Housing
Central Business District



no



Address: 601 W. Robert S Kerr (http://goo.gl/maps/bF0zy)
Status: complete
Owner: Fretwell Enterprises
Cost:
Architect:
Start Date:
Finish Date: 1985
Contractor:
Height in Feet / Floors: 3 stories
Sq. Feet:
Acreage:
Other: 71 apartments

http://www.okctalk.com/images/wikiphotos/ssaparts1.jpg


Information & Latest News
Sycamore Square was developed in the early 80's as a 118-unit for-sale condominium complex.

However, after poor sales, the southern section was purchased in it's entirety and is now operated as an apartment complex

The north section is still individually-owned condos and are completely separate from the apartments to the south: Sycamore Square Condominiums.
Links
County Assessor Record (http://www.oklahomacounty.org/assessor/Searches/AN-R.asp?ACCOUNTNO=R012884200)
Property website (http://g.co/maps/7dvtq)
Gallery

This place doesn't seem to be getting any attention from the forum, so I'm posting a few of the pics from their website ::Sycamore Square :: (http://www.sycamoresquaresouth.com)

http://www.sycamoresquaresouth.com/images/Downtown.jpg

http://www.sycamoresquaresouth.com/images/galleries/Outdoor2.jpg

http://www.sycamoresquaresouth.com/images/galleries/Outdoor1.jpg

http://www.sycamoresquaresouth.com/images/galleries/Outdoor3.jpg

http://www.sycamoresquaresouth.com/images/galleries/Outdoor4.jpg

http://www.sycamoresquaresouth.com/images/galleries/Outdoor5.jpg

http://www.sycamoresquaresouth.com/images/galleries/Den1.jpg

http://www.sycamoresquaresouth.com/images/galleries/LivingRoom2.jpg

http://www.sycamoresquaresouth.com/images/galleries/Bedroom1.jpg

http://www.sycamoresquaresouth.com/images/galleries/Kitchen1.jpg

http://www.sycamoresquaresouth.com/images/galleries/LivingRoom3.jpg

http://www.sycamoresquaresouth.com/images/galleries/GuestBedroom1.jpg

So what's the scuttlebut about this place? Any good? Certainly looks nice in the photos.

It stays full because the demand for downtown housing is high, but it certainly doesn't add to the public realm. With newer complexes coming on-line surrounded by everyday retail and services it will be interesting to see is they can keep up.

Remember these are two separate complexes...

There are the Sycamore Square Apartments, which are institutionally owned and operated like any apartment complex. This is the southern section.

Then there are the Sycamore Square Condominiums, which are individually owned and directly north, but completely separated.

I lived in the North complex for a few years and rented from a couple that lived elsewhere and rented their unit out. Mine was the 2-bed, 2-bath with the master bedroom having a office type area attached. I really liked living there on several levels - cool space, didn't feel like a big boxy apartment complex, great location, felt secure, pretty grounds and I like renting from an invested owner. What I didn't like was..... paying rent (think it was $850 even back then - 15yrs ago), hated having to park so far from my car, the pool was to shallow to swim in, they turned the hot tub off in the winter (said it cost too much to run when it was cold outside!), not much convenient guest parking. That said, we've considered moving back there if we sell our house and haven't found anything downtown yet. While I like the garage parking and updated looks of the insides of the newer units in the Deep Deuce area (and even next door to Sycamore Sq.), I hate feeling like I'm inside a complex with all the units and halls.

Some of the condos have sold for $100K or less recently.

The layout is suburban but it's a great location and the floorplans are decent. Buy, renovate and have an awesome downtown condo for less than $150K.

Management, at least four years ago was pretty incompetent. After we moved out (after living there for five years), they accused us of stealing a washer/dryer unit. About 3 years in, we bought our own because the washer/dryer units they provided were terrible. They tried to make us pay for it. It never went beyond exchanging a few letters, where I basically invited them to try to sue me and they didn't, but accusing a long-time tenant who you know for a fact had his own w/d unit of stealing your piece of junk 1980s unit. Enjoyed the location, but the service and management left something to be desired.

Some of the condos have sold for $100K or less recently.

The layout is suburban but it's a great location and the floorplans are decent. Buy, renovate and have an awesome downtown condo for less than $150K.

