While I understand the appeals of creating urban a building with great urban design principals, I still struggle to see why the old buildings will be missed so much. This corner of downtown is about to explode with new developments and really bridge the gap between bricktown, CBD and Film Row. This is going to be very exciting.

If one could magically restore the entire Preftakes block and having everything nice and shiny with 100% occupancy, would that be preferred over what has been proposed? If so, why?

[On edit... realized this comment may fit better in the 499 Sheridan thread, but the thought experiment is relevant to Stage Center too.

I think the issue is that it would be fairly easy to have the new buildings and keep the old buildings too. The 499 building is designed at an angle. Think of it as a guy who parks his car angled across two parking spaces, taking up both of them. The 499 building will have a plaza area immediately in front of it, and it will have a triangular empty space immediately behind it, between it and the parking garage. If you took out that angled 'parking', and did nothing else to the design, you'd have enough room for the Hotel Black to stay exactly where it is. You'd almost have enough room for the Auto Hotel to remain as well.


Accompanying question, what percentage of occupancy did the block have before Preftakes started buying buildings and ending leases, and what shape were the buildings in? Don't forget that that block is only empty of tenants and in disrepair because the people who bought it up intentionally allowed it to decay.

I don't have a percentage, but they were pretty full. Maybe one or two of the smaller buildings were unoccupied. The rest had people in them, the Hotel Black as recently as 2014.

There was obviously a vision by Hines and Nichols and the architect to make a corporate campus type of development at that corner which didn't include the old buildings. It was masterminded and did not take into consideration anyone else's views. I think that is what makes most people frustrated. The inner circle got their way, 100%. However, the outcome, IMO, is not horrible at all. There is one strip of parking canyon on Walker, but much of the rest of the block will have retail and activity. Could be better, could have taken into consideration the wants of others, but in the end it is not a total loss. The one thing that must be followed through is populating the retail and restaurant space. Purposely left empty by the powers-that-be will be a complete finger to everyone.

Also if you read Steve's final words on the subject, he feels they would have liked to take into consideration the views of others, but the needs for Devon trumped everything. That doesn't make it right, but I can understand that Nichols has to do what is best for Devon. That is his mandate, so if that is true, I don't contribute the decisions made here to malice. They are doing what they feel is the right thing to do for the stockholders and employees of Devon. Shortsighted, yes, just like much of the modern corporate world but not malicious.

.



Blessed is he who expects nothing, for he shall never be disappointed.

...

The best thing we can do is get out in front and try to lead by recruiting the RIGHT people to be in leadership positions that wield power. Sometimes I think we just wait to see who is running and then pick the least objectionable to our viewpoint. We need to create leaders that will stand up, and quit being surprised that who is there represents traditional interests. Candidates need to be identified, groomed, financed and supported actively to get changes that yield different thoughts. Grass roots political activism is more productive than protesting after the fact. It is hard work, but it works. Working in committees and playing by the rules is great, but not nearly as effective as getting seats on the council and changing the rules.

The best thing we can do is get out in front and try to lead by recruiting the RIGHT people to be in leadership positions that wield power. Sometimes I think we just wait to see who is running and then pick the least objectionable to our viewpoint. We need to create leaders that will stand up, and quit being surprised that who is there represents traditional interests. Candidates need to be identified, groomed, financed and supported actively to get changes that yield different thoughts. Grass roots political activism is more productive than protesting after the fact. It is hard work, but it works. Working in committees and playing by the rules is great, but not nearly as effective as getting seats on the council and changing the rules.

Wish there was a 'Like' button for this one.

Will I be the first to point out the irony that the only person in local elected government--the ONLY person--who has stood up to "the powers that be" and asked the hard questions is the forum-wide villain Ed Shadid.*


*And I'm saying this as a pretty rabid Cornett supporter who even wrote a somewhat widely-circulated blog post last spring about it.

Given the efforts to save Stage Center and turn it in to something new (efforts that were led by a family member of mine), help me understand the viewpoint that this was a failure of the local leadership? Stage Center was a unique architectural building - I get that - however, it seems increasingly apparent that the building was literally useless. The intended use wasn't economically viable, and alternative uses weren't either. Not trying to spark a flame war, I just don't see how we can blame the leadership for what I feel were essentially poor design choices by the architect that led to the building not being economically feasible.

