I have no idea. I don't much about this or what it means, so I'm going to keep my mouth shut for now and let others who know more about it chime in.

Does this signify a change in your posting policy, plupan? ;)

Does this signify a change in your posting policy, plupan? ;)I'm just going to hope this is due to them revising the building to be taller, but I'm not going to say that. ;P

This also has nothing to do with what is being talked about but I thought I'd post this...I think it's a lot better than the other one I made
http://www.okctalk.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=9409&stc=1

its going to be taller than that. Think at least Oklahoma Tower (not Mid-America/Continental Tower).

http://www.oklahoman.com/article/5363637?embargo=1


Developers competing to build high-rises on city-owned land west of the Myriad Gardens were told Tuesday the one chosen will be given a deadline to start construction or the property will be reclaimed by the Oklahoma City Urban Renewal Authority.
Mark Beffort, a veteran downtown broker, property owner and Urban Renewal board member, questioned Clayco CEO Bob Clark about whether he is confident that construction will begin within two years on the second of two proposed high-rise residential towers.
“I wouldn’t encourage the committee to be too aggressive in backing up our timeline. We do have a lot on our hands. We have a pretty good feeling with the lack of vacancy here. I really do believe it’s feasible to start construction in late 2015. I’d hate to have to spend a lot of money and then lose our redevelopment rights.”

It's probably due to the 'requirement' that the winner will start construction immediately or lose the land back to OCURA. We'll have to let someone translate the Journal Record story who has access.

I think Clayco has demonstrated this willingness but I suspect the delay is to ensure Milhaus has a fair chance/shot. Hopefully cooler minds will prevail and Clayco will be awarded the Festival block; and will start construction on the Stage Center (OGE Tower) and the Festival Block demolition in March.

From the Journal Record:

Up in the air: Authority delays vote on plans for site by OGE Energy tower

By: Molly M. Fleming The Journal Record November 4, 2014

OKLAHOMA CITY – When the company planned its downtown tower, Devon Energy Corp. co-founder Larry Nichols said he realized the investment could change the cityscape.

“You could just look at the site and say, ‘If this works, and really inspires development in this part of town, it will change this part of downtown,” Nichols said Tuesday at a special meeting of the Oklahoma City Urban Renewal Authority.

The landscape is slated to change more, with OGE Energy Corp. building a new headquarters tower at the southwest corner of Sheridan and Hudson avenues. The 3.15 acres to the south will be redeveloped as well, but the exact plan for that site won’t be decided until the Nov. 19 OCURA meeting. The authority owns nearly the entire plot and requested qualified proposals for the site. The committee could have made a decision on the bids Tuesday, but chose to wait.

The authority received responses from two national companies, Chicago-based Clayco Construction Co. Inc. and Indianapolis-based Milhaus Development, both of which already have ties to Oklahoma City. Nichols said he was pleased to see the companies’ interest in the property.

“To see this coming to pass with two national, highly qualified firms, making very good, respectable proposals, is rewarding,” he said at Tuesday’s OCURA meeting, at which Milhaus and Clayco presented their proposals.

Clayco first inquired about the property when it was chosen to build the OGE Energy headquarters. The company could construct four towers in total: the OGE Energy office, a 500,000-square-foot residential building, and on the south end another 500,000-square-foot office building and a second residential tower.

Clayco Principal Larry Chapman said the company wants to make sure the first residential building leases well. The development would also have a 3,200-space parking garage. It’s possible that three buildings could be under construction at the same time, he said. Construction on the OGE building should have started two months ago, he said, but the company expects to start soon.

Chapman said the company is looking at a public-private partnership with the city of Oklahoma City because, according to its studies, the building will create $450 million in new tax revenue.

“That’s more than enough to offset the kinds of things we’ll need to offset the costs of this project,” Chapman said.

He said the company has looked at the shade the buildings will cast on the Myriad Botanical Gardens and the traffic effects it will have. He said according to its study, the towers will cause late afternoon shade.