But then they are stuck in a complex where units are going for 100K while better stuff is being built all around. If 100K is their price range then it is great, but if someone thinks they are going to low-ball their price point and be happy in 5 to 10 years they will be in for a disappointment. If the choice was between SS and a house for 100K, I would pick SS in a second.

Prices are going up at SS...

About 10 years ago you could buy for under $60K.

Prices are going up at SS...

About 10 years ago you could buy for under $60K.

Maybe I should look into it. The wife had the idea today that we if we stay here in Jax she would be open to getting a condo in downtown OKC so we could live in both places. If/when Deep Deuce Apartments go condo I wonder how much they will cost.

It stays full because the demand for downtown housing is high, but it certainly doesn't add to the public realm. With newer complexes coming on-line surrounded by everyday retail and services it will be interesting to see is they can keep up.

I think there are a lot of redeeming qualities to this development, especially as they area south and north redevelops..ie., around Bicentennial and SoSA. Maybe you could call this area, as well as David Wanzer and Jeff Bezdek's new developments "SoSoSA"

Thanks for posting those photos. I lived next door at Legacy, and always thought of Sycamore as quite a bit more run down. But maybe that was an unfair assessment.

Also, I had no clue that there were condos. My only reason for moving away from Legacy was that I no longer wanted to rent. I'm selling my house soon, though, and am looking to get a condo near downtown. I will look into SS.

I think there are a lot of redeeming qualities to this development, especially as they area south and north redevelops..ie., around Bicentennial and SoSA. Maybe you could call this area, as well as David Wanzer and Jeff Bezdek's new developments "SoSoSA"

Maybe SubSoSa - Suburban South of St Anthony

Same situation with Classen Glen

Is there an on-line listing of Sycamore Sq condos for sale?

According to Relator.com, it doesn't seem like any units are currently on the market.

Weird.... can't 'reply with quote' (just get a spinning ball). I lived in Classen Glen for awhile too. Really liked my unit (too few windows though) and loved the covered parking, but that's where the love affair ended. I could hear my neighbors all the time and the place was pretty dirty and unkept on the outside. Doesn't look like much has changed over the years. Good potential though.

Maybe SubSoSa - Suburban South of St Anthony

Huh?

Huh?

Sycamore Sq is suburban land use south of St Anthony's.

Oh come on, it's an antiquated development, it is the way it is...but the area has an interesting up and coming collection of development synergy that I was referring to. I think from the hill over 5th Street, that skyline view is going to become pretty valuable.

When the area becomes urbanized I'll change the name. Until then, it is what it is.

JTF, You must be SHOCKED to go to NYC/Manhattan and find grass, open areas, plazas, trees, gardens, flowers, 1 and 2 story buildings, set-backs, mega blocks, etc. Anything you have a personal dislike for you want eradicated or modified in the name of new urban. And yet when you vote with your money you are a suburbanite...go figure.

This development provides a choice for people who want to be downtown. It has been there when there were few other choices. There really shouldn't be any controversy. If anybody thinks the center of OKC is just going to be mid and high rises built to the street they are just delusional. And when the core is that in 50-100 years, some will still be griping about the developments on the edge of the core being too suburban.

SOSA provides an affordable area for individuals to be near downtown, have great views, develop their own property, and become part of an emerging neighborhood. Rebuilding this blighted area in a creative way will move more people into the business area of downtown and keep providing energy for the rest of downtown. We should want from Sycamore to Saint Anthony's to erase the blight, provide good infill and help make all of downtown more valuable and exciting.

Come on Rover - there is no need for you over the top comments. All I said was Sycamore Sq has a suburban land use pattern. Even you admit that it does.

I just don't like demeaning any downtown developments that WORK. If someone wants to move downtown, and likes a Sycamore Square unit, I think that's something to be supportive of.

This is different from attacking a Randy Hogan or House of Bedlam development that want to eat up prime land for crap. Sycamore was built decades ago when it was the only housing option around downtown, and it's just out of the way enough that its suburban design doesn't really harm anything.

It's our version of Tulsa's Central Park thing in their Uptown area (off S. Boulder I think).

So suburban land use patterns don't have a negative impact on the public realm?

