Well I'm counting eating and drinking neighborhoods. :o
Deep D
M-town
Plaza
23rd
Paseo
Film Row
Brick-T
Auto-Alley
I did not count Western as I consider to far away.

I can attest that the newer districts like Midtown and Plaza are pulling people away from Bricktown. This is a concern I've heard the owner of Club ONE15 voice.

That's an interesting perspective, considering the fact that one of the main differences is that Bricktown has ...clubs. Nothing against him or his place (which is nice), but maybe he should consider converting Club ONE15 to a great beer hall or some other concept that resonates better with the type of crowd that he's envying.

Anyway, we've wandered off-topic.

I can attest that the newer districts like Midtown and Plaza are pulling people away from Bricktown. This is a concern I've heard the owner of Club ONE15 voice.

I don't think Midtown and the Plaza are Club One15's issue, especially considering Circus Party Bar and Candy Nightclub are pretty much always packed. Ideally it should be a huge hit, especially since its a bit flashier than the other clubs in Bricktown.

People we know tell us all the time. Anyways, I'm pretty sure Circus is circling the drain. One of the owners is djing now which tells me that he can't afford to pay the guy that was the resident. Never hear anyone talk about Candy either. Honestly, Midtown is a bigger threat to Bricktown. Most of my friends go to the Plaza or the Paseo and never consider Bricktown.

OK, but now back to the OG&E Energy Center, which is the issue at hand in this thread. :)

Along with the OGE building, are they going to start construction on the second building as well?

People we know tell us all the time. Anyways, I'm pretty sure Circus is circling the drain. One of the owners is djing now which tells me that he can't afford to pay the guy that was the resident. Never hear anyone talk about Candy either. Honestly, Midtown is a bigger threat to Bricktown. Most of my friends go to the Plaza or the Paseo and never consider Bricktown.

I get what you are saying. Bricktown has a few good bars but it's mostly restaurants and nightclubs. Most young professionals over age 25 or so will take a place like Fassler Hall any day over Candy Nightclub. More housing as well as new, unique attractions like the Criterion Concert Hall should give Bricktown a much-needed boost.

With regards to downtown housing, we had 1,000 people living downtown in 2000. Up to around 8,000 and growing now.

That's basically a very good time for 0-60 acceleration. Rooftops downtown will lend tremendous staying power to the good establishments. Cheesy businesses however will come and go; most new businesses fail.

We need to maintain a big picture perspective. We need to keep incubating new businesses and districts, and rather than competing with each other, they will all support each other through the natural ebbs and flows.

So you are saying you carefully counted and there were 15 people total using the gardens? If you are going to quote numbers I'd like to know how you got those numbers.

Yes, I physically counted them. It's not that hard to do. Now I will say this, after I got back to my car and started down the road a fair number of children had populated the playground. By comparison, I estimate the basketball court across the street had around 25 to 30 people.

Yes, I physically counted them. It's not that hard to do. Now I will say this, after I got back to my car and started down the road a fair number of children had populated the playground. By comparison, I estimate the basketball court across the street had around 25 to 30 people.

You can't possibly estimate the entire usage volume at one point bc the park has a lot of enclosed spaces. It's a well-rounded space and if people aren't crowding it every second of every day, that's their loss.

You can't possibly estimate the entire usage volume at one point bc the park has a lot of enclosed spaces. It's a well-rounded space and if people aren't crowding it every second of every day, that's their loss.

That count was a direct response to BoulderSooner saying the park was full on nice days after 5PM. Since I was standing right there on a nice day after 5PM I counted.

Oh, I see. I agree if your point is that we aren't surrounding the park with an array complimentary uses.

Yes, I physically counted them. It's not that hard to do. Now I will say this, after I got back to my car and started down the road a fair number of children had populated the playground. By comparison, I estimate the basketball court across the street had around 25 to 30 people.

See, I don't believe your count could be accurate for exactly the reasons Spartan stated. There is no single point in the gardens where you can see the entire place such that one person could count them. A count while walking around means it takes place over time, and that means you cannot see the rest of the garden and know if anyone else arrived or left. The children at the playground are a perfect example of that, they came from somewhere but you did not see them arrive. I bet there were parents there with them too, which means even more people than the estimate of 15.

