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.

Only in your mind are suburbs going away. Only in your mind is it either - or. You can't fathom people wanting a different lifestyle.

Only in your mind are suburbs going away. Only in your mind is it either - or. You can't fathom people wanting a different lifestyle.

I agree. I don't tell anyone where to live and I don't want to be told where I should live. Although the urbanists have some good ideas and love their lifestyle, they are a small minority in the city overall.

A chacun son gout.

I agree. I don't tell anyone where to live and I don't want to be told where I should live. Although the urbanists have some good ideas and love their lifestyle, they are a small minority in the city overall.

A chacun son gout.

I'm fine with people living wherever they want but I think taxes should reflect density. If you want to live 20 miles from the city center in a multi-acreage home, then you should pay for the privilege. Or, alternatively, this city needs to go on a diet and do some major deannexation.

I'm fine with people living wherever they want but I think taxes should reflect density. If you want to live 20 miles from the city center in a multi-acreage home, then you should pay for the privilege. Or, alternatively, this city needs to go on a diet and do some major deannexation.

I don't want to argue against urbanization, only the arrogance of thinking EVERYONE should have to live there. I believe your argument for fair taxation relative to expenditures. So, where are the boundaries drawn? Is the dense area around quail springs taxed less than the relatively area downtown. Do we divide by zip codes, sq miles, voting districts, etc.? Does property value play into the equation (Gailardia vs downtown, for example)? And are we better off making people commute OUT of downtown to jobs, or IN to downtown (Vancouver is wrestling with this problem now)?

It always sounds so easy but it is complicated. To think suburbs are going away is ludicrous. It was the communist dream, but will not happen while people have a choice to live the kind of lifestyle they choose.

It certainly is not a easy dilemma to resolve. On one hand, I do not believe we should dictate to people where they should live (although we do by way of zoning now). Nor do I think our current tendencies are sustainable in the long run. When more people realize the extraordinary waste in shoving city boundaries farther and farther out in an attempt to create the next suburban utopia - and it impacts their economic well being more forcefully - then we will see people migrating back to pre-1950's types of urban areas. What I find absolutely maddening is developers building brand new strip malls farther and farther away from the present urban centers, when older places lie empty. Why not bulldoze the empty one and rebuild on sites like that? I understand they are "going where their customers" live, but I also think this is a self fulfilling prophesy to a large degree.

You don't limit where people want to live; you limit where developers can BUILD. You can also easily limit infrastructure required for sprawl.

Big, big difference and lots of cities have handled this effectively.

OKC and the surrounding areas have absolutely no process to even consider if a massive new housing tract, shopping center or even a turnpike is built. If someone applies and meets the basic requirements, they get a building permit without any further thought whatsoever.

Only in your mind are suburbs going away. Only in your mind is it either - or. You can't fathom people wanting a different lifestyle.

It doesn't matter what I want. We, as a nation, can no longer afford suburbia and the debt it takes to keep it going. Gen Xers figured this out and Generation Screwed won't have a choice. The baby-boomers wrote checks that the rest of us can't cash.

I thought this thread was about Stage Center.

Sorry Spartan - back to Stage Center. Any one have inside info on a time frame?

I bet it won't be long... They are now pretty darn sure no one is going to save the building and it's costing them money to have it just sit there, so I'm sure it's just a matter of evaluating the proposals/offers.

I bet we'll hear something within a few months.

I guess the first sign that something is eminent will be a demo permit which will probably be done by the current owner because the new owner probably won't want to go through any delays. How long from the time a demo permit is applied for until it become public knowledge?

I guess the first sign that something is eminent will be a demo permit which will probably be done by the current owner because the new owner probably won't want to go through any delays. How long from the time a demo permit is applied for until it become public knowledge?

I doubt we will see a demo permit without some announcement of what will go on the site. Unless it is something underwhelming.

If it is a significant structure obtaining public approval will be simple, and they will be able to announce what they are doing. Then they will tear the Stage Center down and quickly have something going in it's place.

If it is a small underwhelming structure (relative to the potential of the site), then the building will have a demo permit. The building will be demo'd, and then an announcement will be made of the replacing structure.

If it's something underwhelming, I will be majorly disappointed. It had better be a showpiece to justify tearing down a treasure like the Stage Center.

