This is ridiculous. What exactly do you think was done illegally?

This is a reasonable demo of a blighted non reasonably salvageable structure and it should go foward

Can you read? Or do you just read what you want to see? Pete clearly stated NOTHING was done illegally, but there is without a doubt a dishonest purpose going on behind all this. Rainey backed himself into this corner by promising and promoting a project he couldnt handle.

I've been holding off on this accusation because I realize how serious it is, but the time has come. This whole thing is looking like collusion more and more.

col·lu·sion noun \kə-ˈlü-zhən\
: secret cooperation for an illegal or dishonest purpose

In other words. WE HAVE ALL BEEN DUPED

BTW, I am not saying that it's my opinion that the demo permit should be denied or that the OG&E project should not go forward.

Despite the process, both steps need to be judged on their own merit.


But there are other issues here, especially since we have billions in public investment downtown.

I really wish OCURA would have acquired this property from the foundation and we could have had a much more open process before even getting to this point.

But there are other issues here, especially since we have billions in public investment downtown.

This is far and away the numero uno reason why I'm so against this project. We, as citizens, have invested too heavily in the surrounding area to not have any input on to what project will be completed in this area. Behind the scenes "good ole boy" dealings that benefit only the few people involved at the top is blasphemous for the investment we have given. And "Few" might be too inclusive.

Thanks for the clarification!

Can you explain why some development items -- like PUD's and liquor licenses -- end up on the City Council docket?

PUDs and liquor licenses are Zoning, so they require Planning Commission and City Council review (PC can deny but CC can overrule). The individual certificates of approval are not zoning items, so they do not require the same review. They are treated like building permits (which you can appeal to Board of Appeals and then Circuit Court, btw).

Odd. I thought there would surely be someone happy that the current owner was likely to offer off the other building site to a different developer. You know, someone the masses could talk into a taller structure, or even pool together and control that part of the SC property until they hand picked the perfect blend of finance and matched expectation.

But no. It's now all about save the SC, even though for pages it was who cares about the SC but maybe we can use it to get more height on the project.

Yet, OGE is somehow bad for using a front person.

This has almost become amusing.

PUDs and liquor licenses are Zoning, so they require Planning Commission and City Council review (PC can deny but CC can overrule). The individual certificates of approval are not zoning items, so they do not require the same review. They are treated like building permits (which you can appeal to Board of Appeals and then Circuit Court, btw).

Makes perfect sense. Thanks so much.

Odd. I thought there would surely be someone happy that the current owner was likely to offer off the other building site to a different developer. You know, someone the masses could talk into a taller structure, or even pool together and control that part of the SC property until they hand picked the perfect blend of finance and matched expectation.

But no. It's now all about save the SC, even though for pages it was who cares about the SC but maybe we can use it to get more height on the project.

Yet, OGE is somehow bad for using a front person.

This has almost become amusing.

Great insights, sir. :clap:

I think the bottom line is that, for those who hold the SC so dear, no project is going to be worthy of what its replacing. And I think the vitriol here toward OGE is/was a) anticipated, and b) precisely why a "front person" was used. I'm no business expert, but it doesn't seem to me to be at all unusual for any large company to go through a third party/"front person" to handle such development projects, but whatever.

As I said earlier, it's become quite clear that Rainey's plan is for a massive parking garage and everything else is secondary.

Yep, you appear to have nailed it.

I hate to beat a horse to death, but anybody who has been expecting great things out of $100M was kidding themselves. Remember the main-street garage itself is $20M with little to no below ground work…so that leaves about $80M for everything else in the site plan…$80M seems like not quite enough even for just the 16 story tower, let alone an altogether different tower or other supposedly "world-class" aspects of the development.

That being said, if Rainey is going to make it through the demolition process and build OGE's new headquarters, I'm actually kind of relieved that he won't be developing the entire block…someone's going to need to save it from the relative let down it has become...

I said this very early on! Looking around at other developments and their costs, it became quite clear from the moment the figure was made public that we were going to be lowballed on any development. For Christ's sake, look at what the Milhaus development is costing and then consider Rainey's idea to only spend $100 million on this "world class tower." It was a crock of **** from the get go.

Great insights, sir. :clap:

I think the bottom line is that, for those who hold the SC so dear, no project is going to be worthy of what its replacing. And I think the vitriol here toward OGE is/was a) anticipated, and b) precisely why a "front person" was used. I'm no business expert, but it doesn't seem to me to be at all unusual for any large company to go through a third party/"front person" to handle such development projects, but whatever.

