Are they using this reversed site plan for the OGE tower as well (flipped obviously)?

http://www.okctalk.com/attachments/development-buildings/9260d1412690083-og-e-energy-center-stagenew9.jpg

If this building was an all glass façade I would have problem with the money being asked. Like the architecture.

This is the site plan submitted with the design application for the ground level:

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/clayco031815a.JPG

what's "shell space"?

Shouldn't that be retail A? I feel like retail D and E might have the same problems as Hemingway's at the library. Out of sight out of mind...

Empty, closed in space where the residential tower will ultimately go.

Oh, gah. That kills my retail A thing then...

Why can a building not have regular groundfloor lobby for administrative purposes, then levels 2 or 3 thru 10 be parking, then the actual offices on top of that? What is so difficult about parking here that we need to incentivize this heavily?

So what is the official height, per the plans submitted to the DDRC?

391 feet.

cue height griping in 3... 2....

:-P

Nm, post is out of context

I thought plans for this were going to be released today?

I thought plans for this were going to be released today?

I was wondering the same thing. No news posted on OKCTalk or newsok.com. I have been checking for an update to the story all evening.

What was happening today was just the Downtown Design Review Committee to which they had already submitted the plans that I've posted here.

I'm sure everything got approved.

However, the big issues is that of their $69 million TIF request which has yet to be resolved and that's a completely separate matter and process.

Totally speculative on my part but I give the south parcel a 15% chance of never happening. Here is why I think that.

1) I believe a significant portion of their revenue was to come form CC parking, and since the CC is moving there will be no revenue from it
2) With the CC land costing $100 million how could a public entity possible sale this land for less than $50 million and then kick in $60 million plus of taxpayer money?

They are going to have to re-work the numbers and see if their plans even make sense now.

Than again - for all I know they could break ground tomorrow.

Clayco doesn't have any money and aren't really developers.

They were brought in by OG&E as front men for their new HQ, to deflect heat from the Stage Center controversy and from the fact they are moving into very opulent new space while asking for a big rate hike (with more of those to come, as is inevitable).

I'd be thrilled if they even do the residential tower on the north parcel. They no doubt are trying to get investors for that piece and trying to bridge the gap with TIF funds. They may be able to get investors for the south parcel too, but I'm not holding my breath.

Even if they acquire the south parcel, someone will develop that land. They'll have to sign an agreement with OCURA to develop it on a certain timetable and if they can't perform, the remaining property won't be transferred and we'll put out a new RFP where people don't have to compete against a company who is backed by the Chamber and had a year's head start.

Clayco doesn't have any money and aren't really developers.

They were brought in by OG&E as front men for their new HQ, to deflect heat from the Stage Center controversy and from the fact they are moving into very opulent new space while asking for a big rate hike (with more of those to come, as they always do).

I'd be thrilled if they even do the residential tower on the north parcel. They no doubt are trying to get investors for that piece and trying to bridge the gap with TIF funds. They may be able to get investors for the south parcel too, but I'm not holding my breath.

Even if they acquire the south parcel, someone will develop that land. They'll have to sign an agreement with OCURA to develop it on a certain timetable and if they can't perform, the remaining property won't be transferred and we'll put out a new RFP where people don't have to compete against a company who is backed by the Cha---- Junta and had a year's head start.

Fixed it for you. But spot-on.

I talked to several local developers who decided not to bid on the RFP for the south parcel.

Notice that the only other company that did was Milhaus, which is out of state. That's pretty telling.

If there was a legitimate and fair RFP process for that parcel, you'd have plenty of people lining up. Especially if the City is willing to sell the land for a fraction of it's fair market value; as in Clayco's 'winning' proposal they only planned to pay $13 per square foot while at the same time REHCO was asking the City to pay $168 per SF for their land right across the street.

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQHM_0LOJP3uCkHOKGxHxkypCa4Nfzrh baACvrJIax76y4eTlj4
Saw something tonight on NewsChannel4 @ 10 p.m., about the $193 million 27 story OG&E Headquarters with 5 story parking garage and a 25 story - 500 unit apartment building with Clayco spokesman Larry Chapman. It went before the DDRC with construction to begin in a couple of months.

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQHM_0LOJP3uCkHOKGxHxkypCa4Nfzrh baACvrJIax76y4eTlj4
Saw something tonight on NewsChannel4 @ 10 p.m., about the $193 million 27 story OG&E Headquarters with 5 story parking garage and a 25 story - 500 unit apartment building with Clayco spokesman Larry Chapman. It went before the DDRC with construction to begin in a couple of months.