Given the efforts to save Stage Center and turn it in to something new (efforts that were led by a family member of mine), help me understand the viewpoint that this was a failure of the local leadership? Stage Center was a unique architectural building - I get that - however, it seems increasingly apparent that the building was literally useless. The intended use wasn't economically viable, and alternative uses weren't either. Not trying to spark a flame war, I just don't see how we can blame the leadership for what I feel were essentially poor design choices by the architect that led to the building not being economically feasible.

For me, losing Stage Center wasn't the failure in leadership - approving the proposed replacement was the failure. The same goes for 499 Sheridan.

Are you referring to the original proposal of the single tower, or the new 4 tower proposal?

Having a parking garage adjacent to the school isn't that big a deal in my opinion, but creating parking garage canyons void of any significant interaction with the sidewalk is a problem. Taking half a block for parking garages with little or no thought to the impact on the surrounding area is a problem. Not even considering alternatives to the easy way is a problem. It is simply very poor urban planning and our people we trust to provide oversight on these developers appear to have failed us. I do not think it would have cost so much more to improve the design that the project would have become unviable. There is nothing wrong with wanting to have our cake and eat it too when it comes to things like this because it has been done all over the world time and time again.

This is the CAN'T DO city. We just can't do it: There's water there. No underground parking. LOL. And Holland is under sea level and is doing just fine.

Cheaping out. Low standards. Little regard for the past. A downtown increasingly devoid of character or texture. Certainly, this is not a recipe for a "big league city."

It would be nice if Claes Oldenburg would propose one of his whimsical city monuments. Perhaps a large, pink urinal cake would be a fitting three-dimensional reminder of our city's efforts to blithely sanitize all but the most banal, "shiny" architecture.

Took a 7 month Hiatus from this website, miss it so much. I had no idea this "Mystery tower" of 2011 actually turned out to be something after all. I am really late on OKC news.

Are you referring to the original proposal of the single tower, or the new 4 tower proposal?

JTF wants the residential to front the park.

JTF wants the residential to front the park.

Yeah, the Clayco project is only acceptable to JTF if it is flipped with the residential towers fronting the park and the office towers behind them. Me personally, I will be thrilled if this gets built as shown in the rendering. I am concerned that parts of this are going to be scaled back or scrapped altogether due to falling oil prices.

Yeah, the Clayco project is only acceptable to JTF if it is flipped with the residential towers fronting the park and the office towers behind them. Me personally, I will be thrilled if this gets built as shown in the rendering. I am concerned that parts of this are going to be scaled back or scrapped altogether due to falling oil prices.

Lower fuel costs increase margins for utility companies right? Help me understand how a drop in crude will affect this project?

It could affect the housing component because that upscale housing will likely depend upon energy-sector executives or those invested in the energy business (which is most people of means in OKC). The other office tower could be delayed because it is spec office, which might not make sense if local companies are contracting rather than expanding.

Yeah, the Clayco project is only acceptable to JTF if it is flipped with the residential towers fronting the park and the office towers behind them. Me personally, I will be thrilled if this gets built as shown in the rendering. I am concerned that parts of this are going to be scaled back or scrapped altogether due to falling oil prices.

You're concerned about everything in OKC.

OKCTalk - Details revealed for proposed OG&E Headquarters (http://www.okctalk.com/content/100-details-revealed-proposed-og-e-headquarters.html)

Clayco, the Chicago developer planning to build a large office and residential project collectively known as OG&E Energy Center (http://www.okctalk.com/showwiki.php?title=OG+E+Energy+Center), released detailed plans for the first phase of that project, an office building and parking garage to be principally occupied by OG&E.

This first building will be known as OG&E Energy Plaza.

The master plan calls for a mirror image development on the lot directly to the south, plus two residential towers. The OG&E building and north parking garage could start sometime this year, with the rest being built on a yet to be determined timeline.

Since the initial proposal, one significant change is the intent to return California Avenue to vehicle traffic. The street has been closed for decades and is used live entertainment and food tents during the annual Festival of the Arts. The plan now shows a 2-lane street with a small amount of on-street parking and drop-off area.

Also revealed for the first time is the intention to cover the complete north block with a parking structure. The first residential tower would be built on top of the six-level garage, which has one level below ground.

