This is the US and we don't talk metrics.

Anyways,this Tower "not really a tower IMO" will not even be as tall as the regency. Scrap it and start over on this prime area. This is simply not good enough. A couple of small buildings will add nothing to the skyline. Move it to NW Expressway and they will fit right in. Rainey needs to stay out of downtown with this crap.

Ah, well let me take the next step and google the conversion for you....

Let me google that for you (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=300+meters+to+feet)

Still doesn't change my point.

I drove past the Stage Center site today and have concluded I would rather have two > 20 story towers as opposed to one 40-story tower. For one, a large tower there would dwarf the new elementary school. As Steve has pointed out numerous times, the concept we have seen is not the actual design. I'm going to choose to remain optimistic that Mr. Williams' comment that this construction will be "world class" is going to happen. I will remain optimistic until proven otherwise.

It's not that Rainey isn't living up to the expectations of OKCTalk members. It's the fact that he isn't living up to what he said he was going to do when the tower was announced back in July. If he's scaled it down this much between then and now, how much more is he going to scale it down AFTER the demolition of the Stage Center?

Scary thought...

Rememeber this project in Tulsa?

Proposed
http://i278.photobucket.com/albums/kk92/gandjdunlap/14972015_BG21.jpg (http://s278.photobucket.com/user/gandjdunlap/media/14972015_BG21.jpg.html)

http://i278.photobucket.com/albums/kk92/gandjdunlap/Cimarex12-460x310.jpg (http://s278.photobucket.com/user/gandjdunlap/media/Cimarex12-460x310.jpg.html)


Built
http://i278.photobucket.com/albums/kk92/gandjdunlap/1-View-from-NE-LARGE1-460x310.jpg (http://s278.photobucket.com/user/gandjdunlap/media/1-View-from-NE-LARGE1-460x310.jpg.html)

Tulsa does not have Downtown Design Review statutes. That's why I keep asking - will Williams be required to show actual architectural finish renderings, and not conceptual modeling renderings, before demolition of Stage Center is permitted. Because that's what would prevent a situation like the one you cite with Tulsa (and earlier with Randy Hogan in Lower Bricktown, which also did not fall under any design ordinance).

Scary thought...

Rememeber this project in Tulsa?

Proposed
http://i278.photobucket.com/albums/kk92/gandjdunlap/14972015_BG21.jpg (http://s278.photobucket.com/user/gandjdunlap/media/14972015_BG21.jpg.html)

Built
http://i278.photobucket.com/albums/kk92/gandjdunlap/1-View-from-NE-LARGE1-460x310.jpg (http://s278.photobucket.com/user/gandjdunlap/media/1-View-from-NE-LARGE1-460x310.jpg.html)
That really reminds me of Lower Bricktown.

Proposed:

http://cdn2.newsok.biz/cache/r620-fa1b957d24c7aa2829891201a1f50add.jpg

Built:

http://static.panoramio.com/photos/large/16772227.jpg

Let's hope the Stage Center Tower doesn't turn into something like this before all is said and done.

http://assets.regus.com/images/1200/officespace/1_454x340.jpg

Maybe someday we'll be as world class as Mudland and then Plutonic Panda will be happy. Actually, now that I think of it, maybe he will actually be able to see the Mudland Energy Tower from Edmond (if he goes up to his treehouse), which alone should placate him/her especially knowing that the tower in no way will contribute to street riffraff.

Sorry that was mean, but it's after Christmas so I can be a douche :POh boy, you sure know how to make a statement, huh? I wish I cold be as mature as you, ah shucks, who am I kiddin'..... maybe one day though

Anyways, my point is made. This building should at least be 25 stories tall in my opinion. I love height and tall buildings; I know, I know, I'm a horrible anti-urbanist person and the anti-spartan(unless we're playing Halo).

What's the difference between 24 stories and 25?

What is the qualification for where the line is drawn.

For me (and other realistic folks) the line is drawn at street interaction and site plan, as well as architectural style blending in to the surrounding area.