I doubt we will see a demo permit without some announcement of what will go on the site. Unless it is something underwhelming.

If it is a significant structure obtaining public approval will be simple, and they will be able to announce what they are doing. Then they will tear the Stage Center down and quickly have something going in it's place.

If it is a small underwhelming structure (relative to the potential of the site), then the building will have a demo permit. The building will be demo'd, and then an announcement will be made of the replacing structure.

I have a lot of confidence in this.

The Stage Center lot can easily hold a 40 story skyscraper, parking garage and amenities building. But I am also interested in the lot directly south. If there are multiple proposals for the Stage Center site, I wonder if whoever loses out can make a case and a offer to acquire the lot immediately south.

The Arts Council of Oklahoma City would have to find a new home, or can make a deal with whoever is acquiring that lot to have space in new building. I am visioning we can have a mixed use development as well as new office tower, as the lot directly south of the Stage Center will be just as valuable if there is a new office tower to the north, MBG to the east, and new CC to the south.

It's important to make sure we don't end up with 1 building.

This is an entire city block.

The Stage Center lot can easily hold a 40 story skyscraper, parking garage and amenities building. But I am also interested in the lot directly south. If there are multiple proposals for the Stage Center site, I wonder if whoever loses out can make a case and a offer to acquire the lot immediately south.

The Arts Council of Oklahoma City would have to find a new home, or can make a deal with whoever is acquiring that lot to have space in new building. I am visioning we can have a mixed use development as well as new office tower, as the lot directly south of the Stage Center will be just as valuable if there is a new office tower to the north, MBG to the east, and new CC to the south.


I agree and if the Stage Center is going to come down, the City needs to take a hard look at that entire block:

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

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.

No. How did you get that? Devon basically took a parking lot and turned it into the tallest building in the state. They did not select some controversial site (and delay development to do so) over undeveloped property and raze it for something that could have been built just anywhere downtown.

I'm not sure what made you think I was confusing this with NYC. In fact, that was my point. In NYC you HAVE to tear down something old to build something new. We don't HAVE to do that and won't for AT LEAST 20 years.

Also, I am not suggesting that most or ANY of the empty lots have to be developed into high rises, but the fact that they still sit empty is telling and makes it illogical for a developer to want to increase their investment and delay returns in order to build on a lot one block away from space which is ready for development today.

The first thing they should do is re-open California St. The Stage Center site alone can house multiple residential towers. FNC, City Place, The Classen, and Founders Tower can ALL fit on that one piece of land.

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.

I guess I just don't see it. I think it would make a great space for offices, but it really isn't a residentially minded part of downtown. IMO, just about every grass lot in MidTown would be a much better place to build apartments and/or mixed use with its easy access to a variety of services within a few blocks and way better views than a stage center development will have. Stage center is essentially a convention center lot and is surrounded by super blocks. Not quite the most ideal urban living location.

Sure, you could build there and hope that the blocks around it one day offer more to a potential resident, but this will require Devon/Preftakes to make a move and for the convention center block to actually include amenities for locals. That's all very speculative and even if that comes true, it will be at least 10-15 years until that happens.

I am just saying that if there really are developers sitting on the sideline just waiting for this to come up, they could stop waiting and start building in neighborhoods that are much further along in terms of being livable districts. In other words, if I was investing, I'd try and find the one that is willing to build a sure thing today as opposed to a 50/50 thing 5 years from now. The only reason to wait is if a sweetheart deal is looming, which, when I think about it, is actually pretty likely.

If those other parcels were as appealing, they'd have people lining up to buy them.

The greatest evidence that this location is indeed special is that it seems multiple developers are interested while all that other land sees very little activity.

There is only one great botanical park in OKC and this will likely be the only bordering parcel available for private development, perhaps ever. Once you move past that, there are lots of other parcels with none being that special and certainly no worry about missing some unique opportunity.

If those other parcels were as appealing, they'd have people lining up to buy them.

The greatest evidence that this location is indeed special is that it seems multiple developers are interested while all that other land sees very little activity.

There is only one great botanical park in OKC and this will likely be the only bordering parcel available for private development, perhaps ever. Once you move past that, there are lots of other parcels with none being that special and certainly no worry about missing some unique opportunity.

