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...

The meeting is set for Jan. 16th, which means they will soon be uploading the agenda and all the materials that were submitted.

I suspect it will merely be the renderings that have already been shared, but we'll know for sure in a few days.

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.

Did they up the offer, I thought at one point it was closer to 2 than 6

Did they up the offer, I thought at one point it was closer to 2 than 6

Yes, to try and avoid going to trial with the Brewers, who were insisting on $23 million.

Pete, you know as well as anyone on here that was just a negotiation tactic. They were obviously trying to send a message by countering with an over-the-moon price as much as they believed they were being low-balled. At the end of the day the first offer in that negotiation proved to be woefully low, so it seems there might have been something to it. Nobody (including the Brewers) expected them to get anywhere near $23 million.

By the way, if you were going to build that train station in that location to that standard from scratch today, you would probably end up spending closer to $23 million than $2 million. And in this case there is no doubt that the buyer wanted that place as much for the existing facility as for the land.

Did the deal end up being struck for $6 million for SF Station?

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.


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

Spartan, you read my mind. I was going to post this exact thing about Portland last night but didn't.

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.

Bchris, how close is Atlanta to Charlotte? Isn't it about the same distance? It doesn't seem that it's proximity to Atlanta hampered its development. I don't see why OKC can't do the same.

Bchris, how close is Atlanta to Charlotte? Isn't it about the same distance? It doesn't seem that it's proximity to Atlanta hampered its development. I don't see why OKC can't do the same.

Atlanta is often seen as Charlotte's big brother. It's about 245 miles, a very similar distance as OKC is to Dallas. Charlotte has thrived largely because of BofA and Wachovia. It is amazing how many native New Yorkers live here. However, the city has been able to diversity a decent amount.. there are over 10,000 energy related jobs here now as well.

Bchris, how close is Atlanta to Charlotte? Isn't it about the same distance? It doesn't seem that it's proximity to Atlanta hampered its development. I don't see why OKC can't do the same.

Atlanta is slightly farther from Charlotte than DFW is from OKC. You don't see a lot of Atlanta envy in Charlotte and in fact most people I knew never went to Atlanta except for maybe to go to a Braves game. There is no need to as Charlotte has pretty much everything. Charlotte has grown out of Atlanta's shadow in a way OKC has not yet escaped Dallas' influence. Economically speaking, one HUGE difference is Charlotte has a hub airport that is the ninth largest in the US. This somewhat severs the city's reliance on Atlanta as well. While OKC has a decent amount of flights for a spoke airport, it has been said numerous times on this board and elsewhere that having a hub dramatically increases desirability when it comes to corporate relocations.

What is happening in Salt Lake City is interesting and perhaps OKC could learn from much of what they've done and are planning. But even though it's a socially conservative city, that doesn't at all mean that the two places are closely correlated. SLC and Utah are fully half Mormon, and there is a very tight-knit, well-organized group all pulling on the same rope. I've done quite a bit of business there and it's a completely different animal than almost anywhere else due to the Mormon presence. They are also geographically constrained by the Great Salt Lake, the mountains and other geographical features. That in itself forces density and is completely different from Great Plains cities.

Portland is amazing -- I've spent a ton of time there. However, OKC couldn't be any more different culturally and geographically so I don't see how there is any remote hope of copying what they've done. Maybe some small pieces, but they are nowhere near a realistic model for OKC.

I haven't heard one person say they want to use Dallas or Houston as a model, and Austin is awesome but again, unique in a way that wouldn't translate to OKC except in some very limited ways.

I think the most realistic model would be Denver. Even though there are mountains they don't really constrain growth and yes, it's a million times more liberal than OKC, but you could say that about most larger cities outside of Texas. Big chunks of Colorado are very conservative, after all (see Colorado Springs).


Of course we all want the walkability of Berlin and Paris and Portland and Boston, but that's not realistic in practice or even in concept.