Milhaus has proposed only one tower, but it would leave the west side of the property open for future development. The company wants to build a 20-story residential tower with an adjacent 450-space, three-story parking garage. The building’s first floor will have 15,000 square feet of commercial leasing space with sidewalk entrances. Apartment sizes will range from 750 to 1,500 square feet for three bedrooms, with rent prices expected at $2.10 per square foot.

“We are singly focused on residential,” said Jeremy Stephenson, president of Milhaus Development.

The company is building the 329-unit Lift apartment complex at NW 10th Street and Shartel Avenue. Stephenson said that, based on the other markets Milhaus has worked in such as Indianapolis, this type of high-end residential units would be filled. The company plans to start construction in fall 2015 and will take 22 months to build.

...He said the company has looked at the shade the buildings will cast on the Myriad Botanical Gardens and the traffic effects it will have. He said according to its study, the towers will cause late afternoon shade...
And there you have one if the main reasons why they are looking at keeping the buildings under a certain height.

I initially speculated about this topic sometime back and several times since and was mildly ridiculed for my trouble. I'm not going to bother searching the thread (or the other in which I remember also doing so) to remind myself of who did that, but to you I say: suck eggs.

And there you have one if the main reasons why they are looking at keeping the buildings under a certain height.

I initially speculated about this topic sometime back and several times since and was mildly ridiculed for my trouble. I'm not going to bother searching the thread (or the other in which I remember also doing so) to remind myself of who did that, but to you I say: suck eggs.

I recall that. :)

Not sure that is accurate. I would think that the towers on the north should have very little effect on the MG. In fact a little shade my provide some relief on hot summer days. Now the towers in the south, could possibly effect the plants but even that is not a certainty. I think it would have to be a really tall building to cause multiple hours of shading. A brief afternoon shade shoudn't cause any reason for concern. Now if a building like the Devon was on the south side, that could be a different story. A 30-35 story tower should not causes anything but some relief from the heat on a hot summer day. So, once again, another reason to go above 30 stories. ;)

So...you're saying you know more about it than the people at Clayco who specifically studied the issue..? What am I missing?

Re-read what I wrote. I didn't say I knew more than them. It is loaded with a whole lot of "not sure' and "it may" type stuff. It's basically my opinion that a taller building wouldn't effect the north side and perhaps some shade (few hours of the day) could be a welcome relief without harming the MG. I'd say that is what you are missing or missed apparently.

Just spoke Myriad Gardens staff who told me they were not at all concerned about buildings to the west and they viewed any tall structures as "net positives" not only for shading some plant life but also shading the Great Lawn and other areas that get a lot of late afternoon sun during the summers when they have lots of events.

Also said height of buildings really doesn't matter.

They did say buildings to the south (like the proposed CC Hotel) would be a small issue where they would at least like to look at a "shade plan" for some possible minor adjustments.

They said they haven't asked for a shade plan for the buildings to the west and don't intend to. They have not talked to Clayco or anyone else about the shade impact.

Interesting that Clayco would specifically bring it up then.

Thanks Pete! Like I was saying, I am no genius but I could not see how this would have done anything to hurt MG. I actually thought a tower of good height could provide some very much needed relief from the direct sun. I thought the shade would only further benefit the MG and more people would frequent it without the blaring direct heat during the hottest part of the day. Not to mention some of the vegetation would also like that. So lets cross our fingers for as tall as they want to build this thing!

Interesting that Clayco would specifically bring it up then.probably just an excuse.

An excuse for..?

An excuse for..?I don't know man... For people who want to higher or perhaps they don't want people to think they're low balling this. I'm sure there are parks in other cities that have huge 70+ story buildings around them and they are doing just fine.

I'll trust Myriad Gardens knowing about their plants than a developer.

A half-billion dollar lowball. My how our standards gave changed...

A half-billion dollar lowball. My how our standards gave changed...that wasn't what I meant and I'm sure you knew that, but whatever.

