Thanks warreng88. :)

Are you architect2014? About mid-way through I recalled reading something this abrasive in the past and then it hit me...

Dallas is a travesty. There are two really excellent articles I tried digging up, one on Fort Worthology (a great new urbanist website that used to take digs at Dallas/N. Texas, but alas, no longer exists) and another in the Dallas Observer from a Cornell architecture professor critiquing the Dallas Arts District developments. The Cornell professor was a riot, arguing that the wide open-range starchitecture has the subtlety of a bull mounting a comely heifer. Won't forget that analogy for a while, plus he was spot-on.

The Dallas school of thought is to throw ungodly gobs of money at something and then call it world class because of ungodly sums of money. Either it's 800 feet tall (another great article read in the Morning News: the Mean Tower Architecture review: Museum Tower is 'classic mean girl: privileged, superficial, manipulative' | Dallas Morning News (http://www.dallasnews.com/entertainment/columnists/mark-lamster/20130906-architecture-review-museum-tower-is-a-poor-reflection-on-the-dallas-arts-district.ece)) or it was designed by the love child of Rem Koolhaas and Norman Foster (starchitecture x 2, take that world, hook 'em!!).

I am actually more familiar (sometimes painfully so) with our beloved #BigD than anyone on here probably realizes. There are actually some great pockets of human scale neighborhood vitality that are almost very un-Dallas-like, such as the Bishop Arts District. I also dig the human scale of Knox Avenue and the grittiness of Deep Ellum. Dallas is arguably a world-class city. But it's also an enigma and it's also (read:) NOTHING AT ALL TO ASPIRE TO BE. Dallas is the worst and the best rolled into one weird, psychotic, megalomaniac metroplex.

But then again at times I feel like the point I am trying to make is a little too complex for the collective psyche of this thread (note: the unspoken division in what I just said, juxtaposing this thread against the forum at large where certain posters aren't going nuts in other threads). Just to bring this back to the topic at hand, you can't coherently open saying that Dallas has no flaws and has never failed AND that OKC owes its success to close proximity to Dallas (funny because that shadow has really hurt us, and now that we've made long strides we're finally out of their shadow, and have cities like Tulsa and Wichita in our shadow instead) and then overcompensate later by saying I should "GTFO" if I don't embrace OKC's Middle America-ness.

----------------
Schizophrenia (/ˌskɪtsɵˈfrɛniə/ or /ˌskɪtsɵˈfriːniə/) is a mental disorder characterized by a breakdown of thought processes and by impaired emotional responses.

Post of the year. Masterful work.

You need to go work for a bank commercial lending department. I am sure they will love the "build it and they will come" risk attitude and would let you lend lots of money for development. LOL
When I worked in Downtown Dallas we did a lot of work for the large property managers/developers (Trammell Crow Co. was our largest client). I did field surveys of most of the towers in downtown and many out in Las Colinas, I also put the buildings in cad and did the BOMA calculation spreadsheets for all the space. We did the marketing drawings for vacant space and designed many tenant spaces. Remember that this was post oil bust and pre-tech boom (91-93), none of those towers were more than 65% occupied because they overbuilt during the oil boom, some were only in the 20's range. That also led to the statement earlier about 40% of the land in the Dallas CBD was surface parking lots as entire blocks were flattened to never be built on up to that point and many vacant lots still exist but nowhere near that number. The same thing happened in OKC during the same time period (not to the total SF extent) and it has affected the local developers ever since, most in their 20's don't seem to understand why the apprehension to "go big" exists.

OKC doesn't tend to attract the big out of state developers or the money people they use, Austin didn't either until the mid-2000's. The fact that Chesapeake and Devon developed for themselves hasn't attracted them because some of the largest possible tenants have gone owner-occupied. The credit markets are still a bit tight for "unproven markets", even at the rate that Denver has been growing there are many of the huge projects struggling to find financing. The ones that are getting built are the mid-rise type of projects because of the lower investment threshold required. To come back around to Rover's comment, too many of the "big dogs" in the finance market are still licking their wounds from the busts in Florida, Las Vegas, Phoenix, etc. and are not willing to "go big" on pure spec projects in unproven markets.

Post of the year. Masterful work.

Disagree. The post of the year is in the Bigfoot column. I quote: "R.I.P., Mr. Foot."