If they wanted to build a 60 floor building with horrible street interaction, I'd be furious. We'd be replacing a horrible site plan with another horrible site plan, further walling off the west side of downtown.

Oh boy, you sure know how to make a statement, huh? I wish I cold be as mature as you, ah shucks, who am I kiddin'..... maybe one day though

You're the guy who doesn't like any urban development not visible from Edmond

I don't necessarily understand what is so bad about wanting another tower that has a prominent position on the skyline. I know skyscrapers aren't really something you can simply wish for and they happen but I still think it would be nice. Our skyline from the south and west really needs another tower to balance it out. The future of downtown can be both skyscrapers and midrises with excellent street interaction. Too many times it seems like people think it always has to be one or the other.

Tulsa does not have Downtown Design Review statutes. That's why I keep asking - will Williams be required to show actual architectural finish renderings, and not conceptual modeling renderings, before demolition of Stage Center is permitted. Because that's what would prevent a situation like the one you cite with Tulsa (and earlier with Randy Hogan in Lower Bricktown, which also did not fall under any design ordinance).

It's a very good point, especially since they are talking about demolishing a significant structure.

In Brianna Bailey's article (http://www.oklahoman.com/article/3918669?embargo=1) today:


Developer Rainey Williams, president of Kestrel Investments, said he knew he might face resistance to tearing down Stage Center when Kestrel purchased the theater property, but he believes the building has outlived its purpose.

“It's reached the end of its useful life,” Williams said. “We're excited to be building something that will be an active, useful space that everyone in Oklahoma City can enjoy.”

The Downtown Design Review Committee is slated to consider whether to approve the theater demolition at its next meeting Jan. 16. As of last week, the city has received no formal protest to the demolition, according to the Oklahoma City Planning Department.

This is absolutely not what is shown in the preliminary plans, so if a big part of his proposal and promise is that Stage Center will be replaced by "an active, useful space that everyone in OKC can enjoy" then we need to know what exactly what he means by that. Because as of now, all that is shown is a smallish retail/restaurant area on the first floor of the east building.

Tulsa does not have Downtown Design Review statutes. That's why I keep asking - will Williams be required to show actual architectural finish renderings, and not conceptual modeling renderings, before demolition of Stage Center is permitted. Because that's what would prevent a situation like the one you cite with Tulsa (and earlier with Randy Hogan in Lower Bricktown, which also did not fall under any design ordinance).

It's a very good point, especially since they are talking about demolishing a significant structure.

In Brianna Bailey's article (http://www.oklahoman.com/article/3918669?embargo=1) today:


Developer Rainey Williams, president of Kestrel Investments, said he knew he might face resistance to tearing down Stage Center when Kestrel purchased the theater property, but he believes the building has outlived its purpose.

“It's reached the end of its useful life,” Williams said. “We're excited to be building something that will be an active, useful space that everyone in Oklahoma City can enjoy.”

The Downtown Design Review Committee is slated to consider whether to approve the theater demolition at its next meeting Jan. 16. As of last week, the city has received no formal protest to the demolition, according to the Oklahoma City Planning Department.

This is absolutely not what is shown in the preliminary plans, so if a big part of his proposal and promise is that Stage Center will be replaced by "an active, useful space that everyone in OKC can enjoy" then we need to know what exactly what he means by that. Because as of now, all that is shown is a smallish retail/restaurant area on the first floor of the east building.


If Williams is not even planning on breaking ground until 2015, there is no rush to demolish this building -- which should only take a couple of weeks -- before specific plans can be developed and submitted along with the demo application.

It's a very good point, especially since they are talking about demolishing a significant structure.

In Brianna Bailey's article (http://www.oklahoman.com/article/3918669?embargo=1) today:



This is absolutely not what is shown in the preliminary plans, so if a big part of his proposal and promise is that Stage Center will be replaced by "an active, useful space that everyone in OKC can enjoy" then we need to know what exactly what he means by that. Because as of now, all that is shown is a smallish retail/restaurant area on the first floor of the east building.


If Williams is not even planning on breaking ground until 2015, there is no rush to demolish this building -- which should only take a couple of weeks -- before specific plans can be developed and submitted along with the demo application.

