Lets shift our discussion away from saving the stage center, to maximizing the development of this valuable parcel of land.

We can all mostly agree that even this dreadfully disappointing proposal is still more valuable then the current stage center. However, the proposal is still a HUGE waste of the value of this land. Once this is developed, there is no going back.

This is the complete summation of my view points.

Agreed

I know exactly what he said, but let's not forget that what they showed was just rough draft sketchings. We have no clue what the final rendering will look like. My advice would be to wait and see if its "world class" when the real renderings are presented. Otherwise, you are making a huge issue over nothing at this point.

Yes, and the rough draft sketching was already very underwhelming. It went from at least 20 stories to 14-16. I hope youre right, and I am making a huge deal out of nothing but so far this does not past the "smell test".

Yes, and the rough draft sketching was already very underwhelming. It went from at least 20 stories to 14-16. I hope youre right, and I am making a huge deal out of nothing but so far this does not past the "smell test".

I would love to have the discussion stick with the 'replacement' but when the focus seems to center on building height I just don't know where we go from there. It seems like if he just added 20 stories to the current design all opposition would just melt away. In reality - the height difference between 16 stores and 36 stories should the LAST item of contention. There are so so many other consideration that should take priority over height.

1) Streetwall
2) retail space
3) Exterior lighting
4) Sidewalk interaction
5) Set backs
6) Curb cuts
7) parking ingress/egress
8) terminal view on California Ave
9) 10,000 things I can't think of right now
10,010) Building height

I'm not saying you're wrong, I know Rainey said that. Coov was responding to your post where you said In the context of that whole conversation, he never said HE thought it was world class or needed to be...you brought that into the discussion based on what Rainey said...not what coov said and accused coov of thinking it was world class. That is why coov responded "When did I say this was world class?"

So again...whether passion or hostility, chill...I'm sure he agrees, like the rest of us do, that this is not world class. However, some including myself, still think its a vast improvement over the stage center because there is really no doubting that unless you just love the stage center. I do hope the developement improves to include a larger tower and/or more buildings but given the street interaction, if built as proposed, I would be mostly ok with it. More mid-rise buildings isn't going to kill anyone, especially if more high rises are supposedly on the way (per Steve's article). Go down to FTW, a downtown that consists of mostly mid-rises, and tell me that downtown isn't cool.

Downtown FTW is great, but we are talking about what is best for the stage center site. If Rainey wasnt going to building something world class he should not have ran his mouth. My issue is with Williams over promising and so far (although it is very very early has under delivered). If he promised a 14-16 modern mid rise, I'd be okay with it. Why are we giving this guy a pass for not keeping his word??

^

Remember, however, that what he promised and proposed was part of a process whereby the foundation selected him as a developer.

There were other proposals and bids for this site.

Given the importance of what currently exists on this site and the massive public investment all around, I really wish OCURA would have bought the site from the foundation, then have gone through a proper public, RFP process with specific parameters.

Then, if the developer does not live up to it's end of the stated agreement, they can re-open the RFP.

I doubt OCURA wanted to be directly involved with the destruction of Stage Center.

Granted they are under new management, but is not like OCURA has a long track record of great projects either.

OCURA is a completely new animal since they've been merged with the Alliance for Economic Development and everything they've done under the new regime has been pretty darn good.

This is exactly the type of project they should be handling, otherwise there is no accountability to the public.

I didn't realize there was this relationship. Can you explain further?

I would love to have the discussion stick with the 'replacement' but when the focus seems to center on building height I just don't know where we go from there. It seems like if he just added 20 stories to the current design all opposition would just melt away. In reality - the height difference between 16 stores and 36 stories should the LAST item of contention. There are so so many other consideration that should take priority over height.

