How about making this part of a deal with the Fred Jones Ford people...

They had wanted to develop the property that is likely to be taken for the convention center. Why not have them shift over to this site?

Well the article stated they have several people interested in the site, I wonder who?

Don't know if I am jumping the gun, but this would be a great location for a new skyscraper or residential high rise...I would say hotel, but most hotels have bars, so a hotel wouldn't work since the new downtown elementary school will be right across the street.

However, I believe the downtown elementary school will have a tremendous effect on whatever is developed here.

It may well be that the probable availability of this property had something to do with cooling the possible development of the block just north owned by Nick Preftakes.

I had the same thought when I heard the news that the effort for the Stage Center revival had stalled.

Don't know if I am jumping the gun, but this would be a great location for a new skyscraper or residential high rise...I would say hotel, but most hotels have bars, so a hotel wouldn't work since the new downtown elementary school will be right across the street.

However, I believe the downtown elementary school will have a tremendous effect on whatever is developed here.
Licensing a hotel bar would not be a problem. The hotel's entire food and beverage footprint would be considered when licensing the establishment, and the entire hotel would be under the same license. Getting a mixed beverage permit close to a school is not a problem as long as 50% or more of the establishment's sales are derived from food. Even if one of the bar(s) inside the property was 21+ and mainly served liquor, it would be on the same license as the adjoining hotel restaurant and ABLE would look at it in much the same way they view a "bar area" at Chili's or Outback. Family restaurant...with a bar area.

It would only be impossible to license a stand-alone booze-only establishment.

I noticed in the article that it's mentioned that the children's theater group could not afford the renovation. Maybe I have missed it, but I don't believe I have ever seen an exact monetary figure assigned to that. Has it not been publicly released?

Questor, figures bandied about earlier were on the range of needing to spend about a million, a day, for 25 days or more. The place had quite a bit of neglect and deferred upkeep, and then it flooded ... bad.

http://newsok.com/stage-center-for-sale/multimedia/video/1730553251001

Questor, figures bandied about earlier were on the range of needing to spend about a million, a day, for 25 days or more. The place had quite a bit of neglect and deferred upkeep, and then it flooded ... bad.

Sadly, this is probably the case. Though if Oklahomans understood the importance of this complex in the history of Architecture, there should be an effort to save it "as is"- reuse would be nice, but not necessary. Frank Loyd Wrights projects were known for their use of natural materials - in their natural state. He would use unprotected wood because he liked they way it looked. Results were that most of his projects were, or are in, great need of repair. Since his projects have had more positive popular response, there has been more up-keep, none-the-less a lot of them are in poor repair.
Because this exploration of architectural space pared down to its function elements (as opposed to everything being put into a decorative box) has not been nearly as popular (yet), there are very few early examples - and this is the best. It appears in almost all architectural school text as a concept brought to reality. Oklahoma City is in possession of a rare jewel - in an area that has several. Why this is not marketed is beyond me. But, in following other architecturally significant projects in OKC, like the state backed "Indian" complex, communal support for projects "outside the box" seem to completely lacking. Though the Devon complex and "boat house" projects are popular, they have all been paid for by private funds - who understand the significance of design. Most important, one does not have to "like" a style for it to be significant - there are many who do like it. As a child I did not "like" the European Cathedrals I was forced to tour with my parents - I had been raised in modern American boxes, the Cathedrals were old and did not make sense. Then I grew up and learned a little about the world, now I find them beautiful and amazing architecture.

I love Oklahoma, I am proud to be labeled an Okie. There are so many unique things in Oklahoma - what is the functional purpose of the round barn in Arcadia? But I also know there is a dark side to being an Okie. There seems to be a deeply ingrained desire to destroy what is not understood "what is the need for that". This building, unique though it is, will be allowed to be destroyed. And our children and their off-spring will ask the same thing we do now about our parents "what were they thinking, I can't believe that was allowed to be destroyed to be replaced by that garbage".

Though if Oklahomans understood the importance of this complex in the history of Architecture, there should be an effort to save it "as is"
At this point though it looks like without at least some significant changes in the roof's design, putting in the millions it would take to restore the facility would be wasted since it will likely flood again.

Though if Oklahomans understood the importance of this complex in the history of Architecture, there should be an effort to save it "as is"- reuse would be nice, but not necessary.