I sure would welcome lighting year round on these buildings if it fit into their business plans well enough that they decided the benefits justified the cost. But I can't for the life of me understand how a group of private citizens feels entitled in any way to direct a private (non-governmental) entity to allocate their resources in any specific way not mandated by any law or regulation. Good luck getting a Minimum Building Decoration Ordinance passed and defended in the courts. Do you understand the operating budgets for these entities? What if a $250,000 expenditure had a negative impact on compensation of the entities employees? What if those operating costs tipped the balance on a new development or facility renovations? How are we in any knowledgeable position to tell them how to run their business? I suppose we could ask nicely, but that's as much as we have the right to do. They are not in any way obligated to comply.

I definitely agree with this, but will add that the fact the owners of the Cotter Ranch Tower would not want to make the second most prominent building in the city skyline look attractive is another example of what is wrong with OKC. People simply lack the drive or the pride to think bigger than the bare minimum. In most cities, a business would WANT an eye-catching tower because it raises their own profile in the city. That is what Devon did with its tower and lighting scheme. The crosses on the Chase Tower are lit as a service to the community. It's been a tradition that goes back to the 1930s in OKC. If they can do that, it isn't much if a stretch to fix the lighting on the building year round.

The owner of Cotter Ranch Tower believes that raising the profile of his tower means naming it after his ranch in Texas (which he named after himself) and putting a heroic statue of himself out front. Enough said.

And here I'd thought the name referred to the ancient sitcom that gave John Travolta his start. Do you really mean there's another Cotter that didn't get welcomed back after all?

Coming immediately to mind is the statue of Emil Faber (founder of Faber College), with the inscription, "Knowledge is Good."

The owner of Cotter Ranch Tower believes that raising the profile of his tower means naming it after his ranch in Texas (which he named after himself) and putting a heroic statue of himself out front. Enough said.

Coming immediately to mind is the statue of Emil Faber (founder of Faber College), with the inscription, "Knowledge is Good."

There are actually some great pockets of human scale neighborhood vitality that are almost very un-Dallas-like, such as the Bishop Arts District.

What's cool is that Oklahoma City is beginning to have a few un-Oklahoma City districts of its own and, really, I think we'll find that those districts will go much further in "selling the city" than new tall buildings will.

I recently went to Dallas for the first time in a long time. I've never been a big fan of the city (I've always said Dallas is like LA without the upside), but I did go to some neighborhoods outside of the downtown area and was impressed with how livable some of them had become. It seems to be evolving like LA has, into a sprawling mass dotted with urban oases. What's funny is that my friend's apartment was in the newer high rise area north of downtown and, while it had all the shiny new tall buildings, it was very cold with little street life and we left the area every time we wanted to actually go do something.

Now, Dallas kind of has to do it that way and there's nothing inherently wrong with it. But, Oklahoma City's downtown is still very much a blank slate with lots of opportunities to integrate people oriented features into even our large scale developments. I honestly don't think Oklahoma City needs to worry any longer about whether we will have urban neighborhoods or urban districts. Deep Deuce, MidTown, Plaza and Uptown, and, yes, even Bricktown are already on their way to being true urban options for Oklahoma City residents and visitors, and they don't seem to be slowing down anytime soon.

I think the thing to watch now and in the next couple of years will be how much developers of new large scale construction downtown will contribute to expanding on this new urban movement in Oklahoma City. Will they tend to be just "postcard" developments, best viewed from afar, or will they be more neighborhood minded developments, best experienced in person? Really, what has yet to happen is a new large development that is strong in both aspects. This one could be the first, but it's still anyone's guess if that's truly the developer's intent.

What's cool is that Oklahoma City is beginning to have a few un-Oklahoma City districts of its own and, really, I think we'll find that those districts will go much further in "selling the city" than new tall buildings will.

I recently went to Dallas for the first time in a long time. I've never been a big fan of the city (I've always said Dallas is like LA without the upside), but I did go to some neighborhoods outside of the downtown area and was impressed with how livable some of them had become. It seems to be evolving like LA has, into a sprawling mass dotted with urban oases. What's funny is that my friend's apartment was in the newer high rise area north of downtown and, while it had all the shiny new tall buildings, it was very cold with little street life and we left the area every time we wanted to actually go do something.