I don't know man... For people who want to higher or perhaps they don't want people to think they're low balling this. I'm sure there are parks in other cities that have huge 70+ story buildings around them and they are doing just fine.

I'll trust Myriad Gardens knowing about their plants than a developer.

There are probably 5 people who think they're "low balling this" and they all post over and over on this thread. :tongue:

That wasn't what he meant and I'm sure you knew that, but whatever.

There are probably 5 people who think they're "low balling this" and they all post over and over on this thread. :tongue:

Haha... Too true.

There are probably 5 people who think they're "low balling this" and they all post over and over on this thread. :tongue:

Read my post 618. right above yours.

I have been excited for this they day I saw the Clayco renderings. If you're just upset that there isn't a valid reason they can't be higher other than the fact this is Clayco's development and they have every right to keep it at current heights and the Myriad Gardens debunked the mythical 'buildings will hurt the park myth', that is your problem.

It seems like the desire that these towers be taller, which is a legitimate desire, is turning into full blown negativity. If the Clayco proposal gets approved and built as rendered this is a slam dunk for OKC. Would it be nice if they were 45 stories? Yes. Would it be great if they were 60 stories. You betcha. Skyscraper height though, as has been said numerous times, is determined by the developer and the market needs. This is for the most part a spec development anyways so it's a bigger risk than a company like Devon or Continental building for themselves. Clayco is betting in the OKC market - that they will be able to lease the office space and that the residential will be a success. People should be psyched about this getting built and not complaining because its not tall enough. Cities like Memphis or Louisville would love to have a development on this scale. Also keep in mind that Rainey Williams could have stuck with the original proposal, which was basically a mediocre 14-story midrise that would fit in better on NW Expressway or along the Broadway Extension. OKC is very lucky to be getting this development if it gets built as shown.

The only negative thoughts I am having about it has to do with the approval or the possibility that the less ambitious Milhaus project will get approved instead. I will feel much better about it once its approved.

It seems like the desire that these towers be taller, which is a legitimate desire, is turning into full blown negativity. If the Clayco proposal gets approved and built as rendered this is a slam dunk for OKC. Would it be nice if they were 45 stories? Yes. Would it be great if they were 60 stories. You betcha. Skyscraper height though, as has been said numerous times, is determined by the developer and the market needs. This is for the most part a spec development anyways so it's a bigger risk than a company like Devon or Continental building for themselves. Clayco is betting in the OKC market - that they will be able to lease the office space and that the residential will be a success. People should be psyched about this getting built and not complaining because its not tall enough. Cities like Memphis or Louisville would love to have a development on this scale. Also keep in mind that Rainey Williams could have stuck with the original proposal, which was basically a mediocre 14-story midrise that would fit in better on NW Expressway or along the Broadway Extension. OKC is very lucky to be getting this development if it gets built as shown.

The only negative thoughts I am having about it has to do with the approval or the possibility that the less ambitious Milhaus project will get approved instead. I will feel much better about it once its approved.
Agree completely. I'm just hoping it gets built as rendered by ClayCo. That would make me very happy!

Love the News9 comments. They never fail!


Because what downtown OkC needs is more construction....how about we try to finish just ONE project or repair...just one....before starting the next three.

- https://www.facebook.com/ashnhall

Four New High-Rise Towers Planned For Downtown OKC - News9.com - Oklahoma City, OK - News, Weather, Video and Sports | (http://www.news9.com/story/27293941/four-new-high-rise-towers-planned-for-downtown-okc)

Just spoke Myriad Gardens staff who told me they were not at all concerned about buildings to the west and they viewed any tall structures as "net positives" not only for shading some plant life but also shading the Great Lawn and other areas that get a lot of late afternoon sun during the summers when they have lots of events.

Also said height of buildings really doesn't matter.

They did say buildings to the south (like the proposed CC Hotel) would be a small issue where they would at least like to look at a "shade plan" for some possible minor adjustments.

They said they haven't asked for a shade plan for the buildings to the west and don't intend to. They have not talked to Clayco or anyone else about the shade impact.

