View Full Version : Gold Dome



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14]

Jake
12-23-2024, 08:58 AM
Perfect location for one of those A&W/Long John Silver combinations. Or maybe like one of those small banks you've never heard of anyone actually using.

Dob Hooligan
12-23-2024, 09:01 AM
this property is worth more as demo'ed blank slate ..

Again, I was referring to his efforts in Wichita, which appears to be something more akin to the Tower Theater in size and midblock configuration. His threat to tear it down on December 4th if the city doesn't approve his expansion plan on the 3rd looks like a poorly thought-out, empty threat.

Midtowner
12-23-2024, 10:25 AM
Perfect location for one of those A&W/Long John Silver combinations. Or maybe like one of those small banks you've never heard of anyone actually using.

I mean you kid, but within 10 years, that'll be the location of a pretty great Pho restaurant.

Rover
12-23-2024, 10:30 AM
Slightly different.

Only slightly.

Yes, nearly the same in cultural impact, historical value, property value, architectural value, …..

jn1780
12-23-2024, 11:30 AM
Slightly different.

Only slightly.

And it wouldn't be reopened today if France tried to use a TIF in the same way and 'hoped' a developer restored it. The government had to just eat the full the cost to rebuild it.

If we really wanted to do the same with Gold Dome we are better off doing the same thing and not screw around with a TIF and middlemen.

Dob Hooligan
12-23-2024, 12:27 PM
And it wouldn't be reopened today if France tried to use a TIF in the same way and 'hoped' a developer restored it. The government had to just eat the full the cost to rebuild it.

If we really wanted to do the same with Gold Dome we are better off doing the same thing and not screw around with a TIF and middlemen.

I think France got hundreds of millions of Euros privately donated from all over the world. Probably the largest amount of non-government donations to a building restoration in history.

Mott
12-23-2024, 12:36 PM
From a CNN article, The cost of rebuilding Notre Dame is expected to be approximately 700 million euros ($767 million). In total, 846 million euros ($928 million) were raised in donations from 340,000 donors in 150 countries, according to Rebuilding Notre Dame de Paris.

Rover
12-23-2024, 01:12 PM
And it wouldn't be reopened today if France tried to use a TIF in the same way and 'hoped' a developer restored it. The government had to just eat the full the cost to rebuild it.

If we really wanted to do the same with Gold Dome we are better off doing the same thing and not screw around with a TIF and middlemen.

Talk about apples and oranges.

People need to get out and see the real world and put some things in perspective.

Midtowner
12-24-2024, 09:39 AM
And it wouldn't be reopened today if France tried to use a TIF in the same way and 'hoped' a developer restored it. The government had to just eat the full the cost to rebuild it.

If we really wanted to do the same with Gold Dome we are better off doing the same thing and not screw around with a TIF and middlemen.

Because this analogy DEMANDS to be tortured into oblivion... and to fine tune your analogy:

It's more like there is a middle man who after Notre Dame had its fire, who purchased the property from the Church and then demanded that Paris pay him double what he paid for the property and only THEN could they have a chance to restore it--and he wasn't chipping in on that at all.

Yeah. I agree. I'd rather the city declare the property blighted and take it at whatever its fair market value is, and either develop it as a municipal project or move it through urban renewal, which is almost certainly less than the cost of the TIF being demanded.

BDP
12-24-2024, 12:31 PM
I mean you kid, but within 10 years, that'll be the location of a pretty great Pho restaurant.

More likely a gas station with dozens of pumps with a wide variety of energy drinks and brown food. The closest OnCue will be a whole 10 blocks away and the Casey's across the street is too small for a proper beef jerky selection.

Midtowner
12-24-2024, 04:43 PM
Probably spot on, but I'm not sure how many gas stations will still be around 10 years from now given the way EVs are progressing.

But that's another subject.

Simply put, this is basically extortion, i.e., give us money or the property gets it.

The city needs to come up with some guidelines and a process ASAP to avoid these sorts of situations. A renewed urban renewal authority with expanded powers and a competitive bidding system which is blind as to the identiies of the bidders such that Moshe Tal could win a bid in this city is in order.