1) Streetwall
2) retail space
3) Exterior lighting
4) Sidewalk interaction
5) Set backs
6) Curb cuts
7) parking ingress/egress
8) terminal view on California Ave
9) 10,000 things I can't think of right now
10,010) Building height

I don't completely disagree with any of this but what has RW done so far in this process besides offer a proposal of a proposal to make you so confident all of your 10,000 + considerations will come to fruition? Or even be considered (besides parking, and good point Hoyasooner)

I know exactly what he said, but let's not forget that what they showed was just rough draft sketchings. We have no clue what the final rendering will look like. My advice would be to wait and see if its "world class" when the real renderings are presented. Otherwise, you are making a huge issue over nothing at this point.

I think there's a well established track record showing that the final product is much better when the public provides constructive criticism early in the process. If you wait too late to critique even early renderings it can be too late to meaningfully influence the direction of a project. So, I'd recommend against the "wait and see" approach.

In this case, I'd let those involved with this project know that it's not well received by the public and encourage them to make changes to their next rendering, not wait for it to be released.

This I can agree with. Those who know people involved in the process, please funnel the constructive criticism onward...

I've made the shift...thanks OKCTALK.COM for 2 years of anticipation...

I've made the shift...thanks OKCTALK.COM for 2 years of anticipation...

I would just as soon see that site sit empty till someone has the funds to build a real skyscraper there of at least 36 stories. A real 1st class Tower.

So,

The entire purpose of this development is so they can build a giant ass parking garage. This building has way more parking than OG&E needs. Rainey Williams has proposed the bare minimum just so they can put a public parking garage there.

Finally, someone has exposed their nefarious scheme. Rainey Williams was recently heard saying, "And I would've gotten away with it,too if hadn't been for that meddling kid, hoyasooner".

Hmmm...I wonder if there is a previously-hinted-at reason for that... *headscratch*

Finally, someone has exposed their nefarious scheme. Rainey Williams was recently heard saying, "And I would've gotten away with it,too if hadn't been for that meddling kid, hoyasooner".

Don't be a douche, it's Christmas.

Don't be a douche, it's Christmas.

Doesn't that apply to every day of the year preferably?

Like

Yes there is a lot of parking but the building is going to hold 1,000 people - plus however many go into tower 2, and let's not forget there is a convention center going in as well. Without a regional rail system in place how are people going to get downtown to these facilities? Answer - drive.

Don't be a douche, it's Christmas.

Have a sense of humor, it's Christmas.

On parking, isn't the southern half of that block potentially in play as well, not to mention other nearby space? Building extra parking to elase while one is building seems a right fair plan, so long as there is a reason to expect a reasonable return for the effort.

I don't completely disagree with any of this but what has RW done so far in this process besides offer a proposal of a proposal to make you so confident all of your 10,000 + considerations will come to fruition? Or even be considered (besides parking, and good point Hoyasooner)

Yes, there are a lot of valid concerns. Kerry is just saying the least of which should be the height, and I agree, and it sounds like a lot of us agree on this.

I'm not going to stand here and tell a developer that they can't build the development they can sell. This is the development that Rainey Williams is possibly, maybe, someday capable of selling. The 40-story tower of everyone's dreams is pretty clearly NOT the tower he can pull off.

Let's move past this "not tall enough" issue. The street interaction looks pretty good, actually. The lighting has the potential to be good, with the curtain wall element, and I'm sure they'll work that out. The parking egress/ingress is a MAJOR issue because it is absolutely vital that California's easement is kept clear so that we can reconnect it. Furthermore, a visionary should step in here and try and reconnect California now rather than "leave it for later." We're addressing this block now, so now is the time.

I'd even respect Rainey Williams for making an argument that he doesn't want to leave anything unresolved for the future with the investment he is making in this block. We need to respect that these guys are developers and not philanthropists and work with them and not against them. This development would be improved with extending California flush through and doing ingress/egress off of the new street, which is a win-win between the development and civic needs.

Height, however, is irrelevant. The public has the right to weigh in on several aspects of development, especially aspects that come into contact or conflict with other investments (especially public investments) OR public goals. The developer gets to decide how big of a bite he can chew.

Yes, there are a lot of valid concerns. Kerry is just saying the least of which should be the height, and I agree, and it sounds like a lot of us agree on this.

