newer elements introduced during the much lamented "urban renewal" period integrate better with the older urban elements that were there before than this project seems to. This is why it is the nexus of downtown's daytime activity and still is the most vibrant part of the city from 9-5. From the looks of it, it will remain to be even after this period of "renewal" at Sheridan and Hudson is complete.

Of course, all of this is a little premature. We won't know what we're actually going to get until it's complete and occupied. All we really know is what will be lost (and possibly that Sheridan will need to be avoided during rush hour).

One of these projects is essentially being developed by a highly profitable oil and gas company that was in the position to complete their corporate tower without assistance, and turn the assistance toward public amenities, loaning the city those dollars to complete the work quickly, and the other projects are not similarly backed. Not that I think $142MM TIF is reasonable.

One of these projects is essentially being developed by a highly profitable oil and gas company that was in the position to complete their corporate tower without assistance, and turn the assistance toward public amenities, loaning the city those dollars to complete the work quickly, and the other projects are not similarly backed. Not that I think $142MM TIF is reasonable.

That is almost certainly true, but when you are municipality making decisions about hundreds of millions of tax dollars, you can't operate on supposition and rumor.

Similarly, we have no idea how OG&E may be involved with Clayco. For that matter, we don't even understand the relationship with Rainey Williams.


Both of these projects are being presented in very emphatic ways as private, speculative developments. You have to evaluate them on those terms.

Both of these projects are being presented in very emphatic ways as private, speculative developments. You have to evaluate them on those terms.

Why? The City Council and people who negotiate on behalf of the public don't have to pretend to be ignorant just because the developer wants them to be ignorant. The relationship between owner-developer-tenant needs to be transparent or we are free to assume whatever we want. Their desire for secrecy in no way creates an obligation on our behalf to play by that rule.

Why? The City Council and people who negotiate on behalf of the public don't have to pretend to be ignorant just because the developer wants them to be ignorant. The relationship between owner-developer-tenant needs to be transparent or we are free to assume whatever we want. Their desire for secrecy in no way creates an obligation on our behalf to play that rule.

It's not a matter of "pretending to be ignorant".

Private developers are not required to disclose the ownership interests in their projects. And requiring them to do so would create a big barrier to progress.

YOU can assume whatever you want. The City (and their constituents) don't know the relationships between OG&E/Williams/Clayco or Devon/Preftakes/Hines. So how on earth do you factor that in to any analysis?

Well, it seems that the city and Clayco are in quite a PR quandary, but look north to Grand Blvd. and Western. Just because an oil baron paid two and three times market value to make his vision a reality didn't make the fair market value or long term economics any different just a few short years later. In other words, Devon's deep pocketed investment might disqualify the Preftakes block as a realistic comparable. Just because a party is willing to throw their extra money at a given project doesn't mean that any other entity even exists that would act in a similar fashion. Getting that across to the public will no doubt prove difficult.

It's not a matter of "pretending to be ignorant".

Private developers are not required to disclose the ownership interests in their projects. And requiring them to do so would create a big barrier to progress.

YOU can assume whatever you want. The City (and their constituents) don't know the relationships between OG&E/Williams/Clayco or Devon/Preftakes/Hines. So how on earth do you factor that in to any analysis?

They don't but if it is a common held belief that Devon is the primary tenant (more than enough evidence is available for a reasonable person to assume that) then that HAS to be taken into consideration when negotiating any kind public support. If the City was a bank would it in anyway do business with a hidden 3rd party? No way would it do that but that is exactly the roles these companies are asking the city play. The city needs to know who it is dealing with. If the developer doesn't want to disclose that then that is a "them" problem and it comes at the cost of any public support.

So, the City is to assume that Devon and Hines are lying when they claim this is a speculative development by a private development company? And thus that doesn't in any way factor into an analysis they are currently performing for an almost carbon-copy development directly across the street?

They still have to justify it in some way. They are subject to open meeting and open records laws and have a responsibility to act in the best interests of Oklahoma City. They would have to answer as to why it was disqualified from consideration when making their decisions.

How would they be able to justify? They are not going to do so based on, "Well, we just assumed...". They have to answer for their decisions to the public.

So, the City is to assume that Devon and Hines are lying when they claim this is a speculative development by a private development company?

