Again. These are your opinions and the opinions of people on city-data. Removing my opinion from the matter, these are high-rise by definition.

I guess I just don't understand what you and others think is so laughable about these OG&E buildings. They would stack up with or be taller than most of those buildings on that list? I know a half a billion is a pretty sublime number and 400 ish feet isn't exactly what you want, but laughable? Is it too much to ask for a little bit of a sense of reality here?

Just talked with someone from Austin on city-data and he doesn't consider them high-rises, but you can have your opinion.

No one is debating opinion. Your opinion does not matter on the topic. By the definition, these are clearly high-rise. Get over it and move on.

Again. These are your opinions and the opinions of people on city-data. Removing my opinion from the matter, these are high-rise by definition.Ok.

No one is debating opinion. Your opinion does not matter on the topic. By the definition, these are clearly high-rise. Get over it and move on.I never argued against it.

I guess I just don't understand what you and others think is so laughable about these OG&E buildings. They would stack up with or be taller than most of those buildings on that list? I know a half a billion is a pretty sublime number and 400 ish feet isn't exactly what you want, but laughable? Is it too much to ask for a little bit of a sense of reality here?You know, I really don't even know what we're debating anymore or why I'm even responding, but I do not consider these proposed buildings to be high-rise and I'm not the only one by a long shot, but whatevs. You can have the last word.

You know, I really don't even know what we're debating anymore or why I'm even responding, but I do not consider these proposed buildings to be high-rise and I'm not the only one by a long shot, but whatevs. You can have the last word.

I'll take the last word thank you. What I'm arguing about is that we are getting at least 2 possibly 4 buildings twice the height and floors of what was originally proposed/presented and possibly a hotel the size of the original concept, and you and others are talking about what other cities think and how to define its height. It's obnoxious and ridiculous. These buildings will seriously beef our skyline up like 35% and make it insanely different looking from nearly every direction. I realize this is a forum and you are free to state your opinion and in return so am I. If you don't think they are high rises okay fine but saying people from city x would laugh at the idea they are, (they are) well your view of the world is tiny. And that might have sounded offensive but don't take it to be, I enjoy most of your posts and all of your pictures, you're a great okctalk contributor. Just a bit of advice from an asshole stranger, stop caring about what others think so much. (Hilarious advice after this rant eh?)

Final thought in a nut shell would be don't compare Okc to Austin or Dallas or etc... Compare Okc now to Okc 10 years ago.

STAAAHHHHHPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP PPPPPPPPPPPPppppppppppp.

They're actually building another one taller than the Khalifa
You're thinking of Kingdom Tower, that's in Saudi Arabia. As of right now there is no building that is under construction. So many proposals, too bad lot's will never be built

Does anyone know when they are supposed to vote? Since it was postponed I haven't heard of a new date..

I'll take the last word thank you. What I'm arguing about is that we are getting at least 2 possibly 4 buildings twice the height and floors of what was originally proposed/presented and possibly a hotel the size of the original concept, and you and others are talking about what other cities think and how to define its height. It's obnoxious and ridiculous. These buildings will seriously beef our skyline up like 35% and make it insanely different looking from nearly every direction. I realize this is a forum and you are free to state your opinion and in return so am I. If you don't think they are high rises okay fine but saying people from city x would laugh at the idea they are, (they are) well your view of the world is tiny. And that might have sounded offensive but don't take it to be, I enjoy most of your posts and all of your pictures, you're a great okctalk contributor. Just a bit of advice from an asshole stranger, stop caring about what others think so much. (Hilarious advice after this rant eh?)Just to say, I don't think you're an asshole and I respect your posts. I just wanted to acknowledge it. Sorry if I came across as annoying as sometimes I do repeat the same thing a lot.

omg, I don't really care what city data or whomever says. When these are U/C, they will be termed as high rises by all industry sources; emporis, ssc, ssp, so on.

it is great that Clayco is proposing to build 4 high rises, they themselves called them high rises (and not mid rises). They are from Chicago which is the world council (if you will) on all things high rise and skyscraper.

I think you could rest assured to tell your friends/others that OKC indeed has many high rises but we have one that dwarfs the others as seen from most vantage points. Perhaps take them INSIDE of downtown and they'll likely agree that OKC has more than one high rise.