I'm not going to stand here and tell a developer that they can't build the development they can sell. This is the development that Rainey Williams is possibly, maybe, someday capable of selling. The 40-story tower of everyone's dreams is pretty clearly NOT the tower he can pull off.

Let's move past this "not tall enough" issue. The street interaction looks pretty good, actually. The lighting has the potential to be good, with the curtain wall element, and I'm sure they'll work that out. The parking egress/ingress is a MAJOR issue because it is absolutely vital that California's easement is kept clear so that we can reconnect it. Furthermore, a visionary should step in here and try and reconnect California now rather than "leave it for later." We're addressing this block now, so now is the time.

I'd even respect Rainey Williams for making an argument that he doesn't want to leave anything unresolved for the future with the investment he is making in this block. We need to respect that these guys are developers and not philanthropists and work with them and not against them. This development would be improved with extending California flush through and doing ingress/egress off of the new street, which is a win-win between the development and civic needs.

Height, however, is irrelevant. The public has the right to weigh in on several aspects of development, especially aspects that come into contact or conflict with other investments (especially public investments) OR public goals. The developer gets to decide how big of a bite he can chew.Yeah, but it's just too short.

Yeah, but it's just too short.I really agree, even if you're being sarcastic.

OK, Christmas is over. Everyone can go back to being a douche, if desired.

Have a sense of humor, it's Christmas.

I thought it was funny lol

OK, Christmas is over. Everyone can go back to being a douche, if desired.

By the way this is an urbanist forum, so anyone who isn't on board with that can go to... the politics forum.

By the way this is an urbanist forum, so anyone who isn't on board with that can go to... the politics forum.

Odd. Shout it from the rooftops all you want, but OKC is much more than an urbanist enclave, so I'd wager that OKC Talk is much more than an urbanist forum. I'm sure all points of views are welcome therein. Even the most recent re-arrangement seemed to remove the delineation between the CBD, the central urban ring, and the suburbs.

Because we're an urbanism forum...

There are no 200-page threads for mystery Walmarts.

Yeah, but it's just too short.
That's what she said.

But there would be if it were going to be an urban walmart. :-P

Because we're an urbanism forum...

There are no 200-page threads for mystery Walmarts.

The thread and information about Costco and the stuff happening on Memorial brought record-shattering traffic here. And the thread tracking Whole Foods was pretty epic.

Downtown is the one area that is common to everyone in a community but considering that only a tiny fraction of the Metro's population lives in the central core, there is also a lot of interest in things closer to home; it's just that those topics are more fractured due to the wide dispersion of population.

Because we're an urbanism forum...

There are no 200-page threads for mystery Walmarts.

Don't confuse interest in seeing OKC CBD succeed and thrive with wanting to live an urban lifestyle and / or discuss only that.

Yes, there are a lot of valid concerns. Kerry is just saying the least of which should be the height, and I agree, and it sounds like a lot of us agree on this.

I'm not going to stand here and tell a developer that they can't build the development they can sell. This is the development that Rainey Williams is possibly, maybe, someday capable of selling. The 40-story tower of everyone's dreams is pretty clearly NOT the tower he can pull off.

Let's move past this "not tall enough" issue. The street interaction looks pretty good, actually. The lighting has the potential to be good, with the curtain wall element, and I'm sure they'll work that out. The parking egress/ingress is a MAJOR issue because it is absolutely vital that California's easement is kept clear so that we can reconnect it. Furthermore, a visionary should step in here and try and reconnect California now rather than "leave it for later." We're addressing this block now, so now is the time.

I'd even respect Rainey Williams for making an argument that he doesn't want to leave anything unresolved for the future with the investment he is making in this block. We need to respect that these guys are developers and not philanthropists and work with them and not against them. This development would be improved with extending California flush through and doing ingress/egress off of the new street, which is a win-win between the development and civic needs.

Height, however, is irrelevant. The public has the right to weigh in on several aspects of development, especially aspects that come into contact or conflict with other investments (especially public investments) OR public goals. The developer gets to decide how big of a bite he can chew.