Plans show a plaza on the corner of Sheridan and Hudson to include a water feature, kiosk, trellis and tables and chairs.

The Downtown Design Review Committee will consider approval in their meeting on March 19th.

Clayco is also negotiating with the City and seek an unprecedented amount of tax dollars through a Tax Increment Funding program for this phase and the remainder of OG&E Energy Center (http://www.okctalk.com/showwiki.php?title=OG+E+Energy+Center).



http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/clayco012015a.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/clayco012015f.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/clayco012015g.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/clayco012015p.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/clacyo012015q.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/clayco012015c.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/clayco012015k.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/clayco012015n.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/clayco012015r.jpg

My big concern is that this office building and garage will get built and since they will have tons of residual parking they can rent out, that the residential tower goes way down on their priority list.

Also, you can see there are only 7.5 floors of spec office space.

Pretty much just a building for OG&E with a small amount of lease space. I'm sure the plan would be for OG&E to grow into that space eventually.

Since the initial proposal, one significant change is the intent to return California Avenue to vehicle traffic. The street has been closed for decades and is used live entertainment and food tents during the annual Festival of the Arts. The plan now shows a 2-lane street with a small amount of on-street parking and drop-off area.]

This is unexpected good news. I'm very glad they are doing this but it will make the lost potential of what the boulevard's western entry into downtown could have been even more obvious even though it will only be two lanes at this block.

I like the office tower, but any TIF should be dependent on the residential tower being built. This city needs to stop letting developers bait and switch time and time again.

You'd think this reopening of California to limited (2 lane) vehicle traffic would be restoring the grid somewhat. Also, if the residential is built on top of the 6 level garage, it'd give it more height, as long as it's not scaled back.

I like the office tower, but any TIF should be dependent on the residential tower being built. This city needs to stop letting developers bait and switch time and time again.

Their initial TIF request is divided up between the four towers. So, they are asking for a certain amount for each.

For the south parcel, they will have a redevelopment with OCURA that would have to meet a certain timetable before ownership would be fully transferred.

My big concern is that this office building and garage will get built and since they will have tons of residual parking they can rent out, that the residential tower goes way down on their priority list.

Also, you can see there are only 7.5 floors of spec office space.

Pretty much just a building for OG&E with a small amount of lease space. I'm sure the plan would be for OG&E to grow into that space eventually.

I know the proposal for the south block will have set timelines and milestones per the contract, if it is completed. Is that proposal also contingent on them building the north block as proposed? In other words, if they don't end up building the residential tower on the north block, is the contract for the south block endangered or does the contract only pertain to milestones for the south block?

It would be an inefficient layout of parking spaces if they don't build the residential tower. Also, the parking garage is being built with a core and a reinforced structure on the northwest corner. So hopefully this added expense would motivate them to actually build it in the future.

I know the proposal for the south block will have set timelines and milestones per the contract, if it is completed. Is that proposal also contingent on them building the north block as proposed? In other words, if they don't end up building the residential tower on the north block, is the contract for the south block endangered or does the contract only pertain to milestones for the south block?

The north block is privately owned and OCURA is not involved, so there wouldn't be any timelines for that portion other than 1) perhaps part of any TIF agreement and 2) development on the south almost certainly wouldn't happen before the north is complete, so therefore the south timelines do force the issue some what.

However, if Clayco merely decides to only develop the north office building and skip the south parcel, that land would then go back to OCURA and a new RFP would be published.

Was the original plan to build residential on parking? If not, does that add height to the residential tower from the current plan of all the buildings being almost the same height?

Will the residential tower in the south parcel be part of the requirement from OCURA? What happens if Clayco builds the south office tower and then just never gets around to the south residential tower?

I really like the details of the design, I'm glad it'll be something other than yet another glass clad tower.

The tower looks really amazing, really puts 499 to shame IMO. Also excited about California Ave.

I'm having a VERY hard time believing the residential gets built however.

Will the residential tower in the south parcel be part of the requirement from OCURA? What happens if Clayco builds the south office tower and then just never gets around to the south residential tower?

I'm sure the OCURA redevelopment agreement has contingencies if the full proposal isn't built.

OCURA would likely retain ownership of the parcel under the proposed residential tower and if it wasn't built, could put out a new RFP for development.

The tower looks nice.

BTW, OCURA has a meeting tomorrow and there is nothing about this project on the agenda.