Thank you for bringing up these points. Also, we've seen plenty of planned developments not come to fruition. All we need is another sad surface parking lot. I wince every time I go past the site of the Hale building, and that was nothing compared to the Stage Center building.

Betts is spot on about a VALID concern. We are still stupidly clearing sites just for fuzzy notions of redevelopment. What happened there is some fuzzy LLC basically cleared an iconic small scale historic building just so that they can sell the site to someone else for more. We need to demand for people to put up about their real intentions by only issuing demo permits w construction permits, after financing is proven to be in place.

How do we know RW isn't just planning a parking garage venture here? The tower does seem to be an excuse to build the largest public parking garage yet in downtown, which isn't what I had in mind for this land.

Pete is also right that we need to take a critical inventory of what is the real mixed use space included in this development. Is this second tower legit? How much parking again does he want to build? And so on.


I don't necessarily understand what is so bad about wanting another tower that has a prominent position on the skyline. I know skyscrapers aren't really something you can simply wish for and they happen but I still think it would be nice. Our skyline from the south and west really needs another tower to balance it out. The future of downtown can be both skyscrapers and midrises with excellent street interaction. Too many times it seems like people think it always has to be one or the other.

It's kind of whimsical to see this perspective now attempt a negative equivalency argument: "I don't see what's wrong with another skyscraper on this site geez."

Except "another skyscraper on this site" wasn't proposed, you're the ones with an issue over pen...sorry tower size, not us. I am getting so sick and tired of this mystery tower phenomenon and all of these naive, unintelligent people coming out of the wood work and shrouding the real, serious issues here. There I said it.

Weren't there some concerns regarding a very tall structure on the (in this case) west side of MBG blocking sunlight? Was this possibly a factor in the design and the decision to pursue multiple shorter towers rather than a single very tall one? Is it possible that this is the case but at this point has been poorly-communicated publicly? I don't have any insight here; merely wondering.

Weren't there some concerns regarding a very tall structure on the (in this case) west side of MBG blocking sunlight? Was this possibly a factor in the design and the decision to pursue multiple shorter towers rather than a single very tall one? Is it possible that this is the case but at this point has been poorly-communicated publicly? I don't have any insight here; merely wondering.

Most assuredly, a 24-plus story tower would have cast a long shadow over Film Row.

And here we have one of our most knowledgeable posters bring up another valid concern.

The truth is open any design, architecture, or planning TEXTBOOK. Bigger isn't always better. The devil is in the details.

Can we finally shift this focus from size to details?

Most assuredly, a 24-plus story tower would have cast a long shadow over Film Row.

More importantly, over MBG. They would probably have to re-think many if not most of the plantings if the gardens was in shadow all afternoon/evening during the growing season. I'm not saying that IS the reason; only that it COULD be and if so that they didn't emphasize this enough when releasing the conceptual.

Good PR strategy is often a very underrated component of any business endeavor. If this issue is really a part of the equation and it had been disclosed up front, we probably wouldn't even be having this part of the discussion.

More importantly, over MBG. They would probably have to re-think many if not most of the plantings if the gardens was in shadow all afternoon/evening during the growing season. I'm not saying that IS the reason; only that it COULD be and if so that they didn't emphasize this enough when releasing the conceptual.

Good PR strategy is often a very underrated component of any business endeavor. If this issue is really a part of the equation and it had been disclosed up front, we probably wouldn't even be having this part of the discussion.
Sometimes people don't think of the surroundings and it isn't just shadows, the Museum Place Tower next to the Dallas Museum of Art is a prime example. The reflections off the tower is affecting the Nasher Sculpture Center.