If Devon and Hines are claiming it is a speculative development then they are lying. The only question is, does the lying have any consequences? Some would so no, the attempt at deception shouldn't have any consequences. If they ask for TIF funding based on the risk involved in building a speculative building that isn't speculative how is that not lying?

If Devon and Hines are claiming it is a speculative development then they are lying.

You can't prove that any more than you can prove that OG&E and Clayco aren't lying as well.

Speculative development is anything constructed that has multi-tenant lease-able space. Devon Tower was not speculative, as they own it and did not plan to rent any space out.

499 W Sheridan and OGE Tower are both speculative. 499 W Sheridan however, looks to be 100% leased by Devon and BOK. This does not detract from the fact it is still speculative development. I mis-understood originally, and thought OGE was going to be a built-to-suit (meaning it is technically speculative, but built 100% for one tenant) and the second tower fully speculative.

The evaluation for these two development can't really be apples to apples for that very reason. These will be evaluated by a bank completely different unless Clayco can land another tenant to fill the remaining space before they secure financing. Then the two office development could in fact be compared side to side. Even 1% difference on a 30 year loan of $200 million can make a project unfeasible, and there is a significantly higher risk currently for the Clayco development.

While I don't know if what Clayco is requesting should be given fully to them. The city needs to request the detail financial statements, and evaluate Clayco's financing plans to see how much they really need to give them to make the development happen.

^

499 W. Sheridan is not fully pre-leased.

Even if BOK does go in (they have not been officially announced) there will still be additional space for lease.

The developer said in an interview they are actively seeking tenants and mentioned financial and legal services.


I think it's a fair assumption that both the first Clayco office building and 499 Sheridan have a similar percentage of pre-leased space.

The city needs to request the detail financial statements, and evaluate Clayco's financing plans to see how much they really need to give them to make the development happen.

This^, and if Clayco and Hines/Preftakes covers up the fact that their space is already leased then the TIF deal is off. They can't claim they are taking a risk when their financial backing is coming from their primary tenant. I see this no more than trying to deceive the people of OKC.

Hines is not going to divulge their financial details and they are not required to do so since they are not seeking public funding.

^

499 W. Sheridan is not fully pre-leased.

Even if BOK does go in (they have not been officially announced) there will still be additional space for lease.

The developer said in an interview they are actively seeking tenants and mentioned financial and legal services.


I think it's a fair assumption that both the first Clayco office building and 499 Sheridan have a similar percentage of pre-leased space.

For some reason I thought it was said that 499 Sheridan was 100% pre-leased, as I was corrected when I said that this wasn't (don't remember who it was though). If it's not then that would change things as it makes the development more risky.

Hines is not going to divulge their financial details and they are not required to do so since they are not seeking public funding.

You're right, if there is no request for public assistance then what they do is their business. Don't be surprised if a TIF request materializes though.

For some reason I thought it was said that 499 Sheridan was 100% pre-leased, as I was corrected when I said that this wasn't (don't remember who it was though). If it's not then that would change things as it makes the development more risky.

The developer stated that they were also in lease negotiations with suburban companies, along with financial and legal firms. And Devon of course.

Let's separate out what I know from good sources vs. what is announced for 499 W. Sheridan.

Sources:
BOK will take top 5-6 flloors.
Devon will take about 15 floors.
Remainder is pure spec space.

Announced:
Devon will take space of an undetermined amount.
Nebu-like restaurant will take part of 2nd level.
No other leases have been signed.

Restaurant on Floor 2 while the ground floor is totally forsaken for activity? Oooookay. Noted.


Thanks. I think you bring a pragmatic but progressive view to making an area better and more urban. I think we can all agree that we keep shooting ourselves in the foot to some degree, but it isn't all gloom and doom. OKC was PITIFUL and suffering from huge mistakes. And, while we still are making mistakes, we are also making improvements. Anyone who can't see that just isn't looking. I think outside investors required to do great things are now appearing on the scene and we do have some leverage...but we need more. It has been a long road to bring OKC real estate to respectability and I think sometimes we are afraid to apply the new-found leverage we have.

Exactly, we have done a LOT. Why don't we have more to show for it? Why is downtown still a construction nightmare, with no signs of that ending, and still 20 years removed from the "Quality of Life" postcard we are all working toward? Where is the end goal?

The reality is there is none and there will be no QoL postcard because we don't have a plan for how any of this comes together. Planning is scary and socialistic, and we value individualism - meaning one block has no relation to the next, unless there's parking over there.