For me, buildings taller than 100 meters (328 feet) are skyscrapers. I saw that somewhere (I can't remember where) and that threshold has stuck with me since. I don't use floor count because floor-to-floor heights vary too much.

http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i199/imawingnut/631px-Who_cares_zpsf2522840.jpg

Yeah, let's please get back to discussing this project. Way off topic here.

Why are we discussing Austin? I hope to god nobody thinks we are at that level yet...

I agree. Austin is awesome looking but I wouldn't want their housing prices or traffic. Let's stick with being Oklahoma City and trying to build our way up and improve what we have.

Someone help me - How do I like a post? (I usually leave that to you all... jk jk jk)

I don't think the time is right on the server. The time stamps are all wrong. Right now it's only 4:63 AM by my watch.

I don't think the time is right on the server. The time stamps are all wrong. Right now it's only 4:63 AM by my watch.

I notice a different issue like a day or two ago, where some new posts were showing the original posted time hours earlier than those posted minutes before

One thing that has barely been touched on are the incentives being requested for the south parcel.

Cathy O'Connor has said both Clayco and Milhaus are seeking "significant" packages and that serious negotiations must take place.


We've set a precedent where virtually everyone has their hands out and I don't think we've said no yet.

The public has already invested billions into downtown; at what point do we stop giving further subsidies?


In the case of the south parcel, I could see the City using the proceeds from the land sale to move the existing tenants but beyond that, why should taxpayers be subsidizing all these private companies and developers?

This is another area where i would like to see comparisons to the practices of other cities which have had a fair amount of success. I have to believe OKC is using more tax dollars for urban development per capita than anywhere else.

I don't know about that. Nashville, Austin and Charlotte have very robust sections of their chamber websites discussing tax incentives.

I don't know, either.

But don't you think all those cities have had some significant urban construction where large incentives weren't involved?

Do you think Austin is paying every developer and business in their core?

I can't think of one significant downtown OKC project that wasn't completely publicly funded or didn't receive various tax-funded incentives.

OKC may need to do more until they have more of a self-sustaining base. Austin has a lot of natural and pre-existing reasons to invest there, and the sad fact is that OKC is only now beginning to be compelling all on its own. Face it, Clayco is taking a gamble by speculating on high-end housing and office space. If I were investing my money on a speculative market, I would bet on Austin over OKC. OKC needs to underwrite more investment, at least for a while more.

OKC may need to do more until they have more of a self-sustaining base. Austin has a lot of natural and pre-existing reasons to invest there, and the sad fact is that OKC is only now beginning to be compelling all on its own. Face it, Clayco is taking a gamble by speculating on high-end housing and office space. If I were investing my money on a speculative market, I would bet on Austin over OKC. OKC needs to underwrite more investment, at least for a while more.

Well said. I agree, were cool but not yet part of the "cool crowd". For now, at least, we still need to buy friends.

If the city were to invest in a concept like CuatroDeMayo designed for the tech area and with Core to Shore (if successful) and the river, I could see OKC having the overall feel that would propel them into the next level of cities. The central core with the river, the parks, and a beautiful tech center would create a synergistic effect over the whole area. (Wouldn't hurt for the capitol area to be redone too). If I were the city, I would really concentrate on creating a masterful tech center next.

My concern is how we determine what is appropriate and where to draw the line.

Do we need to be paying OPUBCO to move to downtown offices?

Should we be giving millions to Continental for creating jobs they were certainly going to create anyway?


There has to be some sort of analysis and monitoring done to figure out what projects are worth the incentives and where to start shutting off the spigot.

And as it is, we clearly have people in power who feel like we should just keep writing checks, so where is the watchdog function?

You are absolutely right. As with any project, you have to have a budget and priorities and a plan and metrics. OKC needs to have a vision for the area and decide how to invest in the infrastructure that will create a desirable place for private investment, and then have a second budget for attracting private money into the area, but based on established criteria and metrics. Every dollar invested by the city in a private venture must provide for a minimum return, either in tax money or in future growth spurred by that investment. I think a first class design like Clayco will only up the ante for the rest of the area, and investing in that will pay off for the city. Now, if I were the city, I would be looking to attract another major industry to downtown to show that OKC is more than a single industry town.