That's true of people calling for saving Stage Center all along but not true for those for whom the demo permit is the only apparent way of enforcing a higher standard on this block.

Cuz that's all we got, folks...

^

Yes, there is a big spectrum here...

Some people just want Stage Center gone, some don't want it demolished under any circumstances.

And then there are tons of people in between who would be willing to sacrifice Stage Center for a great new use, but not just any use. It seems most people fall into this category.

That's true of people calling for saving Stage Center all along but not true for those for whom the demo permit is the only apparent way of enforcing a higher standard on this block.

Cuz that's all we got, folks...

Exactly. Scrap the Stage center. Then you build a World Class Skyscraper or you don't get your demo permit. A small OG&E HQ that adds O to the skyline isn't gonna cut it. So what's left to do? Deny the demo permit. Let RW figure it out and sell the land to someone that can get the job done.

IMO this is not about saving that old rickety Stage center. I am sure there are some but I bet that masses could or(take your pick) couldn't care less if it's bull dozed.

Exactly. Scrap the Stage center. Then you build a World Class Skyscraper or you don't get your demo permit. A small OG&E HQ that adds O to the skyline isn't gonna cut it. So what's left to do? Deny the demo permit. Let RW figure it out and sell the land to someone that can get the job done.

IMO this is not about saving that old rickety Stage center. I am sure there are some but I bet that masses could or(take your pick) couldn't care less if it's bull dozed.

I wonder if this isn't what's happening behind the scenes. Someone finally wised-up to the idea that RW wasn't going to deliver quite the picturesque original plan that was presented. You can't just tell the guy what to do with his land at this point, but if he gets a refusal on his new plan he'll have to unload the property to "someone" that might be driving the OKC Planners denial. Then said person could come in and create something more akin to the original proposal, save the day, AND not pay the inflated price that RW will want if everything got approved and people just wanted something better. Almost makes me want to be a developer.

Exactly. Scrap the Stage center. Then you build a World Class Skyscraper or you don't get your demo permit. A small OG&E HQ that adds O to the skyline isn't gonna cut it. So what's left to do? Deny the demo permit. Let RW figure it out and sell the land to someone that can get the job done.

IMO this is not about saving that old rickety Stage center. I am sure there are some but I bet that masses could or(take your pick) couldn't care less if it's bull dozed.

Actually, there are quite a few of us. There are plenty of lots to build a new building, there aren't any other lots with world-renowned art and architecture sitting on it.

Exactly. Scrap the Stage center. Then you build a World Class Skyscraper or you don't get your demo permit. A small OG&E HQ that adds O to the skyline isn't gonna cut it. So what's left to do? Deny the demo permit. Let RW figure it out and sell the land to someone that can get the job done.

IMO this is not about saving that old rickety Stage center. I am sure there are some but I bet that masses could or(take your pick) couldn't care less if it's bull dozed.

That's the thing it doesn't work that way. Williams could have showed plans to build a 50 story building and asked for the demo and then afterwards build this building and nothing could have been done. The demo and the design review are totally separate.

Interesting to note that Rainey Williams also owns 3 and 5 Corporate Plaza and those properties are currently for sale.

Even more interestingly, he paid Chesapeake $3.15 million in 2009 after CHK had paid $7.9 million in 2007.

Now, they are listed at $10 million:

LoopNet - 3 & 5 Corporate Plaza, Office Building, 3613 and 3625 NW 56th Street, Oklahoma City, OK (http://www.loopnet.com/xNet/MainSite/Listing/Profile/Profile.aspx?LID=18379740)

That's true of people calling for saving Stage Center all along but not true for those for whom the demo permit is the only apparent way of enforcing a higher standard on this block.

Cuz that's all we got, folks...

But that's not really the proper use of the demo permit process, is it? I mean, purely from a procedural POV, if a design review for what's going up gets the attention of Process X, and a demo permit goes through Process Y, isn't one process hijacking the other? If folks don't like the 16-story tower/OGE HQ/plan/concept, and make the proper case for it, it doesn't pass design review. The entity that issues demo permits is not a de-facto development clearinghouse, is it? If so, what's the purpose of the design review?

Just to clarify, the Downtown Design Review Committee will review both the demo and development plans, just separately.

Interesting to note that Rainey Williams also owns 3 and 5 Corporate Plaza and those properties are currently for sale.

Even more interestingly, he paid Chesapeake $3.15 million in 2009 after CHK had paid $7.9 million in 2007.