This is how cities with a LOT less development like Omaha or Ft Worth can sometimes feel "more complete."

Let's separate out what I know from good sources vs. what is announced for 499 W. Sheridan.

Sources:
BOK will take top 5-6 flloors.
Devon will take about 15 floors.
Remainder is pure spec space.

Announced:
Devon will take space of an undetermined amount.
Nebu-like restaurant will take part of 2nd level.
No other leases have been signed.

What is the delay in announcing BOK as a tenant? No formal lease being signed? Might seem like a dumb question but with 5-6 floors being taken up, I would think that something would already be done by now.

They probably don't want their name attached before the demolitions are complete.

I saw in the business section today that Steve has it as the 6th tallest building

Restaurant on Floor 2 while the ground floor is totally forsaken for activity? Oooookay. Noted.



Exactly, we have done a LOT. Why don't we have more to show for it? Why is downtown still a construction nightmare, with no signs of that ending, and still 20 years removed from the "Quality of Life" postcard we are all working toward? Where is the end goal?

The reality is there is none and there will be no QoL postcard because we don't have a plan for how any of this comes together. Planning is scary and socialistic, and we value individualism - meaning one block has no relation to the next, unless there's parking over there.

This is how cities with a LOT less development like Omaha or Ft Worth can sometimes feel "more complete."

You do make some good points here. I too wonder how OKC, with all its progress and development within the past 20 years can still be so far behind. I think you are onto something. OKC needs a comprehensive vision for the entire core and a set of standards in place to encourage quality development. While I think JTF's vision is far too idealistic and incompatible with the culture of OKC, a vision could be put into place that encourages urbanism, placemaking, and cohesion and does not restrict development. Ordinances could then be enacted to conform developments with that vision. With that said, such a vision and ordinances would only work if variances aren't granted any time somebody wanted to cheap out i.e. Chase Bank.

You do make some good points here. I too wonder how OKC, with all its progress and development within the past 20 years can still be so far behind. I think you are onto something. OKC needs a comprehensive vision for the entire core and a set of standards in place to encourage quality development. While I think JTF's vision is far too idealistic and incompatible with the culture of OKC, a vision could be put into place that encourages urbanism, placemaking, and cohesion and does not restrict development. Ordinances could then be enacted to conform developments with that vision. With that said, such a vision and ordinances would only work if variances aren't granted any time somebody wanted to cheap out i.e. Chase Bank.

Nearly all of those regulations already exist, the developers just get variances so they don't have to conform to them. In the video Steve did for the paper the good people at Hines called Devon "King". That is really all we need to know.

Nearly all of those regulations already exist, the developers just get variances so they don't have to conform to them. In the video Steve did for the paper the good people at Hines called Devon "King". That is really all we need to know.

I recall that was John Pickard who noted the Devon TOWER as king...Anyone correct me if I'm wrong.

I recall that was John Pickard who noted the Devon TOWER as king...Anyone correct me if I'm wrong.

You are correct -- it was Pickard.

http://www.okctalk.com/attachments/development-buildings/9778d1418686287-preftakes-block-preftakes-block.jpg


Love it! Could you send that to the City?


That is brilliant. I just spoke with someone at the city council. She encouraged me to email with any concerns with the proposed project in which I just did. Can you PLEASE email this for them to present as an example of what could easily be done? Her email address is lisa.chronister@okc.gov Thank you all, it really could make a difference.

I would be happy to email her. I don't even live in the city though, would that make a difference?

Nebu-like restaurant will take part of 2nd level.

If that ever changes to "Nobu-like restaurant will take part of 2nd level", then I'll change my whole position on the development. :)

The second level restaurant patio will have a great view of the park

http://www.okctalk.com/attachments/development-buildings/9778d1418686287-preftakes-block-preftakes-block.jpg





I would be happy to email her. I don't even live in the city though, would that make a difference?

I would email anyway and express your thoughts and concerns. :wink:

It's not too late for Coney Island Hotdogs. Imagine if this space was renovated and the upper floors restored. The owner has never even been up there, but his son once told me he explored and it's absolutely pitch dark and his flashlight went out on him. Oh and it has to be around as old as The Marion.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/williamhider/sets/72157649386785458/

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5211/5498606394_d54f7b7b7a_b.jpg

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/Old%20Oklahoma%20City/HarbourLongmire-Main%20Place/harbourlongmire2.jpg

Thought I would get some more while they are still standing today.

