Interesting. Thanks for the graphic representation.

So it doesn't include that land along the boulevard? That's really unfortunate, as that is the most highly valuable piece of the whole parcel and the most obvious area for dense development.

That is the old Lumberyard owned by Mazaheri Properties.

There have been some plans that show that property being somewhat incorporated / coordinated with retail along the OKC Boulevard.

This development scares me.

Looking at that picture - that's a lot of frigging land. That's like the size of the whole CBD or all of Bricktown. I worry that what we are going to see is low density. The "restaurant area with 7 buildings" makes me think of a highway intersection with national chains surrounding a parking lot. "200,000 SF of retail along I-40" is ridiculous and the only way you are going to get that is by convincing the likes of Home Depot and Wal-Mart to build there, which is absolutely the last thing we want in an urban area. I don't want to see the Kilpatrick Turnpike or the west side of Norman duplicated downtown. I guess the 10-story office buildings and 4-story residential could be fine, if it's concentrated along the boulevard and not spread out.

We have been given an opportunity that is very rare for an urban area. But similar to what others have said in other contexts - it's yet one more thing competing for attention. I almost find myself wishing this hadn't happened and we could focus on completing and densifying the areas that are growing the right way like Midtown. We also have all that land in Core to Shore to fill.

Maybe I'm just in a bad mood this morning.

Agree completely. What other city has this much open, developable space this close to the core, and the resources to develop it? Core to Shore is enough land to re-make what downtown OKC means.

All of which is great IF you trust OKC's development approval process to not go Chase Bank/Parking Garage District/Lower Bricktown.

This development scares me.

Looking at that picture - that's a lot of frigging land. That's like the size of the whole CBD or all of Bricktown. I worry that what we are going to see is low density. The "restaurant area with 7 buildings" makes me think of a highway intersection with national chains surrounding a parking lot. "200,000 SF of retail along I-40" is ridiculous and the only way you are going to get that is by convincing the likes of Home Depot and Wal-Mart to build there, which is absolutely the last thing we want in an urban area. I don't want to see the Kilpatrick Turnpike or the west side of Norman duplicated downtown. I guess the 10-story office buildings and 4-story residential could be fine, if it's concentrated along the boulevard and not spread out.

We have been given an opportunity that is very rare for an urban area. But similar to what others have said in other contexts - it's yet one more thing competing for attention. I almost find myself wishing this hadn't happened and we could focus on completing and densifying the areas that are growing the right way like Midtown. We also have all that land in Core to Shore to fill.

Maybe I'm just in a bad mood this morning.

I agree with this completely. I am worried about this turning into a suburban big box development, perhaps with a Wal-Mart Supercenter. Downtown OKC needs a grocery store but building a cookie-cutter big box surrounded by surface parking is not the way to do it. Hopefully we will all be surprised but I am not getting my hopes up. OKC has a history of accepting substandard development because "at least its better than nothing" eg. Lower Bricktown.

I do not want a suburban big box area near downtown either, but if there has to be one somewhere, this would be the place, as there is no additional room left to sprawl.

I do not want a suburban big box area near downtown either, but if there has to be one somewhere, this would be the place, as there is no additional room left to sprawl.

I had hoped we had seen the end of suburban big box centers with sprawling parking lots. It's time move on to improved density, especially in the core. I no longer live in OKC, but if I did, I would help with an initiative to prevent another Belle Isle.

Not at all trying to make a case for building something like a Wal-Mart downtown, but to be sure, Belle Isle could EASILY be retrofitted to exactly what it should have been all along. There are well over 10 acres of flat concrete and one Arts District garage could replace almost the entirety of the Wal-Mart parking lot. You could increase the size to 1000 vehicles, and situate it perfectly in that gap between Wal-Mart and the strip center to the west. Then every last bit of parking could be redeveloped into something more useful. You could do all that while still providing relatively little disruption to Wal-Mart which would be the major deterrent from trying in the 1st place.

The bigger culprits to destruction of urban environment are the strip centers like the one across the street with the Mattress Firm, Subway, Party Galaxy etc. The parking is not enough to be able to redevelop, and the buildings are crap and generally do little to entice people into the area. WalMart probably brings, what, 80% of the traffic to that shopping area? And it's not a small quantity of traffic either. I think criticism of the Wal-Marts and Targets is certainly warranted, but honestly, the biggest culprits are the fast food chains and the make a quick buck retail developers who are really only interested in (relatively) immediate gratification.