Now, they are listed at $10 million:

LoopNet - 3 & 5 Corporate Plaza, Office Building, 3613 and 3625 NW 56th Street, Oklahoma City, OK (http://www.loopnet.com/xNet/MainSite/Listing/Profile/Profile.aspx?LID=18379740)

You can't see me, but I am shaking my head in wonder. Nothing like a cool $7,000,000.00 for a little paper trading.

Just to clarify, the Downtown Design Review Committee will review both the demo and development plans, just separately.

So can't they approve the demolition and reject the building design, thus "forcing" Rainey to build something bigger/better or sell the land to someone else who will?

So can't they approve the demolition and reject the building design, thus "forcing" Rainey to build something bigger/better or sell the land to someone else who will?

Yes, but they can't just subjectively reject the building design.

There are design standards (minimum of 3 stories, only a certain percentage of artificial stucco, etc.) and the project as shown would meet those requirements.

Technically, they could build nothing more than a 3 story building with a certain amount of glass and it would meet most their standards.

Yes, but they can't just subjectively reject the building design.

There are design standards (minimum of 3 stories, only a certain percentage of artificial stucco, etc.) and the project as shown would meet those requirements.

Technically, they could build nothing more than a 3 story building with a certain amount of glass and it would meet most their standards.

Oh, okay. I wasn't sure how the approval process works.

Be careful what you ask for laddies and lasses. Say DDRC rejects the demo specifically following staff rec that the existing structure qualifies for protection (which if I recall was the sole basis for the rec to deny.)

So with that ruling, say RW just abides by it, and like the prior owner, lets it sit and rot. Exactly how does a demo permit later get past DDRC if and when another project is wanting to demo SC to build there.

Please recall under the basis for denying the permit the structure is said n need of protecting for historical reasons, not to block OGE and further development in hopes a later Option is a 60 foot spec tower. I means sure, that's what folks are actually hoping to do, but you can't put that in the record as the official reason or even do it lawfully.

And if you are going tos ay one thing but do another, how ironic considering the lanblasting the present owner is taking because that is what seems to chap folks hides so very much.

^
Yep.

I really think the options here are quite simple. The city can deny the permit based on the preservation of the Stage Center and no architect or developer would touch this site with a six foot pole. Or they can approve it with some conditions and stipulations be met. Maybe have RW show proper financing or have him subdivide and sell off the tract where the second tower will go so he doesn't sit on it. Its worth reminding everyone that "not tall enough" is not a proper reason to deny this, as RW would almost certainly sue in court and win.

There are a lot of things that can be done to ensure everything is done properly, but I hope the city is aware of what will happen if they outright deny it. Nothing will ever get built on this site, certainly no taller tower. Why would any developer waste their time on a property that they can't at least have a good shot on securing? Your choice, OKC.

I fully expect the DDRC to approve the demolition; they often respectfully override the recommendations of the planning staff.

I also fully expect the design of the new project to be approved.


As we've seen countless times, our current system -- and very tight-knit business community -- is very unlikely to put up much fight when it comes to local businesses.

They generally approve what is proposed, with very few exceptions.

I agree. If the demo permit is denied because the building is too significant wouldn't it always be too significant? Those hoping for something grander on the site may never see it if the demo permit is denied. It would surely have a chilling effect on any potential developer. If a developer can't get a demo permit to build new corporate headquarters for an over hundred year-old local company whose CEO is president of the Chamber of Commerce I doubt that anyone else would be willing to take on the challenge. Considering the recently passed law regarding vacant property I wonder what would be the recourse for the city if stage center is just abandoned.

I fully expect the DDRC to approve the demolition; they often respectfully override the recommendations of the planning staff.

I also fully expect the design of the new project to be approved.


As we've seen countless times, our current system -- and very tight-knit business community -- is very unlikely to put up much fight when it comes to local businesses.

They generally approve what is proposed, with very few exceptions.

This seems to be a huge part of OKC's problem in general.

So what can be done to fix the system, most importantly the ridiculous standard that demolition can occur on its own merits without any idea of what's going to replace what is to be demolished..

Doesn't Williams have to go in to the DDRC meeting with actual specific, arcitectural plans and/or a model instead of conceptual renderings? Did Devon present conceptual renderings to the DDRC when they had their meeting? Just wondering because everyone here has gotten so worked up with these renderings...myself included. I hope he presents something better.

^

He will when it's time to gain approval for what he plans to build.

At this point, he doesn't have to show anything in order to get a demo permit, although he did submit the conceptual renderings we've dissected here.