Pete: While I disagree that OKC can't be exceptional, I agree that Denver is definitely our closest/best model. The vibe OKC is building is very Denver-like. Especially at I-40 and Council, in the shadow of Trash Mountain.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/df/Denver-skyline1.jpg

Denver, btw, actually has very few skyscrapers that would be tall enough for the posters in this thread. Maybe 5 would be acceptably tall enough. The skyline is exceptionally garnished and built-up with mid-rises and legit DENSITY. I could be wrong on this but I think they actually had a law on the books preserving sight lines of the mountains from the Capitol.

Never, ever said or implied that OKC could not be exceptional -- just that there is more than one path to that goal.

I consider Denver pretty exceptional, especially their downtown and urban core.


There is something to learn from every city but you also have to create a realistic roadmap on how to get from where you are to where you want to be, otherwise the first steps will never even be taken.

People need to be able to articulate and visualize goals, and OKC using a city like Denver allows that.


We can also use Dallas and Houston as examples of what we DON'T want.

I disagree with comparisons to Denver. OKC is by far the most conservative large city in the country. The only other city that is remotely comparable is Jacksonville, FL. Denver is very liberal. It's going to be difficult to recreate the kind of culture here that you see in places like Austin, Portland, and Denver. Other major cities are usually liberal or at least modern islands in their conservative states, but OKC tends to align more closely with rural Oklahoma than do most major cities do with their rural areas. Somebody correct me if I am wrong, and I hope I am, but from the perception I've seen, it would seem that the conservatism here is a deterrent to young, educated people relocating here from out of state. Even if its just perceived, there is this perception that if you aren't right wing you don't belong here. This is all going to affect what type of development we see here in one way or another.

I'll stop because I am getting off topic, but its an issue that OKC needs to address for so many different reasons.

I'm not sure about young, educated people not wanting to relocate here. I did. In the last six months my company has hired three out-of-state young (twenties), educated people for our OKC office. They weren't deterred.

I disagree with comparisons to Denver. OKC is by far the most conservative large city in the country. The only other city that is remotely comparable is Jacksonville, FL. Denver is very liberal. It's going to be difficult to recreate the kind of culture here that you see in places like Austin, Portland, and Denver. Other major cities are usually liberal or at least modern islands in their conservative states, but OKC tends to align more closely with rural Oklahoma than do most major cities do with their rural areas. Somebody correct me if I am wrong, and I hope I am, but from the perception I've seen, it would seem that the conservatism here is a deterrent to young, educated people relocating here from out of state. Even if its just perceived, there is this perception that if you aren't right wing you don't belong here. This is all going to affect what type of development we see here in one way or another.

I'll stop because I am getting off topic, but its an issue that OKC needs to address for so many different reasons.

The problem, bchrs, is aren't you living out on NWX? Move downtown and get in with the cool kids.

Yet more "OKC sucks" narrative from bchris02. Its getting old, frankly...why are you even here?

Once again. OKC ranked 12th in the nation in the increase in millennials and 4th in percentage increase.

FWIW Denver, Austin, and to a lesser extent Portland are more libertarian the liberal these days.

I can assure you that OKC is changing...

One of the backhanded benefits of sprawl is that more and more of the people who don't really care about the community no longer live within the city limits. While those that do, are not only staying in OKC but moving closer to the core.

Progressiveness comes from attracting and retaining the 20-somethings and that is happening to a huge degree now in OKC. And by creating an environment where those people can come together and start creating change... All that is definitely happening in OKC.

Once again. OKC ranked 12th in the nation in the increase in millennials and 4th in percentage increase.

FWIW Denver, Austin, and to a lesser extent Portland are more libertarian the liberal these days.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Every statistic you see these days disagrees with that stereotype, yet it continues to find its way onto this board. I just graduated from KU this last year and will be moving to OKC once my field training is complete. I never once questioned my decision because of the political stereotypes of the city.

I'll also chime in and say that I don't think Denver, or Colorado in general, is as liberal as everyone is trying to make it out to be. Yes, they passed laws to legalize marijuana. But that doesn't make the entire state a liberal safe haven. After all, they are still big advocates of oil and gas development. Something most blue states can't say. Colorado saw legalizing marijuana as a good business opportunity, and it has turned out to be just that so far.