This has been discussed here previously on other threads during discussions about possible high rise buildings affecting the Myriad Gardens and their response was exactly what I said previously. This happens around urban parks all over the world with no issues. People need to stop and think about how much actual time a particular area would be in the shade during the day because of a nearby building. It's minimal.

Best News9 comment:


Beautiful and balanced Tulsa has it all, kind of like a small Austin. Music, arts, museums, was oil capital of the world, a real riverside,brook side, cherry street and best live music at The Cains Ballroom and BOK.. THE WHOLE PACKAGE! I wish OKC would make it's city more pleasing..

That's funny.

Best News9 comment:

The Tulsa superiority complex really makes me dislike Tulsa.

I've said it before and I'll say it a thousand times...

Whether 8 stories or 80 stories....You have to get the street-level interaction between the building and public realm correct, especially with the location of this block in proximity to MBG.

I don't care about the height...the first 15' of the building and the space between the building and the street matter much, much more.

^^^^^^^
Exactly.

I've said it before and I'll say it a thousand times...

Whether 8 stories or 80 stories....You have to get the street-level interaction between the building and public realm correct, especially with the location of this block in proximity to MBG.

I don't care about the height...the first 15' of the building and the space between the building and the street matter much, much more.

I agree.


The Tulsa superiority complex really makes me dislike Tulsa.

You know, it's not a bad town. It's just not what people from Tulsa think it is. I've been a lot lately for shows and family and it's just really struck me how oversold it is. Combined with the all the changes in Oklahoma City, the superiority complex of some in Tulsa has never seemed so silly and unjustified as it does now.

I hate how they brag that they have a much more impressive skyline and taller buildings. I've heard that too many times over the years. Sadly, their was really no way to defend it, because it has been much more visually appealing for many years. Hope that changes and OKC gets density, housing, and taller buildings to shut them up. By the way, I was raised a Tulsa boy who hated OKC!

I hate how they brag that they have a much more impressive skyline and taller buildings.

I think that's the deal. Even when Tulsa did have some things on OKC, as a whole it was never much more anything. All of that kind of seems dated now anyways.

I don't care about the height...the first 15' of the building and the space between the building and the street matter much, much more. "Quality" density is only one factor...and a good one, but it mattering "much, much more" places far, far too much emphasis on it IMHO. I do care about height. I'll say it a thousand times...height matters. Perception, image, stature, skyline, vertical density aren't much, much less important. Density without height conjures up images of smaller, insignificant old European cities. Density without height (above 15') is uninspiring, monotonous, and causes the community to appear economically challenged.

And Tulsa needs to get over itself. That elitist mentality spills over to so many other areas. It's comical sometimes.

"Quality" density is only one factor...and a good one, but it mattering "much, much more" places far, far too much emphasis on it IMHO. I do care about height. I'll say it a thousand times...height matters. Perception, image, stature, skyline, vertical density aren't much, much less important. Density without height conjures up images of smaller, insignificant old European cities. Density without height (above 15') is uninspiring, monotonous, and causes the community to appear economically challenged.

That's absurd. Some of the most cosmopolitan cities in the world actually have height restrictions. DC, Paris, Vancouver, Montreal.

Read his post. He said density without height of above 15 stories. I promise you the cities you mentioned don't have restrictions for above 15 floors- geesh! You are twisting his words around like you did mine earlier. Take a chill pill, calm down and be proactive and not so reactive.

Read his post. He said density without height of above 15 stories. I promise you the cities you mentioned don't have restrictions for above 15 floors- geesh! You are twisting his words around like you did mine earlier. Take a chill pill, calm down and be proactive and not so reactive.

For the record, I did not say that buildings should be limited to 15'...I said that the first 15' of a building and its relationship to the public realm matter the most.

Read his post. He said density without height of above 15 stories. I promise you the cities you mentioned don't have restrictions for above 15 floors- geesh! You are twisting his words around like you did mine earlier. Take a chill pill, calm down and be proactive and not so reactive.