Doesn't Williams have to go in to the DDRC meeting with actual specific, arcitectural plans and/or a model instead of conceptual renderings? Did Devon present conceptual renderings to the DDRC when they had their meeting? Just wondering because everyone here has gotten so worked up with these renderings...myself included. I hope he presents something better.

And nothing he presents (as to what he wants to build) is binding on him for the demo permit. They can't put strings on it.

Need to look at your options and the big picture.

You do NOT want them to deny demo because of historical or architectural significance. That will prevent any meaningful future development of this site for many, many years. bad move.

They don't have the legal power to deny because it's not tall enough.

They have to approve demolition. However, now is the time to have a real discussion with him. He will be there, and he will be listening. You are more likely to see some changes, if he is aware of them now. Than if he has already paid millions in architectural plans.

Need to be smart about this if you plan to protest, because the current protest will prevent ANY development at all for the foreseeable future.

And nothing he presents (as to what he wants to build) is binding on him for the demo permit. They can't put strings on it.

Then what's the point?

Need to look at your options and the big picture.

You do NOT want them to deny demo because of historical or architectural significance. That will prevent any meaningful future development of this site for many, many years. bad move.

They don't have the legal power to deny because it's not tall enough.

They have to approve demolition. However, now is the time to have a real discussion with him. He will be there, and he will be listening. You are more likely to see some changes, if he is aware of them now. Than if he has already paid millions in architectural plans.

Need to be smart about this if you plan to protest, because the current protest will prevent ANY development at all for the foreseeable future.

This

The site still could be redeveloped without demolishing Stage Center, i.e. adaptive use.

And even though that seems unlikely, we now have someone with a $4 million investment to recoup. That changes the motivations considerably.

Wrong. Deny for any reason as long as its empirically strong. A better development can and will override this.

How would people feel if this development merely slid down to the other side of the Arts plaza?

That property is almost all owned by the City and it's about the same size.

^

He will when it's time to gain approval for what he plans to build.

At this point, he doesn't have to show anything in order to get a demo permit, although he did submit the conceptual renderings we've dissected here.

Gotcha. Thanks. Well, then I hope the committee approves demo and I pray Williams submits real architectural plans that aren't the conceptual drawing. Only thing we can do now is have faith.

How would people feel if this development merely slid down to the other side of the Arts plaza?

That property is almost all owned by the City and it's about the same size.

Same as I do about this here. I don't think long term that either side of the California easement is more important.

Every development surrounding MBG should be no less than $250M.

This is a perfect development for the NW corner of Dean A McGee and Hudson, and hey, lookie there, the current OGE headquarters are right there too!

The reason I mention the swap is this: If the City denies the demo permit and wants to get serious about seeing Stage Center redeveloped, they could merely swap properties and let Williams do his development to the immediate south.

The reason I mention the swap is this: If the City denies the demo permit and wants to get serious about seeing Stage Center redeveloped, they could merely swap properties and let Williams do his development to the immediate south.

Part of me feels Rainey may have been planning on flipping this all along. Why else would he insist on such a subpar development on the Stage Center site? There are plenty of sites nearby he could have got for cheaper right? The reason is he couldn't flip any other block as easy or make as big of a profit as the Stage Center block.

The reason I mention the swap is this: If the City denies the demo permit and wants to get serious about seeing Stage Center redeveloped, they could merely swap properties and let Williams do his development to the immediate south.

What. He might build is not really part of the demo process. And if they deny him based on preserving the stage center they will have a very hard time ever letting anyone demo it


Part of me feels Rainey may have been planning on flipping this all along. Why else would he insist on such a subpar development on the Stage Center site? There are plenty of sites nearby he could have got for cheaper right? The reason is he couldn't flip any other block as easy or make as big of a profit as the Stage Center block.

In no way is this a subpar development

What. He might build is not really part of the demo process. And if they deny him based on preserving the stage center they will have a very hard time ever letting anyone demo it

I'm saying if the City is serious about not demo-ing Stage Center and having it renovated, they could swap Williams for the land they own immediately south and then proactively work to find an adaptive use.

What. He might build is not really part of the demo process. And if they deny him based on preserving the stage center they will have a very hard time ever letting anyone demo it



In no way is this a subpar development

We finally know who BoulderSooner is!














(just kidding)

They're not. Some folks in the planning department made a courageous and correct stance in recommending denial, but don't confuse that with an overall desire on the City's part to preserve and rehabilitate the existing structure. DDRC likely approves, and if not the BOA overrules. The building WILL come down.

