I am not sticking up for Williams. I am questioning the mob sense of entitlement for a higher tower (promised a skyscraper?). This is a typical response for when I challenge the majority on this site - it's happened before with transit. You don't like it, so then the accusations start of personal relationships, bias, etc.
As for BOK - Pete tells you Williams made minimal aesthetic changes, what I saw differs from Pete's conclusion. I've been in the building quite a bit over the years and saw how run down it was prior to Williams' improvements.
The high expectations were set, ultimately, by participants on this site.

How can you claim this when he (Rainey Williams) was quoted as saying it will be "world class"?!

He presented a concept, and I'll stand by my claim its audacious to bring a concept to the DDRC to demolish an OKC landmark (love it hate it indifferent.)

and I apologies for the assumption you and RW had a relationship and the accusation of you trolling me. I really do enjoy and respect your opinion and information.

Everyone keeps saying how valuable this site is yet it didn't sell for all that much. What someone is willing to pay for it IS the current value. That is different than what it MAY be worth some day. However future value is not assured and is only increased if the value around it increases as well. I know it is frustrating to many dreamers on here, but economics is economics.

I really hope he gets denied. His proposal is just not worth it.

As I understand it Enable/Enogex will still share the space in Leadership Square. Please correct me/fill me in if not true. Pete also mentioned OG&E will keep their old building and bring the scattered OG&E employees into the new digs. Again if this is off please correct me. And according to Steve the 40 story tower is still in the works (Bank of America site).

And your last comment is something that just bugs the crap out of me, and its not just you so this is not a personal attack whatsoever, but better does not equal best, and for this site we need best.

Well, I highly doubt whatever is built will match Devon, the standard may be higher than can possibly be met in the most general sense. But if you look at the other buildings in the core, whatever built on the SC site should greatly supercede what was built pre Leadership Square.

I'm just a realist here, not trying to be negative Nancy.

If he gets by with this it will be much worse than anything Hogan or anyone else did. This will be something the city will have to live with for the foreseeable future. There are no do overs once this is built. It's like building a multi million dollar mansion and then someone comes pulling up in an old trailer and setting up across the street.:D

This right here shows just how completely out of control this thread has become. You are really comparing building a $100 million development that will keep a major HQ in downtown to a trailer? Completely outrageous statement. It is quite obvious some people cannot handle certain information.

Everyone keeps saying how valuable this site is yet it didn't sell for all that much. What someone is willing to pay for it IS the current value. That is different than what it MAY be worth some day. However future value is not assured and is only increased if the value around it increases as well. I know it is frustrating to many dreamers on here, but economics is economics.

It was a hot property once Devon built. From what I understand there were several final bids on the property.

Everyone keeps saying how valuable this site is yet it didn't sell for all that much. What someone is willing to pay for it IS the current value. That is different than what it MAY be worth some day. However future value is not assured and is only increased if the value around it increases as well. I know it is frustrating to many dreamers on here, but economics is economics.

It wasn't exactly on the open market -- they chose a developer based on lots of things, not just the highest bid.

He only paid $1.35 million per acre for just over 3 acres.

I guarantee you this property is worth way more that than. Many less well-located properties have sold for more in OKC recently.


Also, I wouldn't be surprised if the purchase price was purposely kept reasonable so as to not completely mess up the City's acquisition of the convention center properties and Santa Fe Station.


Let's put it this way... If I had the money and the relationships to buy this property for $4.275 million, I would do it in a heartbeat and could probably double my money almost immediately.

I am not sticking up for Williams. I am questioning the mob sense of entitlement for a higher tower (promised a skyscraper?). This is a typical response for when I challenge the majority on this site - it's happened before with transit. You don't like it, so then the accusations start of personal relationships, bias, etc.
As for BOK - Pete tells you Williams made minimal aesthetic changes, what I saw differs from Pete's conclusion. I've been in the building quite a bit over the years and saw how run down it was prior to Williams' improvements.
The high expectations were set, ultimately, by participants on this site.Steve, if you're referring to me, I just like height. I want good street interaction, but height means a lot to me. It is something that defines the city and gives outsiders a perspective of how the city is overall. That is not the case every time, but more so than not.

To be honest, I really thought it would be over 25 stories, but it appears it won't. As I've stated time and time again, I think Rainy Williams is a great guy from everything I've read about him, I just wish we could have a taller building. Nobody owes me anything or should build a 400,000,000 dollar building to suite my preferences; I would just like to see a taller building, that is all.

How can you claim this when he (Rainey Williams) was quoted as saying it will be "world class"?!


What did you expect him to say?

He can't walk out there and say "I am milquetoast, and I'm going to build a tan building with no windows. But hey! It's going to be 37 feet tall! PEACE!" then drop the mic and walk off.

I want to stick with this question of "world class" - which is something Rainey Williams did promise. So, are we tying "world class" to height? Because if that's so, look down the street and tell me how height makes the 31-story Oklahoma Tower (now there's a mediocre design if I've ever saw one) better than the 22-story Leadership Square.
World class - well heck, that phrase is applied throughout the architecture community internationally to Stage Center.
I'm asking everyone again - do we really know what this development will look like? We know how it will be conceptually modeled and the site plan. But the exterior architectural finish IS NOT shown in the renderings provided so far. So how does anyone know whether it will be world class, unless the definition is set at height as what I'm sensing from many in this thread.
I keep asking, and I'll keep asking ... is DDRC being given enough information about this project to allow for demolition to continue?