See, I don't believe your count could be accurate for exactly the reasons Spartan stated. There is no single point in the gardens where you can see the entire place such that one person could count them. A count while walking around means it takes place over time, and that means you cannot see the rest of the garden and know if anyone else arrived or left. The children at the playground are a perfect example of that, they came from somewhere but you did not see them arrive. I bet there were parents there with them too, which means even more people than the estimate of 15.

For the love of Pete. Fine - double it, then add another 10 for people who ran through so fast I could even seen them. Then add 10 bums sleeping in bushes. 48 people in MBG is still NOT full. 100 people wouldn't be full. A park the size of MBG would be consider adequately used if it had 250 people in it at any give time.

Let me know when this is average and typical at MBG because this is what urban parks are supposed to look like.
https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3153/2912493014_7baa3c1b40_b.jpg

Kerry, I think the point is that, considering what the current surroundings of the MBG are, it is surprisingly well used all of the time. Even though you may not agree with the placement of proposed buildings around the park, that placement won't harm it's use in the least. Could it be better? Perhaps, but it won't be harmed.

What get's me is that we're going round and round about this merely because the residential towers aren't park facing. So bloody what, I can guarantee that having to walk down a block and around a corner is not going to stop people who live that close from walking there and making use of the gardens. The 15 people Kerry counted are already people using the park who by the simple reality of the moment live further away than that (well, unless they're the homeless guys living in the bushes).

David - let me ask a simple question. Do you have a preference of residential or office fronting the park?

My preference is for whichever gets the complex built such that we don't end up living for years with a muddy pit where the Stage Center used to be, and I do not buy the idea that the future usage of the gardens is particularly dependent on one versus the other. In either case we get residential units far closer than we currently do, and that can only be a good thing.

That right there is the problem with this city. Too many people are willing to settle for almost anything. This needs to be done right.

And maybe I consider both options to be right? I'm not settling for anything, I'm settling for this:

http://www.okctalk.com/attachments/development-buildings/9264d1412690086-og-e-energy-center-stagenew3.jpg

That's great. A shiny picture is that is needed to buy people here. I was really excited for it, but Kerry is right. Residential should face the park.

It doesn't matter. It's getting built and it'll be a cool building. I'll sure enjoy seeing it from the highway.

Do you actually have a sensible argument to back up why "residential should face the park" is "right"?

Do you actually have a sensible argument to back up why "residential should face the park" is "right"?

I'm sure it's because in NYC only people who live across the street from Central Park use it. :)

Do you actually have a sensible argument to back up why "residential should face the park" is "right"?David, I just believe parks are made for people and residential is better suited to be facing it vs. office.

You'll have people living right across from it which virtually makes the park their backyard and within plain sight, reduces the potential for crime, encourages more activity and connectivity between the park and apartments, and apartments will be utilized 24/7 vs. office which will be more 9-5.

If you had a park, would you rather it be surrounded by office or residential?

They could even compromise by putting one residential tower facing the park and one office placing both of the residential buildings facing Sheridian. They could open the street back up and connect the school with the park.

David, I just believe parks are made for people and residential is better suited to be facing it vs. office.

You'll have people living right across from it which virtually makes the park their backyard and within plain sight, reduces the potential for crime, encourages more activity and connectivity between the park and apartments, and apartments will be utilized 24/7 vs. office which will be more 9-5.

If you had a park, would you rather it be surrounded by office or residential?

They could even compromise by putting one residential tower facing the park and one office placing both of the residential buildings facing Sheridian. They could open the street back up and connect the school with the park.

And they could decide not to build anything. Would that be better?

And they could decide not to build anything. Would that be better?If it were under my control and they didn't adhere to basic principles, I'd tell them to walk.

If it were under my control and they didn't adhere to basic principles, I'd tell them to walk.

So if it is well designed and quality construction, the fact that the residential isn't directly across from the park means you would rather see a muddy lot for several more years leaves me just bewildered. Not building a residential building across from a park isn't basic principles. It happens all over the world all of the time.

So if it is well designed and quality construction, the fact that the residential isn't directly across from the park means you would rather see a muddy lot for several more years leaves me just bewildered. Not building a residential building across from a park isn't basic principles. It happens all over the world all of the time.You have a good point. I guess that is taking it too far, but I just really think it's better if residential is facing the park.