Now, Dallas kind of has to do it that way and there's nothing inherently wrong with it. But, Oklahoma City's downtown is still very much a blank slate with lots of opportunities to integrate people oriented features into even our large scale developments. I don't honestly don't think Oklahoma City needs to worry any longer about whether we will have urban neighborhoods or urban districts. Deep Deuce, MidTown, Plaza and Uptown, and, yes, even Bricktown are already on their way to being true urban options for Oklahoma City residents and visitors, and they don't seem to be slowing down anytime soon.

I think the thing to watch now and in the next couple of years will be how much developers of new large scale construction downtown will contribute to expanding on this new urban movement in Oklahoma City. Will they tend to be just "postcard" developments, best viewed from afar, or will they be more neighborhood minded developments, best experienced in person? Really, what has yet to happen is a new large development that is strong in both aspects. This one could be the first, but it's still anyone's guess if that's truly the developer's intent.

Soonerguru had the back-up of the year, but I'd humbly submit this as the post of the year, and it's just January.

The next big project in OKC should be about education. We can't build our future on single millennials. One of the reasons we returned to Seattle was for the schools. OKC needs to have a come to Jesus meeting with itself and figure out how it is going to fix them. Right now, they are acting against all the great work being done in OKC.

Probably for another thread, but this is a good point. No doubt, if we'd spent an equal amount in upgrading the actual level of education in our public schools over the last 20 years as we have on infrastructure through MAPS, we'd be seeing some serious returns on it right now as the first few classes benefiting from a higher standard of education would be graduating right about now. Promoting Oklahoma City as a cheap place to do business would actually be about value, not just the cost.

We just did Maps for Kids, which was exclusively for education.


Also, absolutely no one is going to disagree with the idea that we need to better develop our urban districts.

But in terms of this project, that is a completely separate and unrelated issue.

This is going to be one block of 2 or three mid-rise buildings instead of one tall one. General density and urban districts won't be impacted one way or another.


With all due respect to the intelligent discussion here, people keep bringing up this density vs. height issue and it's a complete red herring in the context of this project.


And I will say once again, that height isn't the only thing but it is important in lots of ways.

Postcard views and the vistas of most citizens who rarely go downtown go a long way towards building/changing perceptions and that's an area where OKC and it's downtown still has lots of work to do.

Pete, you are right on the money. Can you please run for office or city council? Do you have any influence or know who people can contact to express our opinions. We are happy with OKC and its progress but disappointed at the small time mentality and bare minimal constructions and projects. I just wish they could see the big picture ahead instead of simply not getting it and being content. I just can't imagine what it's like for people to have average aspirations rather than striving for greatness. What I have learned is that their are a lot of people on here that are just that and it is a reflection of too many other people in our community as well as our leaders.

The next big project in OKC should be about education. We can't build our future on single millennials. One of the reasons we returned to Seattle was for the schools. OKC needs to have a come to Jesus meeting with itself and figure out how it is going to fix them. Right now, they are acting against all the great work being done in OKC.

Maps for Kids spent half a billion on education.

If you are talking about public schools, the quality of education is almost exclusively tied to the socio-economics of the neighborhoods that feed each individual school, with the exception of magnets.

I suspect the new downtown elementary will be pretty good based on this alone; while pouring tons of money into others will not have a significant impact on test scores or API ratings -- or even attracting better teachers.

Given the constraints of a system that is completely in-bred (the only industry that truly is) and thus the complete protectionism by teacher's unions and just about everyone else in the educational system, no real change is going to happen, which is why it hasn't happened yet.

This problem is not in any way unique to OKC and it is easily solved by simply moving to a "better" neighborhood or getting your kid into a magnet school. It's really always been that way and sadly, I resigned myself to the fact it probably always will.

The other tactic would be to help improve your own neighborhood but it's unlikely a big change could be made before the kids were ready to move up to the next school.

If it is a world-class building, it won't matter how it affects the skyline, it will get its due.

But the amount of gold in a European cathedral is worth more than what Rainey is dropping on this project, so I'm not holding my breath…

And I say, with all due respect, the most loved cities in the world aren't necessarily tall. To say height really plays a major role or even a significant one is kind of funny. Because of postcards? :)

The world is not an appropriate corollary.

The focus should be on the U.S. and particularly, newer cities in the middle of the country.

OKC has no more in common with Seattle, San Francisco or Boston than it does with Berlin or Paris.

Hey Pete, any chance we could blow this thread up and start all over? ;)

Saying it has lost focus would be an understatement.