This is re-phrasing of the exact same question I asked Steve the other day. MBG has multiple vacant lots around it but they are slated for use by other MAPS projects. Did we forget that the intention of MAPS was to stimulate private development, not steal away the good parcels? I think we did.

This is re-phrasing of the exact same question I asked Steve the other day. MBG has multiple vacant lots around it but they are slated for use by other MAPS projects. Did we forget that the intention of MAPS was to stimulate private development, not steal away the good parcels? I think we did.

Yes, these lots between the new MBG, Boulevard, and CHK Arena, were the most prime pieces of land in all of Oklahoma City, maybe even the state.

Pete: I understand what you are saying, but there is a psychology that comes into play, be it a building a product or even an employee or something else. The fact that someone else wants it makes other people take notice of it. I found it to be personally true a few years ago when my employer was trying to get me to relocate to Houston. I had decided no but they were flying me back and forth weekly. I sent out multiple resumes and answered want ads. As long as I was employed, they were interested in me. But because of the location difference, I wasn't able to go on interviews during normal M-F business hours. Once I severed ties and was available, I couldn't get call-backs.

Folks may be looking at a vacant lot in the same way. "No one else has built something there, so why should I...must be something wrong with it"

I think we will lament the opportunity lost every time we look at the darn convention center if it is built at the presently designated location. I still hope land acquisition cost kills it and it is shifted to south of the arena where many people thought it would be located. There were some very good renderings of a CC on that site in the CC thread.

In another thread, there is a photo of a development that was approved in Milwaukee I think would fit the Stage Center site perfectly. High rise residential / hotel combo with space for street front businesses.

No. How did you get that? Devon basically took a parking lot and turned it into the tallest building in the state. They did not select some controversial site (and delay development to do so) over undeveloped property and raze it for something that could have been built just anywhere downtown.

I'm not sure what made you think I was confusing this with NYC. In fact, that was my point. In NYC you HAVE to tear down something old to build something new. We don't HAVE to do that and won't for AT LEAST 20 years.

Also, I am not suggesting that most or ANY of the empty lots have to be developed into high rises, but the fact that they still sit empty is telling and makes it illogical for a developer to want to increase their investment and delay returns in order to build on a lot one block away from space which is ready for development today.

Somewhere in there we're talking about the same thing. We're just not seeing eye to eye on it.

Exactly true about NYC..in that you have to tear down something old to build something new. I remember the aerial of downtown OKC that someone posted showing all of the empty lots.

My point was, if its a highrise developer (20 or more stories...heck 15 minimum), Im pretty sure they're not wanting to build on corner lot B in Midtown that's all grass as opposed to a lot A smackdab near the middle of OKC.

The reality is that OKC needs to be rebuilt from the ashes of a former city. Stage Center is the ultimate example of that. Even if it made sense for location, layout, and use when it was built (and it didn't btw), it doesn't make sense today. Aspects of the former city that can be reused and adapted ARE reused and adapted. Parts that can't be are redeveloped.

Stage Center does not fit in or contribute to a walkable city. Everything about it screams Le Corbusier who darn near destroyed all of central Paris in 1922 with his "Contemporary City" which was later the model for Pruitt-Igoe in St Louis and inspired the IM Pei plan in OKC. We know how those two projects turned out. A lot of bullets we fired at OKC by this group of hacks and we dodged most of them (while actually trying to get hit), but Stage Center is one that got us. Pretty soon that wound will be healed and OKC will be so much better off for it.

My point was, if its a highrise developer (20 or more stories...heck 15 minimum), I'm pretty sure they're not wanting to build on corner lot B in Midtown that's all grass as opposed to a lot A smackdab near the middle of OKC.

Well, I guess they haven't actually spent much time on the ground in Oklahoma City then. It certainly doesn't feel like the middle of OKC. There is much more life to MidTown, Deep Deuce, and even automobile alley than there is around this lot. This area feels very business/convention district, not residential. It needs special events to bring life to it after businesses hours and, really, it's being developed in that manner. I can buy offices or a hotel being here, but I know the demand for living space surrounded by convention space isn't nearly as good as one in a vibrant neighborhood that has more to it than suits and business tourists.

Now, someone may have a vision for this area that transforms it, but it will be limited by the development already planned for the area and whether or not they consider neighborhood amenities in those developments and, either way, that is a long way off.