You don't see a lot of Atlanta envy in Charlotte...

I spend a lot of time in Atlanta and I can tell you from experience that the envy goes the other way - particularly when it comes to rail mass transit. I can't tell you how many times while listening to talk radio in Atlanta that callers would be frustrated that Georgia DOT was spending more money on roads while Charlotte was building the Lynx system and stealing jobs from Atlanta.

On talk radio??

That photo is a little dated, but yes Denver isn't exactly a skyscraper mecca. There is a law preserving sight lines to the mountains from the Capitol building, but it doesn't really hinder development as the CBD isn't between the mountains and the building.

I think Denver is a good model for OKC to follow. In the 60s the Skyline Renewal Authority cleared 27 city blocks in the urban core, destroying hundreds of lowrise structures, some historically significant, so downtown has had to rebuild its character slowly and organically. While the revitalization of downtown has been ongoing over the last 20 years, momentum has really picked up over the last 5 years. There are tons of low-to-mid rise residential structures being built that are bringing bodies downtown, which create great vibrancy. This has had a far larger impact on downtown than adding a skyscraper or two that alter the skyline. Though I would certainly kill to have a Devon Tower in Denver. :)

Denver, btw, actually has very few skyscrapers that would be tall enough for the posters in this thread. Maybe 5 would be acceptably tall enough. The skyline is exceptionally garnished and built-up with mid-rises and legit DENSITY. I could be wrong on this but I think they actually had a law on the books preserving sight lines of the mountains from the Capitol.

Denver has 32 buildings over 350 feet; OKC has 6 (Charlotte 15)

Denver has 7 buildings over 500 feet; OKC has 1 (Charlotte 6)


And the Denver MSA is only twice the population of OKC's (and just barley larger than Charlotte).

PluPan, I mean this in the kindest way possible as I actually enjoy your posts, but are you familiar with Braess's Paradox, the Downs-Thomson Paradox or the concept of induced demand? I ask because you often post about lane widening, inner-city bypasses and multi-lane, expressway-like streets like they are in some way something to be aspired to or are the solution to a problem. No doubt they are often the RESPONSE to a PERCEIVED problem, but they have actually all been pretty definitively proven to cause more problems than they supposedly solve. Here's another one: law of unintended consequences...

Braess's paradox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braess%27_paradox)

Induced demand - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand)

Downs?Thomson paradox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downs%E2%80%93Thomson_paradox)Well at least someone enjoys my post lol ;)

Anyhow, I have heard of it, but I just don't fully believe it. Look at the Crosstown.... it was becoming extremely backed up before the new 10 lane I-40 was opened, but now since the I-40 is open, I have never seen it back up. Instead of just widening it one lane, we widened it by two making it 5 lanes each way. The new 635 in Dallas should be a great example and disprove induced demand. Just adding one lane to an already backed up highway won't solve anything.

I am sorry to say, but I just don't see the evidence supporting induced demand.

Replacing a Landmark with an Office building is not a good trade. There are numerous surface parking lots in the vicinity that would better for downtown OKC's future development by eliminating open space and increasing density where it actually matters. The Stage Center, with it's park-like setting is a great counterpoint to the new Elementary School and an appropriate link to the Myriad Gardens.

If anyone is interested, we have over 750 signatures on a petition urging preservation of this iconic structure. The link to sign is here:
https://www.change.org/petitions/oklahoma-city-downtown-design-review-committee-preserve-stage-center

Well at least someone enjoys my post lol ;)

Anyhow, I have heard of it, but I just don't fully believe it. Look at the Crosstown.... it was becoming extremely backed up before the new 10 lane I-40 was opened, but now since the I-40 is open, I have never seen it back up. Instead of just widening it one lane, we widened it by two making it 5 lanes each way. The new 635 in Dallas should be a great example and disprove induced demand. Just adding one lane to an already backed up highway won't solve anything.