Bellaboo- aren't you just a big bundle of joy and such a positive person! You sir are exactly what is wrong with this city for far too many years. You are a negative nanny that just can't appreciate the fact that many of us want more for this city. OKC is really making great strides but could be so much more with the right decisions. You need to really quite being so negative because living that way just can't be healthy. Maybe you were the kid that was content on just being on the team rather than out playing, or maybe you got mad at the starters for excelling while you were on the outside looking in. Live and dream a little man, be positive and demand the best of our city even if you don't see it in yourself.

Negative nanny ? LOL Look my friend, I'm more than likely old enough to be your grandpa, and I was a player in my day... how about you ?

What you need to do is stop the cheer leading and make it happen. Let's just see how big an 'ol boy you really are. This message board is great for ideas and opinions, but in the real world, it's not dreamland.

You have to be driven to make things happen. I think Rainey is that......but he admitted he's never built a tower from the ground up, but I give him credit for giving it a shot. Hopefully it'll turn out better than most expect. I think the DDRC is the key to what really happens.

That last line, if you knew me you wouldn't say this.....but you don't.

Negative nanny ? LOL Look my friend, I'm more than likely old enough to be your grandpa, and I was a player in my day... how about you ?

What you need to do is stop the cheer leading and make it happen. Let's just see how big an 'ol boy you really are. This message board is great for ideas and opinions, but in the real world, it's not dreamland.

You have to be driven to make things happen. I think Rainey is that......but he admitted he's never built a tower from the ground up, but I give him credit for giving it a shot. Hopefully it'll turn out better than most expect. I think the DDRC is the key to what really happens.Very reasonable and fair post!

Steve, if you're referring to me, I just like height. I want good street interaction, but height means a lot to me. It is something that defines the city and gives outsiders a perspective of how the city is overall. That is not the case every time, but more so than not.

To be honest, I really thought it would be over 25 stories, but it appears it won't. As I've stated time and time again, I think Rainy Williams is a great guy from everything I've read about him, I just wish we could have a taller building. Nobody owes me anything or should build a 400,000,000 dollar building to suite my preferences; I would just like to see a taller building, that is all.

I'm not trying to belittle anyone for being disappointed with height and I apologize if that is the impression given. But when the discussion gets to be all about height ... that's what I'm questioning and challenging. Design, design, design, design ...

But height is part of design.

It's not the only thing, but it is important -- most important to most people, in fact.

So, when you take that away then there is going to be more scrutiny on everything else. And since the "everything else" is just some block-y concept showing almost zero public space, then you are going to get howls and I think, rightfully so.

Steve, if you're referring to me, I just like height. I want good street interaction, but height means a lot to me. It is something that defines the city and gives outsiders a perspective of how the city is overall. That is not the case every time, but more so than not.

To be honest, I really thought it would be over 25 stories, but it appears it won't. As I've stated time and time again, I think Rainy Williams is a great guy from everything I've read about him, I just wish we could have a taller building. Nobody owes me anything or should build a 400,000,000 dollar building to suite my preferences; I would just like to see a taller building, that is all.

I agree. Height and street interaction are both important. At this point in OKC's downtown skyline growth, we need another building or two that surpasses the Chase Tower in height in order to balance out the skyline. The OKC skyline currently looks terrible from certain angles due to the fact the Devon tower is such a monster compared to everything else. Another tower or two will go a long ways in telling America than the new and improved OKC has arrived. It's not just about image either, it's also about building a CBD that feels more urban and more vibrant. Many on this site say skyline isn't as important as street interaction. That is partially true, but skyline is VERY important when it comes to national image and city pride and OKC, though has improved on that front, still has a long ways to go. Also, can anybody name a city that has a great skyline but an otherwise poor downtown? I can't think of any except for possibly Tulsa. Towers add to urban feel and are excellent for placemaking just as much as good street interaction does from my experience.

All of that said, what we have proposed here is a mid-rise so we are going to have to live with that. Economics, not wishes, determines what is built and isn't. If the market can't support a 40-story tower, then one won't be built. This tower has turned out to be far shorter in height than anybody would have predicted, even Pete and Steve, and shorter than Mr. Williams himself originally claimed, but I think this project can still add to the city and in no way should it be compared to a trailer as of yet. If Rainey gets the Stage Center demolished and then scales it down even farther, then everyone will have the right to be angry.

Plus, there is still a possible second Mystery Tower that my be announced and blow everyone's socks off while we are arguing about this. I'm not getting my hopes up, but it is a possibility.