And BTW, to try and claim that height and an impressive skyline in newer, emerging American cities isn't major or significant at all detracts greatly from the broader and generally wonderful new urbanism agenda.

The general populace -- those all new urbanists hope to educate and influence -- will reject that idea on the surface and thus the entire message will be lost.

You can see exactly that happening on this thread, along with a fair bit of preaching to the already converted.

All of that money went into the school buildings. A lot of money but spread out a lot. I'm talking about raising taxes and paying top of the market wages for education professionals. Top of the market is what every other industry pays if they are looking for the best. We need to take that approach.

It's not about the teachers, it's about the families and neighborhoods.

There are plenty of cities that pay their teachers a lot more and it doesn't translate into a better education.

I used to work in LAUSD schools (for a nonprofit) and lots teachers made over $100K and the schools were still atrocious due to lack of parental involvement and that the kids came to school with problems no amount of education could ever solve.


One area where increased funding really does help is in creating more magnets, specialty schools and university funding.

I would much rather see OU, OSU and the rest of the public colleges get a lot more funding; that to me would be a good investment of tax dollars, as it gets repaid through a skilled workforce, increased innovation, etc.

The skyscraper infatuation is a little weird, especially considering the fact that it is so rarely done in a way that lends to great street activity -- which IS what we should be wanting more of. More than tall buildings, we lack serious street life.

Again, these are two completely separate issues.

NOT building tall in no way ensures street activity, while at the same time there are lots of tall buildings that do a very good job of this and lots of shorter ones that are terrible.

Height and district quality are in no way mutually exclusive, especially when it comes to the project we are discussing.


And all things held constant, tall DOES do something for a community.

Pete, I'm aware of what tier OKC sits in. Which is in fact, exactly what I'm talking about. OKC shouldn't be losing sleep over the lack of skyscrapers. I've been in a ton of cities similar in size to OKC. I'd be hard pressed to draw you their skyline. It would be easy for me to tell you though what districts were vibrant and attractive for visiting and potentially even living in.

The skyscraper infatuation is a little weird, especially considering the fact that it is so rarely done in a way that lends to great street activity -- which IS what we should be wanting more of. More than tall buildings, we lack serious street life.

OKC is lacking both. We do need serious street life, and we are getting there, slowly. Our skyline is now being seen by everyone that watches a Thunder game on national TV, serveral times each night. With the DEVON building drawing more attention to the skyline, it needs help. Our have room for 8-12 towers w/ plenty of priced friendly real estate. It's not either / or, but Both.

Man, I can't agree with this enough. Skyscrapers or no skyscrapers, these districts, if done right, will do FAR more to attract and retain quality citizens to OKC for many years to come.

The next big project in OKC should be about education. We can't build our future on single millennials. One of the reasons we returned to Seattle was for the schools. OKC needs to have a come to Jesus meeting with itself and figure out how it is going to fix them. Right now, they are acting against all the great work being done in OKC.

Do what Colorado is doing to help fund their schools. There should be enough pot heads in Ok. to double the teachers pay the 1st year.

It's not about the teachers, it's about the families and neighborhoods.I have to differ with you about that, at least in part. The district bureaucracy is at least as much, and I happen to believe more, to blame than are the families and neighborhoods -- and it's been like that for almost 50 years to my personal knowledge.

When we moved from northeast 44th street to northwest 24th, specifically to escape the Longfellow school area and get into Cleveland, my sons were the only "non-minority" students left in Longfellow (and that single year had more adverse impact on their racism quotients than my years of trying to train them to be color-blind ever did). Come enrolment time for Cleveland, the school officials could find absolutely no record at all that one of them had ever attended Longfellow although they did find his older brother's files. We battled the school board for several weeks but the bottom line was that he had to repeat Third grade again at Cleveland.

Later, my eldest son's ambition to go into engineering was blocked by administrators at Northwest Classen who refused to allow him to enroll in prerequisite classes because they were available only at Northeast that year; instead, he was involuntarily placed in what amounted to a basket-weaving class for student athletes. He totally lost interest in his studies as a result, and maintained only a C average during his highschool years -- but at UCO, with competent teachers and administrators, that same young man placed on the dean's honor roll each of his four years there!

We've had a few good administrators in the Oklahoma City system, but most of them appear to have quit fighting their not-so-hot bosses and the ones I've known personally have simply retired to get away from it all. I have no knowledge about the current top leadership, and hope it's better than most in past years -- but I'm not really optimistic yet.