Many of us are fighting a much bigger war than "architectural protection". We are trying to reverse the suburban trend that has destroyed the fabric of American society and is the root of many social ills. The reality is Stage Center is wasting space and resources that could be better used for residential development. A 100 unit housing complex will remove 39,000 car trips a month from OKC roads assuming these people can now walk/ride bike/take mass transit to many of their daily life destinations. The benefits of urbanization vastly out-weigh the architectural significance of Stage Center.

n/m

Sadly, this is probably the case. Though if Oklahomans understood the importance of this complex in the history of Architecture, there should be an effort to save it "as is"- reuse would be nice, but not necessary. Frank Loyd Wrights projects were known for their use of natural materials - in their natural state. He would use unprotected wood because he liked they way it looked. Results were that most of his projects were, or are in, great need of repair. Since his projects have had more positive popular response, there has been more up-keep, none-the-less a lot of them are in poor repair.
Because this exploration of architectural space pared down to its function elements (as opposed to everything being put into a decorative box) has not been nearly as popular (yet), there are very few early examples - and this is the best. It appears in almost all architectural school text as a concept brought to reality. Oklahoma City is in possession of a rare jewel - in an area that has several. Why this is not marketed is beyond me. But, in following other architecturally significant projects in OKC, like the state backed "Indian" complex, communal support for projects "outside the box" seem to completely lacking. Though the Devon complex and "boat house" projects are popular, they have all been paid for by private funds - who understand the significance of design. Most important, one does not have to "like" a style for it to be significant - there are many who do like it. As a child I did not "like" the European Cathedrals I was forced to tour with my parents - I had been raised in modern American boxes, the Cathedrals were old and did not make sense. Then I grew up and learned a little about the world, now I find them beautiful and amazing architecture.

I love Oklahoma, I am proud to be labeled an Okie. There are so many unique things in Oklahoma - what is the functional purpose of the round barn in Arcadia? But I also know there is a dark side to being an Okie. There seems to be a deeply ingrained desire to destroy what is not understood "what is the need for that". This building, unique though it is, will be allowed to be destroyed. And our children and their off-spring will ask the same thing we do now about our parents "what were they thinking, I can't believe that was allowed to be destroyed to be replaced by that garbage".


this is a terribly ugly building ... on a great piece of land .. and you say "reuse would be nice but not necessary" you have got to be joking ..

the sooner this is gone and a new building is built the better for OKC

I know this sounds crazy, but use some of the cash from the sale of the property and move it to a corner of the C2S park, but build it ground level or above. Would be quite the attraction and the move would give it a bit more character.

I know this sounds crazy, but use some of the cash from the sale of the property and move it to a corner of the C2S park, but build it ground level or above. Would be quite the attraction and the move would give it a bit more character.

I have advocated this in the past. This facility would be much better served by being IN a park, not next to a park. It could be rebuilt for a fraction of the cost of trying to save what is there now. Heck, they could probably make it a functional theater again.

Oh...I am being sarcastic.

Why can't we analyze THIS situation. It is a significant piece of architecture for which there is virtually NO free enterprise support. Either the citizens are asked to bear the burden or it will go away.

this is a terribly ugly building ... on a great piece of land .. and you say "reuse would be nice but not necessary" you have got to be joking ..

the sooner this is gone and a new building is built the better for OKC

What an incredibly ignorant statement.... "ugly" is personal taste and very subjective. I find it quite attractive - more so than most of the buildings around it.

"A great piece of land", you are joking, correct? I have never lived in a city that had so much empty land in its financial core. When the rest of this land is filled with superior architecture (or any thing at all), then maybe there would be very minor argument to replace this structure. Immediately behind (to the West) of the arts council/new Myriad Gardens offices, the land has been empty - or the homes of halfway houses- for more than a quarter of a century.

Your statements involving personal taste prove my point exactly - .

What an incredibly ignorant statement.... "ugly" is personal taste and very subjective. I find it quite attractive - more so than most of the buildings around it.

"A great piece of land", you are joking, correct? I have never lived in a city that had so much empty land in its financial core. When the rest of this land is filled with superior architecture (or any thing at all), then maybe there would be very minor argument to replace this structure. Immediately behind (to the West) of the arts council/new Myriad Gardens offices, the land has been empty - or the homes of halfway houses- for more than a quarter of a century.