Thank you very much for an enlightening and respectful response! I wish I had as much faith in Rainey as you do. Is it not concerning though that once SC is gone he can do whatever he wants to the land? good, bad, or indifferent. (Which is fine because he paid over 4 million for it but geeze, I really hope he delivers) fingers crossed.

Spartan - for such a knowledgeable poster you sure seem to have quite a propensity for binary thinking, which is not conducive to intelligent dialogue. Maybe try posting less in absolutes, suspend your judgment, and allow room for complexity. You seem too smart to waste your time with perpetual self-affirmation.

FWIW Sparty was referencing a discussion in another thread and just giving me a hard time. That said I agree with Pete's position (and did so previously in the other thread...hence the comment). This is a community-wide forum and serves many masters, as it should. Oklahoma City is a multi-faceted city and without a doubt far more people exist in the suburbs than in the inner city. Those people are interested in what is going on in their part of the burg, and OKCTalk can/should serve as a place for their views too.

Obviously, however, the board is heavily populated with passionate urbanists. Not to mention that in recent years MOST of the exciting/worthwhile development has been concentrated in the city center, which of course serves to further engage those of us who are mostly interested in urban development. In our exuberance it is sometimes easy to forget that the other lifestyle exists and has an audience (and proponents) on this board.

And - this is strictly an editorial comment - I think the urban-minded also tend to be a little more detail-obsessed when it comes to their community, while suburban thinking tends to encourage a macro view at best and disengagement at worst. That's probably another reason why urbanists post on this board in disproportionate numbers as compared to the general population, which in OKC is literally well past 100 to 1 suburban.

By the way this is an urbanist forum, so anyone who isn't on board with that can go to... the politics forum.So is that your new thing now... to say this is an urbanist forum go somewhere else. :rolleyes:

I can understand most of the frustrations on here. For 2 years we have heard about the new tower or towers. We have all had a sense of excitement like little kids at Christmas. What we are now looking at is a really nice Mid Rise, not a skyscraper. If this was on another location I think we would have few complaints, but on this prime piece of property we all feel cheated. I love OKC and the improvements that have been made and constantly root for this place to boom like an Austin, Charlotte, or Nashville.

I have come to the conclusion that it just isn't going to ever happen. We have a stigma that just can't be overcome and destined to stay a flyover city to most everyone. The OKC Thunder has been a blessing and a boost but we need soooo much more. We need to change our mentalities of being average to becoming great. We always hear why we can't do this or do that and when something is done, it is usually never as it was planned because we try to do everything on the cheap. In the end it just costs us dearly. Bricktown is good but could be great. Many of our current and future projects could be ok but most likely not great. If we want to be "world class" and get the word out around the globe, we need to dream and do things big.

I was watching the youtube video called "sleepwalking Austin" and it just made me more disgusted because we could be more like that if we had the right people making the right decisions. I attached the link for you to watch. We needed a couple nice, vibrant skyscrapers on this property and the boulevard needs to top notch. This place needs to look and feel as if the place is alive and booming. Companies take notice of this stuff when looking at locating somewhere. We need to get on the Convention Center and full service hotel that adds even more to the skyline. We need to keep developing the river and connect it to downtown so that everything comes together. We could be world class but most of us are content with our motto "Oklahoma is OK" and I am tired of that mentality and it needs to change. I hope Rainey reads this and many people come together to begin the start of the biggest growth and boom in OKC and people nationally take notice.

Sleepwalking Austin - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6LkVmj8qYM)

I can understand most of the frustrations on here. For 2 years we have heard about the new tower or towers. We have all had a sense of excitement like little kids at Christmas. What we are now looking at is a really nice Mid Rise, not a skyscraper. If this was on another location I think we would have few complaints, but on this prime piece of property we all feel cheated. I love OKC and the improvements that have been made and constantly root for this place to boom like an Austin, Charlotte, or Nashville.