Dallas News - Architecture review: Museum Tower is 'classic mean girl: privileged, superficial, manipulative' (http://www.dallasnews.com/entertainment/columnists/mark-lamster/20130906-architecture-review-museum-tower-is-a-poor-reflection-on-the-dallas-arts-district.ece)
Dallas News - Museum Tower’s problems a reflection of greater urban design issue (http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/2013/09/museum-towers-problems-a-reflection-of-growing-urban-design-issue.html/)
Dallas News - Update: Nasher Sculpture Center calls Museum Tower’s proposed glare fix ‘grossly inadequate, deeply flawed’ (http://bizbeatblog.dallasnews.com/2013/06/best-fix-for-museum-tower-glare-involves-nasher-roof-tower-owners-conclude.html/)

Maybe someday we'll be as world class as Mudland and then Plutonic Panda will be happy. Actually, now that I think of it, maybe he will actually be able to see the Mudland Energy Tower from Edmond (if he goes up to his treehouse), which alone should placate him/her especially knowing that the tower in no way will contribute to street riffraff.

Sorry that was mean, but it's after Christmas so I can be a douche :P

We can only hope.

I just really want to know how exactly we're going to get a world-class development on a space the equivalent size of the 10th/Shartel apartments with only 2.4x the budget of that same complex?

The thing that scares me is that maybe there was a better development proposal that would have had a higher investment amount but that was not selected because no "tower" was part of the proposal. Given the site plan and the relatively small investment, there are at least several other developers in this city who I would trust far more with this site than RW.

What I think OKC needs Rainey to commit to is defining how someone walking down Hudson, or Walker, or Sheridan is going to experience this building as a completely random person. As it is now, Walker is almost exclusively parking garage, Sheridan looks to be an entrance to a building that is really only useful to residents or people who work in the building. Hudson seems like it's going to have a nice view, and *maybe* a nice store.

But the concern that Pete has raised several times in this thread regarding the interaction with the public is the single-handedly most important issue when it comes to making this a "world-class" development. Even allowing for that statement to be nothing but empty rhetoric about this being world-class, I can't even really understand taking the most accessible and important lot available in the CBD and being okay with a meager $100M investment. The blasted Convention Center will have more invested into it than this development…and 6 stories of parking garage, some below ground, you can bet that a good chunk of that $100M is going to relatively meaningless development.

At this point, I'd rather remove the tower component altogether and build something that is far more useful to the public…maybe something that can (eventually) lure high quality retail.

My fear is that Rainey is going to get the Stage Center demolished, then tell us all "Oops! I am unable to get the financing for the tower I wanted to build, so I am just going to pave the lot into surface parking and sit on it." Is there any way to be assured that isn't going to happen?

This really should have been handled by OCURA, with a public process for picking the best developer/development, just like the old Mercy Hopsital site (now Edge @ Midtown).

This is one of the most important sites in the entire urban core -- between two of the biggest investments of tax dollars downtown -- and we don't even know anything about the other proposals, what Rainey Williams promised at time of selection, etc.

Also, then the City could have been the bad guy in terms of the demolition, which would have not only lessened the burden of the developer (and ill-will that will carry forward for some time) but probably made the property more valuable and perhaps maybe even have invited more bids.


Probably too late to get them involved now but this is exactly why we have OCURA in the first place and they should step up if a similar situation presents itself in the future.

My fear is that Rainey is going to get the Stage Center demolished, then tell us all "Oops! I am unable to get the financing for the tower I wanted to build, so I am just going to pave the lot into surface parking and sit on it." Is there any way to be assured that isn't going to happen?

I sincerely doubt that would happen. That doesn't alleviate concerns that he may scale back on his plans, but the above scenario is a bit drastic.

And to be honest, when it was announced the nonprofit foundation would be the one to field offers and make the final decisions as to who develops this property and how, we all should have made a bunch of noise and insisted OCURA take the reigns and there be a transparent public process.

And to be honest, when it was announced the nonprofit foundation would be the one to field offers and make the final decisions as to who develops this property and how, we all should have made a bunch of noise and insisted OCURA take the reigns and there be a transparent public process.

Excellent analysis.

I sincerely doubt that would happen. That doesn't alleviate concerns that he may scale back on his plans, but the above scenario is a bit drastic.

Yeah, that scenario is drastic but its a worst-case. Scaling back any more than has already been done though will be an extreme disappointment as well.