Actually... DC height restriction is 90 feet resident, 130 feet commercial.

Density without height conjures up images of smaller, insignificant old European cities. Density without height (above 15') is uninspiring, monotonous, and causes the community to appear economically challenged.

You mean the cities that people travel to from all over the world to see? Can we also include uninspiring cities like Portland in this category too? :wink:

Read his post. He said density without height of above 15 stories. I promise you the cities you mentioned don't have restrictions for above 15 floors- geesh! You are twisting his words around like you did mine earlier. Take a chill pill, calm down and be proactive and not so reactive.

That says 15 feet...

Wow. Yes, 15'. To say height is much, much less important than density or that we shouldn't care about height is what I disagree with. The cities, cited in response, have ample iconic/taller structures...far, far above 15' or 15 stories. Not every building needs to be a Devon Tower.

But we digress (hiding from Pete). The subject site density and height both with seemingly acceptable street interaction, as best one can derive from the concept renderings, looks good.

I think the whole point is that the street interaction is the most important part of an urban development in terms of creating a vibrant urban area that people want to be in. Height alone does not create an urban environment. That isn't to say that it hurts it. It obviously can help, but there have been plenty of examples where the most vertical part of a city is it's least active neighborhood, as well as many very vibrant areas of cities that don't have much over 60 feet. Even in very urban cities, often the downtowns or business districts were just places to work, including in Manhattan. That's changed a lot, but mostly by adding more residences and street level amenities.

So, while height can be a beneficial factor, urban neighborhoods can exist without height. They can't exist with only height. Like most things, a balanced mix is probably best.

I think that's the deal. Even when Tulsa did have some things on OKC, as a whole it was never much more anything. All of that kind of seems dated now anyways.

Historically, Tulsa has been more cosmopolitan and a nicer looking city than OKC. But if you compare them to truly nice looking, cosmopolitan cities, it's like trying to pick which is the prettier ugly stepsister.

http://31.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m89davRV8q1rcft51o1_400.gif
Tulsa thinks she's hot.



In the last 10 years, OKC has really surged ahead of Tulsa. And while I don't hold anything against them, nationally you really aren't hearing anything about Tulsa, while OKC is getting a lot of positive press.

Was it ever clarified why the decision regarding the south parcel was put off until the 14th?

"Quality" density is only one factor...and a good one, but it mattering "much, much more" places far, far too much emphasis on it IMHO. I do care about height. I'll say it a thousand times...height matters. Perception, image, stature, skyline, vertical density aren't much, much less important. Density without height conjures up images of smaller, insignificant old European cities. Density without height (above 15') is uninspiring, monotonous, and causes the community to appear economically challenged.

And Tulsa needs to get over itself. That elitist mentality spills over to so many other areas. It's comical sometimes.

Agreed

Actually... DC height restriction is 90 feet resident, 130 feet commercial.

There's a security reason for that.

I think the whole point is that the street interaction is the most important part of an urban development in terms of creating a vibrant urban area that people want to be in. Height alone does not create an urban environment. That isn't to say that it hurts it. It obviously can help, but there have been plenty of examples where the most vertical part of a city is it's least active neighborhood, as well as many very vibrant areas of cities that don't have much over 60 feet. Even in very urban cities, often the downtowns or business districts were just places to work, including in Manhattan. That's changed a lot, but mostly by adding more residences and street level amenities.

So, while height can be a beneficial factor, urban neighborhoods can exist without height. They can't exist with only height. Like most things, a balanced mix is probably best.

I guess that is just personal opinion. U think the most important part of a building is the height and building quality.

There's a security reason for that.
Nope.

Height of Buildings Act of 1910 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Height_of_Buildings_Act_of_1910)

In the last 10 years, OKC has really surged ahead of Tulsa. And while I don't hold anything against them, nationally you really aren't hearing anything about Tulsa, while OKC is getting a lot of positive press.