As we previously reported, a new TIF is being planned that would incorporate 499 Sheridan and feed this development, along with the convention center garage and hotel.

It will likely take some time to pull that all together and get approved, and thus any TIF award to Clayco will have to wait until finalized.

I really really like the design of the tower. I like reopening California Ave. I dislike the site plan -- there's a lot of wasted space. I'd prefer if they moved the tower to one corner of the block or another, instead of having it smack dab in the middle. That would allow something else to theoretically get built there in the future. They could move it so it goes right up against California and Hudson, get rid of that little strip of trees, and then if the residential towers are a huge success, you've got room to put another on the corner of Sheridan and Hudson.

I'm concerned about the amount of TIF funding they've requested, and am nervous as to whether the housing will ever get built. But I really really like the look of the tower, and even the parking garage. It's pretty.

Much more excited about this development than 499 Sheridan.
The details in this tower alone will make it a little jewel for OKC.
I'm afraid that the entire west end of the CBD will be "parking garage village" so let's hope they can come through with that residential tower to sit on top of it.
I hope this one gets going sooner than later.

This has probably been aforementioned, but the new tower looks like it took significant ques from their current headquarters. At least it strikes me that way when I read about cut stone and granite. Nice materials but pretty old school.

Holy cow - this is actually a big improvement and it is almost there. Reconnecting California Ave is huge. It opens up more on-street parking, creates more space for retail, and creates an architecturally significant terminal vista. The only thing they need to do now is move the office building north about 50' and move the proposed residential tower to the corner of Hudson and California, and leave the current 'proposed residential tower' lot vacant for now. Fronting MBG should be a continuous street-wall. If they want to make their money back on the residential they are going to have to offer park views.

The TIF amount is obscene and unneeded for a company whose profits are basically protected by the Corporation Commission.

It's not like one of those cases where we need to pay incentive to keep the company from relocating. They're kind of stuck in OKC.

The TIF amount is obscene and unneeded for a company whose profits are basically protected by the Corporation Commission.

It's not like one of those cases where we need to pay incentive to keep the company from relocating. They're kind of stuck in OKC.

While I agree, the TIF is really just a bribe to make them build the way downtown design guidelines are written. Otherwise, they would just apply for and receive a rubber-stamp variance for anything they want (see Hines/Devon/Sandridge).

I absolutely love the tower and its materiality and intricacy!

Here's another one of Robert Stern's buildings that I love that's going up in New York: 30 Park Place, a hotel/residential tower in Lower Manhattan with 82 floors and will be 937' tall, almost 100' taller than Devon Tower.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/65/30_Park_Place.png
http://www.skyscraper.org/EXHIBITIONS/SKY_HIGH/walkthrough_images/30parkplace.jpg

There is no reason the residential towers won't be built if the market is truly there. Clayco makes money from building, not from cutting the towers out of the project. If there is no market, all the talk about the vibrancy of downtown and the concerns raised by the tower across the street seem misdirected. Are the people of OKC ready for high-rise downtown housing or not?

There is no reason the residential towers won't be built if the market is truly there. Clayco makes money from building, not from cutting the towers out of the project. If there is no market, all the talk about the vibrancy of downtown and the concerns raised by the tower across the street seem misdirected. Are the people of OKC ready for high-rise downtown housing or not?

This is all true, but OKC is a market that get severely underestimated too often by businesses and developers in other markets. The market may be here yet Clayco may think it isn't because they aren't considering factors that are different here compared to other cities.

There is no reason the residential towers won't be built if the market is truly there. Clayco makes money from building, not from cutting the towers out of the project. If there is no market, all the talk about the vibrancy of downtown and the concerns raised by the tower across the street seem misdirected. Are the people of OKC ready for high-rise downtown housing or not?

Not if oil companies (who make up like 80% of the downtown workforce) are cutting jobs. Its a huge risk right now with such a gloomy forecast.

The OG&E building although nice, looks like a miniature in relation to the Devon tower. The lack of any other tower even approaching Devons height to me still makes the limited DT skyline look out of proportion

Unless oil rebounds by July they'll be shelved and it'll take another year or two for a new project to emerge.