This really should have been handled by OCURA, with a public process for picking the best developer/development, just like the old Mercy Hopsital site (now Edge @ Midtown).

This is one of the most important sites in the entire urban core -- between two of the biggest investments of tax dollars downtown -- and we don't even know anything about the other proposals, what Rainey Williams promised at time of selection, etc.

Also, then the City could have been the bad guy in terms of the demolition, which would have not only lessened the burden of the developer (and ill-will that will carry forward for some time) but probably made the property more valuable and perhaps maybe even have invited more bids.


Probably too late to get them involved now but this is exactly why we have OCURA in the first place and they should step up if a similar situation presents itself in the future.

I understand what you're saying. But this is a privately-owned piece of land, and there is no legal mechanism to turn it over to Urban Renewal unless the authority wanted to bid on buying the property when it was put up for sale (the millions of dollars it sold for are far beyond the authority's reserves and would have to be provided by taxpayers).
The key here is the Downtown Design Review Committee, which has a lot of discretion and authority that can be applied to this project. I keep trying to explain to everybody that WE REALLY DON'T KNOW what the building will really look like, other than how it will be situated on the property. But with all this talk about height (which is not something that can really be forced here) I fear this message is getting lost....

You're the guy who doesn't like any urban development not visible from Edmondyes Spartan, any development I can't see from Edmond I hate and should not be built, you got me.

I'm done arguing here man, you just make random assumptions, twist words, and flat out make sh*t up about people you disagree with.

And to be honest, when it was announced the nonprofit foundation would be the one to field offers and make the final decisions as to who develops this property and how, we all should have made a bunch of noise and insisted OCURA take the reigns and there be a transparent public process.

Again, no amount of noise could have forced two private parties to subject to Urban Renewal review. It's like asking me to have Urban Renewal review a sale of my home to a private buyer.

Again, no amount of noise could have forced two private parties to subject to Urban Renewal review. It's like asking me to have Urban Renewal review a sale of my home to a private buyer.

How did the property end up in the ownership of OCCF? Was it given / sold to them by the city? Did Stage Center belong to the City of OKC at one time?

The land was sold by Urban Renewal to the non-profit Mummers Theater back in the late 1960s/early 1970s. John Kirkpatrick ended up in ownership of the property, through his foundation, when he bailed out the theater in mid-1970s. Kirkpatrick's foundation from there on out owned the land and held the mortgage on the building with reversion rights, which were triggered when the theater closed in 2010 and didn't reopen.

I understand what you're saying. But this is a privately-owned piece of land, and there is no legal mechanism to turn it over to Urban Renewal unless the authority wanted to bid on buying the property when it was put up for sale (the millions of dollars it sold for are far beyond the authority's reserves and would have to be provided by taxpayers).
The key here is the Downtown Design Review Committee, which has a lot of discretion and authority that can be applied to this project. I keep trying to explain to everybody that WE REALLY DON'T KNOW what the building will really look like, other than how it will be situated on the property. But with all this talk about height (which is not something that can really be forced here) I fear this message is getting lost....

Almost everything OCURA deals with was privately owned and they either get involved by buying it outright or by exercising eminent domain. When the foundation made it clear they wanted to sell to a developer, that should have been their cue.

$4.275 million for this property isn't that much -- they could have easily made that back by selling to developers. It wouldn't be that hard to come up with that amount of money.

As I said, I know that ship has probably sailed but in the future this sort of thing -- like the property directly south -- should be handled differently.


Now, design review can really only make suggestions. Even the basics of what Williams has proposed meet the basic guidelines, so any opportunity to leverage real change has already been lost.

If there had been an open competition, OCURA could have created parameters then asked the developers to change elements to increase their odds of being selected. And they could just reject any and all proposal then re-open the RFP.

Williams already owns the property, the ADG renderings meet height, setback and material requirements... He could build it exactly as shown and they wouldn't have any legal right to deny him.

The land was sold by Urban Renewal to the non-profit Mummers Theater back in the late 1960s/early 1970s. John Kirkpatrick ended up in ownership of the property, through his foundation, when he bailed out the theater in mid-1970s. Kirkpatrick's foundation from there on out owned the land and held the mortgage on the building with reversion rights, which were triggered when the theater closed in 2010 and didn't reopen.