I am sorry to say, but I just don't see the evidence supporting induced demand.

I agree. If people want to live out in the exurbs, they are going to do so whether there is a 12-lane or 2-lane highway getting them into the city. When I lived in Little Rock, it was actually very common for people to have 2+ hour commutes, much of that being two lane, winding country roads. If highways to the suburbs are widened its in response to already growing population that has created demand for the wider highways. They don't built 12-lane highways to nowhere and then everybody starts flocking there simply to live by the highway.

I agree. If people want to live out in the exurbs, they are going to do so whether there is a 12-lane or 2-lane highway getting them into the city. When I lived in Little Rock, it was actually very common for people to have 2+ hour commutes, much of that being two lane, winding country roads. If highways to the suburbs are widened its in response to already growing population that has created demand for the wider highways. They don't built 12-lane highways to nowhere and then everybody starts flocking there simply to live by the highway.

That's a very simple explanation to the complex debate of induced demand. I don't think it's as simple as you are trying to make it seem.

That's a very simple explanation to the complex debate of induced demand. I don't think it's as simple as you are trying to make it seem.

I definitely see the point in that if there is better highways out to exurbia, then more people will choose to live out there and commute. It would seem like that would be the case, but then again I highly doubt anybody who would choose to live in Guthrie would live in downtown OKC if there wasn't a highway taking them to Guthrie. People are going to live in the environment of their choice as long as its economically feasible.

Fuel prices and trendiness are the two things pushing people towards denser environments today.

Yet more "OKC sucks" narrative from bchris02. Its getting old, frankly...why are you even here?

Once again. OKC ranked 12th in the nation in the increase in millennials and 4th in percentage increase.

Thank you. I agree, it get's extremely old to keep seeing talk about perceived problems with OKC, whether or not those perceptions actually exist to any degree.

Replacing a Landmark with an Office building is not a good trade.

I agree. Luckily, we're replacing a run down eye sore whose design was forced upon us in the first place.

I agree. Luckily, we're replacing a run down eye sore whose design was forced upon us in the first place.

It's run down, I'll say that. It isn't an eye sore though. I enjoy seeing it every time I drive or walk by it. I will agree though that unless somebody can come up with the money to save it, its time is past and should be replaced rather than letting it sit and rot.

I agree. If people want to live out in the exurbs, they are going to do so whether there is a 12-lane or 2-lane highway getting them into the city. When I lived in Little Rock, it was actually very common for people to have 2+ hour commutes, much of that being two lane, winding country roads. If highways to the suburbs are widened its in response to already growing population that has created demand for the wider highways. They don't built 12-lane highways to nowhere and then everybody starts flocking there simply to live by the highway.Exactly. If I-35 were widened to 8 lanes all the way to Dallas, the highway wouldn't fill up just because it was 8 lanes.

I disagree with comparisons to Denver. OKC is by far the most conservative large city in the country. The only other city that is remotely comparable is Jacksonville, FL. Denver is very liberal. It's going to be difficult to recreate the kind of culture here that you see in places like Austin, Portland, and Denver. Other major cities are usually liberal or at least modern islands in their conservative states, but OKC tends to align more closely with rural Oklahoma than do most major cities do with their rural areas. Somebody correct me if I am wrong, and I hope I am, but from the perception I've seen, it would seem that the conservatism here is a deterrent to young, educated people relocating here from out of state. Even if its just perceived, there is this perception that if you aren't right wing you don't belong here. This is all going to affect what type of development we see here in one way or another.

I'll stop because I am getting off topic, but its an issue that OKC needs to address for so many different reasons.

Give it a rest, dude. I can see how you think that living in the part of town where you do. OKC is fine, and improving. Embrace it and be a part of the change. Being realistic is one thing but you are too negative. Maybe you should move away from here for a while or something. I don't know. No need to be Debbie Downer all the time.