I agree. The list of things Tulsa can claim is better than OKC is getting shorter and shorter year after year. Two years ago I would have said they had better bar districts but OKC has passed them. Retail is still a dead heat, with Tulsa still getting some highly sought after retailers first and OKC getting others. Within the next few years that will probably move into OKC's camp as well.

The one thing they still do have is concerts/live music. Until OKC gets both a quality venue and promoter, that isn't likely to change. However, it very well could change and most likely eventually well. I hope the new Criterion Concert Hall as well as the Chisolm Creek music venue are the first steps towards making that happen.

Tulsa will always be able to claim natural beauty but it isn't like they are that far ahead there either and it isn't like they are Little Rock or an Appalachian city. There are places in the OKC metro such as east Edmond for instance that are just as green as Tulsa with rolling hills and a dense tree canopy.

Nope.

Height of Buildings Act of 1910 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Height_of_Buildings_Act_of_1910)ok so this is what I found


Would it overwhelm the lower-density neighborhood? Was it structurally sound? Would existing fire-fighting equipment be able to reach top floors? Those last two questions were primarily the reason that Congress stepped in in 1899 to establish the Height of Buildings Act. Technology at the time was advancing quickly, but questions remained about the safety of such a tall building. Height limits at the time were fairly common in American cities, including Boston and Chicago.

- DC Mythbusting: The Height Limit! | We Love DC (http://www.welovedc.com/2009/05/19/dc-mythbusting-the-height-limit/)

so because people were worried about whether or not it would be structurally sound and fire engines would've have a latter long enough to reach the top floors. I'm sure that's obsolete now.

I agree. The list of things Tulsa can claim is better than OKC is getting shorter and shorter year after year. Two years ago I would have said they had better bar districts but OKC has passed them. Retail is still a dead heat, with Tulsa still getting some highly sought after retailers first and OKC getting others. Within the next few years that will probably move into OKC's camp as well.

The one thing they still do have is concerts/live music. Until OKC gets both a quality venue and promoter, that isn't likely to change. However, it very well could change and most likely eventually well. I hope the new Criterion Concert Hall as well as the Chisolm Creek music venue are the first steps towards making that happen.

Tulsa will always be able to claim natural beauty but it isn't like they are that far ahead there either and it isn't like they are Little Rock or an Appalachian city. There are places in the OKC metro such as east Edmond for instance that are just as green as Tulsa with rolling hills and a dense tree canopy.I never found Tulsa to have an amazing natural beauty. It has some hills, and that's it. A lot of cities have that. If it had mountains, than yeah, I could see where that could amazing natural scenery. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so I can't speak for everyone.

I think Tulsa is very beautiful.

Tulsa is loads of aesthetic beauty better than OKC!

Parts of Tulsa has natural beauty. Most is like most of OKC. Spend a little time in Broken Arrow and east Tulsa. Edmond kicks its ass.

off-topic....

Good Lord. I get on this thread to see if there's any movement on the project to the west of the Myriad Gardens and the recent posts are inane OKC v. Tulsa rehashes. Enough of that. Please. Enough of that.

Good Lord. I get on this thread to see if there's any movement on the project to the west of the Myriad Gardens and the recent posts are inane OKC v. Tulsa rehashes. Enough of that. Please. Enough of that.There won't be much movement on this until March 2014 which is when construction begins.

BTW, the Tulsa vs. OKC thing will never end. So you should just ignore it if it bothers you. The Dallas vs. Houston rivalry still happens all the time and has been for years and years.

Well, it seems to me that there's still a lot to be decided since the final approvals haven't been given. But be that as it may, I'd rather see nothing than read the OKC v. Tulsa stuff again. If you're going to have that discussion, then please open another thread. But if we have to have that discussion somewhere, let's at least plow new ground rather than "OKC is ugly," "no, it's not." "Tulsa is beautiful." "I'm tired of Tulsa's elitism." "Tulsa gets national retailers first." "Why can't OKC get some of Tulsa's concerts?" Yawn.