Funny enough, I came across this infographic on Facebook yesterday about how parks affect nearby buildings and vice versa.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/1797593_10205077422167736_521712967526775877_n.jpg ?oh=726596ef54ecbeca66753b0c73e514db&oe=557F3BEF&__gda__=1437709670_4e9bee6b28dba83274dd04c2a2acc48 9

Obviously, that isn't the case for every park, but it does show how good parks are made and how they can also easily fail. I do agree, the Myriad Gardens is doing pretty good.

Funny enough, I came across this infographic on Facebook yesterday about how parks affect nearby buildings and vice versa.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/1797593_10205077422167736_521712967526775877_n.jpg ?oh=726596ef54ecbeca66753b0c73e514db&oe=557F3BEF&__gda__=1437709670_4e9bee6b28dba83274dd04c2a2acc48 9


What the...

What the...

Correct me if i'm wrong, but i'm getting the hint that someone likes milfs.

I accidentally copied the wrong photo. My computer is off right now, but I'll try to find the infographic tomorrow because it has disappeared off of my news feed.

Lol

I accidentally copied the wrong photo. My computer is off right now, but I'll try to find the infographic tomorrow because it has disappeared off of my news feed.

What do you meme?

Okay, I walked through the MBG going to the game yesterday at 11:00 am. There were over 100 'live' bodies in the park. The playground was full and when I got to the south side by the entrance to the tube, there was a line clear to the street. I saw someone with a name tag about Herbalife ? This goes to show that there are more uses than just the casual visitor to MBG. When the festival of the arts is held in the general area, there will be much more. When the skating rink was in operation, there was much more. It is a viable and active park.

Okay, I walked through the MBG going to the game yesterday at 11:00 am. There were over 100 bodies in the park.

Saw the same thing at Draper Lake last time I was out there.

Kerry's point is that good urban principles would result in high usage of the park even without the programming that drives usage today. While I certainly don't believe having offices fronting the park will hurt it - it certainly be better than what is fronting in now - it would be better if residential was fronting it.

See, that's what I do not believe. The residential towers are going to be less than a block away, why would the people who will be living in them use the park less than if one face of the building were facing it? It does not compute.

See, that's what I do not believe. The residential towers are going to be less than a block away, why would the people who will be living in them use the park less than if one face of the building were facing it? It does not compute.

It probably will not make that big of a difference but it probably will make some. If anything, having the residential fronting the park would increase the desirability and marketability of the residential by a long shot. I know I would much rather live in an apartment fronting the park than one fronting the still unsightly area to the west.

See, that's what I do not believe. The residential towers are going to be less than a block away, why would the people who will be living in them use the park less than if one face of the building were facing it? It does not compute.

It is not just about whether they have access to it. Usually when you live in high rise residential one of the most important factors is the view. Having the residential on the side of the site that will have blocked views of a Gardens will have an effect on the value future tenants will place on the property. Its basically the same concept of being able to charge higher prices for seats courtside than you could for seats in Loud City at Thunder games.

There are thousands of studies and books written about why residential fronting parks is better than office space. The problem OKC is still facing is that far too many people are valuing corporations over humans. Clayco is building this project because they can make money, but from the citizens perspective we should make sure Clayco's desire to make money doesn't come at the expense of civic life in OKC.

Sadly, there is plenty of room for both office towers and both residential buildings to front the park but their architects are simply choosing not to do that for some reason. Heck, all 4 tower could be built on the Stage Center lot alone and still have room left over.

Until people decide they want better land-use practices corporations aren't going to do it on their own. I guess all I am saying is, stop selling your civic soul at such a cheap and temporary price and have a little pride and self-worth for once. Clayco isn't going to leave us just because they have to follow standard best practices employed in nearly every other city. And if they do, then we have other developers waiting.

True, and its not like it would cost Clayco any more money to reconfigure land use so that all buildings are fronting the park with the parking behind them.

I accidentally copied the wrong photo. My computer is off right now, but I'll try to find the infographic tomorrow because it has disappeared off of my news feed.

lol

Well, first I'll say that I'm very very happy with the quality that this entire project appears to have. Everything looks first class and I think these towers are going to be a fantastic addition to our city and our skyline.

Now that I've said that...

There are some improvements to this project that could be made. I'll list the improvements, why they are improvements, and I'll also explain why I think ClayCo decided not to make them.

