Leaving it there would be awesome.

The locomotive was sold to the demolition company as part of the demolition contract. It will be disassembled and removed by the demolition company. Not sure what their planned use will be for the old girl.

The locomotive was sold to the demolition company as part of the demolition contract. It will be disassembled and removed by the demolition company. Not sure what their planned use will be for the old girl.

Ooof. That is incredibly disappointing to hear. I would not be surprised to see her go to scrap now. But maybe, maybe 1944 will be sold to someone that will actually put it back in service somewhere... I hope, anyway.

Ooof. That is incredibly disappointing to hear. I would not be surprised to see her go to scrap now. But maybe, maybe 1944 will be sold to someone that will actually put it back in service somewhere... I hope, anyway.

The price that they paid for it would tell me that they aren't scrapping it. Not sure what use it will see, but I believe it will be something more than scrap.

The price that they paid for it would tell me that they aren't scrapping it. Not sure what use it will see, but I believe it will be something more than scrap.

I certainly hope you are correct. Good information, thank you!

The price that they paid for it would tell me that they aren't scrapping it. Not sure what use it will see, but I believe it will be something more than scrap.

That makes sense, it looked in too good of shape for it to just be abandoned like that.

There is a market for used locomotives, and hopefully that's where this unit will head. Current new locomotive builders don't offer much in the way of small switching power like they did years ago, so today's railroad's smaller units are rebuilds or gen sets. So there should be a home out there for this one. If they lift the whole thing up on a low boy to move it, that's a good sign. If they break out the torches where it sits, say good bye.

just wonder why they didn't move it out before the rails got removed. ....??

You would have to bring in someone to inspect and certify it, then pay the railroad to move it. Probably cheaper to hoist and lowboy it out.

ok thanks for that. I was thinking it might have been cheaper to railroad it out while it was there but you make a great point. ..

ok thanks for that. I was thinking it might have been cheaper to railroad it out while it was there but you make a great point. ..
When I was a working switchman on the BNSF back in 2015, here’s how it would have worked out. If the loco could have passed inspection by the inspectors, the job that pulled and spotted Producers would have brought the loco and empty cars back to Flynn yard. The loco would have then been switched in the yard to the evening SLWC transfer job and gone back downtown to the SLWC yard. The SLWC would have then switched the loco and another job would have taken it east to the UP interchange. Then the UP would have brought it back westbound to Harter yard and switched it to the track running to OKC Railroad Musueun, for them to move to the museum! Whew, there you go....

omg, does sound more complicated than trucking it out. .... freew!

hopefully it WILL go to the OK Railroad Museum!!!

omg, does sound more complicated than trucking it out. .... freew!

hopefully it WILL go to the OK Railroad Museum!!!

Me too,

Surprised it would have had to pass inspections...that piece of equipment was restored in the past 10-15 years and ran regularly on the rails in that yard in the past decade.

They can run it on private property all they want, but in order to pull it out on the main line, it has to pass FRA regulations. Even still, using it on the property for business, it would need to pass federal & state industry safety standards, like any other piece of equipment.

They can run it on private property all they want, but in order to pull it out on the main line, it has to pass FRA regulations. Even still, using it on the property for business, it would need to pass federal & state industry safety standards, like any other piece of equipment.

Does the FRA not have a "ferry permit" similar to the FAA for aviation. The FAA will grant single use ferry permits for aircraft that are unserviceable, but operable. These can be used to get an aircraft to a different shop, or for a single use to move it to it's final resting place.

According to a post (https://www.facebook.com/groups/Soonerstaterails/permalink/2070389252972476/) in the Sooner State Rails facebook group, PCOM 1944 was in the process of being loaded onto a flatbed truck via crane on Friday (17 Mar). Unfortunately, the poster on Facebook wasn't able to get any pictures of them loading the switcher onto the truck. I definitely hope she goes somewhere that appreciates her!

^

Yes, I took drone photos on Sunday and it's completely gone.