CaptDave
12-25-2024, 08:05 AM
Probably spot on, but I'm not sure how many gas stations will still be around 10 years from now given the way EVs are progressing.


Speaking of.....in a world where EV adoption was moving faster, it would make a very cool EV charging center like the ones Ionna is planning.

https://www.ionna.com

Midtowner
12-25-2024, 12:57 PM
Speaking of.....in a world where EV adoption was moving faster, it would make a very cool EV charging center like the ones Ionna is planning.

https://www.ionna.com

That's a pretty awesome concept! I'm mildly skeptical as I rarely charge outside the home. It would seem more like something to put near the interstate.

jn1780
12-26-2024, 09:13 AM
Because this analogy DEMANDS to be tortured into oblivion... and to fine tune your analogy:

It's more like there is a middle man who after Notre Dame had its fire, who purchased the property from the Church and then demanded that Paris pay him double what he paid for the property and only THEN could they have a chance to restore it--and he wasn't chipping in on that at all.

Yeah. I agree. I'd rather the city declare the property blighted and take it at whatever its fair market value is, and either develop it as a municipal project or move it through urban renewal, which is almost certainly less than the cost of the TIF being demanded.

It was a bad analogy I admit. But the main point I was trying to make is if government is going to intervene because a 'building is historical' might as well invest directly into the building and then RFP it.

Midtowner
12-26-2024, 09:30 PM
It was a bad analogy I admit. But the main point I was trying to make is if government is going to intervene because a 'building is historical' might as well invest directly into the building and then RFP it.

We're agreeing and using different words.

I'd have the city aquire it and fix it up. It'd make a nice not-for-profit hub. I think that was a designated proposed use years ago. It could be a business incubator.

I'd love for the city to start looking for ways to screw over speculators. They serve no useful purpose other than to delay development and drive costs much higher. The property is blighted in every sense of the word and could be taken by the city. I doubt a speculator who has sat on the property for years is going to be able to make a great case for the price he is demanding.

But yeah, RFP it. Fine. And don't consider anything which is relying on public money to bail them out.

Teo9969
12-28-2024, 05:15 PM
Probably spot on, but I'm not sure how many gas stations will still be around 10 years from now given the way EVs are progressing.

But that's another subject.

Simply put, this is basically extortion, i.e., give us money or the property gets it.

The city needs to come up with some guidelines and a process ASAP to avoid these sorts of situations. A renewed urban renewal authority with expanded powers and a competitive bidding system which is blind as to the identiies of the bidders such that Moshe Tal could win a bid in this city is in order.

On the other hand, the city is young enough that we're running out of places worth saving lol.


Of "properties" that I think are worthy of TIF, this one is in my Top 10. But it is really sad to see these kinds of things. Sad we can't be more creative about solutions to the problems we face.

Rover
12-30-2024, 08:54 PM
Has anyone done a realistic and comprehensive engineering analysis of the structural and mechanical issues that need to be mitigated just to make the building stable and usable for any real use? Any realistic budget?

Paseofreak
12-30-2024, 10:56 PM
I can’t imagine getting as far as the folks pushing the latest plans being ballyhooed about have gone without one but there are a bunch of fools and schisters out there. That work is no small or inexpensive undertaking and I doubt the investigation or the findings would be made public even if TIF funding is involved as any negative findings could red flags in the deal.

bombermwc
12-31-2024, 07:57 AM
We've entered the realm of the entire reason that IM Pei was welcomed to OKC by the council. Old structures that are screaming for someone to use them, but can't seem to attract anyone. Abandoned, fenced off, bringing the vibe down all the while being historic (Biltmore Hotel....Carnegie Library). Fast Forward to today, and we're still having this same battle. One benefit we have now is the ability to look back at what Pei did and see how brutal and awful it was...and frankly damaging.