I have come to the conclusion that it just isn't going to ever happen. We have a stigma that just can't be overcome and destined to stay a flyover city to most everyone. The OKC Thunder has been a blessing and a boost but we need soooo much more. We need to change our mentalities of being average to becoming great. We always hear why we can't do this or do that and when something is done, it is usually never as it was planned because we try to do everything on the cheap. In the end it just costs us dearly. Bricktown is good but could be great. Many of our current and future projects could be ok but most likely not great. If we want to be "world class" and get the word out around the globe, we need to dream and do things big.

I was watching the youtube video called "sleepwalking Austin" and it just made me more disgusted because we could be more like that if we had the right people making the right decisions. I attached the link for you to watch. We needed a couple nice, vibrant skyscrapers on this property and the boulevard needs to top notch. This place needs to look and feel as if the place is alive and booming. Companies take notice of this stuff when looking at locating somewhere. We need to get on the Convention Center and full service hotel that adds even more to the skyline. We need to keep developing the river and connect it to downtown so that everything comes together. We could be world class but most of us are content with our motto "Oklahoma is OK" and I am tired of that mentality and it needs to change. I hope Rainey reads this and many people come together to begin the start of the biggest growth and boom in OKC and people nationally take notice.

Sleepwalking Austin - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6LkVmj8qYM)

Are you bchris in disguise??

You are entitled to your opinion. But Jesus, what a self wallowing pity party this thread has become.

Do you forget this city just completed a $750 million tower taller than anything in Austin not even two years ago?

Have you forgotten the 9 figures in investments downtown alone has gotten since MAPs was passed?

Everyone has gotten hung up on the height of this thing but true interaction occurs at the street level fyi.

I am a transplant to OKC but I have never understood the strain of self-hate that runs through this city.

Are you bchris in disguise??

He is not me, but I do agree with much of what he says. I will avoid going into specifics, but will say if OKC is to ever truly boom like Charlotte, Nashville, etc, it has to be able to offer a quality of life that competes with those cities.

Sorry you feel that way Adaniel. I was just stating my opinion and I believe it to be true. I even said I am happy with the changes and things already done. I DO however think we tend to have the wrong mentality and don't dream big like we should. I think we are doing good but not great. OKC tends to skimp and scale down so many things- Devon not included. We need to look and feel vibrant and others will notice and it becomes infectious. We need to bring in major attractions to become a destination and when they are here they will look at our new skyline full of life, our park, core to shore developments, and think this city it pretty cool. I know that the height is not the biggest issue but it is a certainly an issue. It does nothing as promised and will add nothing to the skyline basically from any distance. It is very average that any mid size city could throw up and not the world class type development we all anticipated. Hope that clears up my last post a little better. OKC needs things like this because sometimes perception actually becomes reality! OKC needs to boom and the world needs to see it.

Put me in the camp that is not obsessed with height. But to echo one of soondoc's comments, Rainey Williams did promise that this project would be "world class." Anyone think that term applies?

While I'd like for this to be taller as well, in the end, I dont see how another few hundred feet of height on this one building will all of a sudden make us a "boom town". There are so many developments planned all over the metro and in downtown that I am quite happy with our growth rate. Downtown will grow to the west, and to the river. It won't happen overnight. the vast majority of MAPS 3 projects have not even broke ground.

I would hate to grow too fast and end up with Austin traffic. The changes in the past 10 years have been astounding. The next 10 hold even more promise. Very proud of our city. To reiterate: I still wouldn't mind stage center tower being another 100 ft taller.

I think many people including the newer members (and younger crowd) to OKCTalk have been spoiled by OKC having the Devon Tower built. Anything that is not even 1/2 the height of the Devon Tower is seen as a major disappointment by many because of the ridiculous expectations Devon has put on us for development. 5 years ago this project would have created INSANE excitement on this message board. Now we have critics who are not in development saying this is a disappointment? And suddenly we have rumors of multiple development projects downtown, so we feel like we can be picky and now allow this because there may be something better on the horizon? So far Rainey Williams is the ONLY one who has stepped up and written a check..

Agree to an extent, Nick, except that there were other suitors for the site that did not win. If Rainey's plan always had the highest and best use of those, great. But it would be interesting to know the other suitors and if they had substantively similar or better plans for this site. Hopefully Rainey did not bait-and-switch (not saying he did, we don't know that yet and won't for some time) with a "world class" promise he never intended to fulfill, whereas one of those other suitors might have followed through...