My understanding is that the Coop made a deal with the demolition company who agreed to knock $50K off their bill.

I believe it will be preserved but I don't know the details.

Not to derail (pun intended) the conversation, but I read this today, and immediately thought of this site. If Amy Webb is right about this trend going forward, OKC definitely has adequate supply of vacant land and could be a competitive metropolitan as technology continues to change they way we interact with real estate.

Googles New Landscraper Will be as Long as a Super Tall Skyscraper is High (https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/12/googles-new-landscraper-will-be-as-long-as-a-super-tall-skyscraper-is-high)

Not to derail (pun intended) the conversation, but I read this today, and immediately thought of this site. If Amy Webb is right about this trend going forward, OKC definitely has adequate supply of vacant land and could be a competitive metropolitan as technology continues to change they way we interact with real estate.

Googles New Landscraper Will be as Long as a Super Tall Skyscraper is High (https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/12/googles-new-landscraper-will-be-as-long-as-a-super-tall-skyscraper-is-high)

https://s3-media2.fl.yelpcdn.com/bphoto/Kr0T44dV0T9Rppr7hKNnMg/o.jpg
Landscrapers, that's an interesting article. Guess you call OKC's Centennial Land Run Monument a landscraper mounument.

Hope the big players develop some land mark figures like what we see in the placeholders below.
http://www.okctalk.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=6250&d=1390321851
The Producer's COOP Mill prepares their prime 42 acres as they clear the old mill structues. Can't wait to see how they divide the acreage into parcels along with the development that follows.

As much as I love skyscrapers, anything resembling that layout and big box stores fronting the new Boulevard would be probably the biggest fail since the IM Pei plan failure. The canal should be straight and, IMO, form a giant square and a standard street grid should be built.

Sadly...the above pic is not close to what is planned.

Sadly...the above pic is not close to what is planned.

You know this how?

You know this how?

I'll have more on this soon.

It will be a mix of mid-rise residential, parking structures, perhaps hotels and big-box retail.

I'll have more on this soon.

It will be a mix of mid-rise residential, parking structures, perhaps hotels and big-box retail.

Big box? Don't like that. But I guess that is all Sooner Investments knows.

Their portfolio is a nightmare of parking lots and stripmall style retail. I fear we are going to see Lower Bricktown Volume 2

Their portfolio is a nightmare of parking lots and stripmall style retail. I fear we are going to see Lower Bricktown Volume 2

... or worse, based on some of their past work. Sigh.

Let's just say that based on preliminary plans most people here are going to be disappointed.

You know this how?

I've seen the rough plans.

Let's just say that based on preliminary plans most people here are going to be disappointed.

I know I should wait until seeing the plans, but do you expect the city to put up much fuss over the design principles for the development, or wave it on through? Squandering an opportunity like this would be devastating.

I know I should wait until seeing the plans, but do you expect the city to put up much fuss over the design principles for the development, or wave it on through? Squandering an opportunity like this would be devastating.

I suspect they will give them resistance using the downtown development frameworkas ammo. However, IDK how effective they will be in getting their way.

Design review really doesn't have much leverage.

If a developer comes in with a planned project, they are all going to say: This is the only way to make the numbers work. And that's pretty much the end of it.

You are going to see housing like The Edge and parking garages like we've already seen downtown and maybe some mid-rise hotels and office buildings but almost certainly nothing over 10 stories and I suspect most everything will be in the 5-6 story range.

Look at University North Park (Sooner's most ambitious project) and note they have a Gary Brooks apartment complex, an Embassy Suites, some small offices and then a ton of big box retail. This is pretty much what you can expect just with structured parking, more density and a higher portion of housing.

And I'm afraid the big box retail will come with a decent amount of surface parking.

Im guessing the design review folks can make everything look a certain way, but they can't fundamentally change the nature of the thing being build...

This is EXACTLY where TIF can make a difference.

This is EXACTLY where TIF can make a difference.