Belle Isle was built under unfortunate circumstances all the way around. The city allowed one of the few lakes and a historical recreation park to be filled in for it to be built. Furthermore, had ODOT known this was to happen, they have said I44 would have been built differently. I bet if started today, Belle Isle would be totally different and might be a much more densely developed urban, mixed-use urban center. In fact, it wouldn't suprise me if 5-10 years from now the owners of Belle Isle don't start plans to slowly convert the area to a more mixed use center. Amazon's going to start putting some of these stores out of business.

I hope it does become a big box center. I know a lot of people here want to see it become something more stylish or trendy but a WM in that spot would do incredibly well business wise and would bring in a solid stream of sales tax for decades interrupted. The more trendy or "taste of the month" places come and go but people will always need to buy SOMETHING from a place like WM.

Skwillz, I would love to have a closer Walmart to Downtown OKC as well but this to me is not the place. We finally have a shot at changing the I-40 drive view from the Producers Coop to something truly special. In fact all of South Downtown OKC has a chance to nearly double the scope of Downtown, and propel our city image nationally. All of this will hopefully motivate more to move to OKC or to move to Downtown OKC.

Any sort of big box development I hope goes into West Downtown past Western or on Broadway North of 13th Street.

Not one single, solitary, individual person said that a big box center was going here, and yet, we have 30 posts about it as if it is set in stone...my gosh, people!

He told yall lol!!

Not one single, solitary, individual person said that a big box center was going here, and yet, we have 30 posts about it as if it is set in stone...my gosh, people!

True, but to be fair, if you look at the type of work this investment group does, they specialize in big box, suburban, beige, faux-high end, cheap developments with huge surface lots. I'm not sure they have the expertise or commitment to do a truly urban development. So I'll be very skeptical until I see their plans and their plans are actually built, but I'm fully prepared for Lower Bricktown Part Deux.

True, but to be fair, if you look at the type of work this investment group does, they specialize in big box, suburban, beige, faux-high end, cheap developments with huge surface lots. I'm not sure they have the expertise or commitment to do a truly urban development. So I'll be very skeptical until I see their plans and their plans are actually built, but I'm fully prepared for Lower Bricktown Part Deux.

Yep. If you look at their website, almost all their projects have been those types of developments. And I can't think of anything worse that would cement every negative perception of Oklahoma City than having a Walmart supercenter in the heart of our downtown at the junction of two major interstates. Please no.

I hope it does become a big box center. I know a lot of people here want to see it become something more stylish or trendy but a WM in that spot would do incredibly well business wise and would bring in a solid stream of sales tax for decades interrupted. The more trendy or "taste of the month" places come and go but people will always need to buy SOMETHING from a place like WM.

WM can come to downtown but it should look like this.

http://www.mma-architects.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/8da537c6-716d-476a-9561-d89f3f3622a0-2560x1737.jpg

Or at LEAST this.

http://gentlemaneconomist.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/ward-4-walmart-proposal-WDC.jpg

As LocoAko says, having a cookie cutter Wal-Mart strip center at this location would cement every negative perception most outsiders have of OKC. Unfortunately I'll be surprised if that isn't exactly what happens.

I love the top picture...bring it on!

Either an Urban Walmart or Urban Target would be okay in this location. But I'm honestly not sure this Group has the street credibility to pull off power moves like that, especially if they're talking about topping out buildings at 4 stories.


http://www.nationaljeweler.com/images/stock/2017-Target-Boston.jpg


http://rsparch.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/083-2_RSP161_N186-900x600.jpg

I’m not worried about height. I’m worried about street interaction and how the parking will be configured. They could do a quality development going no taller than four stories.

I’m not worried about height. I’m worried about street interaction and how the parking will be configured. They could do a quality development going no taller than four stories.

I guess it's too much to ask for a few skyscrapers and a few mid size buildings and some small 4-6 storie buildings to finish it out. That would be something to get excited about.

I’m not worried about height. I’m worried about street interaction and how the parking will be configured. They could do a quality development going no taller than four stories.

I guess it's too much to ask for a few skyscrapers(30-40 STORIES) and a few mid (15-29 STORIES) size buildings and some small 4-6 storie buildings to finish it out. That would be something to get excited about.

I agree with bchris. Quality streets > tall buildings.

I guess it's too much to ask for a few skyscrapers(30-40 STORIES) and a few mid (15-29 STORIES) size buildings and some small 4-6 storie buildings to finish it out. That would be something to get excited about.