Pete: While I disagree that OKC can't be exceptional, I agree that Denver is definitely our closest/best model. The vibe OKC is building is very Denver-like. Especially at I-40 and Council, in the shadow of Trash Mountain.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/df/Denver-skyline1.jpg

Denver, btw, actually has very few skyscrapers that would be tall enough for the posters in this thread. Maybe 5 would be acceptably tall enough. The skyline is exceptionally garnished and built-up with mid-rises and legit DENSITY. I could be wrong on this but I think they actually had a law on the books preserving sight lines of the mountains from the Capitol.

Denver has a very balanced and attractive skyline. I don't think people are asking for a new supertall in OKC. It would be nice to see more tall buildings to bring balance to our skyline. One or two more buildings over 500 ft would do it.

I disagree with comparisons to Denver. OKC is by far the most conservative large city in the country. The only other city that is remotely comparable is Jacksonville, FL. Denver is very liberal. It's going to be difficult to recreate the kind of culture here that you see in places like Austin, Portland, and Denver. Other major cities are usually liberal or at least modern islands in their conservative states, but OKC tends to align more closely with rural Oklahoma than do most major cities do with their rural areas. Somebody correct me if I am wrong, and I hope I am, but from the perception I've seen, it would seem that the conservatism here is a deterrent to young, educated people relocating here from out of state. Even if its just perceived, there is this perception that if you aren't right wing you don't belong here. This is all going to affect what type of development we see here in one way or another.

I'll stop because I am getting off topic, but its an issue that OKC needs to address for so many different reasons.

Thank you for finally answering the question I posed here Retail Explosion on Memorial Road - OKCTalk (http://www.okctalk.com/showwiki.php?title=Retail%20Explosion%20on%20Memor ial%20Road&page=2#post696552)

Couldn't have said it better myself. Every statistic you see these days disagrees with that stereotype, yet it continues to find its way onto this board. I just graduated from KU this last year and will be moving to OKC once my field training is complete. I never once questioned my decision because of the political stereotypes of the city.

I'll also chime in and say that I don't think Denver, or Colorado in general, is as liberal as everyone is trying to make it out to be. Yes, they passed laws to legalize marijuana. But that doesn't make the entire state a liberal safe haven. After all, they are still big advocates of oil and gas development. Something most blue states can't say. Colorado saw legalizing marijuana as a good business opportunity, and it has turned out to be just that so far.

Agree 100%, especially about Denver. Decent sized oil and gas industry there as well as other conservative type businesses in the core. It's more liberal then I would probably ever want OKC to be (too much green peace, PETA, etc for my tastes) but at no point during my time there did I ever feel that it was overbearing. Pleanty of conservatives/moderate types in the core as well. Boulder...that's a different story. Denver is an amazing city, hope we can be more like it someday...and hey, we'll have white water rafting and rock climbing downtown, not the mountains but it's a start.

Thank you. I agree, it get's extremely old to keep seeing talk about perceived problems with OKC, whether or not those perceptions actually exist to any degree.

+1

Replacing a Landmark with an Office building is not a good trade.

Replacing a Landmark that is hemorrhaging funds at a god-awful rate and pays little to no property tax with an Office building that will very likely make money for the owner (or at least be useful if it's not making money) while paying property taxes is a good trade.

Replacing a Landmark that is hemorrhaging funds at a god-awful rate and pays little to no property tax with an Office building that will very likely make money for the owner (or at least be useful if it's not making money) while paying property taxes is a good trade.

What about a Walmart? Also way better than a stinkin architectural landmark (I kid)

Exactly. If I-35 were widened to 8 lanes all the way to Dallas, the highway wouldn't fill up just because it was 8 lanes.

Should we do that?

Bchris: you're anecdotes aside, induced traffic is a proven phenomenon. Urbanized provided links that you can read, if you so choose. It's usually a 5-7 year lag. Are you guys saying highways DONT aid and abet sprawl?

What about a Walmart? Also way better than a stinkin architectural landmark (I kid)

Don't even joke about that...