They'll get it and it won't make any difference.

They'll get it and it won't make any difference.
We disagree.

We disagree.

Please provide evidence to support your declaration then.

This is the way every single TIF project works: A developer comes up with a plan and pro forma that magically has a 5-8% gap in what they can finance and what it will cost. Then, if the economic development people like you and your project, they'll give you the difference in free taxpayer money.

I'm not aware of a single project where TIF made a significant difference in how a project was developed. And in fact, I can list a long list of good ones that received no TIF money at all. And some projects that almost no one is happy about (apart from the developers) that did receive TIF.

You could name FNC and Wheeler District and I'll point out those were already designed before there was any sort of agreement on receiving public funds.

Design always comes before TIF.

Let's just say that based on preliminary plans most people here are going to be disappointed.

Not a surprise at all, given what they did at UNP in Norman and elsewhere. I remember when Steve Lackmeyer was talking them up as attractive player who wouldn’t be able throw up big box stores and I immediately thought, actually that’s exactly what they do. In fact, that’s all they do.

Please provide evidence to support your declaration then.

This is the way every single TIF project works: A developer comes up with a plan and pro forma that magically has a 5-8% gap in what they can finance and what it will cost. Then, if the economic development people like you and your project, they'll give you the difference in free taxpayer money.

I'm not aware of a single project where TIF made a significant difference in how a project was developed. And in fact, I can list a long list of good ones that received no TIF money at all. And some projects that almost no one is happy about (apart from the developers) that did receive TIF.

You could name FNC and Wheeler District and I'll point out those were already designed before there was any sort of agreement on receiving public funds.

Design always comes before TIF.
Criterion Theater. Which was recently discussed and heavily derided by at least one poster as a bad use of public incentive.

TIF can (and should) be a carrot. In this instance, if the developer shows up with something that doesn't meet OKC's urban design framework the City/Alliance can simply say "no. Bring us something that fits." This project is likely to be an instance where TIF, if applied, will be brought to use to influence design characteristics of the development. The City does NOT want this to be a garbage development.

I was one of the people heavily critical of using TIF to make the Criterion in compliance with good urban design practices, and I still think that is a horrible use of taxpayer money. Merely say 'no' and have them come back with an appropriate plan. Why on earth should taxpayers be paying for this? It also set a very bad precedent.

Nobody is saying this will be a garbage development. But I'm aware of the preliminary plan and while it may fit into the very broad context of our urban design framework, don't expect it to be anything people are going to be excited about.

All you need to do is look at what Sooner has done in the past and it will be more of the same, just slightly denser.

Actually I wouldn't be unhappy at all with a bunch of The Edge style apartments and some 10 story hotels. Not that it's amazing by any means, but if they could fill the Coop site with that level of density, that's a good solid addition to OKC. It would look just like an extension of Bricktown going south.

I am not happy about the idea of big box retail, particularly with surface parking. We don't need more of that at all, especially downtown. With Amazon and other online retail, I really don't know how long the big box stores are going to be around.

Big box will be a major portion of this development. Likely about 1/3.

The first thing built very well could be a parking garage.

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/coop031818b.jpg

This is EXACTLY where TIF can make a difference.

Which will help keep property values like the coop artificially inflated. Your property is only worth what someone will pay for it. But in many cases in this city, its what someone will pay for it plus TIF dollars.

Which will help keep property values like the coop artificially inflated. Your property is only worth what someone will pay for it. But in many cases in this city, its what someone will pay for it plus TIF dollars.

AND you are completely messing with the competitive balance where most developers don't get any public assistance but then have to directly compete against those who do.


As a reminder, over 2 BILLION in public investment has been made in the downtown area just since the first MAPS. You would think that would be more than enough of a boost.

TIF is meant to jump-start development in areas, not become welfare on top of already huge tax investment and long after there has already been billions in private investment.

Back to the locomotive, who would i contact to see if the locomotive could be bought &put back to work?