Yes, that would be exciting. However, this isn't SimCity which means the development has to make economic sense. Part of the problem with getting high-rises in OKC is there is just so much available cheap land and while the city is growing steadily it's not exactly booming. In the current environment, it would be tough for such a development to be considered economically viable.

I doubt we're going to get a significant number of new high-rises while we keep adding huge tracts of empty land to the core. The land costs simply aren't high enough to justify it.

Over the next 25+ years, we'll probably see 4-5 story development all the way from Midtown down to the Co-op, all the way over through Strawberry Fields to the Farmer's Market. That would be an insane amount of infill for a city our size in that time frame. Sure, you'll have a few more skyscrapers that get built, but they're probably going to be vanity projects rather than something where economics is driving it.

Once we fill up all the empty land in and around downtown, so the cost is high enough that 4-5 story apartments don't make financial sense anymore, that's when we'll get a lot more towers. Presuming we can keep up demand for that long.

I just hope to see one residential tower in OKC in my lifetime. Dallas and Austin can't find enough cranes to keep up with theirs. It is insanity!

I just hope to see one residential tower in OKC in my lifetime. Dallas and Austin can't find enough cranes to keep up with theirs. It is insanity!
Amen.

I agree with bchris. Quality streets > tall buildings.
The two aren’t mutually exclusive and towers add a benefit of being perceived as a larger city.

I have add this before certain posters try and claim there are larger cities out there that don’t have skyscrapers. No sh!t.

^^^^^^
Well, pretty often skyscrapers and good street-level interaction ARE mutually exclusive. It’s pretty rare that you find a building that provides both.

I guess that depends on what you personally see as “good” street interaction but I disagree with you.

But I'm honestly not sure this Group has the street credibility to pull off power moves like that, especially if they're talking about topping out buildings at 4 stories.

Yeah but more importantly, it doesn't matter who the group is. Whoever it is, the city's track record says they won't hold them to a high-enough standard. Whether or not we get a great development here is in the hands of a businessman who definitely cares about his profit, but might or might not care about doing this area justice. The Gary Brookses of the world are few and far between.

I guess that depends on what you personally see as “good” street interaction but I disagree with you.

My definition of "good" street interaction is pretty simple: does a building create a frontage that makes people feel safe and invited to walk down the sidewalk in front of it, or even possibly go inside and do business? That is good street interaction.

Pretty rarely do you find skyscrapers that do this well.

I disagree that it is rare you find skyscrapers that do that well.

I don’t find this surprising in the least.

My definition of "good" street interaction is pretty simple: does a building create a frontage that makes people feel safe and invited to walk down the sidewalk in front of it, or even possibly go inside and do business? That is good street interaction.

Pretty rarely do you find skyscrapers that do this well.

To be fair, most people are forced to go inside skyscrapers because either their job or client is in the building. There's no question of, "Do I want to go inside this building and do business?" If the person wants to get paid, they'll go inside.

To be fair, most people are forced to go inside skyscrapers because either their job or client is in the building. There's no question of, "Do I want to go inside this building and do business?" If the person wants to get paid, they'll go inside.

It's pretty clear Urbanized isn't trying to present an "unfair" point or questioning motives. He's simply saying skyscrapers in general have a tough time interacting with the street, given the nature of the building; therefore, if your main concern regarding a new development is street interaction, a skyscrapers isn't necessarily going to be the best option.

I believe that's true and would point to cities like San Francisco, where most of the best street interactions and lively areas of the city are in dense blocks where the buildings are 3-5 stories.

Whether or not we get a great development here is in the hands of a businessman who definitely cares about his profit, but might or might not care about doing this area justice. The Gary Brookses of the world are few and far between.

Trust me, Gary Brooks cares about being profitable. If there isn't evidence a development will pay back investors and lenders at an appropriate rate, it doesn't get built.

I disagree that it is rare you find skyscrapers that do that well.

Most skyscrapers invest heavily in the lobby area given the need for elevator bank access, etc. Also makes the building more secure. They get people in the building, then disperse them. Urbanized is right. ..... again :)

I really don’t feel like arguing this anymore, but you’re free to think what you want.

I really don’t feel like arguing this anymore, but you’re free to think what you want.

Instead of just arguing, why not provide some evidence to support for your claim? Notice, those posters that disagree with you are providing reasoning, explanation, and examples, but you're just replying with, I disagree. I'm not saying who is wrong or right, but their evidence so far is a lot more compelling.