Sorry to me so off-topic, but I think it's germane to the general discussion of making OKC more attractive to non-natives...

Take this list of the typical contenders for fast-growing, progressive mid-sized cities: Portland, Austin, Charlotte, Salt Lake City, Raleigh, San Antonio.

The cities in this class that have really tied their image to a changing skyline are Charlotte and Austin. The rest have short and/or forgettable skylines that certainly are not the first thing you think of when you imagine the city.

Portland is one of the most sophisticated urban environments in the world. They don't compare themselves to Dallas, but rather Paris and Berlin. They are a real example of American exceptionalism, a term which has actually come to mean crappiness that we like. SLC is also a dynamic, new urbanist stronghold. Completely Republican, very comparable culturally, and their downtown skyline is basically the NWX with a Temple. They like it that way to preserve the sight lines of mountains and the Temple.


We just did Maps for Kids, which was exclusively for education.


Also, absolutely no one is going to disagree with the idea that we need to better develop our urban districts.

But in terms of this project, that is a completely separate and unrelated issue.

This is going to be one block of 2 or three mid-rise buildings instead of one tall one. General density and urban districts won't be impacted one way or another.


With all due respect to the intelligent discussion here, people keep bringing up this density vs. height issue and it's a complete red herring in the context of this project.


And I will say once again, that height isn't the only thing but it is important in lots of ways.

Postcard views and the vistas of most citizens who rarely go downtown go a long way towards building/changing perceptions and that's an area where OKC and it's downtown still has lots of work to do.

A long ways to go? OKC has a phenomenal skyline for a metro of 1.3 million. Probably the best skyline in class.

Take this list of the typical contenders for fast-growing, progressive mid-sized cities: Portland, Austin, Charlotte, Salt Lake City, Raleigh, San Antonio.

The cities in this class that have really tied their image to a changing skyline are Charlotte and Austin. The rest have short and/or forgettable skylines that certainly are not the first thing you think of when you imagine the city.

Those cities skylines while are changing, would not be instantly recognizable to most Americans if given an unlabeled photo of them

Again, these are two completely separate issues.

NOT building tall in no way ensures street activity, while at the same time there are lots of tall buildings that do a very good job of this and lots of shorter ones that are terrible.

Height and district quality are in no way mutually exclusive, especially when it comes to the project we are discussing.


And all things held constant, tall DOES do something for a community.

The problem is that this is OKC. All things aren't held constant. Towers will be designed by national firms that have more capacity than local firms, but are still dictated by local clients.

Take this list of the typical contenders for fast-growing, progressive mid-sized cities: Portland, Austin, Charlotte, Salt Lake City, Raleigh, San Antonio.

The cities in this class that have really tied their image to a changing skyline are Charlotte and Austin. The rest have short and/or forgettable skylines that certainly are not the first thing you think of when you imagine the city.

...and both Austin & Charlotte have had 50 years or more to make mistakes and learn from them as compared to OKC.

Need to dig up a list of cities comparable to OKC in size and incorporation. So let's look at 1889 and on. Any takers?

...and both Austin & Charlotte have had 50 years or more to make mistakes and learn from them as compared to OKC.

Need to dig up a list of cities comparable to OKC in size and incorporation. So let's look at 1889 and on. Any takers?

Huh?

Austin used to be a lot smaller than OKC before it took off. Charlotte was once smaller, too. Charlotte in fact has practically no historic building stock.

Huh?

Austin used to be a lot smaller than OKC before it took off. Charlotte was once smaller, too. Charlotte in fact has practically no historic building stock.

Ummmmm, yeah, because it was all destroyed in the Civil War, lol.

Dude, a city doesn't just up and build skyscrapers three days after it is incorporated. I'm saying that those cities have still been around longer. For a young city, OKC has a great skyline and even if this year reveals two tower projects then bravo.

I don't know what point you're trying to make (first you said we're not comparable to Austin and Charlotte because they're much older settlements than 1889), but this is what Charlotte did in the last 40 years:

http://i280.photobucket.com/albums/kk174/aereunion/Charlotte1975.jpg
http://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large-5/perfect-charlotte-skyline-clear-sky-images.jpg

I have a feeling that you're actually backing up the urbanist point, and you're a good poster obviously. I just want to clear up that this is what happens when cities go through a boom period. OKC is different from Charlotte and Austin in that despite tearing down 2,000 buildings during urban renewal, we still have more historic building stock than those cities. AND we've already gone through multiple booms (incorporation/post-land run, oil discovery, 80s oil boom) similar to Charlotte in the 2000s and Austin today.