I want to stick with this question of "world class" - which is something Rainey Williams did promise. So, are we tying "world class" to height? Because if that's so, look down the street and tell me how height makes the 31-story Oklahoma Tower (now there's a mediocre design if I've ever saw one) better than the 22-story Leadership Square.
World class - well heck, that phrase is applied throughout the architecture community internationally to Stage Center.
I'm asking everyone again - do we really know what this development will look like? We know how it will be conceptually modeled and the site plan. But the exterior architectural finish IS NOT shown in the renderings provided so far. So how does anyone know whether it will be world class, unless the definition is set at height as what I'm sensing from many in this thread.
I keep asking, and I'll keep asking ... is DDRC being given enough information about this project to allow for demolition to continue?


No, the DDRC has absolutely not been given enough to allow for demolition. Also height does not necessarily go hand in hand with "world class" (example Sydney Opera house 213" tall, world class all the way). But then again it does (burj khalifa)(Devon) personally besides Devon, City Place is my favorite downtown building.
No we have no clue what this will look like. That's where my caution and skepticism comes into play. Yeah it could end up being world class or it could end up being century center with a 14 story glass box on it. if he wasn't ready for the scrutiny of announcing building a world class tower maybe he shouldn't have made it public. No one forced him to. Unless someone did???

Now a question for you, if I may. What about this conceptual rendering does make you so confident in this?if we knew that maybe we could all relax a bit. Or is it that you know DDRC will reject this and he will have to come back with something better (better being taller or a more unique design, with details and pre lease agreements for retail restaurants etc.?

But height is part of design.

It's not the only thing, but it is important -- most important to most people, in fact.

So, when you take that away then there is going to be more scrutiny on everything else. And since the "everything else" is just some block-y concept showing almost zero public space, then you are going to get howls and I think, rightfully so.

I think that it's about time people drop this old-fashioned fascination/obsession with height.
After all, it's way past the dawning of the Age of Aquarius and well into the New Millennium and that whole "height" thing is just so early 20th Century.
I think we need to start thinking about depth instead.
As in, "how low can you go?"
This is especially relevant when one considers the "architectural marvel" currently occupying the space.

No, the DDRC has absolutely not been given enough to allow for demolition. Also height does not necessarily go hand in hand with "world class" (example Sydney Opera house 213" tall, world class all the way). But then again it does (burj khalifa)(Devon) personally besides Devon, City Place is my favorite downtown building.
No we have no clue what this will look like. That's where my caution and skepticism comes into play. Yeah it could end up being world class or it could end up being century center with a 14 story glass box on it. if he wasn't ready for the scrutiny of announcing building a world class tower maybe he shouldn't have made it public. No one forced him to. Unless someone did???

Now a question for you, if I may. What about this conceptual rendering does make you so confident in this?if we knew that maybe we could all relax a bit. Or is it that you know DDRC will reject this and he will have to come back with something better (better being taller or a more unique design, with details and pre lease agreements for retail restaurants etc.?

Oklahoma City ordinances do not, and DDRC is instructed that it cannot, use the future use in consideration of demolition. Would they deny, and state that as the grounds, the applicant could presumably appeal to BOA, and then to District Court (if necessary) and I would surmise they would win on those grounds.

No, the DDRC has absolutely not been given enough to allow for demolition. Also height does not necessarily go hand in hand with "world class" (example Sydney Opera house 213" tall, world class all the way). But then again it does (burj khalifa)(Devon) personally besides Devon, City Place is my favorite downtown building.
No we have no clue what this will look like. That's where my caution and skepticism comes into play. Yeah it could end up being world class or it could end up being century center with a 14 story glass box on it. if he wasn't ready for the scrutiny of announcing building a world class tower maybe he shouldn't have made it public. No one forced him to. Unless someone did???

Now a question for you, if I may. What about this conceptual rendering does make you so confident in this?if we knew that maybe we could all relax a bit. Or is it that you know DDRC will reject this and he will have to come back with something better (better being taller or a more unique design, with details and pre lease agreements for retail restaurants etc.?

I think people are jumping to conclusions as to what I might think about this particular building. I think we don't really know what it will look like and I'd like to know more.

Oklahoma City ordinances do not, and DDRC is instructed that it cannot, use the future use in consideration of demolition. Would they deny, and state that as the grounds, the applicant could presumably appeal to BOA, and then to District Court (if necessary) and I would surmise they would win on those grounds.

Thanks for bringing this up, as I know the point has been made previously.

So, what would be legal reasons (within guidelines or other laws) that would allow a denial of any demolition?

But when the discussion gets to be all about height ... that's what I'm questioning and challenging. Design, design, design, design ...

I completely agree. I would trade 5 of this project's 16 floors for the design quality and execution of Devon Energy Center. Height is important. From a distance, tall buildings impress people. They look good on TV during basketball games. But it's vastly more important for a building to have substance than flare. Tall isn't enough to add significant value to the community and the surrounding properties. Tall isn't enough to make people like living, working, eating, or playing in the area.

The focus should be on good design. Rainy Williams shouldn't be pressured to spend more money on more floors. He should be pressured to ensure that whatever he builds is beautiful, functional, and enjoyed by those who use it, not just those who look at it in a sunset skyline photograph. There's no reason a 15-story tower on this property can't be an incredible, "world class" addition to downtown.

I think people are jumping to conclusions as to what I might think about this particular building. I think we don't really know what it will look like and I'd like to know more.