Thanks for the background. And what does "reversion rights" mean in this context?

I wouldn't underestimate the extent to which 10th/Shartel is approaching world class.

The thing I am worried about is that the second is purely theoretical which actually gives us a development well short of $100M.

$4.275 million for this property isn't that much -- they could have easily made that back by selling to developers. It wouldn't be that hard to come up with that amount of money.



Especially when you consider the small 1-acre parcel of land at the SE corner of 4th and Telephone Rd in Moore is listed at $1M.

I wouldn't underestimate the extent to which 10th/Shartel is approaching world class.

The thing I am worried about is that the second is purely theoretical which actually gives us a development well short of $100M.

I agree, but this is where the OKC PTSD kicks in. Is it really real? Will it really be as good as the renderings? Few projects meet or exceed the conceptual renderings in this city it seems.

Especially when you consider the small 1-acre parcel of land at the SE corner of 4th and Telephone Rd in Moore is listed at $1M.

Chesapeake has paid more per acre for dozens of it's properties, many of which are lowly interior industrial lots.

reversion legal definition of reversion. reversion synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary. (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/reversion)

I agree, but this is where the OKC PTSD kicks in. Is it really real? Will it really be as good as the renderings? Few projects meet or exceed the conceptual renderings in this city it seems.

Agreed. Just in the past page we've turned the tide in this discussion toward focusing on real issues.

It seems as if the only thing we can do here is make certain that land clearance does not occur independently of redevelopment. The standard for denying a demolition permit of an architectural landmark is easier than denying a development that meets ordinances.

Just to be clear, for those who are confused, there are no ordinances requiring 30-40 story buildings.

I sincerely doubt that would happen. That doesn't alleviate concerns that he may scale back on his plans, but the above scenario is a bit drastic.

It's the least plausible scenario for development on this site. And yet, that is his fear. Oklahoma City has made him feel bad about many things before, and still does, and thus...

Bchris, tell us how you really feel about Lower Bricktown...

Chesapeake has paid more per acre for dozens of it's properties, many of which are lowly interior industrial lots.

I'm not sure Chesapeake is the best example. They have historically overpaid for many of their properties.

Bchris, tell us how you really feel about Lower Bricktown...

Lower Bricktown is a perfect example of a developer promising the moon and then scaling it down to the absolute cheapest, bare minimum they can get away with. Randy Hogan won the bid over a few other developers on a false promise. It's more than relevant to this discussion. I am not predicting that Rainey Williams is going to do the same thing with the Stage Center Tower. Like Steve said, we need to wait for a real rendering. The possibility though can't be ruled out considering how much it has already been scaled down compared to what was originally planned.

Lower Bricktown is a perfect example of a developer promising the moon and then scaling it down to the absolute cheapest, bare minimum they can get away with. Randy Hogan won the bid over a few other developers on a false promise. It's more than relevant to this discussion. I am not predicting that Rainey Williams is going to do the same thing with the Stage Center Tower. Like Steve said, we need to wait for a real rendering. The possibility though can't be ruled out considering how much it has already been scaled down compared to what was originally planned.

I was being sarcastic...we all know how you feel about it.

Now I'd hate for anyone to discredit bchris' sentiment toward Lower Bricktown...it's absolutely accurate. OCURA has no accountability for developers they think they want to keep working with. I don't which part of that is scarier.

Now I'd hate for anyone to discredit bchris' sentiment toward Lower Bricktown...it's absolutely accurate. OCURA has no accountability for developers they think they want to keep working with. I don't which part of that is scarier.

Agreed. Lower Bricktown is underwhelming compared to the other up and coming districts in OKC, let alone entertainment districts in other cities. The worst part is how it was mostly subsidized by the taxpayer. No offense to anybody who likes it, but it was a colossal wasted opportunity from a development and placemaking standpoint. It could have been the focal point for a vibrant, mixed-use district rather than a few one story chain restaurants, the Sonic HQ, and surface parking.