I hope he gets a big DENIED stamped in bright red letters on his plan to demolish the SC. No, not because the Stage Center is some great wonder of the world but because his plan is way sub par. Build a world class facility or move on and let someone else build in the future. Put the property back up for sale for a small profit and I bet someone buys it up. Sell it to Continental and let them build a real skyscraper. Sell it to Mid First and let them do it. There were other offers for that property. Oh what could have been....

I hope he gets a big DENIED stamped in bright red letters on his plan to demolish the SC. No, not because the Stage Center is some great wonder of the world but because his plan is way sub par. Build a world class facility or move on and let someone else build in the future. Put the property back up for sale for a small profit and I bet someone buys it up. Sell it to Continental and let them build a real skyscraper. Sell it to Mid First and let them do it. There were other offers for that property. Oh what could have been....

Again if they deny him on the basis that they have to preserve the structure (the only way they can deny him) that would apply to every one else as well. What he builds is not part of the application

Again if they deny him on the basis that they have to preserve the structure (the only way they can deny him) that would apply to every one else as well. What he builds is not part of the application

Yes. I hope this is exactly what happens. Anything different, interesting or polarizing seems to be expendable in this city. The Stage Center should be preserved. With that decision made and out of the away serious thoughts toward a new use can commence without questions hanging over its fate.

Yes. I hope this is exactly what happens. Anything different, interesting or polarizing seems to be expendable in this city. The Stage Center should be preserved. With that decision made and out of the away serious thoughts toward a new use can commence without questions hanging over its fate.

The problem is,there is no one that is going to refurbish the Stage center. That is pretty obvious but maybe the city thinks there's still a chance that someone will save the day and spend multi millions to do a rehab.

But the OG&E building that is planned should not be the only option for that site. Either we get this subpar OG&E building or the Stage Center sits untill it rots to the ground? Let it rot I say. Then in a few years someone will come in and buy the property and build a world class skyscraper. Once the city is convinced that there isn't anyone that is gonna save the Stage center they will have to let it be demolished. Not sure if they are at this point yet so lets hope this plan gets denied.

Again if they deny him on the basis that they have to preserve the structure (the only way they can deny him) that would apply to every one else as well. What he builds is not part of the application

You couldn't be farther off, stop thinking binary. These things are decided by votes. This isn't aerospace engineering or whatever your expertise is in.

Shouldn't the India Temple Building razing by Sandridge be a good model for the process and outcome for Stage Center? Wasn't restoration cost a huge factor in the ultimate decision? Last I saw we were hearing $30MM to breath life into Stage Center, and then something would have to be found to do with it.

Pete, or any others here, at what price would you by the SC for with the intent to rehab or save it? What is it worth on a private sale basis if you know you can do nothing but rehab and preserve the building?

They're not. Some folks in the planning department made a courageous and correct stance in recommending denial, but don't confuse that with an overall desire on the City's part to preserve and rehabilitate the existing structure. DDRC likely approves, and if not the BOA overrules. The building WILL come down.

My understanding is that it takes $100K per year just to keep it from coming down all on its own. He really doesn't need to apply for a demo permit - he just needs to do nothing for a couple of years.

For all the folks who want to save Stage Center GET A CLUE. Here it is. Pool your money and buy it. Then do with it as you please. Since you are not willing to spend your money you have NO BUSINESS telling anybody else who owns the property what to do with it. With no financial involvement the naysayers are just busybody ninnyhamer obstructionists.

Yeah, no. By that logic building codes couldn't exist, and since they do exist we know that it is bunk.

You realize right that the public process exists for a reason??

My understanding is that it takes $100K per year just to keep it from coming down all on its own. He really doesn't need to apply for a demo permit - he just needs to do nothing for a couple of years.

Correct, so deny it now for any reason and the next time someone else comes along it will be a totally different situation. Also on the plus side we all know Rainey's commitment to the Stage Center site won't last. He'll just flip it to someone else, maybe (hopefully) the city can buy it for what he paid and do an RFP process. Or we could just deal directly w OG+E which would be nice, too.

In other words, abuse the process to deny a demolition permit so hopefully the tall and shiny crowd can abuse the process a different way later down the road.

The irony in this thread is nearing overwhelming proportions.

Stage Center aside, it horrifies me that we essentially have demolition and redevelopment processes in place no better than we apparently did in the 1970s. Is there nothing to stop another urban renewal fiasco in this town should someone decide to start knocking down buildings with no guarantee of ever redeveloping said sites?