We've already lost some other good gems in the city with promises from developers. Or as said above, a unique bank seen nowhere else in OKC, for an Oncue. "New" isn't always better. But what do you do when you can't seem to get anyone to bite to develop the thing into something that is meaningful for today's use? Banks don't look like this anymore. It's not practical for any sort of office space either. While i would applaud the use being suggested here, I'm skeptical that it would be able to survive long term.

Personally, I'm wondering if the city could purchase this and instead turn it into some sort of community action center. Think a resource connector as a non-profit. Connect people with needs to the resources they need. That kind of office space that isn't relying on a profit, could work. And being a part of the city, well we know it would be well maintained. But we would also all have to support any sort of tax effort needed to rehab the building. Or maybe even a small library. Yes downtown is pretty close, but this would be IN the neighborhood.

I dont think there's any appetite for the city to grant any sort of demo permit for the thing. So from that side, i think we're safe unless someone does it without asking. And if they do that, there needs to be financial hell to pay to make it cost them many times over what it would have otherwise. Disincentivize the choice. But no matter that commercial effort goes in here, it's only temporary until that concept flounders and we're back here again waiting for the next "thing" to try. At some point, I unfortunately think we will probably exhaust the patience of the city on that demo permit if it just continues to sit. Someone remind me, but I don't think its on the historic register is it?

Rover
12-31-2024, 08:26 AM
Can there be measurable, objective criteria determined by which to judge a property to make it a protected class… not based on age/history, but on cultural significance. Obviously, history is an important cultural ingredient, but not the only one. If those properties that meet the criteria could be deemed as such, then maybe legal protection can be afforded them.

Perhaps there might be established a status whereby those properties are required an engineering analysis every 5 years or so and if found deficient, the owner given a time determined by the study to remediate and cure. If they fail, then the city could force the owner to sell to another who would cure, or the city start preparing to acquire at price equal to their tax valuation.

Perhaps properties with this designation could be given property tax breaks like tif as long as they meet the criteria. Reward investors for buying and maintaining these key buildings properly and punish them for buy and hold to disrepair and demolish.

Just spitballing here. Have no idea if legal or possible. It just seems we need to be proactive to protect while giving investors the opportunity to make money on risky investments in key projects important to our culture.

bombermwc
01-02-2025, 02:57 PM
I can safely say I dont see anything like that ever happening in the US. Too much "government overreach" taking property using a fluid determination of reason to do so (the fluid nature of engineering determinations). Not to mention the just completely massive amount of government employees it would take to run that type of aggressive audit cycle and then the overhead for the sells/etc. Talk about taxes just to create government jobs. I'm not commenting on if i think I agree or not, but in an extremely red "shrink the government regulation" state....that dies on the doorstep.

I dont think that to register something to the historic registry, that the owner has to be involved. i THINK the property can be nominated by others, especially if it's in danger. The owner, like the case of Chase, didn't want it on the register because it would mean they couldn't doze it.

Here's where it gets sticky.....and SOOOO many properties fall into this state before either a city or a state or someone like that almost has to step in to make SOMETHING happen. Think of malls like Heritage Park or the Dome. They are privately owned, they sit for years boarded up while the elements do their thing. Eventually, the elements win and the structure become deficient because of the bad ownership (who may have had that in mind all along) making it capable of being demo'd. Eventually someone like the city has to step in to force movement because the owner refuses to sell to anyone and refuses or is unable to finance doing anything meaningful to the property. First National was just barely hanging on before it was rescued. It's a tale as old as the towers.

It's slippery to balance that private ownership and them doing "whatever they want" with the property they own. And the supposed greater good of the community that doesn't have a direct financial link but may have a cultural link to the place.

Urbanized
01-02-2025, 03:34 PM
^^^^^^^^^
Inclusion on the National Register of Public Places does very little to protect a building from the bulldozer. The only real protection offered is that it couldn't be demolished in favor of a project receiving federal monies. For instance a highway project or a public building project receiving federal funding. I'm not saying it's toothless; if nothing else it validates the historic nature of a building and usually brings a bit more peer pressure from the community. But it isn't the level of protection most folks seem to think it is.