--Residential fronting the park is better than office space fronting the park. With our office market as tight as it is, Class A office space would fill up wherever you put it. It doesn't need a park view to be economically viable. Residential space will be more desirable if it overlooks the park than if it overlooks the school and film row. Office space will also be dark after 5 pm, whereas residential will be occupied and will look out over the park, making it a safer public space. Now the MBG is already a pretty safe place, and people do use it frequently, but having constant "eyes on the park" during evening hours improves that.

Why didn't they do it? The title of this thread is "OG&E Energy Center". ClayCo created this project with OG&E in mind, and the residential component is still secondary. OKC's tall building market is primarily office driven, and the residential component is seen as risky. That won't change until some residential towers are built and sell out really fast.

--The office buildings should be on streetcorners instead of in the middle of the block. These buildings are positioned to take up as much space as possible, like a guy who parks his car across two parking spaces. The corner of the street is important, but this design leaves them completely empty, with just some grass and trees there to define them. This is wasted space. Nobody is going to use that area, particularly since you've got the city's premier park right across the street. The office buildings should be moved so they are either on California, or so that one is on Reno and one is on Sheridan.

Why didn't they do it? Again, this is the "OG&E Energy Center" thread. I believe ClayCo designed this to call attention to its primary tenant. OG&E gets the premier spot on the land, right in the middle of the block.

--The layout of the towers should be changed to allow for future construction. There's space for as many as four more towers on this block. Related to the above problem with ignoring the street corners, you have buildings hogging land that they don't need. By positioning the two office towers as they have, it makes it almost impossible to put in more towers at a future date. If you moved them to the corners, you could almost fit another of the residential towers fronting the park on both the north and south properties. This isn't something you would have to build today. You could build it in 50 years if that's how long it took the market to support it. But with the towers positioned as they are, it's unlikely that you'll ever build on that property again. The west half of the design is fine -- new construction would require some design changes in the parking garage entrance, but it could be done. But the portion of the design that fronts the park uses its space inefficiently, and it does so permanently. If the residential towers are a smashing success, and there's a ton of demand for more of it, some simple design changes today could mean that you could build more towers on the same site in the future. It makes the land more valuable. We've seen what inefficient use of space does in Lower Bricktown, where a whole lot of land was taken up by a handful of buildings that are very badly positioned. We need to start using our downtown land as efficiently as possible.

Why didn't they do it? ClayCo intends to sell this project as soon as it is built. They are not planning to keep the land and make any further investment there in the future. They see this design as "complete". They aren't building it to have some other architect come in 15 years later and add another building next to theirs, messing up a pretty picture on their website. It is more important to them to have the buildings viewed on their own, surrounded by nice trees, than to have them integrate functionally with the rest of the city.



I still like this project. If it gets built exactly as pictured, I'll be quite happy. But that doesn't mean that there aren't some valid criticisms of the design.

Saw the same thing at Draper Lake last time I was out there.


Not so much any more, but uh, yeah.

Does it matter whether or not the residential towers face the park? Residents could probably use the addition walk for exercise.

Get away from this UTOPIA so many of you look to solve all of downtown's concerns, to me it's insignificant.

Probably two hundred people in the park at the moment..

Does it matter whether or not the residential towers face the park? Residents could probably use the addition walk for exercise.

Get away from this UTOPIA so many of you look to solve all of downtown's concerns, to me it's insignificant.

It's GOOD with the current design. It's MUCH BETTER if the residential faces the park. We aren't asking for UTOPIA, we are asking for the designers to fix OBVIOUS MISTAKES.

As I said, I'll be happy if the current design is completed as shown in the renderings. It has the potential to do a lot for downtown OKC. But you don't get better design until you demand it.

Does it matter whether or not the residential towers face the park? Residents could probably use the addition walk for exercise.

Get away from this UTOPIA so many of you look to solve all of downtown's concerns, to me it's insignificant.

If you don't care, why do you care?

My biggest gripe is not that residential doesn't face the park.

My biggest gripe is that street-level retail/restaurant/public use does not face the park…most especially that that the east corners @ Reno and Sheridan have nothing demonstrating space that the public is going to use.