Back to the locomotive, who would i contact to see if the locomotive could be bought &put back to work?

Try Midwest Wrecking, They seem to be the ones for large demo jobs.

I don't believe it was Midwest.

Regardless...based on what I know...the demo company already has plans for the locomotive. They paid a pretty big price for her and I'm told they have plans. So I doubt they would resell it unless there was a decent profit margin. That would put the price pretty high.

I don't believe it was Midwest.

Regardless...based on what I know...the demo company already has plans for the locomotive. They paid a pretty big price for her and I'm told they have plans. So I doubt they would resell it unless there was a decent profit margin. That would put the price pretty high.

Plus, I doubt a demolition company knows anything about the cost of a locomotive so they probably went out looking for buyers before they finalized the demolition contract to make sure they were getting a fair deal.

AND you are completely messing with the competitive balance where most developers don't get any public assistance but then have to directly compete against those who do.


As a reminder, over 2 BILLION in public investment has been made in the downtown area just since the first MAPS. You would think that would be more than enough of a boost.

TIF is meant to jump-start development in areas, not become welfare on top of already huge tax investment and long after there has already been billions in private investment.

Well this is of course where we differ fundamentally. First of all, TIF is to be spent within the district that generates the new tax revenue. As long as it exists, it is NOT to be shipped to some other part of town; in fact that would be quite illegal. If you think TIF is bad policy in general - and I think for the most part you do - that is fine, and certainly fair to argue. That said, as long as there IS a TIF in place, all of those funds must be spent within the boundaries of the TIF district.

Also while I know downtown is prospering far more than it was previously, it is NOT accurate to say that it is prospering to the same extent as many other downtown areas. Every day on this board there is wailing and gnashing of teeth about the low standards that many here believe are utilized in downtown. Part of that is that yes, some developments have been allowed to slip through which should not have been allowed. But besides that, one of the reasons we don't always see the high level of finish we'd like is because it just doesn't pencil. Development in downtown is still far more expensive than elsewhere, and still more of a gamble than it is in the suburbs and fringe. So to some extent TIF exists to level the playing field and make it at least as attractive to develop downtown. Otherwise, development would STILL be very heavily weighted to the fringe of our city and even to communities outside of the City limits (where we don't capture tax revenue).

Speaking of tax revenue - while I know it is often mentioned here that the captured TIF tax could be "better utilized" by the entities which normally benefit but which mutually agreed to allow TIF - I would point out that other taxes being generated in the core and also increased property values (and the resulting taxes) in the center of the city are driven by what is happening downtown.

Development in the core also brings more residents and their tax dollars toward the center and helps stifle too much centrifugal growth at the fringe. Give people a reason to stay closer to the middle and pay higher prices, and you will also be bringing additional tax revenue to the entities who are giving up revenue to TIF.

Then there is sales tax. A few years ago, even before the emergence of Midtown, 23rd, West Village, Film Row, the City ran a sales tax report for the one square mile that Bricktown fits into and found that it generated FIVE PERCENT OF ALL SALES TAX COLLECTED IN OKC. Meaning this one square mile generated 1/20th of ALL of the sales tax generated in 622 square miles. I'd love to see this report run again and now include Midtown, Film Row, Deep Deuce, Automobile Alley...my guess is that you would see 10% or more of all sales tax revenues coming from downtown. Those are monies spent on police, fire, libraries, roads, etc., etc., everywhere in Oklahoma City. Why in the world would you not want to continue to feed this growth?

Finally, the point I was making about this particular development is this: part of this plan is likely to include public amenities that are not a direct benefit to the developer. Streets, sidewalks, plaza, a canal extension is being discussed. Structured parking rather than surface parking, some of which would also be used by visitors to other areas surrounding. These are things that the developer of course would also see as amenities and benefits for their tenants and patrons, but I seriously doubt if those things pencil enough to be worthwhile for the developer without TIF. Meaning with all of that raw land, they could probably build only big box and surface parking and a few other elements and maximize ROI with little risk. But those public amenities are worth some TIF funds, and they are an ENTIRELY APPROPRIATE use for them. Especially as TIF is currently formulated.