Well, I just don’t want to invest the time. I have other stuff I’m worrying about right now. Just to provide anecodatal evidence, there are tons of skyscrapers here in LA and NYC that have great street interaction and you wouldn’t even know they were skyscrapers unless you looked up.

But i stand by my point that good street interaction and skyscrapers are not exclusive and no one else has provided any evidence to prove that wrong.

Trust me, Gary Brooks cares about being profitable. If there isn't evidence a development will pay back investors and lenders at an appropriate rate, it doesn't get built.

Yes, of course he does. But he also seems to care about - and have an understanding of - doing the property justice.

Keep in mind that Brooks is the front person and even the lead on the project redevelopment but very likely not the largest investor.

Charlie Nicholas (from DFW) is probably the main money man but there are others as well.

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/coop030718a.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/coop030718b.jpg

Man, I hope whatever happens here is extraordinary. Because that is a LOT of land...

There sure looks like there is more land than before everything was cleared for sure.

Great shots Pete. Especially the close up of the old GE center cab locomotive. Looks to be a 44 Tonner and I'm assuming the number on the cab represents the year it was built as that would be inside the time frame the these units were in production.

Is that thing effectively stranded there until it is lifted onto a truck or something?

Is that thing effectively stranded there until it is lifted onto a truck or something?

I can't say for sure, but from Pete's pictures, it sure does look like the rails on either side of PCOM 1944 have been cut and removed. It very likely will need to be trucked out at this point.

Yes, the rails all around it are long gone.

Leave it there and make it some sort of landmark. We need more interesting things to interact with.

Leave it there and make it some sort of landmark. We need more interesting things to interact with.

Great idea and I hope that is the plan.

Leaving it there would be awesome.

Truthfully, I would absolutely hate to see this happen to PCOM 1944. This GE 80 tonner, serial number 31823, was built in March 1953, and started life as USAF 1691, originally assigned to McGuire AFB (near Cookstown, NJ). I've been able to find pictures of it at Wright-Patterson AFB (near Dayton, OH) as well. After the USAF decommissioned it in the late 80's/early 90's, this unit became SWRX 1 for the Indiana Port Commission's Southwind Shortline Railroad, then was sold to Mid-America Locomotive & Car Repair in Evansville, IN, until purchased by Producers Cooperative in February 2012. It arrived in OKC and was fully rebuilt and restored - including rebuilding both engines and all four traction motors - and given the current "Amtrak Phase V" style paint job that same year (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4damkZv0-Tc). The locomotive's number - 1944 - is a reference to the year that PCOM was founded. Aside from it's (relatively) short stay in OKC, and the PCOM lettering, it has few historical ties to OKC. Plus, there aren't a large number of these ex-military GE 80 tonners around anymore - especially not in the excellent condition that this one is in. I'd much, much, MUCH rather see this locomotive go to ORM or some other museum that would preserve it.

Truthfully, I would absolutely hate to see this happen to PCOM 1944. This GE 80 tonner was built in 1953, and started life as USAF 1691, assigned to McGuire AFB (near Cookstown, NJ). It arrived in OKC in 2012, after being fully restored and given the current paint job. The locomotive's number - 1944 - is a reference to the year that PCOM was founded. Aside from it's (relatively) short stay in OKC, and the PCOM lettering, it has few historical ties to OKC. Plus, there aren't a large number of these ex-military GE 80 tonners around anymore - especially not in the excellent condition that this one is in. I'd much, much, MUCH rather see this locomotive go to ORM or some other museum that would preserve it.

I would hope that by making it a landmark that it would be preserved and maintained....

The fact that there aren't a lot left would be a great reason to keep it here.

Truthfully, I would absolutely hate to see this happen to PCOM 1944. This GE 80 tonner was built in 1953, and started life as USAF 1691, assigned to McGuire AFB (near Cookstown, NJ). It arrived in OKC in 2012, after being fully restored and given the current paint job. The locomotive's number - 1944 - is a reference to the year that PCOM was founded. Aside from it's (relatively) short stay in OKC, and the PCOM lettering, it has few historical ties to OKC. Plus, there aren't a large number of these ex-military GE 80 tonners around anymore - especially not in the excellent condition that this one is in. I'd much, much, MUCH rather see this locomotive go to ORM or some other museum that would preserve it.

I knew it looked longer than a 44 Tonner, but still 5 doors along the hood. I know the 50 Tonners, and 70 Tonners look obviously different. Never thought of the 80's.

Leave it there and make it some sort of landmark. We need more interesting things to interact with.