The issue with moving residential to the parkside is that with more people in the area night time use of the park will initially increase. This in turn will make easy targets of women who use the park late at night, All it takes is one incident and you can write MBG off because once the 'law abiding citizens' leave the subsequent vacuum is filled by the non-law abiding ones.

To keep the perceived safety you need people who can see the park. In the book Death and Life of Great American Cities, Jane Jacobs wrote several chapters on this subject and provided support from several studies. One item that stuck in my mind is that it doesn't taken someone looking out a window to deter crime, it was simply enough to have a window that someone could look out of.

If you are interested in this subject look into crime prevention through environmental design.

Okay, now that makes sense.

Sorry David, I should have explainedit like that long ago. I am actually toying with idea of hosting a web based call-in show so these types of items can be discussed.

FWIW, traffic was slow along Reno today at noon as I went by MBG. Part was vehicle related, but most were the scores and scores of people going into and coming out of the south end of MBG and visible enjoying the southern areas of MBG. I stopped counting visible heads at 90 (yeah, traffic was still and I was bored, bored, bored) and that didn't take into account the sidewalk folks coming and going. They were their own rather thick stream of bodies. A pretty day that folks, many with kiddos, many without, were taking full advantage of the opportunity.

So if new housing gets added, that park is going to get even busier.

Plans for OGE Energy Plaza to be revealed Thursday | News OK (http://newsok.com/plans-for-oge-energy-plaza-to-be-revealed-thursday/article/5402366)

Clayco’s tax increment financing request includes assistance for building some parking underground, an effort not being taken across the street where Houston-based Hines is being criticized by Ward 2 Councilman Ed Shadid for not seeking such financing to take some of its parking underground.

“We went down as far as we could go,” Chapman said. “The project we’ve proposed is dependent on TIF because it costs more than it’s worth when we are done.”

They are putting ONE level of parking underground in each the north and south parcels and asking for $69 million in TIF.

That one level isn't going to make any real difference in the look of the project and certainly not worth $69 million in taxpayer money.


What was being suggested for the Hines property was that they put a good deal (several levels) of parking below grade so one parking garage could be completely eliminated.

That is very steep for the $69 million price tag. Entertain us and put at least 2 or 3 levels under ground for that price...
I really just want this project to get started before we risk anymore setbacks.

As for 499 Sheridan... That one can delay as long as possible for all I care.

That is very steep for the $69 million price tag. Entertain us and put at least 2 or 3 levels under ground for that price...
I really just want this project to get started before we risk anymore setbacks.

As for 499 Sheridan... That one can delay as long as possible for all I care.

I agree with you on for sure. Do you think that when it all shakes out, that both this and the 499 Sheridan could have 4-6 levels of parking under the building? Also, would this not only look much better I believe increase the height a little bit?

Clayco’s tax increment financing request includes assistance for building some parking underground, an effort not being taken across the street where Houston-based Hines is being criticized by Ward 2 Councilman Ed Shadid for not seeking such financing to take some of its parking underground.

“We went down as far as we could go,” Chapman said. “The project we’ve proposed is dependent on TIF because it costs more than it’s worth when we are done.”

Tell OG&E to pay more money then.

It's not our responsibility as taxpayers to solve your financial arithmetic.

I hate where OKC is going. We are giving away our future tax dollars for shiny buildings.

I agree with you on for sure. Do you think that when it all shakes out, that both this and the 499 Sheridan could have 4-6 levels of parking under the building? Also, would this not only look much better I believe increase the height a little bit?

Who really knows? What I do believe, however, is that this project has potential to be the model for OKC moving forward. Depending how it plays out, it could be the message to all incoming developers that want to play ball, or, it could be business as usual.

I certainly hope we get more than one level of underground parking, but, it's always debated here in OK about the water table and how feasible something as udnerground parking truly is. As for it possibly increasing the building height, I'm not so sure. Depends how much is truly "underground," compared to how much is "underneath the building" itself, see OnePlace in Tulsa as an example.

Not going to lie, it would be really nice to OKC get at least one more tower close to 500 or just above, for a few reasons. This comes close at 435 I believe (someone correct me, I may be thinking of 499 Sheridan).

Its becoming more & more troubling that every rendering I see for this project only features the office tower. Its like they are completely trying to make us forget about the proposed residential tower. OGE is increasing rates on us left & right & then demanding tax dollars for their new tower. I'm sick of this bull****.