BUT...if they ask for TIF assistance with these things - which of course they would probably like to have also - the City/Alliance can certainly state that they want the rest of the development to conform to their desired outcome. Again, we talk on here a lot about what we wish everyone else would do or expect them to do, but if that involves a developer sticking their neck out too far when it comes to expense, they are not going to do it without public participation. That's not welfare. That is incentivizing a desired outcome.

^

All that can be achieved -- and is achieved in more instances than not in downtown OKC -- without TIF or financial gifts to the developer.

There are lots of other mechanisms in place and most cities with thriving downtowns are not using TIF or other taxpayer subsidies.

Can you give some examples, please? Its not that I have any doubt that there are, but you need to be certain you are comparing cities with similar demographics. Similar size does not mean similar business and residential profiles. OKC has a weak corporate profile meaning there aren't very many downtown, the O & G business is only moderately healthy right now and OKC continues to be a very widespread city. Indy has a better, more diverse corporate structure and a state government complex all downtown. It is going to be easier to get the development you want in a city like that.

We are seeing a transformation downtown but our local developers are hesitant to recognize the need to urbanize and increase density. By using TIF districts to, for example, lay for an extension of the canals and/or streetcar system into the coop area, it will be much easier to guide the development away from suburban development and surface lots. It takes lots of people to support the retail, restaurant and bar scene people want to see downtown. If the wrong decisions are made, your going to get Bass Pro. With an infrastructure of canals, streets and public transportation, you are much more likely to get smaller blocks and block development.

TIF isn't being used for the streetcar -- that's MAPS. Canal was paid for by MAPS as well.

Bass Pro received all kinds of public subsidies (like sales tax rebates) that could have been used as leverage to get a more desirable result.

There are lots of existing mechanisms -- including Plan OKC and design review -- to get desirable results. You don't need to pay developers with tax money to do the right thing, and in fact there are a bunch of TIF-subsidized projects (like Maywood I & II) that did not exactly turn out to the approval of most who care about quality urban development. West Village just got a bunch of TIF money and are putting up two huge parking garages each covered about 1% in brick and are both right on main thoroughfares instead of being underground or being built behind more appealing structures like so many others have already done in OKC.

And regarding this development, my understanding is that the canal will not be extended or be integrated in any way. And you can bet they will still get plenty of TIF money for something that is going to have a huge chunk of big box retail.

Also absolutely no plan to extend the streetcar to this project.

BTW, remember that they already own the property for this project. Effectively, all that land costs them nothing.

There is demolition and will be soil remediation but that still pales in terms of what comparable properties have sold for, including the Lumberyard which is directly north; and it will require some demo and likely remediation as well.

Yes, they will need to put some streets and infrastructure in, just like every developer everywhere else, including those outside of downtown.

So tell me why the taxpayers should be paying very rich people a bunch of money when we are in absolute emergency in terms of overall budget issues? And as a reminder, TIF comes directly from property taxes, of which 72% goes to public education.

Its too bad because the canal system is an incredible asset that should more integral to new Bricktown projects. We are not privvy to what planned in that area as you seem to be so all we have to go on is potential and what may be realistically built there. IMO some residential built there is underwhelming - though I'm happy for the residential. It is also my opinion that projects using the TIF money can help steer what is built there meaning higher density, mid-rise at minimum, urban design.

In thinking about this, I think the real problem that is holding OKC back is the fact there is so much empty, ready-to-develop land in the urban core and the city isn't growing fast enough to make the numbers work for the kind of high-quality, dense development many here would like to see. Skyscrapers aren't going to happen "just because." They have to make financial sense. OKC is however growing enough to keep land values high in the core. TIFs and design review and counter this but there is only so much they can do and at the end of the day, the city will approve a subpar development that will generate revenue over nothing at all eg. Lower Bricktown.