Actually there was something interesting there, but they tore it all down.

Truthfully, I would absolutely hate to see this happen to PCOM 1944. This GE 80 tonner, serial number 31823, was built in 1953, and started life as USAF 1691, originally assigned to McGuire AFB (near Cookstown, NJ). I've been able to find pictures of it at Wright-Patterson AFB (near Dayton, OH) as well. After the USAF decommissioned it, this unit became SWRX 1 for the Indiana Port Commission's Southwind Shortline Railroad, until purchased by Producers Cooperative in 2012. It arrived in OKC and was fully restored and given the current paint job that same year. The locomotive's number - 1944 - is a reference to the year that PCOM was founded. Aside from it's (relatively) short stay in OKC, and the PCOM lettering, it has few historical ties to OKC. Plus, there aren't a large number of these ex-military GE 80 tonners around anymore - especially not in the excellent condition that this one is in. I'd much, much, MUCH rather see this locomotive go to ORM or some other museum that would preserve it.

Foamer. :tongue:

But seriously, great knowledge here. And a good idea for ORM.

I would hope that by making it a landmark that it would be preserved and maintained....

The fact that there aren't a lot left would be a great reason to keep it here.

I would rather see it be preserved in running condition, which it would no longer be if it was turned into a static display. I'd be willing to bet ORM would LOVE to have that beauty operational and rolling on their rails.


Foamer. :tongue:

But seriously, great knowledge here. And a good idea for ORM.

Armchair foamer, hahaha, but yeah... What can I say, I like trains, lmao. Cobbled all of that info together from several sources online.

^^^ So do I . Life long rail fan here. As a kid, while visiting my grandparents up in Chicago, I whiled away many hours sitting along side the racetrack watching the E units on the CB&Q and later BN. And also catching the Texas Chief and Lone Star here in okc for the ride up there.

Truthfully, I would absolutely hate to see this happen to PCOM 1944. This GE 80 tonner, serial number 31823, was built in March 1953, and started life as USAF 1691, originally assigned to McGuire AFB (near Cookstown, NJ). I've been able to find pictures of it at Wright-Patterson AFB (near Dayton, OH) as well. After the USAF decommissioned it in the late 80's/early 90's, this unit became SWRX 1 for the Indiana Port Commission's Southwind Shortline Railroad, then was sold to Mid-America Locomotive & Car Repair in Evansville, IN, until purchased by Producers Cooperative in February 2012. It arrived in OKC and was fully rebuilt and restored - including rebuilding both engines and all four traction motors - and given the current "Amtrak Phase V" style paint job that same year (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4damkZv0-Tc). The locomotive's number - 1944 - is a reference to the year that PCOM was founded. Aside from it's (relatively) short stay in OKC, and the PCOM lettering, it has few historical ties to OKC. Plus, there aren't a large number of these ex-military GE 80 tonners around anymore - especially not in the excellent condition that this one is in. I'd much, much, MUCH rather see this locomotive go to ORM or some other museum that would preserve it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lutNECOZFw

Leave it there and make it some sort of landmark. We need more interesting things to interact with.

I called for this months ago in post 795. We must think alike. lol

^^^ So do I . Life long rail fan here. As a kid, while visiting my grandparents up in Chicago, I whiled away many hours sitting along side the racetrack watching the E units on the CB&Q and later BN. And also catching the Texas Chief and Lone Star here in okc for the ride up there.

Nice! I don't want to derail this thread too much more, but... yeah, I've loved trains since I was a kid too. I missed out on the era of seeing most of the more interesting streamlined equipment in revenue service, though. A large part of my passion is for passenger rail - if I'm traveling somewhere, I try to take Amtrak as much as is possible, and I'm a big advocate for expansion of service across the state; I also really enjoy learning about the history of routes, both active and abandoned.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lutNECOZFw

LOL... I don't get quite that excited about trains, though I do admit both of those locomotives - the E8 and the BL-2 - are quite beautiful. :)

nice! i don't want to derail this thread too much more, but... Yeah, i've loved trains since i was a kid too. I missed out on the era of seeing most of the more interesting streamlined equipment in revenue service, though. A large part of my passion is for passenger rail - if i'm traveling somewhere, i try to take amtrak as much as is possible, and i'm a big advocate for expansion of service across the state; i also really enjoy learning about the history of routes, both active and abandoned.



Lol... I don't get quite that excited about trains, though i do admit both of those locomotives - the e8 and the bl-2 - are quite beautiful. :)

i see what you did there!!!