On that basis, disregarding the current booms that those cities are experiencing that make ours look like modest growth (which it still is), I would argue that we're a city that is more historically established. We really do have some decent history. We're also a city that's suffered innumerable tragic setbacks and for far too long we were in the shadow of Dallas.

My point was just that OKC is younger than all other cities previously compared to

And WOW

Those two pics above really tell the story! Reminds me of Dubai from 1997 to now. I'd post those pics but I'm currently on my cell phone.

Urban development is your forte, I know ;-)

Yeah, the cool thing is Charlotte didn't do too bad in trying to recreate the grandeur of cities past. Balancing human scale with sky-high aspirations. Everything a great city should be.

OKC, Austin, and Charlotte may actually be some of the most similar cities in the nation, especially in terms of history. The important distinction is that all of these cities' time is NOW. Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Detroit, St. Louis, Buffalo, Cincinnati--their time is past. All of those cities are a shell of their former selves. Cleveland, St. Louis, and even Buffalo used to be among the five largest U.S. cities at different times. NY used to be the Empire State. Buffalo is now comparable to OKC in every way. That was their time.

OKC will take off and be a tier one city someday. That's a bold prediction, but I don't know when or how it will happen. It probably won't happen for another hundred years and I won't get to see it. We'll have to ween ourselves off of the oil economy, first. Dallas and Houston have cornered that possibility, and both of them rode oil to the top tier of cities.

Here's what Houston did in 50 years:

http://www.phillipstexaslaw.com/Photos/OldNew/swbskyline1960s.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-PbIa6FPcClA/T5RPSDOn15I/AAAAAAAABHY/JTjdGpmHuV4/s1600/Downtown%2BHouston%2BDSC_8789.jpg

One thing remains constant with Houston: freeways

I don't know what point you're trying to make (first you said we're not comparable to Austin and Charlotte because they're much older settlements than 1889), but this is what Charlotte did in the last 40 years:

http://i280.photobucket.com/albums/kk174/aereunion/Charlotte1975.jpg
http://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large-5/perfect-charlotte-skyline-clear-sky-images.jpg

I have a feeling that you're actually backing up the urbanist point, and you're a good poster obviously. I just want to clear up that this is what happens when cities go through a boom period. OKC is different from Charlotte and Austin in that despite tearing down 2,000 buildings during urban renewal, we still have more historic building stock than those cities. AND we've already gone through multiple booms (incorporation/post-land run, oil discovery, 80s oil boom) similar to Charlotte in the 2000s and Austin today.

On that basis, disregarding the current booms that those cities are experiencing that make ours look like modest growth (which it still is), I would argue that we're a city that is more historically established. We really do have some decent history. We're also a city that's suffered innumerable tragic setbacks and for far too long we were in the shadow of Dallas.

Great post.

This is one reason I compare OKC to Charlotte. Other than the fact I lived in Charlotte and loved it, there are some development similarities. The first picture of Charlotte above looks very OKCish pre-Devon, except that Charlotte lacked urban bones. Despite that though, Charlotte today is far and away ahead of OKC in terms of urban feel, and its all because of relatively recent development. OKC though has enough history left that if it experienced half the boom Charlotte did, it could come out ahead.

Being in the shadow of Dallas will tamper OKC's economic growth prospects. Most corporate relocations are going to go to Dallas and not OKC. I don't think OKC will or even can experienced the type of boom Charlotte did that created the skyline you see above. This city just doesn't have the momentum they do. That doesn't mean it can't transform its skyline with a few modern looking skyscrapers and continue to infill with low-rise residential.

Our old skyline wasn't bad. It was really one of the better ones for cities our size, it just happened to be #2 in state. That was a problem.

http://static.panoramio.com/photos/large/2021323.jpg

All you guys have proven with these last few posts is that a cities growth over time is judged by its downtown skyline. I know that isn't completely true, but in 50 years when people want to talk about how much Oklahoma City grew during its boom they will show the skyline prior to Devon and then the current skyline. A 14 story tower won't hardly add anything to the snapshot growth.

fwiw, the renaissance tower wasn't built till 99' :)

http://s3.amazonaws.com/newsok-photos/1550196/gallery_photo.jpg

If it is a world-class building, it won't matter how it affects the skyline, it will get its due.