Hey! I know I've been very skeptical of this whole project, but here is an awesome idea that I think everyone could get behind. Wouldn't it just be awesome if the second proposed tower was a modern glass style in homage to the Baum Building! That would set them up to have an incredible LED scheme, and it would soften the blow of losing the Stage Center for some by reintroducing some of our lost history, while being a cherry on top for those who never even wanted Stage Center in the first place. I know this is has zero chance of happening on this project, but it is fun to day dream!

http://www.okctalk.com/general-civic-issues/6359-century-center-baum-building.html

Never, ever said or implied that OKC could not be exceptional -- just that there is more than one path to that goal.

We can also use Dallas and Houston as examples of what we DON'T want.

Outstanding! I lived in Texas for several years. Dallas and Houston have their attributes, but OKC should absolutely not use them as development models. I have never fully understood the irrational allure that Dallas holds for many OKC-ers.

Outstanding! I lived in Texas for several years. Dallas and Houston have their attributes, but OKC should absolutely not use them as development models. I have never fully understood the irrational allure that Dallas holds for many OKC-ers.

Dallas is the "big city" for people living in OKC. Tulsa has a similar allure for people in Ft Smith and Northwest Arkansas. Memphis is very similar for people living in Little Rock. As OKC continues to grow it will need Dallas less and less (already is far less reliant than 20 years ago) and that allure will fade. I agree that OKC shouldn't try to mimic everything Dallas does but that doesn't mean this city shouldn't strive to offer more of the kind of amenities Dallas offers, albeit in a smaller package.

Should we do that?

Bchris: you're anecdotes aside, induced traffic is a proven phenomenon. Urbanized provided links that you can read, if you so choose. It's usually a 5-7 year lag. Are you guys saying highways DONT aid and abet sprawl?no we shouldn't do it. I'm just saying there are major flaws to induced demand.

Should we do that?

Bchris: you're anecdotes aside, induced traffic is a proven phenomenon. Urbanized provided links that you can read, if you so choose. It's usually a 5-7 year lag. Are you guys saying highways DONT aid and abet sprawl?highways make it easier to get to where you want be with a car. If you like an rely on mass transit, you probably won't care for freeways, understandably. So with a proper interchange, do you believe i40 will be backed up in 6years? I have an idea for the I40/I35/235 junction and what to do with that stretch and have created a few amateur renderings, I am just doing some touch ups.

Hey! I know I've been very skeptical of this whole project, but here is an awesome idea that I think everyone could get behind. Wouldn't it just be awesome if the second proposed tower was a modern glass style in homage to the Baum Building! That would set them up to have an incredible LED scheme, and it would soften the blow of losing the Stage Center for some by reintroducing some of our lost history, while being a cherry on top for those who never even wanted Stage Center in the first place. I know this is has zero chance of happening on this project, but it is fun to day dream!

It would MUCH better if they would just up it 10 more stories to about 27 stories to at least make an impact in the skyline. Is that really too unreasonable. Just decrease the width somewhat and go higher and make an impact from near and far away. Yes, they should do some cool lighting for sure. Our other downtown buildings could get so much more attention for their own buildings and give them a bit of a cool factor with some cool lighting. Right now, most people couldn't even tell you the name of other significant high rises downtown because they are so "insignificant" looking that just don't draw ANY attention. I think the best advertising and publicity would be to make it cool to look at and some name recognition. I would think this might add more value to those buildings just by doing something like this. Like I said before and most people just don't understand the concept, but quite often "perception really does become reality" and OKC loses out way too often by not grasping this concept.

no we shouldn't do it. I'm just saying there are major flaws to induced demand.

What are these major flaws? Again, urbanized posted links to reputable sources and studies.

Not that there isn't a strong tradition in this nation of denying science...

Okay, back to discussing the proposed Stage Center project...

The Downtown Design Review Committee meets Jan. 16th to consider the demolition application. Conceptual drawings were submitted as well but for information only, as the exact design will have to be reviewed by the committee separately. Also, remember that the committee cannot withhold demolition approval based on what is to be built (or not built) in the future.

Rainey Williams submitted the 164-page report done by Webb Management Services on behalf of the former Stage Center owners, which demonstrated the need for millions in renovations.