Add to this the fact that for a city its size, it already has more than its share of competing urban districts with more about to be ready to develop. OKC has as many or more competing districts as Charlotte, which has over twice the population and growing leaps and bounds faster.

In my opinion it would have been better for the city to leave the old I-40 alignment in place, thus acting as a barrier to development. This would force denser development and critical mass in places like Deep Deuce, Midtown, and Auto Alley. On its current course, I believe OKC will continue to develop its core but the end result may not be as impressive as it could potentially be.

Agree or disagree and if so, what do you think the solution is?

Bchris - I agree totally. It actually pains me to look at that picture of the Coop and stretching on over to Scissortail Park. That is way, way too much land to be developed for the size of population we have. There seems to be this feeling that we have to build the whole thing at once in some sort of organized “district” or “plan” and there’s just not enough demand for that. I would love to take a study that looks at the sheer geographic size of our urban core; I mean everything from 13th and Classen to the Oklahoma River. I bet it’s larger than the core of Dallas. We’re trying to build the whole damn thing in the space of 10-20 years. Keep in mind the best, most sustainable growth this city has going is in Midtown, Auto Alley and Deep Deuce where the ethos is the exact opposite.

By opposite, I mean human-scaled. Infill development occurring at the pace of the market by many smallish users to meet certain demands: an office building here, a Bar here, a 3 story apartment building there. And I guarantee you I’m the OKC of 2035, those blocks between Heritage Hills and CBD, between Classen and 235, will be THE seminal area of OKC. If we’re not careful, in that same year, the Coop will be vacant big boxes and weedy parking lots. I hope I’m wrong.

Bchris - I agree totally. It actually pains me to look at that picture of the Coop and stretching on over to Scissortail Park. That is way, way too much land to be developed for the size of population we have. There seems to be this feeling that we have to build the whole thing at once in some sort of organized “district” or “plan” and there’s just not enough demand for that. I would love to take a study that looks at the sheer geographic size of our urban core; I mean everything from 13th and Classen to the Oklahoma River. I bet it’s larger than the core of Dallas. We’re trying to build the whole damn thing in the space of 10-20 years. Keep in mind the best, most sustainable growth this city has going is in Midtown, Auto Alley and Deep Deuce where the ethos is the exact opposite.

This 100%

And yes, if Core 2 Shore, from the Co-op area over to Strawberry Fields was developed to potential, it would be something like Uptown Dallas. OKC isn't large enough to support something like that on its own, let alone in addition to Midtown, Auto Alley, Deep Deuce, Uptown, etc.

I think Midtown really has the potential to be the crown jewel of OKC and Bricktown could be much better than it is. Core 2 Shore, in my opinion, will only suck demand and investment out of areas where it should ideally be going.

I would like to see Core 2 Shore developed organically and realistically for OKC. Perhaps even single family homes would be appropriate (though obviously a much different style than Edmond homes). Big box is definitely not the answer and I cannot see how it won't be bad for OKC in the long run. At minimum, what kind of image does that project if the gateway to downtown is a Wal-Mart Supercenter with a huge surface parking lot right next to a Home Depot or Lowes? Don't forget the outparcels either, perhaps with a TGI Friday's, Chili's, and Buffalo Wild Wings.

You’re so right. My preference would be: OK, let’s have mid-rise office or condo buildings lining the east side of the park and the south side of the boulevard. Yes. Fine. But the “interior” of the Coop and Core to shore? How about urban row houses in the tradition of Georgetown or Brooklyn or Center City Philadelphia? Single family, 2-3 stories is fine, think the Cosby Show. Throw some coffee shops or neighborhood bodegas at the intersections. Much more sustainable than trying to create some huge district that diverts attention from the already growing districts north of the CBD.

And yes, I almost threw up in my mouth when you mentioned Wal-Mart, Lowe’s and Chili’s with parking lots. I would much rather it stay completely vacant than to have that happen.