Your statements involving personal taste prove my point exactly - .

I too find the Stage Center charming. My daughter was recently visiting from San Francisco and I was showing her some of the things happening downtown. We drove by the Stage Center and she said, "What a great building! What is it?" I told her it was in danger of demolition and she said, "Figures. They'll probably put up some ugly stucco building in its place." There are those of us who love it. If I had the money, I'd buy it, renovate it and donate it. I still think a Children's Art Museum there would be fabulous. How many unique and iconic pieces of architecture do we have in downtown OKC?

Sorry TAlan BUT I too hope someone tears that eyesore out before too long as well. Id rather see grass and a 'future site of...' sign than being subjected to viewing your Mona Lisa.

I like the Stage Center.

Sorry TAlan BUT I too hope someone tears that eyesore out before too long as well. Id rather see grass and a 'future site of...' sign than being subjected to viewing your Mona Lisa.

That's just a sad statement. Short of the Stewart metal buildings and Bass Pro, there's hardly anything I'd prefer to a grass lot and sign. And I can even appreciate the sales tax revenue Bass Pro brings to other projects.

Now, if someone were going to hire a famous architect to create an iconic building at that site I might feel differently.........wait.

My daughter was recently visiting from San Francisco and I was showing her some of the things happening downtown. We drove by the Stage Center and she said, "What a great building! What is it?"

That conversation has taken place countless times in my own life. Picking colleagues up at the airport (or whatever) I have heard that so very many times. It goes against the grain, in extreme fashion, of the perception of Oklahoma that so many people have. And we want to get rid of it? I liked your post.

What an incredibly ignorant statement.... "ugly" is personal taste and very subjective. I find it quite attractive - more so than most of the buildings around it.

"A great piece of land", you are joking, correct? I have never lived in a city that had so much empty land in its financial core. When the rest of this land is filled with superior architecture (or any thing at all), then maybe there would be very minor argument to replace this structure. Immediately behind (to the West) of the arts council/new Myriad Gardens offices, the land has been empty - or the homes of halfway houses- for more than a quarter of a century.

Your statements involving personal taste prove my point exactly - .

directly to the west is the site of the new downtown elementary school

The natural development of cities dictates that higher uses overtake lower uses. Interfering with that natural development is what screwed up most American towns and cities. For example, everyone loves FNC, but something had to be torn down for FNC to go up. Even Stage Center replaced something else. Where OKC failed miserably was 'higher use' giving way to 'lower use'. Urban development doesn't work in reverse.

Stage Center's days are numbered. What it is going to take to rehabilitate the building and to bring it into ADA compliance is cost prohibitive unless a major benefactor wants to make it his pet project. I don't see that happening.

And, while I recognize it as a great example of a certain school of architecture, it obviously wasn't a very popular school or there would be more examples. Kaufman and Gittinger Halls were examples of a certain type of architecture too, but they were butt ugly. I didn't hear anyone complain when OU redid their exteriors.

They say Picaso is great art - I don't like it and I don't consider myself a hick. Stage Center might be appealing to some, it's not to me - I don't push for it 'to go' or 'stay' either one, but I hate to see idle buildings/land. Oklahoma City needs to develop within her own personality, not try to be 'Charlie Tuna'.

The natural development of cities dictates that higher uses overtake lower uses. Interfering with that natural development is what screwed up most American towns and cities. For example, everyone loves FNC, but something had to be torn down for FNC to go up. Even Stage Center replaced something else. Where OKC failed miserably was 'higher use' giving way to 'lower use'. Urban development doesn't work in reverse.

All "higher use" and "lower use" are not created equal. It will stink (even if it's economically unviable) if Stage Center is torn down when there are so many empty lots all over the downtown area.

My hope is that we get a really slick, high-quality development for that property that would make everyone forget about Stage Center.

Unfortunately, we don't get many of those but hopefully this site will draw some sophisticated players with real money behind them.


Devon, Project 180 (the final product, not the process) and the Myriad Gardens have all set a very high standard in that area.

^This

Stage Center for sale huh? Well a private developer is not going to pay millions of $$$$ for the building, then pay another $30+ million for flood damage repairs and renovations. If a private developer is going to buy this building, it will be razed, and something new will be built in its place, sorry.