All I am saying is that if someone wants to build a high rise with residential elements that wants to capitalize on the promised on unique and rich urban living, you could do that to some degree in MidTown right now. At this location, you can not. It just isn't there, yet. A developer would have to create what already exists elsewhere downtown to deliver on such a promise.

However, as illogical as that sounds, we have seen it before, so I guess I should temper my skepticism. It is not unheard of that an Oklahoma City developer would go for cheap and under-served before try to first capitalize on what is already in place. In fact, that has kind of been the way of MAPS3. I would bet, however, that, if there is interest in this property over that of vacant properties in more established areas downtown, it is not entirely organic.

Now, someone may have a vision for this area that transforms it, but it will be limited by the development already planned for the area and whether or not they consider neighborhood amenities in those developments and, either way, that is a long way off.

This is a chicken/egg situation. Residential development doesn't seem likely without amenities, and without any residents, amenities development seems like a stretch. A coordinated development would be a winning strategy for that corner of downtown. Mixed use on the entire Stage Center super block, and something other than office space on the Preftakes block would work well.

If those other parcels were as appealing, they'd have people lining up to buy them.

You would think. But it is hard to argue that, at this exact moment, living at Sheridan and Walker would be better than living at 10th and walker.


The greatest evidence that this location is indeed special is that it seems multiple developers are interested while all that other land sees very little activity.


It's not that it's not special. It's that there are other lots with more going on around them right now. It's a special idea that is not realized and is basically speculation that, right now, is very dependent on city government to make happen.



There is only one great botanical park in OKC and this will likely be the only bordering parcel available for private development, perhaps ever. Once you move past that, there are lots of other parcels with none being that special and certainly no worry about missing some unique opportunity.

That's true, but there is still time before this becomes a neighborhood, if ever. If it becomes streetcar accessible then it won't matter as much, because then you have awesome park front lot and the immediate surroundings don't matter as much. You could then always hop on a street car to go to one of the neighborhoods that has more stuff to do.

Again, I am just looking at it today, not what it could be 10 years from now. For the first time in decades, generations maybe, Oklahoma City is in the position where it has real urban neighborhood options, if only they are a bit incomplete and disjointed. So, really, a high rise developer has two choices when it comes to this lot: wait to be a part of creating another partially complete urban neighborhood downtown whose critical mass is probably 10 years away or more, or build on ready-for-development land in a neighborhood that's already half way there and basically BE the critical mass that sends the neighborhood (and property values) over the top.

However, I do believe that someone important wants this and that usually is more of a driving factor than where the best place to build right now is.

People buy homes in remote subdivisions miles from anything all the time and then wait for the amenities to come to them. The same thing will work downtown which is why I have been critical of Bricktown for not establishing a significant residential component when it was the only urban game in town for 20 years.

This is a chicken/egg situation. Residential development doesn't seem likely without amenities, and without any residents, amenities development seems like a stretch. A coordinated development would be a winning strategy for that corner of downtown. Mixed use on the entire Stage Center super block, and something other than office space on the Preftakes block would work well.

All I am trying to say is that a residential chicken has already laid a few eggs in other areas of downtown, but has yet to visit this one. So, clearly, no one is paying attention to what any chickens have done with any eggs if they want this lot. All it means is they just want to be a chicken or an egg.

People buy homes in remote subdivisions miles from anything all the time and then wait for the amenities to come to them.

These people would NEVER live at Sheridan and Walker to begin with. My point is that if you want to live downtown, you want urban living. The people to which you refer are looking for the most square footage they can get per dollar, not proximity to amenities.

There are neighborhoods that are beginning to offer urban amenities that have plenty of undeveloped space. This is not one of them.

This area feels very business/convention district, not residential. It needs special events to bring life to it after businesses hours and, really, it's being developed in that manner. I can buy offices or a hotel being here, but I know the demand for living space surrounded by convention space isn't nearly as good as one in a vibrant neighborhood that has more to it than suits and business tourists.

Have you been to Ft. Worth? Particularly where their convention center is? Lying to the north is the downtown district. To the east is the Ft. Worth Transportation Center. Just to the south is the Ft. Worth Water Gardens. Just to the west is the Omni Hotel with residential condos on top of that. Beyond that, the closest residential is south of the water park, the old Texas & Pacific Railroad station which has 10 floors that were converted into lofts with some additional units being built just to the east of that.