+1

What you see is what you get...


https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSVsMcFMbsOVkO33Mg1g_6BdlF9udzYQ faJ8d_l6jleCn-NzQrtyA http://www.okctalk.com/attachments/development-buildings/9258d1412690081t-og-e-energy-center-stagenew16.jpg

If it's

1. 400 feet or higher, it a skyscraper:
Devon Energy Center 844, Cotter Ranch Tower (Chase Bank) 500, First National Center 492, City Place Tower 440, Oklahoma Tower 434,


2. 300-399 feet it is a high-rise tower:


_____________________________________http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/02/Valliancetower.jpg/70px-Valliancetower.jpg
SandRidge Center & Commons 393, Valliance Bank Tower 391, Bank of Oklahoma Plaza 310, AT&T Building 310, One Leadership Square 308,

3. 250-299 feet it is a mid-rise tower:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/53/Goldstarlibrary.jpg/70px-Goldstarlibrary.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/db/Midamericatower.jpg/70px-Midamericatower.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c5/Oklahoma_State_Capitol.jpg/70px-Oklahoma_State_Capitol.jpg
Regency Tower 288, The Classen 287, Founders Tower 275, OCU Gold Star Memorial Library 264, Continental Center 262, Oklahoma State Capitol 255, Union Plaza 252

Yep, these buildings should look great once you get within a mile or two from downtown but once you get any distance out, forget about it. Nice buildings though that will look great from up close.

What you see is what you get...


https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSVsMcFMbsOVkO33Mg1g_6BdlF9udzYQ faJ8d_l6jleCn-NzQrtyA http://www.okctalk.com/attachments/development-buildings/9258d1412690081t-og-e-energy-center-stagenew16.jpg

If it's

1. 400 feet or higher, it a skyscraper:
Devon Energy Center 844, Cotter Ranch Tower (Chase Bank) 500, First National Center 492, City Place Tower 440, Oklahoma Tower 434,


2. 300-399 feet it is a high-rise tower:


_____________________________________http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/02/Valliancetower.jpg/70px-Valliancetower.jpg
SandRidge Center & Commons 393, Valliance Bank Tower 391, Bank of Oklahoma Plaza 310, AT&T Building 310, One Leadership Square 308,

3. 250-299 feet it is a mid-rise tower:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/53/Goldstarlibrary.jpg/70px-Goldstarlibrary.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/db/Midamericatower.jpg/70px-Midamericatower.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c5/Oklahoma_State_Capitol.jpg/70px-Oklahoma_State_Capitol.jpg
Regency Tower 288, The Classen 287, Founders Tower 275, OCU Gold Star Memorial Library 264, Continental Center 262, Oklahoma State Capitol 255, Union Plaza 252

According to IBC (International Building Code), anything over 75 feet is a High Rise. Others references list 33 meters or about 100 ft.
High-Rise Buildings - The Code Corner (http://specsandcodes.typepad.com/the_code_corner/2013/02/high-rise-buildings.html)

Yep, these buildings should look great once you get within a mile or two from downtown but once you get any distance out, forget about it. Nice buildings though that will look great from up close.

I can see Chase Tower, Sandridge Tower, and First National all the way from Memorial Rd. That is 10 miles.

This incentive game has to be a balancing act. I agree that there needs to be some kind of comparison with peer cities so that we're only approving public assistance where they are most impactful. This might very well be one of those cases, but even then we would not want to give away the farm.

Cathy O'Connor did say they want to move more towards loans rather than out-right grants.

Sounds like a good intermediate step.

What have they given grants to? Surely that's not how they spent the TIF money??

What have they given grants to? Surely that's not how they spent the TIF money??

TIF money has to be spent on physical improvements - so you might consider some of it a "grant"... parking garage, utilities work, street work, etc. I don't recall many grants either, but I do recall a lot of low interest loans...

What have they given grants to? Surely that's not how they spent the TIF money??

By grant I just meant giving money (without any requirement to repay) rather than loaning it.

And by this definition, all TIF awards are grants.

But they also provide grants in many other forms, like job creation funds, forgiveness on paying certain taxes, etc.

Tomorrow is the rescheduled big day right?!?

The next OCURA meeting is scheduled for Dec. 17th.

The next OCURA meeting is scheduled for Dec. 17th.
Wasn't something supposed to happen on the 19th?

So the November 19th OCURA meeting was canceled? Is there anything to be concerned with that Clayco might not get the south or just be patient half a billion dollar projects take time and can not be rushed?

OCURA only meets once a month.

They met on Nov. 4th and will meet again on Dec. 17th.

I'm not sure what you guys are talking about for the 19th.

OCURA only meets once a month.