I wouldn't be surprised if this site is not purchased by Oklahoma City Public Schools for future expansion of their downtown elementary school.

Sad enough, more than likely the site will be sold to the City though, and then the City will sit on that property for years, until developer comes with some big money to buy it from the City, then the City will ask for double for what they paid for it, and then make profit.

I deleted a ton of posts because many were personal attacks and others were just way off topic.


And BTW, calling a post rather than a person idiotic (or similar) violates the environment we hope to cultivate here. Of course people are going to disagree but intelligent people should be able to do so without becoming completely acrimonious.

Let's please not go down the path of virtually every other message board where it's just a bunch of people rehashing the same -- often personal -- arguments.

Stage Center for sale huh? Well a private developer is not going to pay millions of $$$$ for the building, then pay another $30+ million for flood damage repairs and renovations. If a private developer is going to buy this building, it will be razed, and something new will be built in its place, sorry.

I wouldn't be surprised if this site is not purchased by Oklahoma City Public Schools for future expansion of their downtown elementary school.

Sad enough, more than likely the site will be sold to the City though, and then the City will sit on that property for years, until developer comes with some big money to buy it from the City, then the City will ask for double for what they paid for it, and then make profit.

I don't think so. I think if this site is going to sit in speculative limbo for the coming years, then at least the theater stays and we'll talk about seeing what minimal repairs could make it at least functionable and habitable even though it obviously won't get the renovation it needs under that scenario.

I think the most likely scenario is that it gets demolished in conjunction with an ambitious proposal. This site is valuable and that is the factor driving Stage Center's demolition more than anything else. If this gets demolished and replaced with nothing for a long time, that will be the straw that breaks the camel's back and that will usher in a new type of accountability that I'll admit we just don't have downtown.

If anyone was going to tear down Stage Center it would be the current owner. No one is going to pay the million it will cost for this land, tear down the building, and then sit on the vacant land for speculation.

I think the time may be right for a high-rise residential project on this site.

First of all, it's perfectly situated on the park and with all of the CBD and everything else within easy walking distance.

Secondly, with The Hill finally selling all it's completed units, that signals that the condo market has firmed up. Even if something was announced today, it would take at least 2 and maybe as many as 4 years to get a new condo project open.

Remember that The Centennial -- the only for-sale downtown residential with any type of view -- sold out in record time and for an average of over $400K per unit. And let's face it, that is a pretty lame, nondescript building without great vistas.


I think OKC is hungry for some big-city condos and I can't think of a better spot, especially if they were to include restaurants and other public amenities on the first few floors. Imagine the view of a 2nd or 3rd level restaurant facing the park, not to mention the units above.


Or perhaps due to the proximity of the proposed convention center, it could be a hotel on the bottom and condos above.

I think the time may be right for a high-rise residential project on this site.

First of all, it's perfectly situated on the park and with all of the CBD and everything else within easy walking distance.

Secondly, with The Hill finally selling all it's completed units, that signals that the condo market has firmed up. Even if something was announced today, it would take at least 2 and maybe as many as 4 years to get a new condo project open.

Remember that The Centennial -- the only for-sale downtown residential with any type of view -- sold out in record time and for an average of over $400K per unit. And let's face it, that is a pretty lame, nondescript building without great vistas.


I think OKC is hungry for some big-city condos and I can't think of a better spot, especially if they were to include restaurants and other public amenities on the first few floors. Imagine the view of a 2nd or 3rd level restaurant facing the park, not to mention the units above.


Or perhaps due to the proximity of the proposed convention center, it could be a hotel on the bottom and condos above.

The problem I see with a high rise residential project on this site, is the proposed downtown elementary school right across the street. Most high-rise condos/hotels tend to have restaurants/bars that serve alcohol, therefore, it will be hard to find a developer to build upscale hotel/condos without a restaurant/bar that services alcohol.

The problem I see with a high rise residential project on this site, is the proposed downtown elementary school right across the street. Most high-rise condos/hotels tend to have restaurants/bars that serve alcohol, therefore, it will be hard to find a developer to build upscale hotel/condos without a restaurant/bar that services alcohol.

a school doesn't prohibit a restaurant with bar .. and if this project gets zoning/abc overlay permit before the school opens they would be grandfathered in for a full stand alone bar

The Stage Center land is big enough for two, maybe even three, towers. The floor plates of residential building aren't near as big those of an office building. You could easily get FNC, City Place, and Liberty all on that land. Heck, there might even be room for a Classen as well.