If Fort Worth were to be used as a model for our MBG district, you could say that they're both one and the same and in Ft. Worth, just like OKC, you have to literally walk blocks before you're in the entertainment district, which fortunately for them is within their downtown.

A residential tower on the Stage Center site would enhance life in this part of downtown OKC.

The East side of DT Ft. Worth is amazing and I would love if OKC could mirror this. They have a Target along with other shops in an old warehouse over there and I have been looking at buildings in OKC that could do something similar and couldn't think of anything until I noticed the Uhaul building. If the they were o remove the siding and expose the brick it would be perfect for a similar development. One can dream!

Said East but think it is actually West side, right by In and Out Burger

These people would NEVER live at Sheridan and Walker to begin with. My point is that if you want to live downtown, you want urban living. The people to which you refer are looking for the most square footage they can get per dollar, not proximity to amenities.

There are neighborhoods that are beginning to offer urban amenities that have plenty of undeveloped space. This is not one of them.

Good point but if this project is big enough it could become its own neighborhood.

How much is the site going for? Shouldn't this be public record? I can't find it anywhere, unless its already sold...

How much is the site going for? Shouldn't this be public record? I can't find it anywhere, unless its already sold...

The sale price of private property is not public record unless a transaction occurs.

I don't know what this means for the near and long-term future of the property, but found this to be fairly interesting:

http://www.okc.gov/planning/planning_library/historical_pres/Mummers.pdf

Wow, looks like they are trying to keep it from being demolished...

Getting a building on the national historic register does nothing to protect if from demolition.

It does create the opportunity for tax credits if it is renovated.

So, the foundation may be seeking this to help it in marketing the property.

It still cost $30 million to fix and no one is going to finance $30 million when there isn't even a revenue stream to pay it back with.

Heard a news item on NPR last night that indicated two major theaters (Lincoln Center and one other) were recently scrambling to get a smaller theater venue established to meet current demand that wouldn't be appropriate in the larger venue. Timing may eventually make Stage Center a hip thing again -- but it doesn't look like Stage Center will last to see it.

It turns out the present owners are not the ones seeking historic status and in fact oppose the filing.

So it seems they are focusing on selling to someone who will raze the structure.

-- but it doesn't look like Stage Center will last to see it.

Good.

FYI, the Stage Center property is now listed as for sale on the Grubb & Ellis (Mark Beffort) website.

"Price not disclosed".

noticed Lemke Land Surveying at this site today on my lunch break doing some work, something is in process.

noticed Lemke Land Surveying at this site today on my lunch break doing some work, something is in process.

That usually means the property has been sold.

Next post I want to see an update saying a flatbed has unloaded a few earth-movers.

Next post I want to see an update saying a flatbed has unloaded a few earth-movers.

The next post will point out the tiny pink flags marking the property boundary stakes.

The next post will point out the tiny pink flags marking the property boundary stakes.

Were you joking or did you see them out there before I did today? And they aren't tiny pink flags, they are stakes with pink flags on them.

Were you joking or did you see them out there before I did today? And they aren't tiny pink flags, they are stakes with pink flags on them.

Where's the picture? Lol

Where's the picture? Lol

Pink stakes really aren't picture worthy to me. I did take a pic of the four story building going in north of St. Anthony's. Just don't know where to post it. Don't know what it is.

Were you joking or did you see them out there before I did today? And they aren't tiny pink flags, they are stakes with pink flags on them.

I live a thousand miles away so I still haven't seen them. Clearly though, the property has sold. Probably bought by some LLC with an encryptic name so it will likely be sometime before we know who and for what purpose.

Pete will ferret out a sale if there was one. We had pink tied stakes surrounding the property to the east of the new Maywood apartments a few weeks ago, however, and there was no evidence the land had been sold.

No recorded sale as of yet.

Often, properties are surveyed when they are put up for sale or plan to be sold.

Prospective buyers want to see as much as they can about any property before putting in a bid.

We may see demo before a transaction...

We may see demo before a transaction...

Have you heard something?

We may see demo before a transaction...

Come on, Cough it up ! or maybe go to the mystery tower thread........