Unless there is a dramatic event to cause oil to shoot up, futures prices for upcoming contracts all point the same or lower. Shale oi has changed things significantly

The OG&E building although nice, looks like a miniature in relation to the Devon tower. The lack of any other tower even approaching Devons height to me still makes the limited DT skyline look out of proportion

This is yet another reason why OKC should have switched to a form-based code so that new structures would have been built to the same scale as existing structures.

Other than DC, what other major city does this?

Other than DC, what other major city does this?

Form-Based Codes? You?re not alone. | PlaceMakers (http://www.placemakers.com/how-we-teach/codes-study/)


Accordingly, an ever-growing number of form-based codes are in the works, with clear regional concentrations. Big city adopters include Miami, Dallas, Denver, El Paso, Memphis, Baltimore, Nashville, Tulsa, Portland, Cincinnati, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Austin, and Chattanooga.

If you want to see every City with form-based codes in the works here you go.

http://www.placemakers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/CodesStudy_May2013_WEB.htm

Form-Based Codes? You?re not alone. | PlaceMakers (http://www.placemakers.com/how-we-teach/codes-study/)Yeah, I'm going to go ahead and color myself as skeptical if a 150 story tower was proposed in any of those cities they would be turned down. That list is also questionable because in Dallas there are tons of high-rises that but up against single story residences so try again.

If you follow the second link you will see Dallas form-based codes are in relation to TOD around DART.

I just had a whole post typed up and I lost it.

Anyways, that's all fine. It isn't the whole city and it is unfair to act like it is. So Dallas does have form based codes across the city, it has it in very few areas. That's fine.

I am someone who does not care if a 50 story building was proposed at Covell and Coltrane or in Deep Deuce. After all, I though you only cared about the first 2-3 levels anyways. Anything higher and they can do what they want?

It's also funny because you often point out to smart land use and smart land use would have a taller tower on a plot of land making it more dense. More people living and working paying taxes and shopping in 100 story tower on 5,000 sq. ft. plot of land VS. a 3 story building.

The Devon Tower doesn't look out of proportion from all angles. I promise that if the proposed towers do get built it will look a lot better, especially from the southwest which is where the skyline needs help the most.

So when do we start hearing from all the OG&E Center cheerleaders that the very concerns myself and the other urbanist raised, and since adopted by the developer, have ruined the project? If the developer had just called me on the phone and asked what needed to be changed think how much time and money they could have saved. I would have done it for free.

So when do we start hearing from all the OG&E Center cheerleaders that the very concerns myself and the other urbanist raised, and since adopted by the developer, have ruined the project? If the developer had just called me on the phone and asked what needed to be changed think how much time and money they could have saved. I would have done it for free.

This ones easy, Kerry... show me one post or anything else for that matter that anyone was against reopening that street. Bonus question. Show me where your or any other urbanist's opinion had any influence on the developers decision.

But here's a better question for you... You advocate flipping the Clayco development so that the residential faces the MG which would drive up the most expensive lease rates in the city even higher and have stated that that's our best use of TIF funding...

How do you reconcile being a self confessed Tea Partier while being passionate about spending substantial tax dollars to subsidize housing for the very affluent so that they might go out and walk around downtown...

Just a heads up... They own some really nice cars and will still be driving all over the metro...and without parking for these cars, this project would be impossible...convince me otherwise.

This ones easy, Kerry... show me one post or anything else for that matter that anyone was against reopening that street. Bonus question. Show me where your or any other urbanist's opinion had any influence on the developers decision.

But here's a better question for you... You advocate flipping the Clayco development so that the residential faces the MG which would drive up the most expensive lease rates in the city even higher and have stated that that's our best use of TIF funding...

How do you reconcile being a self confessed Tea Partier while being passionate about spending substantial tax dollars to subsidize housing for the very affluent so that they might go out and walk around downtown...

Just a heads up... They own some really nice cars and will still be driving all over the metro...and without parking for these cars, this project would be impossible...convince me otherwise.

You bring up the pitfalls of ideology, lol.

I will say that flipping the residential would be a good compromise to ensure that component get built. I am all for subsidizing parking - we have done that for virtually everything else that isn't just a parking development. We need to be consistent in how we apply TIF resources or else risk being seen as arbitrary and capricious.

I will also add that the updated plans with California are a move in the right direction. You don't see that with these larger projects very often.

You bring up the pitfalls of ideology, lol.