Now I'd hate for anyone to discredit bchris' sentiment toward Lower Bricktown...it's absolutely accurate. OCURA has no accountability for developers they think they want to keep working with. I don't which part of that is scarier.

I'd correct that to "had". New staff at OCURA/The Alliance is changing things.

Yes, the current version of OCURA is a completely different animal and although they really don't have a lot of leverage in LB, they did push for some meaningful changes to Kd's Restaurant.

Now I'd hate for anyone to discredit bchris' sentiment toward Lower Bricktown...it's absolutely accurate. OCURA has no accountability for developers they think they want to keep working with. I don't which part of that is scarier.

Not trying to discredit it, just making a commentary on how it's been referenced to the point of obsession nearly as often as Charlotte, Austin, Tulsa, and walmart in his posts. Though I do mostly agree with it.

They had absolutely zero leverage over Kd's and at least they tried.

Really, the first real project the new incarnation saw from beginning to soon-to-be-completed is the Edge, and not only was the selected project a good one, they had to throw over a non-performing previous awardee to re-open the process. Compare The Legacy (old regime) to the Edge... Very similar property and circumstances with one of the same developers but with incredibly different outcomes.

Maybe if Raney had a cosiner he could get a loan for a 400 ft tall tower!!!!!!!

Raney may be at the max of his PFS w/ 100M. Or this could be a target number to work with for the lenders. Eitherway, Raney needs to stay with the World Class position in scale & design. This is the best way to insure demand and that his occupancy hits the numbers for that 20 / 30 year window (or for re-sale).

The block should have a corporate tower that hits the 500 ft range with an "iconic" draw for the city, will always be the "place to be". Then on the second tower should be much easier to fill with the big brother next to it. And, build both towers at the same time will help keep the cost at today's dollars and the ROI hitting that desired %.

Also note, the cost to extend this tower upwards is not as costly as expanding "out".

Can we change the name of the thread to Stage Center Mid-Rise?

They had absolutely zero leverage over Kd's and at least they tried.

Really, the first real project the new incarnation saw from beginning to soon-to-be-completed is the Edge, and not only was the selected project a good one, they had to throw over a non-performing previous awardee to re-open the process. Compare The Legacy (old regime) to the Edge... Very similar property and circumstances with one of the same developers but with incredibly different outcomes.

*ahem* now known as Avana at Arts Quarter *ahem* :P

Can we change the name of the thread to Stage Center Mid-Rise?

A high rise is anything 5 stories and over. :)

It's sad how we went from 2 years of excitement and anticipation to a total let down. Lets just be honest, these 2 buildings on this site do nothing for our skyline and does not do this prime piece of property justice. We need to demand a tower of at least 28-30 stories. This would put the tower around 510-530 feet. If they just took the renderings and instead of making it so wide, use that to go vertical about 15 more stories that would look great. As for the other tower planned, it could be used for commercial, residential and shopping and could be 18-20 stories. They could be placed in a way that would mirror each other and this would look great and balance out our very flawed skyline.

Listen, we were promised a new skyscraper for our downtown and this is just an average mid rise that and city or suburb in the country could throw up. If this was going somewhere else in downtown as is then fine, but ABSOLUTELY not at this prime location. We are getting cheated in every way possible by doing so. We lose by tearing down an iconic structure only to gain a better than average mid rise that does NOTHING to balance out or add to our skyline. Having an impressive skyline is important and like I said earlier, perception does become reality when it comes to people seeing our city and that it is booming. Companies wanting to relocate see this as well and it is a sign of growth and vitality. I am so, so sick of OKC just doing the bare minimum because it's better than what was done in the past. We need to dream big, think big, and become big time. I promise you, Austin, Charlotte, Nashville, etc. don't have small time minimum standards. People see what's going on there because they have big aspirations and go all out. People see that and it becomes infectious and word spreads and people want to be a part of it and see what its all about.