You now what makes this height thing so funny is that this building is replacing an abandoned structure that is all of 50 feet tall and isn't visible in any 'post card', but its defenders swear to high heaven that it is one of the most important buildings in the history of OKC. It even won an award (although don't put to much stock in awards - a section of I-40 in Seminole Country just won an award also).

All you guys have proven with these last few posts is that a cities growth over time is judged by its downtown skyline. I know that isn't completely true, but in 50 years when people want to talk about how much Oklahoma City grew during its boom they will show the skyline prior to Devon and then the current skyline. A 14 story tower won't hardly add anything to the snapshot growth.

Idk about that, all I've done is explain the difference between building our skyline up and Charlotte's build up. Charlotte's #1 fan even agreed we could come out ahead as a more urban city because of our strong stock of good SMALL SCALE structures garnishing the skyline.

You now what makes this height thing so funny is that this building is replacing an abandoned structure that is all of 50 feet tall and isn't visible in any 'post card', but its defenders swear to high heaven that it is one of the most important buildings in the history of OKC. It even won an award (although don't put to much stock in awards - a section of I-40 in Seminole Country just won an award also).

It has been featured in articles all over the world and in some circles has international recognition.

I'm not a fan but it is one of the few notable structures in all of Oklahoma.

Idk about that, all I've done is explain the difference between building our skyline up and Charlotte's build up. Charlotte's #1 fan even agreed we could come out ahead as a more urban city because of our strong stock of good SMALL SCALE structures garnishing the skyline.

Indeed. We have plenty of stock of small scale structures so all we need now is big ones. :)
Keep the small, walkable urban structures in our small urban districts (bricktown, deep duece, AA) were street level interaction is most important.
Put the big ones in our CBD, were height is important.

I'm not sure we're talking about the same city or downtown. Are you aware of how vacant and abandoned lots stretch from te Stage Center to the south, west, and north as far as the eye can see?

That is a lot worse and a much more pressing concern than out-skylining Charlotte or Austin.

Indeed. We have plenty of stock of small scale structures so all we need now is big ones. :)
Keep the small, walkable urban structures in our small urban districts (bricktown, deep duece, AA) were street level interaction is most important.
Put the big ones in our CBD, were height is important.

Agreed. New low-rise structures like the Metropolitan, historic gentrification, and skyscrapers are all equally important in terms of creating a complete urban experience in a mid-sized city in the interior of the US. I don't agree with opposing the Stage Center Tower because it has its place in our downtown urban fabric, providing that Rainey delivers on his promise, but this city really needs a skyscraper boom. Like I said, if OKC even got half of the development Charlotte did, that would be enough.

Eventually those vacant lots will and should become full over time. (instead of tearing down unique structures, cough*stage center*cough)

If you notice in the Charlotte's skyline, most of the height is packed in to a dense space. If we build mid rises in the spots right next to our most vertical structures then eventually when somebody wants to build a large vertical structure it will be sprawled away from the rest of the height due to mid rises occupying the land around the rest of the height.

The good thing about having tall buildings right next to each other is that usually companies will overflow in their current headquarters and a need will arise to lease space in a close by building. This happens so much already, but if the large buildings are spread out it will only create problems with unifying our downtown. There is a reason why the underground tunnels were built (even though they were a failure). Downtown's should work as almost one entity.

It has been featured in articles all over the world and in some circles has international recognition.

I'm not a fan but it is one of the few notable structures in all of Oklahoma.

How is that possible seeing as how it is so short?

There are still plenty of lots that are close to the "core" of the CBD that you could plop a tower down onto. This is not the only vacant parcel. Demand for office space may be high, but at what pricepoint?

What is the $/sq ft to lease space in a brand spanking new $500,000,000 tower? What is the $/sq ft to lease in a brand new 14 story tower? It does cost to go vertical, and if land is plentiful, it's hard to justify paying a super-premium on space just so you can have a 40 floor view.