I will say that flipping the residential would be a good compromise to ensure that component get built. I am all for subsidizing parking - we have done that for virtually everything else that isn't just a parking development. We need to be consistent in how we apply TIF resources or else risk being seen as arbitrary and capricious.

I will also add that the updated plans with California are a move in the right direction. You don't see that with these larger projects very often.

The bolded part is the best idea you've had yet.

The downtown school is really going to be stuck in such a dead part of town now, which I guess could be considered a positive since they won't be distracted by what is going on outside their windows.

The bolded part is the best idea you've had yet.

The downtown school is really going to be stuck in such a dead part of town now, which I guess could be considered a positive since they won't be distracted by what is going on outside their windows.

Hunsucker Legal just completed their building just West of the school, we now have Clayco to the East. I think you must be kidding us here ?

Not if oil companies (who make up like 80% of the downtown workforce) are cutting jobs. Its a huge risk right now with such a gloomy forecast.

I know what you are saying could be an issue. The price of oil could be back up to 60 - 80 by the end of the year. They need to do the same thing DEVON did when building the tower in 08'. By the time the Residential Tower is completed, the O&G industry will be moderate again. This is not the 80's oil bust, it is a new market out there, the risk is much much lower today w/ fracking & horizontal.

So these developers need to keep going, and get these towers up, that is the smart move.

This ones easy, Kerry... show me one post or anything else for that matter that anyone was against reopening that street. Bonus question. Show me where your or any other urbanist's opinion had any influence on the developers decision.

I don't know if anyone was against re-opening California Ave or not, but I do know when myself and others raised that issue the usual suspects were on here defending the proposed design and accused us of hating development and growth - when all we wanted to do was make the growth better. Well now it is better so the only thing I can tell you is that it proved us right. Only Clayco could tell you who influenced them.



But here's a better question for you... You advocate flipping the Clayco development so that the residential faces the MG which would drive up the most expensive lease rates in the city even higher and have stated that that's our best use of TIF funding...


Moving the residential to front the park would justify the already premium price, not make it more expensive. This might shock some people, but premium priced residential won't work in any city if it over looks vacant industrial land, parking garages, or an adjacent office building. Those views are reserved for the lower price ranges. To me, the mere fact Clayco DIDN'T make it park-fronting is an indication that they aren't totally committed to it.



How do you reconcile being a self confessed Tea Partier while being passionate about spending substantial tax dollars to subsidize housing for the very affluent so that they might go out and walk around downtown...


Because the alternative is higher subsidy low density sprawl and isn't sustainable from a tax and revenue perspective. What you and others think is free-market sprawl is subsidized 9 ways from Sunday. Sprawl as we know it today was created by the Federal government in 1948. If we would simply charge for a gallon of gasoline what the actual price to produce it is we wouldn't have to subsidize downtown residential because people wouldn't be able to afford anything else. Look at the outrage over increasing the gasoline tax by 12 cents, when really it should be increased by $6 to cover the actual costs.



Just a heads up... They own some really nice cars and will still be driving all over the metro...and without parking for these cars, this project would be impossible...convince me otherwise.


That is why it is important to get things like 499 Sheridan and the Cox site right. There is no reason downtown could not be the premier shopping district in OKC. We just have to want to do it. The rest of the world has come up with innovative ways to park cars that don't require city block size parking garages. OKC is trying to apply 1980's technology to solve 2015 problems, and that is because we have a group of civic leaders trying to relive the fake glory of 1980 OKC. Here is a parking garage in Germany. How much better would this be than the parking garages we have seen proposed here.

rAQ0ewhZWs4

Heck man - even this would be great around downtown OKC, and they could make them as tall as they need to be.

tPIjttQaONA

Put some of these in Auto Alley, Bricktown, at the Civic Center, etc...

MsIHFyWuk4k

Hunsucker Legal just completed their building just West of the school, we now have Clayco to the East. I think you must be kidding us here ?

No offense to Jeep, his building is beautiful & one of my favorites in the entire City, but it doesn't add a whole lot of activity to the street. If the residential buildings don't get built the school is going to be facing parking garages to the north, northeast, and east. Allen Contracting the south also doesn't add a whole lot of vibrancy. There is absolutely nothing going on to the south west. The west headed to Film Row is starting to take off, but the active part is still a couple streets down & it still has a ways to go.