I repeat: there is no restriction whatsoever on opening a RESTAURANT with full mixed beverage service near a school or a church. It is a different type of license.

The restriction only applies to bars that derive more than 50% revenue from liquor sales. That is why Hideaway Pizza, as an example, could open mere steps away from St. Paul's Episcopal Church.

Also, if a hotel landed on the Stage Center spot, it would have a single liquor license for the entire property, and would have at least 50% of its TOTAL HOTEL FOOD AND BEVERAGE REVENUE derived from food sales. Even if they had a bar in the hotel that was branded separately and bar-only - think Red Piano in the Skirvin - it would be on the same license as the catering and restaurant.

I repeat: there is no restriction whatsoever on opening a RESTAURANT with full mixed beverage service near a school or a church. It is a different type of license.

The restriction only applies to bars that derive more than 50% revenue from liquor sales. That is why Hideaway Pizza, as an example, could open mere steps away from St. Paul's Episcopal Church.

Also, if a hotel landed on the Stage Center spot, it would have a single liquor license for the entire property, and would have at least 50% of its TOTAL HOTEL FOOD AND BEVERAGE REVENUE derived from food sales. Even if they had a bar in the hotel that was branded separately and bar-only - think Red Piano in the Skirvin - it would be on the same license as the catering and restaurant.

Thanks for the information, I learned something today. So that is good news, then the development potential for this site is endless, let's hope it falls in the right hands.

I think the time may be right for a high-rise residential project on this site........

Or perhaps due to the proximity of the proposed convention center, it could be a hotel on the bottom and condos above.

I think the Ft Worth Omni would be a very good "prototype" for this type of development. It is across the street from the FWCC and is laid out exactly as you described. It is a high quality facility and would be very high on my list for a home were I to relocate to Ft Worth.

I think the Ft Worth Omni would be a very good "prototype" for this type of development. It is across the street from the FWCC and is laid out exactly as you described. It is a high quality facility and would be very high on my list for a home were I to relocate to Ft Worth.


That would work! If Ft. Worth can support this, so can OKC:

http://www.fortwortharchitecture.com/omni-const-sw.jpg

I stayed there 2 birthdays ago. Absolutely wonderful and Id love to see the concept in OKC. Still thinking that if Omni is going to have a presence here that they are waiting for convention center grounbreaking.

There was a restauraunt/lounge/bar in the hotel called Wiskey & Rye I believe. Idk if it is their cookie cutter brand or local flavor but it was nice as well.

I agree. I liked everything about that place. I think it would work extremely well in OKC. The restaurants were very good and the entire facility was well thought out.

On the future of Stage Center:
Let me first say on Stage Center that I recognize it's place in architectural history and I am not advocating for it to be torn down or preserved. I am sympathetic to all sides of this issue and I understand there are no easy options....
But JImbo, if I'm put in a position of simply calling how this game ends... it's coming down. I see no saviors on the horizon... and yes, this is now the most prime piece of land anywhere downtown. I'm tracking several MAJOR proposals for the site. It will like be an ambitious mix of retail or housing, or a substantial office development.
Read more: http://newsok.com/steve-lackmeyer-stage-center-will-likely-be-torn-down-site-will-be-redeveloped/article/3695940#ixzz21qxG0eA4

I couldn't do Steve's job - my head would explode

I couldn't do Steve's job - my head would explode

It's less painful the fourth or fifth time it happens....

As much as it may stink to have to say goodbye to Stage Center, at least it is coming available at a good time.

That property is more valuable than ever and the money seems to be flowing a little easier or large commercial project.


It wasn't that long ago that most the area around this property was considered skid row. Now you've got the gorgeous MG on one side, a new elementary going in to the west with the burgeoning Film Row just beyond, and the bus station going out to the north, with the possibility of that whole block being redeveloped. And Project 180 improvements on all sides.