The only conceptual drawings were the ones we have already seen and are attached in the article on the top of this thread.

There was a formal protest letter from the Central Oklahoma Institute of Architects, with 76 pages of supporting documents.


However, two interesting things of note: 1) The planning staff is recommending to deny the application to demolish (see first image below); and 2) In the conceptual plan introduction, it's revealed that the second 8-12 story building would be marketed to other developers, not developed by Williams (second image, item #2):



http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/scdeny.jpg



http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/scconcept.jpg

Wow, Pete...That is huge. The staff is actually recommending to the committee that the demolition permit be denied. Here's where weight gets thrown around. Thanks for this!

So Rainey Williams is really only giving us a 14-story tower, but there will be a plot available for an additional tower if another developer wants to develop it. That doesn't sound at all like a sure thing to me. This deal seems to be getting more and more mediocre. I really wonder how Rainey Williams got the deal in the first place.

It's also huge that Williams is only planning to build the HQ for OG&E and the parking garage.

Then, he hopes to sell the parcel on Sheridan to another developer.


So, what we have here is the new HQ for OG&E, which is what I was told this project was going to be (and I shared here) even before the sale to Williams.

Who wants to bet that the green rooftop gets scrapped in the final plan?

What are these major flaws? Again, urbanized posted links to reputable sources and studies.

Not that there isn't a strong tradition in this nation of denying science...I already pointed them out man. PM me or make a new thread about it and I'll repeat what I've already stated.

My thoughts about the current Stage Center.

1. Take a lot of photos of the current Stage Center and post them somewhere.
It doesn't matter where they are posted because nobody cares. However, in
the end it will provide ample evidence as to why it was completely destroyed.

2. Burn the current Stage Center to the ground. Raffle off who gets to bash
the windows, pour gasoline or napalm on the building and who get's to strike
the match.

3. Burn whatever is left of the burning and ship it to China or Iran the
following day. Let's not dilly dally.

4. Burn anything that's left to make sure nothing is left. Sell raffle tickets to
see who has the best idea for destroying the remains.

5. Build something reasonable in it's place. Maybe a parking lot. You can
collect ideas by selling raffle tickets. Even the most stupid idea will be
better than what we currently have, i.e. a poopy place for dogs, a storm drain,
a toilet for the winos who live at the Union Bus Station.

6. LOL! Some people think I'm kidding.

7. Don't let them buy raffle tickets.

It's also huge that Williams is only planning to build the HQ for OG&E and the parking garage.

Then, he hopes to sell the parcel on Sheridan to another developer.


So, what we have here is the new HQ for OG&E, which is what I was told this project was going to be (and I shared here) even before the sale to Williams.

Reading about the staff recommendation on the demo permit, I guess I glazed out right over the other. You are right, that's very big. To me, it raises questions about the credibility of other things he has told the public. At the least it looks like an end-run by omission of information. Great stuff, Pete.

Wow, Pete...That is huge. The staff is actually recommending to the committee that the demolition permit be denied. Here's where weight gets thrown around. Thanks for this!

DDRC can only make a recommendation. The final say will be up to the Council.

So Rainey Williams is really only giving us a 14-story tower, but there will be a plot available for an additional tower if another developer wants to develop it. That doesn't sound at all like a sure thing to me. This deal seems to be getting more and more mediocre. I really wonder how Rainey Williams got the deal in the first place.It's ridiculous and I'm losing more and more respect for Rainy with every new bit of news. This tower is a joke. It should at least be 25 stories and provide amazing street interaction AND compliment the Stage Center by honoring it in a way.

DDRC can only make a recommendation. The final say will be up to the Council.

I'm actually not sure about that...

I thought the City Council only got involved if the applicant wanted to appeal a decision.

I already pointed them out man. PM me or make a new thread about it and
I'll repeat what I've already stated.
LOL! The major flaw of the stagnant center (Stage Center) is that it was
obsolete before it was conceived years, maybe decades, before it was
finished. It was totally useless years before it ever opened.