That I think is one of the few things we can all agree on here! :tongue:

As has been mentioned before, he is asking to demo the building right away but not planning to break ground until 2015.

The longer between those two activities the greater likelihood for a project to come off the rails or be scaled back. They almost never get better or grow in that interim period.

Yeah. No good. He should have to wait to demo.

So, are we to assume the developers competing to buy this spot had plans that were inferior? Or we're they turned down in favor of something political? Did others have solid plans with financial support? I suppose They could sell it for a nice profit now since a sweetheart deal was apparently made and this spot is worth more now. Then they could buy a site cheaper elsewhere and build this building for OG&E there.

I agree as others have said, that this tower should go somewhere else that's less prominent or already has this range of buildings (NW downtown) and not the Stage Center site. I expect the Stage Center to be replaced by something 'world class that OKC residents can be proud of'. This is words from the developers mouth yet his conceptual model does not live up to that and should be built elsewhere in downtown.

I also disagree with those who think we should just sit back and 'be quiet' since it isn't our money or we don't go around building buildings. As was said, this is the NEW Oklahoma City where people speak up and stand up for their city. I totally disagree that we should be quiet - there is plenty of evidence that OKCTalk has made a difference in OKC developments since it has been 'alive' and PERHAPS RW purposely put out that conceptual model just to gauge reaction of the public to which OKCTalk provides an easy venue.

Nope, speak up OKC and use OKCTalk for what it was designed for - as a PUBLIC FORUM for people interested in OKC's development and continued renaissance! Sure some of it may be dreaming or unfeasible, but at least OKC people are talking and not settling for second best anymore. Building something for the sake of destroying something else should be HALTED immediately since downtown OKC has plenty of other sites suitable for projects. The days of being quiet and settling for something better than nothing are long over.

Again - I am not against this project per say as conceptually modeled; but I am against the location the developer wants to put this conceptual model as it goes against what he promised out of his own mouth. And I "HOPE-PRAY" that the Downtown Design Review committee takes public sentiment into account (to which this forum is a great voice - particularly on urban design/expectations). They should encourage him to go vertical on this sight OR negotiate a trade with somebody who will.

Count me in as one who thinks this site deserves a 30+ storey single or multiple tower world-class design WITH excellent street interaction. Why can't OKC have both (all 4 of soondoc's elements) on this prime site? I don't too much care that the downtown school or MGB have a shadow cast for an hour or so in a day since THIS IS the CBD!

Ive watched this thread for a while and seen the opinions, reasoned and shrill. Oklahoma City is in the middle of a great economic growth cycle with a lot of momentum. We've recently seen the construction of the tallest building in the state and $2billion in private development. OKC is in the middle of a new era and should be looking for the sky.

The comment made that struck me as most valid and true is that the Rainey Williams development, as currently outlined, could be built most anywhere in the city. Why take one of the largest and most prime downtown development properties and build something that is seemingly underutilizing this choice location? I'm not a developer but this seems to violate real estate principles of putting choice land to its highest and best use. With A class office space at a shortage, I'm very puzzled why Williams would propose a development on rare and choice property that should be twice as large?

Ive very rarely seen a developer that doesn't try to OVERdevelop his property and then scale it back. This block screams for something that can both serve as a corporate HQ but also provide significant office space to the many other companies that would like to come downtown. The Stage Center block is prime real estate that demands more than a "nice" development but a "prime" development.

I hope maybe the "hotel" tower can be enlarged to something more appropriate. Again, it is so true the current iteration of thethe Rainey Williams could be built on 8th or 10th street. It could be built on the Broadway Extension or in the United Founders area. The Stage Center block deserves something special.

Mug - EXACTLY!!!!!

It should be built, but elsewhere not on the last prime site downtown.

How can you claim this when he (Rainey Williams) was quoted as saying it will be "world class"?!

He presented a concept, and I'll stand by my claim its audacious to bring a concept to the DDRC to demolish an OKC landmark (love it hate it indifferent.)
"World Class" is a very vague statement for good reason, just the phrase itself can have a million different meanings and everyone has their own definition. Having spent time in Tokyo where there are a bunch of tall towers some of the most interesting buildings would be considered dumpy little buildings on here but they have great design, materials and details. Many of the very tall buildings are in fact some of the most boring.

I do think the preliminary renderings released are less than most expected but there is a long way to go on the project and hopefully it is an "under promise, over deliver" scenario. I also know that the "extravagance" of the OG+E building that was proposed in the early 80's is one of the factors that killed the project, thankfully OKC has matured some in the past 30 years when it comes to architectural expectations.

Steve, at the risk of causing some MI issues for some folk, yes, there is enough info to permit demolition of SC.
Please recall I have had several posts in the past how I wish it could be salvaged, repurposed, etc.

I did not begin as an SC critic, let alone a hater. But it's day has come and gone. Despite interest, no one has had both the interest and the means to salvage it. And thus it has sat, for years, draining resources of a NFP at no small amount, simply to sit empty and rot.