Flood whoever with letters, demand bricktown, downtown, core to shore, boulevard, and central park are done in a way that are second to none and world class. We don't want regrets later of what could have been like lower bricktown. Lets draw attention around the country for all the right reasons and wow people when they come here and give them a reason to want to keep coming or move here!

It's sad how we went from 2 years of excitement and anticipation to a total let down. Lets just be honest, these 2 buildings on this site do nothing for our skyline and does not do this prime piece of property justice. We need to demand a tower of at least 28-30 stories. This would put the tower around 510-530 feet. If they just took the renderings and instead of making it so wide, use that to go vertical about 15 more stories that would look great. As for the other tower planned, it could be used for commercial, residential and shopping and could be 18-20 stories. They could be placed in a way that would mirror each other and this would look great and balance out our very flawed skyline.

Listen, we were promised a new skyscraper for our downtown and this is just an average mid rise that and city or suburb in the country could throw up. If this was going somewhere else in downtown as is then fine, but ABSOLUTELY not at this prime location. We are getting cheated in every way possible by doing so. We lose by tearing down an iconic structure only to gain a better than average mid rise that does NOTHING to balance out or add to our skyline. Having an impressive skyline is important and like I said earlier, perception does become reality when it comes to people seeing our city and that it is booming. Companies wanting to relocate see this as well and it is a sign of growth and vitality. I am so, so sick of OKC just doing the bare minimum because it's better than what was done in the past. We need to dream big, think big, and become big time. I promise you, Austin, Charlotte, Nashville, etc. don't have small time minimum standards. People see what's going on there because they have big aspirations and go all out. People see that and it becomes infectious and word spreads and people want to be a part of it and see what its all about.

Flood whoever with letters, demand bricktown, downtown, core to shore, boulevard, and central park are done in a way that are second to none and world class. We don't want regrets later of what could have been like lower bricktown. Lets draw attention around the country for all the right reasons and wow people when they come here and give them a reason to want to keep coming or move here!
I vote soondoc for mayor of OKC.

It's sad how we went from 2 years of excitement and anticipation to a total let down. Lets just be honest, these 2 buildings on this site do nothing for our skyline and does not do this prime piece of property justice. We need to demand a tower of at least 28-30 stories. This would put the tower around 510-530 feet. If they just took the renderings and instead of making it so wide, use that to go vertical about 15 more stories that would look great. As for the other tower planned, it could be used for commercial, residential and shopping and could be 18-20 stories. They could be placed in a way that would mirror each other and this would look great and balance out our very flawed skyline.

Listen, we were promised a new skyscraper for our downtown and this is just an average mid rise that and city or suburb in the country could throw up. If this was going somewhere else in downtown as is then fine, but ABSOLUTELY not at this prime location. We are getting cheated in every way possible by doing so. We lose by tearing down an iconic structure only to gain a better than average mid rise that does NOTHING to balance out or add to our skyline. Having an impressive skyline is important and like I said earlier, perception does become reality when it comes to people seeing our city and that it is booming. Companies wanting to relocate see this as well and it is a sign of growth and vitality. I am so, so sick of OKC just doing the bare minimum because it's better than what was done in the past. We need to dream big, think big, and become big time. I promise you, Austin, Charlotte, Nashville, etc. don't have small time minimum standards. People see what's going on there because they have big aspirations and go all out. People see that and it becomes infectious and word spreads and people want to be a part of it and see what its all about.

Flood whoever with letters, demand bricktown, downtown, core to shore, boulevard, and central park are done in a way that are second to none and world class. We don't want regrets later of what could have been like lower bricktown. Lets draw attention around the country for all the right reasons and wow people when they come here and give them a reason to want to keep coming or move here!

Like x100

Again. As Steve has pointed out numerous times, this is not the design. Perhaps people should put away the pitchforks until the actual design rendering is released.

And to be honest, when it was announced the nonprofit foundation would be the one to field offers and make the final decisions as to who develops this property and how, we all should have made a bunch of noise and insisted OCURA take the reigns and there be a transparent public process.

How can we demand such on a privately owned property, despite how prominent us urbanists view it? I'm all for highest and best use, but not at expense of eminent domain.