Also, will the bank give you a $500,000,000 loan? What will they charge you on interest on that loan? That interest will compound, and will also need to be included in your rent. So your $500,000,000 tower just became a $600,000,000 tower. And, you only have a tenant lined up to lease 14 floors of that. Would you take out a $500,000,000 loan on that hope that someone will lease your space after you build and complete your project, in the meantime you are paying interest on the loan during construction? I sure as heck wouldn't.

How is that possible seeing as how it is so short?

We are talking about office buildings on this thread, not performing arts centers.

How in the world did Rainey Williams purchase the Stage Center real estate for $4.275 million. (3.15 acres= 143,514 sq ft. middle of downtown OKC), when Brixton Square shopping center sold for $13 million (125,394 sq ft. = 2.75 acres, far NW OKC). Is it the property on those 2.75 acres or what? I know something cost what someone is willing to pay for but I'd like a little deeper answer than this, especially considering it is well known there were other offers on the SC site.

Answer: Brixton Square provides revenue and is functional. Stage Center costs money to just keep the walls from falling in on itself.

^

Commercial properties are valued on their income streams, not the underlying land.

Brixton Square generates income and Stage Center does not. In fact, it will cost a fair amount of money to demolish Stage Center, not including any possible legal battles.


Having said all that, the Stage Center property seems to have sold for a pretty low amount. Part of that may be due to the possible legal fight and also, the foundation that sold it said beforehand that they would sell based on the proposed development versus the highest price.

How in the world did Rainey Williams purchase the Stage Center real estate for $4.275 million. (3.15 acres= 143,514 sq ft. middle of downtown OKC), when Brixton Square shopping center sold for $13 million (125,394 sq ft. = 2.75 acres, far NW OKC). Is it the property on those 2.75 acres or what? I know something cost what someone is willing to pay for but I'd like a little deeper answer than this, especially considering it is well known there were other offers on the SC site.

Very much apples and oranges here. You are comparing the square footage of raw land that will have to to remedied to a fully functioning, largely leased out shopping center. And I take some issue with this notion that there were better deals out there because, simply put, nobody knows how those would have transpired. The history of this city is rife with grand, somewhat unrealistic promises that never see the light of day.

Answer: Brixton Square provides revenue and is functional. Stage Center costs money to just keep the walls from falling in on itself.

Yes, I 100% understand this, that is why I worded my question they way I did. I asked about the real estate. I know you cannot put a value on what something COULD be, but that 3.15 acres in downtown OKC for 4.275, seems like it would be worth more. Especially given what is currently around it, MBG, Devon, up and coming AA, and Film row.

If you are buying the land, you must assume that in a worst case scenario, the second after you sign the papers, Wall Street crashes and you can't get a loan for jack squat. Can't even get a loan to demo it and put a parking lot and outhouse. Now you just paid a ton of money for a collection of concrete and corrugated steel containers with a theater in the middle that floods. You are buying a non-functional piece of land. We now know that a city block of non-functioning, revenue negative property with concrete and steel is worth about $4 million.

Yes, I 100% understand this, that is why I worded my question they way I did. I asked about the real estate. I know you cannot put a value on what something COULD be, but that 3.15 acres in downtown OKC for 4.275, seems like it would be worth more. Especially given what is currently around it, MBG, Devon, up and coming AA, and Film row.

As I've mentioned, I'm surprised at the relatively low sales price as well.

Several other properties around OKC have sold for more per acre.

Very much apples and oranges here. You are comparing the square footage of raw land that will have to to remedied to a fully functioning, largely leased out shopping center. And I take some issue with this notion that there were better deals out there because, simply put, nobody knows how those would have transpired. The history of this city is rife with grand, somewhat unrealistic promises that never see the light of day.

Do not put words in my mouth. I said other offers, not better offers. Obviously they liked RW's best since they picked him. Thanks for you input though, I thought the property/business on the land at Brixton for sure had something to do with the price. Yet I still think $4.275 mil for 3.15 acres of prime downtown real estate sounds like a sweetheart deal.

Although it's always hard to compare downtown properties, the City offered the Brewers $6 million for the Santa Fe Station and it sits on about 1.25 acres.

Although it's always hard to compare downtown properties, the City offered the Brewers $6 million for the Santa Fe Station and it sits on about 1.25 acres.

A functioning building with a tenant, more leasable space pretty much ready to go, and a rail line on top of it. Also brings in parking revenue.

Pete, any way to know what his promised development was to the committee to get the nod? and if so what are their reactions to the site plan? makes you wonder what every other entity was proposing...