Now a new owner has the property. Like the NFP before him, and like some who had insufficient interest to do a salvage op, the new owner has no intent to revive SC.
That being true, unlike the NFP, he appears to have no interest in expending six figures a year, give or take, to let it sit and rot. I can't say as I blame him. Not a bit.
If it is not the goal of the owner to revive the structure, it dang sure ought not be the goal of the owner to let his property become more blighted by the month, and pay out six figures a year just to hold the rot to a minimum.

It makes far more sense to stop the bleeding of funds, and let those same funds go toward the next purpose of the location.

And while yes, a tall building is a nice idea anywhere DT, I fall very comfortably in the column of 2-3 shorter buildings are fine. Others have issues with that. Well, the space to the immediate south will undoubtedly come up for sale in the foreseeable future. Pool the funds, line up the investors, buy it up, find the tenants, put up a 30,40,80 story whatever and look down on this property and sneer if one will. But lashing out at someone who is actually doing something pretty much because he is not doing what folks are are doing way, way less what done is not a band wagon I care to ride on.

Honestly, I'd rather see it be a surface lot for a few years and generate funds for a later project than to see SC sit there as an iconic rotting corpse of a structure consuming funds that could instead be used to improve the property.

Honestly, I'd rather see it be a surface lot for a few years and generate funds for a later project than to see SC sit there as an iconic rotting corpse of a structure consuming funds that could instead be used to improve the property.

And the OKCTALK community shudders...

As there are lots of moving parts to this, I just want to poise some questions here:

Are you okay with OGE actually going to Northwest Expressway and downtown losing 1,000+ high wage jobs? Everyone I've talked to who works there says they desperately need consolidation.**

Are you alright with OGE possibly building a lavish HQ but possibly raising electrical rates in the future for unrelated issues?

Are you okay with the Stage Center site sitting decrepit until the "perfect" development comes along, whether that be in 5 months or 5 years?

Are you okay with a taller tower being built but possibly getting entangled in a legal battle with the MBG over height and sunlight issues similar to the Nasher Garden and Museum Tower in Dallas?

Are you okay trading a shorter building that will be more or less 100% leased over a taller building that will have to lease out spec space, which may not sit well with some of RW's investors?

**This is not happening and while I respect everyone's opinion, to even suggest that they even go somewhere else after they bought the land is childish IMO. This isn't a landfill or some other public nuisance. I am alright with this and so long as the actual design is close to what is proposed here I will consider it a success. I think the bigger issue is the lack of a finalized design.

Stage Center was virtually created as an obsolete and obtrusive piece
of art from day one.

I've played many gigs at that nightmare. Here's a list of my favorite
gigs...
...
...
...
Ooops, no faves...

However my very favorite, and I'm sure I speak for any musician who
has ever been subjected to play there, gigs were the ones that
were outside of the complex and close to our vehicles for a quick
getaway. At least we had a semblance of fresh air.

If the hysterical, I mean historical, associations want to make this
pathetic excuse for art to be something artistically important then
I'm good with their ignorance of art.

However, I can't imagine anyone with a brain wanting this monstrosity
to remain as is.

Most thinking Oklahomans will agree...

1. Tear it down. It's worth nothing.
2. Don't feel bad that bad art isn't always art.
3. Tear it down. It's worth nothing.
4. Don't feel bad that bad art isn't always art.
5. Tear it down. It's worth nothing.
5. Don't feel bad that bad art isn't always art.
6. Tear it down. It's worth nothing.
7. Don't feel bad that bad art isn't always art.
8. Feel free to puke your guts out.
9 Don't feel bad that bad art isn't always art.

Where has anybody been seriously advocating saving/preserving Stage Center in this thread for many months and probably dozens of pages? I think most people have come to terms with the demolition. Why all of the hatred? Don't worry; it will be gone soon enough and it will no longer have such a devastatingly horrific impact on your day-to-day life.

Thanks for bringing this up, as I know the point has been made previously.

So, what would be legal reasons (within guidelines or other laws) that would allow a denial of any demolition?

Here's a few items straight from the Downtown zoning code:

§ 59-4250 DISCRETIONARY REVIEW PROCEDURES 4250.3 C. (5) Prior to issuing a Certificate of Approval, the Committee may request projects proposing demolition, reconstruction, alterations, or expansions to structures with historic significance to be reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission for a non-binding recommendation.

§ 59-7200 DOWNTOWN DESIGN DISTRICTS 7200.1

A. Purpose and Intent

This commercial district is intended to support diverse forms of business activity, including mixed-uses in a single building, within the central area of the City. Development regulations and guidelines in this district are intended to:
(5) preserve and restore historic resources, and circulation patterns of the downtown districts; and

C. Certificate of Approval Required

(2) The Downtown Design Review Committee shall review and issue Certificates of Approval for the following unless administrative approval is permitted as referenced in this section:
(b) Demolition of a structure or site and site elements except structures declared dilapidated and approved for demolition by City Council.
(3) Staff may review and issue Certificates of Approval for the following:
(c) Demolition of site elements or of a structure less than 20,000 gross square feet, except structures declared dilapidated and approved for demolition by City Council.