Agree to an extent, Nick, except that there were other suitors for the site that did not win. If Rainey's plan always had the highest and best use of those, great. But it would be interesting to know the other suitors and if they had substantively similar or better plans for this site. Hopefully Rainey did not bait-and-switch (not saying he did, we don't know that yet and won't for some time) with a "world class" promise he never intended to fulfill, whereas one of those other suitors might have followed through...

Agree with this. What people don't want is this to be a repeat of what happened with Lower Bricktown. That is, the developer to promise the moon but actually develop the most basic, minimal, lackluster development they can get away with. Considering how other OKC developments, Devon not withstanding, turned out, people have the right to be cynical.

Sorry you feel that way Adaniel. I was just stating my opinion and I believe it to be true. I even said I am happy with the changes and things already done. I DO however think we tend to have the wrong mentality and don't dream big like we should. I think we are doing good but not great. OKC tends to skimp and scale down so many things- Devon not included. We need to look and feel vibrant and others will notice and it becomes infectious. We need to bring in major attractions to become a destination and when they are here they will look at our new skyline full of life, our park, core to shore developments, and think this city it pretty cool. I know that the height is not the biggest issue but it is a certainly an issue. It does nothing as promised and will add nothing to the skyline basically from any distance. It is very average that any mid size city could throw up and not the world class type development we all anticipated. Hope that clears up my last post a little better. OKC needs things like this because sometimes perception actually becomes reality! OKC needs to boom and the world needs to see it.

Agree. OKC needs to have big but achievable goals (sorry, we aren't hosting the Summer Olympics) and not settle for less simply because a developer thinks they can get away with it. Too many developments are proposed and then actually built as barely a shell of what was originally intended. The city should have held Randy Hogan to the standard he originally proposed for Lower Bricktown, and Rainey Williams should be held to the standard he himself set for his development.

Rainey Williams should be held to the standard he himself set for his development.

Well... depends on what we define as his standard I suppose. If it's his site master plan, okay. If it's his "world class" statement, not sure how we hold him to that. Somewhere in between would be okay with me.

I agree that height is far from the only issue, but it IS an important aspect of this type of downtown development.

I said this before but given the massive public investment all around this site, the limited amount of property fronting the awesome Myriad Gardens and the fact the community will be losing an architectural icon (love it or hate it) and that it is the first major private development since the amazing Devon Energy Center and the completion of most of Project 180 -- the community is entitled to some expectations, especially given the "world class high-rise" proclamation by the developer.

People have the right to expect at least one -- and probably all three -- of the following; and as far as we can tell at this point, this project don't hit any of these:
1. Substantial height that adds to the city's skyline in such a way that the average citizen, visitor or viewer of images would recognize it as a clear sign of progress and prosperity
2. Adding something of significance in terms of public use and access: great retail, indoor atrium, views of the park, etc.
3. New employer and/or significant number of new jobs

The point being that when a project appears to offer really nothing but filling a valuable spot and shifting some existing employees around, then if it was tall we could all point to that and say, "Well, at least it looks cool and adds to our image".

A tall building in itself does add something to a community and when you take that away then the other aspects will likely be subject to greater scrutiny -- which is exactly what's happening here.


What percentage of people in OKC do you think have ever been in the Devon complex? Yet virtually all of them can point to it with pride and it's mere existence gives everyone the impression that not only downtown but all of Oklahoma City is thriving.

And every single time the Thunder are on TV or there is a photo of OKC in any sort of article, Devon Tower is not only highly visible, but often featured.


Tall buildings do matter; it's not the only or even primary aspect of downtown development but it's silly to dismiss it as only a concern of the unenlightened.

agree. Okc needs to have big but achievable goals (sorry, we aren't hosting the summer olympics) and not settle for less simply because a developer thinks they can get away with it. Too many developments are proposed and then actually built as barely a shell of what was originally intended. The city should have held randy hogan to the standard he originally proposed for lower bricktown, and rainey williams should be held to the standard he himself set for his development.

what?!?!?!?!?