I'd really like to see a residential development here but would settle for an office building, as long as it's at least 40 stories. :)

On the future of Stage Center:
Let me first say on Stage Center that I recognize it's place in architectural history and I am not advocating for it to be torn down or preserved. I am sympathetic to all sides of this issue and I understand there are no easy options....
But JImbo, if I'm put in a position of simply calling how this game ends... it's coming down. I see no saviors on the horizon... and yes, this is now the most prime piece of land anywhere downtown. I'm tracking several MAJOR proposals for the site. It will like be an ambitious mix of retail or housing, or a substantial office development.

I'm not doubting this, but I also find it strange why anyone looking to do an ambitious mix of housing or a substantial office development would put up with the battles that surround Stage Center. With the vast inventory of surface lots and completely undeveloped land within a few blocks of this site, any competent developer could start tomorrow on making their vision a reality as opposed to focusing on this site which may take years before the wrecking ball is allowed to arrive. Given the amount of scars of emptiness in this town, I would much rather see every grass lot developed downtown before calling in the bulldozers to raze a building that many treasure.

If there is any true indicator on the real health of Oklahoma City, it's that there is so much land left within mere blocks of the city center the location of which is still not valuable enough to warrant development.

So let me ask you Steve because this is something that has always bothered me about the entire MAPS strategy and the current CC location (and no I don't want to turn this into a CC discussion). MAPS was created as a way to rebuild downtown by increasing private sector investment/development and make downtown OKC, and by extension, the entire metro area a better plact to live, work, and play. So there are multiple development proposals for the Stage Center site but only one can go on the Stage Center property. That is going to leave atleast 2 other viable MAJOR projects without a home. I assume these projects are attracted to this site because of its proxiimity to MBG. With two other vacant lots adjacent to the park are we running the risk of killing private sector development by building a MAPS project on those lots - which is counter-productive to the entre reason for MAPS? Or are these projects only interested in the one site and will get tossed in the trash like the 4 or 5 projects that weren't selected for the Mercy site?

If there is any true indicator on the real health of Oklahoma City, it's that there is so much land left within mere blocks of the city center the location of which is still not valuable enough to warrant development.

So basically you're saying Devon wasted $750 million? Or any other future developer?

Surely those grass lots will be developed in the future with buildings much smaller than what us dreamers are looking for. Gotta remember that this isn't NYC. If a substantial highrise is going to be built, it will be as close to the core as possible and that's what the Stage Center lot is.

I'm not doubting this, but I also find it strange why anyone looking to do an ambitious mix of housing or a substantial office development would put up with the battles that surround Stage Center. With the vast inventory of surface lots and completely undeveloped land within a few blocks of this site, any competent developer could start tomorrow on making their vision a reality as opposed to focusing on this site which may take years before the wrecking ball is allowed to arrive. Given the amount of scars of emptiness in this town, I would much rather see every grass lot developed downtown before calling in the bulldozers to raze a building that many treasure.

If there is any true indicator on the real health of Oklahoma City, it's that there is so much land left within mere blocks of the city center the location of which is still not valuable enough to warrant development.

Location, location, location.

The Centennial -- a very bland and boxy condo project -- sold out almost immediately and at very high prices. Why? It's located on the canal, albeit the lower part and most of the units don't have great views of much of anything.

There is a huge difference between the Stage Center property and just about any other large lot downtown merely because it fronts the MG and is adjacent to the stellar Devon complex. Remember land costs are just a fraction of any high-rise development and if I was looking to build something in downtown OKC, I'd glad pay a big premium for the Stage Center property. I'd make it back in condo sales, room rentals, or office rates. Think about how much more valuable property is on Central Park in NYC (a reach, I realize, but some of the same principles apply).

Image owning a condo where you could step out on your balcony and overlook a very large, beautiful urban park and also the Devon Tower. Possibly the best views in all of OKC.

As for dealing with the fallout from razing Stage Center, that is clearly going to happen now and a shrewd developer would have the present owners scrape it before any deal was public.


The rest of the empty lots are filling up with dozens and dozens of project. The reason for so many is due to demolition as all those properties had some sort of previous development.