G. Development Guidelines
These guidelines are intended to promote the development and redevelopment of the downtown area in a manner consistent and compatible with existing unique and diverse design elements of downtown Oklahoma City. These guidelines are also intended to promote downtown as a unique and active destination with a variety of land uses, designed in context with the area in which they are located. The Downtown Design Review Committee and staff shall apply these guidelines as appropriate to the specific site and district, preserving the character and context of the urban environment, and providing flexibility to incorporate new technology and techniques.
(1) Existing Buildings and Historic Resources
In order to preserve the legacy of our past, structures and sites within the downtown districts that are significant to the history of the nation, state, city, or districts should be rehabilitated so that as much of the original fabric as possible remains intact.
(a) Existing buildings and character-defining architectural features such as building mass, roofs, exterior walls, doors, windows, and architectural detailing should be retained, refurbished and remain in the original locations.
(b) Site elements such as walkways, pedestrian amenities, and hardscape features should be retained and rehabilitated.

Am I correct in saying that while they can show renderings to help get the demo approved. The ddrc approving the demo does not require the applicant to have to build anything

First off, to EVERYBODY (especially Kevin Pate) who keeps saying this is Rainey Williams money and he can do whatever he wants with it. He was born rich, his family has had old money and connections for his entire life. If you think this property was on the open market just to buy you are the one truly oblivious to how this world works. There was no "This site goes to the highest bidder". The ONLY reason he won this site was because he has been rich his entire life and he knows the right people. He got this property for a tiny % of what the property is actually worth. You can say life isn't fair, but when people have unfair advantages over other people to make money off of the MILLIONS of dollars of downtown public investment by the average joe citizens of the City of Oklahoma City, we deserve the right to speak up against it.

2nd, there are no economies at play here except for the most micro of micro of micro economies. OGE is holding Rainey Williams by the balls and telling him EXACTLY what to build. Rainey never proposed this building with the intention of the open market filling it with a basic supply and demand principal. This is all behind the table dealings to get OGE the best deal possible. We, as citizens, invested so enormously in our downtown to improve the quality of life here. Not to make 1 or 2 people more money. This building will benefit from the boulevard, the streetcar, project 180, the convention center, the MBG, and the Elementary School. What do we benefit from it????????

3rd, I loved the comparison of somebody building a mansion and then a new trailer park neighbor moving in across the street (I understand that is extreme, but I'm able to see the point). Devon increased the property value of this entire area. The entire downtown area. And the closer the Devon the more valuable the property becomes. Devon created a momentum that shouldn't be stopped by minimal projects. And this is minimal. Would ANYBODY here approve of a project any less then what has already been proposed? DID NOT THINK SO.

4th, anybody who doesn't think height is an important design element in creating excitement and momentum and help in recruiting the most qualified individuals to a city for employment aren't very in touch with young professionals. Not saying it's the only factor in the minds of young people newly entered in the work force, but it is a huge draw. Even more so then a urban target would be... We need to create a brain gain, and Devon type projects are what cause that.

Oklahoma City is growing too much, and there is too much demand and momentum to accept these kind of proposals on the best land in our city. I guarantee if this land had truly been on the open market and the best proposal would have been selected we'd easily be looking at a 30+ story tower with amazing street level interaction and public use.

As has been mentioned before, he is asking to demo the building right away but not planning to break ground until 2015.

The longer between those two activities the greater likelihood for a project to come off the rails or be scaled back. They almost never get better or grow in that interim period.

...projects that move forward quickly, are fully financed. Projects that take time get "snake bit" and never come to pass.

Am I correct in saying that while they can show renderings to help get the demo approved. The ddrc approving the demo does not require the applicant to have to build anything

Correct.

If you read the ordinance, above, you can see that it only really discussed rehabilitation. It doesn't discuss much about demolition itself. Planning Dept. tried to draft an ordinance that would have removed much of the ambiguity, but it failed at the Planning Commission level.

Pete - I think a legal argument FOR demolition would be that it's not "significant" to the history of the nation, state, city or district... Obviously, that's debatable because it's certainly eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, but it's not Listed.

Correct.

If you read the ordinance, above, you can see that it only really discussed rehabilitation. It doesn't discuss much about demolition itself. Planning Dept. tried to draft an ordinance that would have removed much of the ambiguity, but it failed at the Planning Commission level.

Pete - I think a legal argument FOR demolition would be that it's not "significant" to the history of the nation, state, city or district... Obviously, that's debatable because it's certainly eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, but it's not Listed.

As always thanks for the great info

jccougar, if you can't make an argument without making a fake one, that's on you. I don't think I've ever said the owner can do what ever he desires with his property. Clearly one can only do what fits within existing zoning or what can take place via a variance to existing zoning. So the trailer by a mansion is just silly.

However, there is not a single requirement on the owner of the SC property, or to my knowledge any property in the metro that says one must build the tallest, nicest or most iconic structure. The owner could, if so inclined, build something rather insignificant, or if finances permitted, let the land sit blank and hold it for speculation.

If the citizens want a minimum height requirement in the core, they have a council full of folk to try and convince to change the rules. But the constant pitching fits over someone not doing something there is no legal basis to demand they do, that is what doesn't make much sense.