Tell me at what point did Rainey Williams promise anything that much higher than 20 stories? It never happened. If you want to get upset, get upset at myself and Pete. We both had sources on this deal telling us it would be higher earlier on?
So how did that happen?
First, when we were looking at 40 stories, it was when there was a second developer competing for the site. I seriously thought he was going to get the deal. And yeah, from what I've heard, the height would be have been more than what we're looking at right now.
And guess what? That other developer, last I heard, hasn't gone away. He's been looking at a different site.
Stage Center was privately owned, and for whatever reason, the owners chose to sell to Williams for his project.
Now, let's go to the second phase of this:
Williams was selected. He told me they were looking at 20 stories or higher after I pushed him hard to give me an estimate.
Pin that on me if you want - I was trying to get your questions answered.
As designed proceeded, I was hearing that the project would consist of about 18 stories of office space and about 12 stories of housing or hotel. I was not understanding that this consisted of two different buildings on the site. So that's why I was putting out that we were likely looking at about 30 stories in the weeks proceeding the most recent news.
I can't talk for Pete, but I suspect he was getting varying accounts like this as well.
The rest of this expectation game is a result of this thread, where all sorts of people went about speculating and claiming they had the inside track on this project. I can show where people have in the past swore this project, the Aloft, and so on, were dead, simply because they weren't hearing information as fast as they hoped.
And as you debate this project and make your own conclusions, I advise you to step back, take a deep breath, and ask yourself whether you really have enough information yet to make a judgement.
We DON'T REALLY know what this development will look like. These are conceptual models - NOT THE ARCHITECTURAL FINISHES - shown in these renderings. I will ask Bluedog and Custode to explain the difference to you.
You also need to look at this block as a whole and ask yourself about what is really happening here long term, about the placement of the garage, what it could allow for in the future. There are very valid questions to ask about whether enough information is being presented to allow for Stage Center demolition, whether this is an adequate higher and better use. This is a discussion that is about far more than who has the biggest pen... oops, I meant the biggest tower.

This is a discussion that is about far more than who has the biggest pen... oops, I meant the biggest tower.

Haha, nice

The moment I heard it was going to be wide, I expected it not to be too tall. I think the height will be fine. We need to be patient for a while and see how the final renderings turn out.

We may never know, but OG&E may have demanded to be the sole tenant of the building, thus the hotel/housing/office was seperated into a second building.

Maybe they can add some kind of top that will extend the height...the current rendering, which probably does not count, has added an extra 15 - 20 feet to the tower.

“We’re going to stick with something in the neighborhood of 20 stories,” Williams says. “Certainly our goal is to build an absolutely world-class tower that will complement what has already gone on in the area and something Oklahoma City will be proud to have.”

okcBIZ: News: Tower Talk (http://okc.biz/oklahoma/article-7049-tower-talk.html)

I'm less concerned with the first half of that quote. I'm more concerned that a "world-class tower" can be built for the now announced $100 MM budget.

Thank you for posting that. I was hoping someone had a source for that statement...

Spartan - for such a knowledgeable poster you sure seem to have quite a propensity for binary thinking, which is not conducive to intelligent dialogue. Maybe try posting less in absolutes, suspend your judgment, and allow room for complexity. You seem too smart to waste your time with perpetual self-affirmation.

I appreciate this sentiment and agree. However, urbanized is right. I was kidding and waiting for someone to get it.


FWIW Sparty was referencing a discussion in another thread and just giving me a hard time. That said I agree with Pete's position (and did so previously in the other thread...hence the comment). This is a community-wide forum and serves many masters, as it should. Oklahoma City is a multi-faceted city and without a doubt far more people exist in the suburbs than in the inner city. Those people are interested in what is going on in their part of the burg, and OKCTalk can/should serve as a place for their views too.