Sycamore Square was a novel concept for OKC when it was built and was considered VERY urban at the time. I was here and I remember. Regardless of whether we like it or not, it is in existence. People own homes there. The location is great and I must admit I envy them their pool, even if it is shallow. That's the one thing I miss about urban living. There's plenty of open space for other concepts.

So suburban land use patterns don't have a negative impact on the public realm?

I think you have this thread mixed up with the one titled Sick of More

Though admittedly not urban, the apartments and grounds of the rental side are kept up incredibly well. The interior courtyard is wonderfully tranquil and feels like a well-shaded forest oasis. The pool is kept up year-round, so it is always clear and ready to go in the spring. Outdoor hot tub maintained and available year-round. The place feels very, VERY safe. The quality of construction is also way beyond what you see these days. Brick on pretty much every horizontal surface outside, which keeps it quiet inside. Amazingly huge windows (wall-to-wall and nearly floor-to-ceiling in some cases) lead to some pretty spectacular views for some units.

Perhaps a failure from an urbanist, streetlife-generating aspect, but I can promise you that tenants there feel like they are in on a big secret.

I don't know much about the condo side, which is apparently a mirror image. I have heard it is not kept up quite as well. My dad's wife had a condo she bought there from Boatmen's Bank (used by them as a corporate condo) in the the mid-90s. She bought it to fix up and flip, and I think she did fairly well with that. She wanted me to buy it, but instead I bought my first house.

Come on Rover - there is no need for you over the top comments. All I said was Sycamore Sq has a suburban land use pattern. Even you admit that it does.

Everyone who would like to live downtown doesn't want just concrete surrounding them. Urban living doesn't have to have such a rigid definition. If everything downtown was like SS, then yes, it would be wrong. To expect everything downtown to follow the very narrow and rigid definition of what you have that is appropriate is, in my opinion, too antiseptic. You preach diversity by only want YOUR definition of diversity. As some point this development will be leveled because the land will become too valuable and the maintenance costs too high. THEN we can work to put a more dense and "urban" development on it. But until land reaches that level of value, SS is just fine and a good alternative living near downtown.

If I recall correctly, the original design for Sycamore Square included at least one, maybe two mid-rise buildings. They were never built after the initial apartments did not sell well. I believe the mid-rise buildings were going to built on the west side of the current complex. Does anybody have any information about this?

I believe that is correct, and that the mid- or high-rise buildings were supposed to be where Legacy is today but fell victim to the oil bust of the '80s. I think Steve has more info on this.

If I recall correctly, the original design for Sycamore Square included at least one, maybe two mid-rise buildings. They were never built after the initial apartments did not sell well. I believe the mid-rise buildings were going to built on the west side of the current complex. Does anybody have any information about this?

I can check. I know one of the developers.

If there were towers included I'll bet they were radiant towers (towers in a park).

Drove past SS square and the north side had two realtor signs out front. I'll probably call in the next day or two. I lived there when I met my wife and she said the other day she'd prefer us buying there than renting at any of the units we've visited downtown.

I'll let you know what the current prices are.

Drove past SS square and the north side had two realtor signs out front. I'll probably call in the next day or two. I lived there when I met my wife and she said the other day she'd prefer us buying there than renting at any of the units we've visited downtown.

I'll let you know what the current prices are.

Thank you.

http://www.oklahoman.com/article/3922013?embargo=1

This may not be a significant development but it is interesting.


Justin Wilson, a multifamily investment specialist with Newmark Grubb Levy Strange Beffort, represented both the sellers and the buyers with the 59-unit complex hitting a price of $108,898 per unit. Also representing the sellers were David Burnett and Andy Burnett, also with Newmark Grubb Levy Strange Beffort. The buyers consist of GFO Cos., which owns several apartment communities in the city, and NIMES Capital, which owns the downtown Sheraton Hotel.

Managing partner Rohan Gupta said plans include renovations and upgrades.

^

Interesting that the complex sold at just of $100K per unit.

The condos in Sycamore Square North have been selling for quite a bit more than that.

http://www.oklahoman.com/article/3922013?embargo=1

This may not be a significant development but it is interesting.

I'm glad they sold. I looked at them recently and I think they interiors could definitely use an update.

Looks like a generic suburban apartment complex to me. Seeing this and Legacy as compared to the Metropolitan really show how much the standard has changed in the past decade. This should continue to do well due to how hot the downtown housing market is right now but there will come a time when they will need to give the place a facelift if they want to keep up.