As for any alleged fix, easy to say, but doesn't much explain how the land sat for several years. It was clear in 2010 the foundation wasn't going to throw more money into the problem child that SC had become. There was time to put together a package, if someone with the ability to do so had wanted to do so. I don't recall a long line. Perhaps I missed a few stories though. It's possible.

It that REALLY what you want though? There is absolutely 0 point in arguing what zoning laws require. Those are cut and dry. Somebody can post those laws and we can be done with that discussion.

This is about what this property should have. If your ok with somebody developing the most desirable property in OKC at the bare minimum because they are allowed to do it then that is on you and your conscious my friend.

Some of us dream bigger than just ok, and I realize you are old and haven't experienced a renaissance like OKC is going through now. But things are VERY different over the last 5 years then ever before here, so your old ideologies of just accepting whatever is thrown on your plate just because it meets your daily nutritional requirements are an old school of thought around these parts brother.

It that REALLY what you want though? There is absolutely 0 point in arguing what zoning laws require. Those are cut and dry. Somebody can post those laws and we can be done with that discussion.

This is about what this property should have. If your ok with somebody developing the most desirable property in OKC at the bare minimum because they are allowed to do it then that is on you and your conscious my friend.

Some of us dream bigger than just ok, and I realize you are old and haven't experienced a renaissance like OKC is going through now. But things are VERY different over the last 5 years then ever before here, so your old ideologies of just accepting whatever is thrown on your plate just because it meets your daily nutritional requirements are an old school of thought around these parts brother.

No, Kevinpate is just living in the 'REAL' world....... not in fantasy dream land or Sim City.

If you want change, like he said, go to the council and speak your peace. The FBB group was very effective with the boulevard, but they went through the proper channels.

I'm still going to LMFAO if real architectural renderings are released with specs that are different than this conceptual drawing and the new rendering appeases everyone. All this argument for nothing!

^ Time to break out the ignore button. (Three posts up)

I realize you are old and haven't experienced a renaissance like OKC is going through now. But things are VERY different over the last 5 years then ever before here, so your old ideologies of just accepting whatever is thrown on your plate just because it meets your daily nutritional requirements are an old school of thought around these parts brother.Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Even more to the point, those who ignore history quite frequently make even worse mistakes than did their predecessors.

Oklahoma City experienced possibly the greatest boom ever to happen on this continent, on April 22, 1889, when its population soared from a few hundred to more than 10,000 in a single day. We're not likely to ever repeat that, nor is any other locality either. It was a unique situation.

But over the next three decades or so, we made the transformation from a temporary tent settlement to a true city (for that time) -- and it was almost entirely due to the efforts of a few "insiders" who sought primarily to boost their own fortunes, but who realized that the quickest way to do so was to press for improvements to the city. A rising tide lifts all boats. Their names are today memorialized on a number of streets: Classen, Shartel, Couch are among the most well known.

Around 1903 or so a young wheeler-dealer came to town from the gold fields of Cripple Creek, Colorado, to lead the newly formed Chamber of Commerce here. By the time of his death some eight decades later, he had become the leading power-behind-the-throne in the state. Not all of his ideas were great ones; the destruction of what had been a vibrant, urban downtown was directly due to his plan to make it better.

The point is that dreaming bigger than OKC isn't always a good idea. In the late 1940s, when the First National and (then) Ramsey towers were our only skyscrapers (neither more than 32 floors), a visitor from New York City told my father that the OKC skyline was more impressive than that of Manhattan. It doesn't take simple height to make an impression. It does take balance, and something to distinguish a view from all of its competition.

We have a long way to go to get back to what we had in 1945 -- but we ARE on the way. I never expected to see any recovery in my lifetime, so I'm glad to see that things are improving. Let's not repeat the tragic errors of the 70s in our haste for instant perfection!

Where has anybody been seriously advocating saving/preserving Stage Center in this thread for many months and probably dozens of pages? I think most people have come to terms with the demolition. Why all of the hatred? Don't worry; it will be gone soon enough and it will no longer have such a devastatingly horrific impact on your day-to-day life.

Melodrama, my favorite! Stage Center is ugly and dysfunctional and there is something better waiting on the land. Time to let it go.

we'd easily be looking at a 30+ story tower with amazing street level interaction and public use.

What exactly constitutes amazing street level interaction? Can you show me a corporate headquarters building that has it so I can see what this OG&E proposal is missing?

It that REALLY what you want though? There is absolutely 0 point in arguing what zoning laws require. Those are cut and dry. Somebody can post those laws and we can be done with that discussion.

This is about what this property should have. If your ok with somebody developing the most desirable property in OKC at the bare minimum because they are allowed to do it then that is on you and your conscious my friend.

Some of us dream bigger than just ok, and I realize you are old and haven't experienced a renaissance like OKC is going through now. But things are VERY different over the last 5 years then ever before here, so your old ideologies of just accepting whatever is thrown on your plate just because it meets your daily nutritional requirements are an old school of thought around these parts brother.

This is really rude. And you haven't been posting here long because if you had, you would know that Jim Kyle has seen many great periods in OKC history. This makes you come across like a snot-nosed kid.