They met on Nov. 4th and will meet again on Dec. 17th.

I'm not sure what you guys are talking about for the 19th.

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.


She probably meant December :(. Thats from Molly Flemming of the Journal Record.

Month and date wrong?

Very strange. The OCURA meeting schedule is set at the beginning of every year.

I thought Nov. 19 was to be considered as a 'special meeting', since a decision was not made on Nov. 4. It is my understanding the OCURA can set a 'special meeting' for anytime they see fit?

I also thought that the 19th had some significance. Like they decided to allow for a few weeks to evaluate the proposals before deciding.

I thought Nov. 19 was to be considered as a 'special meeting', since a decision was not made on Nov. 4. It is my understanding the OCURA can set a 'special meeting' for anytime they see fit?

Any public body can call a special meeting but they have to provide notice and post an agenda in advance and they've done neither.


And in general, I didn't get the impression they only needed a couple of weeks to make a decision. Cathy O'Connor said serious negotiations were needed regarding the public assistance requests on the part of both applicants.

By grant I just meant giving money (without any requirement to repay) rather than loaning it.

And by this definition, all TIF awards are grants.

But they also provide grants in many other forms, like job creation funds, forgiveness on paying certain taxes, etc.

But it goes toward on-site public realm improvements, right?

But it goes toward on-site public realm improvements, right?

No. It goes for the overall development.

As in the case of Clayco, they already have a plan and just want the City to provide incentives for 10-15% of their costs.

A meeting and agenda has been posted on the OCURA website for Monday.

SPECIAL MEETING OF
OKLAHOMA CITY URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 2014
105 NORTH HUDSON AVENUE, SUITE 101
10:00 A.M.

:) hehe

This is from the agenda item for Monday's special Meeting of the OKC Urban Renewal Authority, where they hope to choose one of these two proposals.

Selecting a developer will not obligate the City to their terms, but it will open the final negotiations with that particular developer. If they can't come to terms, they could go back to the other party or reissue the RFP and start all over again, or choose not to sell.


Both Milhaus and Clayco have requested tax increment financing to assist with the development of the project. Both TIF requests related to the proposals would require the creation of a new TIF district. Milhaus has requested a TIF allocation that would equal approximately 96% of the total ad valorem taxes generated by their development. Clayco has requested a TIF allocation equal to approximately 89% of the ad valorem taxes generated on their proposed project. Both of these requests are significantly higher than what the City customarily allocates to projects. Therefore, significant negotiations will be necessary before the financial structure and feasibility of these projects are determined.

Development of the property included in the RFP will have a significant impact on downtown. It will be critical that these buildings are designed and constructed in a way that meets or exceeds the City’s design requirements. The RFP included the City’s design guidelines and the expectations of the Downtown Development Framework. These design issues require further review and discussion and may result in a recommendation to change certain aspects of the project. It is recommended that the board designate a conditional redeveloper to further examine the design and financial issues associated with the project.



http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/ocura112114a.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/ocura112114b.jpg

So the bigger investment is asking for roughly half of the public support, percentage-wise, than the much smaller investment is asking, 13.7% and 26%, respectively.

Pete, do we have any idea what Clayco is asking for incentives for the north (Stage Center) development? Roughly the same amount?

It looks like the fine print of the Clayco proposal is that the residential portion is dependent on them being able to lease the north portion. Therefore ideally there will will be four towers but they could in fact only build three if leasing is weaker than expected in the first tower. The Milhaus residential tower, though smaller, is a sure thing. The Milhaus proposal does not include an office tower though.

Because the Milhaus plan puts residential directly adjacent to the park and masses the building at the intersection I think I prefer it. Also, the idea of two almost identical buildings side by side excites me about as much as.... well, let's just say it doesn't excite me at all.

So, are we down to 3 now from the proposed 4? Looks like we are talking about a 400, 390, 290 foot buildings. Please Clayco, just go 35 floors on one of them and get it above 500-600 feet. I am sorry but these are just barely taller than mid rises.

So, are we down to 3 now from the proposed 4? Looks like we are talking about a 400, 390, 290 foot buildings. Please Clayco, just go 35 floors on one of them and get it above 500-600 feet. I am sorry but these are just barely taller than mid rises.

Jeez please don't start this crap again.

Besides who said there are only three? This literature only discusses the south half of the block. You can't see the other tower on the north half behind the other office tower from that angle.