December 16 2014

https://www.flickr.com/photos/williamhider/sets/72157649733786076/

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/9322497/Photos/IMG_7332.jpg

I can't even tell you how much I am starting to hate this project. I can't believe OKC is going to once again level a complete block and several historical buildings that actually look nice, only to replace them with this 27 foot mid rise and two parking garages. Seriously, can we not learn from our previous mistakes? Let that sink in for you, they are putting up a modest 27 foot building and 2 parking garages and leveling the rest of the block. We have 3 buildings currently that make up over 50 stories combined. This deal just stinks unless they find a way to preserve some of this and make the foot print smaller and make it an actual tower. I heard someone say the other day, why is OKC building several 20 plus story buildings? They said they need some taller because even with these buildings the Devon is still just going to look loney and awkward. They are actually spot on, we need something to make the Devon not look so odd due to it being only game in town. How do the leaders not realize or see this? People always make comments about how odd the Devon looks because it just sticks out like a sore thumb.

I can't even tell you how much I am starting to hate this project. I can't believe OKC is going to once again level a complete block and several historical buildings that actually look nice, only to replace them with this 27 foot mid rise and two parking garages. Seriously, can we not learn from our previous mistakes? Let that sink in for you, they are putting up a modest 27 foot building and 2 parking garages and leveling the rest of the block. We have 3 buildings currently that make up over 50 stories combined. This deal just stinks unless they find a way to preserve some of this and make the foot print smaller and make it an actual tower. I heard someone say the other day, why is OKC building several 20 plus story buildings? They said they need some taller because even with these buildings the Devon is still just going to look loney and awkward. They are actually spot on, we need something to make the Devon not look so odd due to it being only game in town. How do the leaders not realize or see this? People always make comments about how odd the Devon looks because it just sticks out like a sore thumb.

Wait, do you want this building to be taller?

Thanks Will. This gets more and more painful every day.

Wait, do you want this building to be taller?

I think he thinks Devon is a mid rise too.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/9322497/Photos/IMG_7332.jpg

I like how the late stage center can be spotted in the background in this picture. I can't believe these 2 beautiful buildings are going to be torn down in the name of "progress".

I can't even tell you how much I am starting to hate this project. I can't believe OKC is going to once again level a complete block and several historical buildings that actually look nice, only to replace them with this 27 foot mid rise and two parking garages. Seriously, can we not learn from our previous mistakes? Let that sink in for you, they are putting up a modest 27 foot building and 2 parking garages and leveling the rest of the block. We have 3 buildings currently that make up over 50 stories combined. This deal just stinks unless they find a way to preserve some of this and make the foot print smaller and make it an actual tower. I heard someone say the other day, why is OKC building several 20 plus story buildings? They said they need some taller because even with these buildings the Devon is still just going to look loney and awkward. They are actually spot on, we need something to make the Devon not look so odd due to it being only game in town. How do the leaders not realize or see this? People always make comments about how odd the Devon looks because it just sticks out like a sore thumb.

uhhhh what?

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/9322497/Photos/IMG_7332.jpg

Boy isn't that a load of irony.

He obviously thinks that contributing to the vitality of a city is trying to shin a light on his work, that's what this is really about. He obviously doesn't understand how this project as it will kill any sense of street life in this area. The Devon garage retail spaces show just how cold and uninviting this entire block will be.

The very least the city needs to do, is require them to redesign the street level of this project. If you are going to let them level these buildings, they need to at least build the store fronts with varying textures/facades to make this feel less cold and in-personable.

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/903/1yVkaQ.jpg (https://imageshack.com/i/p31yVkaQj)

The picture above is Bethesda Row. As you can see above street level it's all the same building, but at street level they spent a little extra money to break the retail spaces and make them feel different which engages the pedestrian. This is good urbanism. What is proposed by Pickard is nothing more than faux urbanism.

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/540/03yRaa.png

You tell me which is better? It's pretty obvious this design is lacking details, which is what make quality development.

I think he thinks Devon is a mid rise too.

He also said in an earlier post these new towers are fit only for a mid-sized city.

Newsflash: we ARE a midsized city, and there's no shame in that. Devon is significantly taller than any office building in any city of comparable size, and taller than a lot of buildings in much larger cities (Boston and Pittsburgh being two of them).