What exactly constitutes amazing street level interaction? Can you show me a corporate headquarters building that has it so I can see what this OG&E proposal is missing?

I'm no expert on that. However, I think JTF could answer that and provide you with amazing examples.

The point I was trying to make is, OKC is booming at an incredible rate with a unsatisfied demand (proven by the fact that Steve is following multiple tower projects currently) and the stage center property is so valuable that there is a developer out there that would turn this land in to something that we would all agree is a fabulous project (some people think height is most important, some people think street interaction is most important, some people think public use is most important). There is little to no doubt in my mind this is fact. And there were multiple bids placed on this property to back that theory up.

This is really rude. And you haven't been posting here long because if you had, you would know that Jim Kyle has seen many great periods in OKC history. This makes you come across like a snot-nosed kid

My reply was to Kevin Pate, not Jim Kyle. I really appreciated Jim Kyle's reply to my post. Keven Pate replied to me saying my argument was completely made up so I did reply with a rude remark. Didn't mean to offend all old people, though I probably did and I'm sorry to those I didn't intend to offend.

I was just trying to say, that passing the bare minimum is no longer good enough for OKC during the greatest economical and cultural boom time in our cities history. It just came off as rude because that was my intention after a rude remark was directed at me. And I'm not sorry for directing that remark and Kevin.

I have no doubt at all that this was and is an insider deal. My point is that such insider deals are responsible for just about all of the urbanism this city has had throughout its almost 125-year life. And that lifespan is less than half that of such "peer cities" as St. Louis, Dallas, or any eastern metropolis. Plus the fact that we "dreamed bigger" in the 1970s and wiped the slate of history clean so that we could start over -- and what we got was plenty of surface perking lots!

Classen Boulevard came into existence to help Anton Classen sell real estate out in what were then the suburbs. He even went so far as to finance the street cars to make his lots more attractive. That was 110 years ago. Need other examples? Google for "Doug Dawg" (with the quotes) to locate more history of OKC than I've ever seen anywhere else...

I vote Pete closes this thread completely, this is getting ridiculous.

I'm no expert on that. However, I think JTF could answer that and provide you with amazing examples.

With all due respect, I'm not asking JTF, I'm asking you. You're the one who keeps bringing up how short this project falls. What do YOU want to see? What constitutes the street interaction we're missing?

I vote for at least 35 stories on this site or let it sit empty.

Honestly of all the components of a great development (at least the 3 I listed) it probably does the best job at street level interaction. Which is why JTF and all the other hardcore ubranists appear to actually approve of this development. I was saying that I think there is a developer out there that could incorporate all of the previously listed components.

As far as what I would like to see, It appears in the renderings to have some kind of electronic screen and I like that A LOT. I also think they should imprint the exit ramp and stage to the south in to the box structure to leave the California easement open, much like they did with the screen, or actually return it to an actual drivable street. There should be multiple points of retail and service business on ground floor that interact well with their surroundings. Specifically I'd like to see a restaurant, a business clothing store, a day care (for kids leaving school, but still waiting for their parents), a bike store, a broad range store like a urban target or wal mart. Things of that nature instead of just a wall of parking garage.

I vote it has an ice cream shop at ground level or no deal! ;)

I vote Pete closes this thread completely, this is getting ridiculous.

What about progressive thinking and open discussion is ridiculous to you? I honestly mean this with all due respect. For how much emotion people seem to be putting into this thread (including myself), it (IMO) has been discussed respectfully, considering the difference of opinion and that this is a internet forum where respect is few and far between. We are all Oklahomans or have a very strong tie to Oklahoma/OKC and just care and want whats best for our home. (whether we know what that is thats best or we our "dreamers".) Pete does a fantastic job of keeping people in check and I think everyone on here respects Pete too much to let it get carried away.

And a big red cherry on top.

Seriously though. 14-16 story building here is just nonsense. Never did anyone on this site think that someone would propose such a preposterous idea. You don't put a trailer house next door to the Taj

what about progressive thinking and open discussion is ridiculous to you? I honestly mean this with all due respect. For how much emotion people seem to be putting into this thread (including myself), it (imo) has been discussed respectfully, considering the difference of opinion and that this is a internet forum where respect is few and far between. We are all oklahomans or have a very strong tie to oklahoma/okc and just care and want whats best for our home. (whether we know what that is thats best or we our "dreamers".) pete does a fantastic job of keeping people in check and i think everyone on here respects pete too much to let it get carried away.

progressive thinking!!....lol lol rofl

progressive thinking!!....lol lol rofl

pro·gres·sive [pruh-gres-iv] Show IPA
adjective
1.
favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, especially in political matters: a progressive mayor.
2.
making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc.: a progressive community.
3.
characterized by such progress, or by continuous improvement.
4.
( initial capital letter ) of or pertaining to any of the Progressive parties in politics.
5.
going forward or onward; passing successively from one member of a series to the next; proceeding step by step.

Sorry, I assumed you knew what progressive meant. Yet, considering you suggested to shut down a public forum, for a reason you refuse to give or do not have, your response is not surprising.