So let me ask you Steve because this is something that has always bothered me about the entire MAPS strategy and the current CC location (and no I don't want to turn this into a CC discussion). MAPS was created as a way to rebuild downtown by increasing private sector investment/development and make downtown OKC, and by extension, the entire metro area a better plact to live, work, and play. So there are multiple development proposals for the Stage Center site but only one can go on the Stage Center property. That is going to leave atleast 2 other viable MAJOR projects without a home. I assume these projects are attracted to this site because of its proxiimity to MBG. With two other vacant lots adjacent to the park are we running the risk of killing private sector development by building a MAPS project on those lots - which is counter-productive to the entre reason for MAPS? Or are these projects only interested in the one site and will get tossed in the trash like the 4 or 5 projects that weren't selected for the Mercy site?

Could it be the market can handle one new office tower and that these 3 developers each want to be the one to fill the void?

Could it be the market can handle one new office tower and that these 3 developers each want to be the one to fill the void?

That is possible on the office development yes. On the residential side the sky is the limit.

So let me ask you Steve because this is something that has always bothered me about the entire MAPS strategy and the current CC location (and no I don't want to turn this into a CC discussion). MAPS was created as a way to rebuild downtown by increasing private sector investment/development and make downtown OKC, and by extension, the entire metro area a better plact to live, work, and play. So there are multiple development proposals for the Stage Center site but only one can go on the Stage Center property. That is going to leave atleast 2 other viable MAJOR projects without a home. I assume these projects are attracted to this site because of its proxiimity to MBG. With two other vacant lots adjacent to the park are we running the risk of killing private sector development by building a MAPS project on those lots - which is counter-productive to the entre reason for MAPS? Or are these projects only interested in the one site and will get tossed in the trash like the 4 or 5 projects that weren't selected for the Mercy site?

It's more nuanced than that. Development just doesn't work the way that you're setting up in this comment. I wish I could elaborate, but I'd have to take a lot of time to slice and dice it, to make sense. But to boil it down: money goes after the best opportunities. It's got to make sense. And that's it.

That is possible on the office development yes. On the residential side the sky is the limit.

There's no limit to the interest level in DT or near DT housing in the OKC metro?

There's no limit to the interest level in DT or near DT housing in the OKC metro?

The next comment will be ....."As long as it's rental." But, what people fail to realize is that by the time planning and construction are underway for not yet proposed housing, there may well be a group of people who have lived in rentals downtown, have reached a stage in their lives where they want to own a home and might be willing to buy downtown. Builders and developers keep charging ahead with what they think the public wants, failing to realize that their plans are delayed enough that the market may have changed by the time their project is complete. Someone will build the last for rent building in downtown and find that they've overbuilt. And then everyone will jump on the "for sale" bandwagon again.

People need to get the idea out of their head that a 'house' has to be a ranch style home built in the 60s, a new plot of land for building a new home on or anything in the suburbs that has a lawn. Condo living can be "we want to raise kids here, grow old and die here" living.

Obviously downtown needs a few more things to entice that living...the elementary school, some more grociers, etc. Downtown living was killed a long time ago but its coming back strong.

Also needs to be made affordable for people that are young professionals or not. Maybe surveys need to be taken at local universities asking grads that if they earned a living in the OKC metro, would they be willing to live downtown if it were affordable.

As much as it may stink to have to say goodbye to Stage Center, at least it is coming available at a good time.

That property is more valuable than ever and the money seems to be flowing a little easier or large commercial project.


It wasn't that long ago that most the area around this property was considered skid row. Now you've got the gorgeous MG on one side, a new elementary going in to the west with the burgeoning Film Row just beyond, and the bus station going out to the north, with the possibility of that whole block being redeveloped. And Project 180 improvements on all sides.

I'd really like to see a residential development here but would settle for an office building, as long as it's at least 40 stories. :)

I'm with Pete. Office would be a disappointment. We need to extend downtown SWward. This site has to be pivotal, and here we have to realize our dreams.

If ever there were a structure I wish we could just move somewhere, like Classen Blvd and NW 13th would be perfect, or along the river...

There's no limit to the interest level in DT or near DT housing in the OKC metro?

We are on the cusp of a dramatic change in living styles. Just as suburbia was created in a generation, it is going to die just as fast. Suburbia was created by an overwhelming amount of government funding and it takes constant deficit spending to sustain it. The people are wising up – mostly because we are going broke trying to keep it going.

Kevin - I think we're working within 5-year windows, and the current 5-year window will indicate demand for probably 2-3,000 new residential units. The point is that supply is consistently lagging demand by a wide margin.