Obviously, however, the board is heavily populated with passionate urbanists. Not to mention that in recent years MOST of the exciting/worthwhile development has been concentrated in the city center, which of course serves to further engage those of us who are mostly interested in urban development. In our exuberance it is sometimes easy to forget that the other lifestyle exists and has an audience (and proponents) on this board.

And - this is strictly an editorial comment - I think the urban-minded also tend to be a little more detail-obsessed when it comes to their community, while suburban thinking tends to encourage a macro view at best and disengagement at worst. That's probably another reason why urbanists post on this board in disproportionate numbers as compared to the general population, which in OKC is literally well past 100 to 1 suburban.

I think in saying we're 100-1 suburban-to-urban is way unfair. Maybe 3 to 1. Consider the city between I-240 and Nichols Hills. Consider great neighborhoods with more vitality and a stronger sense of community than you find in Moore or Edmond. This isn't about different strokes for different folks, which I believe in. This is about asserting urbanism in a fundamentally urban city that wants to return to those roots. For far too long we urbanists have let the suburbanites own us and get away with things like this theoretical 100-1 ratio you propose. The corner of Park and Broadway, as you know, isn't the only speck of urbanism in town.

Furthermore, downtown is now seeing several continued years of more residential units under construction than most entire suburbs. I would literally put new residential starts in the downtown region up against Edmond, Yukon, MWC, maybe even Moore and Norman. It's time to assert the urban in OKC. That's what I am doing. I'm also not afraid of being painted a radical urbanist because this is a forum of thinking and these are my thoughts. In expressing my thoughts I have no professional representative responsibility at all whatsoever, which is different from a job. As Bricktown Association and Automobile Alley Main Street leader you know well that in those leadership capacities it isn't just thinking alone, but thinking for the group they represent and work for/with. I get that, I do that in Cleveland, and this isn't that. If I were a city planner in OKC obviously I would tone down my rhetoric and consider the big picture for OKC but I am not so the suburbs just aren't part of my thinking.

That doesn't mean I'm not interested in the suburban downtowns, new urbanism in lifestyle centers which OKC needs, economic development in the entire region, rebuilding after the tornado in Moore, or other things that are very significant. But the reality with suburban development is that in OKC it is mostly comprised of Walgreens, Walmarts, whatnot. If it were in my ZIP code I couldn't even bring myself to care. Downtown is important because it's our collective escape from lousy, crappy development. We can all appreciate the quality of projects going on downtown, and that's important, because we really need that escape.


Thank you very much for an enlightening and respectful response! I wish I had as much faith in Rainey as you do. Is it not concerning though that once SC is gone he can do whatever he wants to the land? good, bad, or indifferent. (Which is fine because he paid over 4 million for it but geeze, I really hope he delivers) fingers crossed.

I agree here. Unfortunately I don't know if there is a good way to issue a demolition permit with a development assurance, and you're right that there is a confidence issue here. In my opinion Rainey Williams owes OKC Talk a massive developer's fee because I feel that this forum has pretty much fed this mystery tower phenomenon all along. There was never (and maybe still isn't) a mystery "tower" anymore than there is a Cotton Exchange today. This is the nature of the development process when deals are being made and things are in flux, which is very different than when Devon (a solid entity with a solid plan and a solid need) was sniffed out almost a year in advance by this forum.

The most perplexing of all is why OG+E doesn't just build this damn tower itself. This is preposterous to be honest. They obviously need new space, no serious-minded individual is going to fault them for building new digs when they sorely need it. The most perplexing of all was and continues to be the dramatic build-up for an announcement each step of the way followed by a major let-down and yet more fuzzy details. The worst of which was when Steve announced the Community Foundation's buyer and said, "If you doubt Rainey Williams, then you don't know Rainey Williams." Well he's right, nobody knows Rainey Williams. Sorry.

Consider the city between I-240 and Nichols Hills. Consider great neighborhoods with more vitality and a stronger sense of community than you find in Moore or Edmond.

Spartan, do you consider all of that area urban? Not a trick or trap question. Just curious what parts of OKC you would consider to be "urban." (Or am I still stuck in the joke that I didn't get?)