These were built in the early 80's and were the first new housing downtown in a long time.

I actually looked at them when they first opened and for the time, they were quite nice.

However, they are now 30 years old. The condos (the north section) would easily be renovated inside to be nice, although the layout of the complex is distinctly suburban.

More California based ownership. Hopefully the "upgrades" are better than what the California ownership attempted with First National.

$230,000 building permit to turn 12 units into 24.

Good idea as many of the units are quite large, as they were developed as condos.


This would take the # of units from 59 to 71.

Here are the plans on converting 12 2-bedroom plans to 24 1-bedroom.

This will take the number of units from 59 to 71.


http://www.okctalk.com/attachments/development-buildings/6992d1394721735-sycamore-square-apartments-ss1.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/attachments/development-buildings/6993d1394721736-sycamore-square-apartments-ss2.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/attachments/development-buildings/6994d1394721737-sycamore-square-apartments-ss3.jpg

If you had ever spent any significant time (I have) in one of these two bedrooms you would disagree about it being a welcome change. Until the recent spate of building these apartments legitimately qualified as an upscale property as far as downtown and even the community at large is concerned. I think if you spoke with anyone who lives (or has lived) at Sycamore they would call it the best-kept secret downtown.

I know that from the outside Sycamore violates abou 20 rules of urbanism, but inside it is a really nice, super-quiet urban oasis. It is hard to believe you're in the city when you are inside the courtyard. The interior finishes could be upgraded, but I think these changes will DOWNGRADE the overall tenant mix to the point where it will lose the stability has enjoyed and it will become a low-end property instead of one that (still) holds its own with newer and fresher complexes.

If you had been inside a two bedroom you would know how tiny that "unit A" studio will end up being. It will be New York tiny on a sprawling suburban-type property, which it think is a terrible recipe. This isn't about quality; it's about squeezing a few extra bucks out of a place that stays fully leased without having to spend much on upgrades.

I looked at these back in 2005 when I found I'd be staying in OKC. They were awesome, but I couldn't justify paying for the extra space and duplicate amenities when I really wanted to live without a room mate. I'll bet that there are a lot of folks out there that feel as I do. If they'd built one bedroom units like the two bedroom ones I'd have jumped all over it.

I agree. Bad call by management here, especially considering that demand for larger units in downtown is and will increase over time. I actually was considering Sycamore Square at one point because they did have larger 2 BR units.

To clarify, this is only 12 units being sub-divided of the 58 apartments.

There are also 58 condos in the complex directly north.

The primary investor apparently eventually wants to convert all two bedrooms in Sycamore to one bedroom apartments. Whether or not this will happen remains to be seen.

Any idea on what they have planned for exterior updates? I know the north complex is about to undergo a complete exterior renovation but they don't seem to have any renderings as of yet.

Nothing has been submitted for design review, which is usually the first step.

These really are great properties that are getting better as the area around them develops.


There is an RFP for the vacant lot nearby at 4th & Shartel and next week OCURA will announce the proposal(s). Count on more new housing.

Last I heard, they are in the early stages of making plans for a significant exterior upgrade.

I anxiously await the announcement for 4th & Shartel. Very excited to see this area take shape.

Nothing has been submitted for design review, which is usually the first step.

These really are great properties that are getting better as the area around them develops.


There is an RFP for the vacant lot nearby at 4th & Shartel and next week OCURA will announce the proposal(s). Count on more new housing.

Expect to hear big news for this development!

I don't really know that housing is a sure bet. Downtown's business core is clearly growing west, rather than south as hoped. Shartel is not far from Walker. Mixed-use wouldn't surprise me at all.

I think this is where a corporate tower should go personally, rather than cramming them all together around Devon.

Lived in these for five years. It was great. They're really going to have parking issues.

It looks like they have changed the name of these to The Haven. New website and it looks like a lot of remodels are finished if not all of them. I wonder if this changes anything with the new part they were going to add?

The Haven (http://www.thehavenokc.com/)

10787

Toby Keith is going to have to update his song.

Is there a thread for The Haven now? For the life of me, I can't seem to find it.

Is there a thread for The Haven now? For the life of me, I can't seem to find it.

No, it's all just been lumped in here.