Yes, I saw the same thing. There was no new information there.

http://kfor.com/2015/03/19/new-oge-tower-to-house-27-stories-of-offices-500-apartments/

It was approved as presented.

But by far the bigger issue is the TIF and that is further complicated by all the convention center mess.

A new south CBD TIF has been proposed but that was to not only serve this project but also the convention hotel and garage. Now, it's very likely both of those will fall outside the boundaries of the new TIF, so I"m sure they are re-thinking all of this.

And, I believe they are going to encounter real opposition to such a new TIF anyway.

They should be able to negotiate Clayco down and use the current downtown TIF, if they decide such a award is justified. And ultimately, even that will have to pass City Council.

After reviewing photos of Birmingham, AL's skyline, I really started to since that the OG&E Center will look very favorable to this building in BHAM called the Regions Harbert Plaza:

http://www.bizjournals.com/birmingham/print-edition/2012/07/27/adams-and-reese-plans-renovation-at.html?page=all


https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQHM_0LOJP3uCkHOKGxHxkypCa4Nfzrh baACvrJIax76y4eTlj4
Saw something tonight on NewsChannel4 @ 10 p.m., about the $193 million 27 story OG&E Headquarters with 5 story parking garage and a 25 story - 500 unit apartment building with Clayco spokesman Larry Chapman. It went before the DDRC with construction to begin in a couple of months.

Yesterday, I noticed there were for sale signs in front of the small building on the NE corner of Reno & Walker; the one show below as the Dunn law offices.

This is the one property on that block not owned by the City, and in Clayco's RFP response, they mentioned they had it under contract. The other response from Milhaus showed them building around that property.

Anyone know how long that sign has been there?

Yesterday, I noticed there were for sale signs in front of the small building on the NE corner of Reno & Walker; the one show below as the Dunn law offices.

This is the one property on that block not owned by the City, and in Clayco's RFP response, they mentioned they had it under contract. The other response from Milhaus showed them building around that property.

Anyone know how long that sign has been there?

Google Street View shows a for sale sign from the NA Sullivan Group; imagery date is from October of 2014. Aerial views seem to suggest the sign was placed there sometime between Oct 2013 and May 2014, but it's hard to tell for sure.

La Luna has changed their sign too. from 'tick-tock' to 'thanks for 27 years' Are things moving along?

I understand La Luna was given the option of extending one more year and they declined.

I understand the City has reached a tentative agreement with Clayco for TIF incentives and the matter will soon go before City Council.

Do not know the numbers but the first part of this is just for the OG&E office building and the north parking garage. I suspect the presentation will include what TIF dollars would be provided for the other phases as well.

I understand the City has reached a tentative agreement with Clayco for TIF incentives and the matter will soon go before City Council.

Do not know the numbers but the first part of this is just for the OG&E office building and the north parking garage. I suspect the presentation will include what TIF dollars would be provided for the other phases as well.

Hopefully, id hate for this one to go down as one those in history that fails because of this kind of junk. I'm ready to see some cranes downtown again!

My guess is, after Roy Williams comments yesterday about a lack of real estate in OKC, the city council will want to get this approved quickly.

yes, we need more HIGHRISE real estate in OKC!

Get more cranes!!!

I, for one, am glad to hear that this is finally progressing.

From Steve's chat today:

Based on what I'm observing and hearing, based on things I'm tracking, I see an OGE Energy Center tower getting built. I think it's possible we may still see a residential tower built at the corner of Walker and Sheridan Avenues. I have serious questions about the future development of the south half of the block controlled by the city. I'm not sure we see construction starting before next year.

Why does it sound like there's a question as to whether an OG&E tower gets built?!? And maybe one residential. Glad they hurried up and tore down Stage Center.

Why does it sound like there's a question as to whether an OG&E tower gets built?!? And maybe one residential. Glad they hurried up and tore down Stage Center.

Because Clayco is still asking for tons of TIF money just to do the first phase (OG&E and parking garage).

And no agreement has been reached.

Hm. This is the one project that I believe really stands out, too. Very elegant and classy development, really hope there aren't anymore speed bumps along the way after the TIF discussions.

The OG&E tower will get built in some fashion.

They may need to cut back a bit, but I'm sure it will get done.

Far less confident about the rest of the project.

Its ridiculous that we even have to told that this probably will still happen. If it wasn't a 100% sure thing stage center should have never been torn down. It feels good to say I told you so, but it will never bring back that theater.

Glad they hurried up and tore down Stage Center.

Me too!

Its ridiculous that we even have to told that this probably will still happen. If it wasn't a 100% sure thing stage center should have never been torn down. It feels good to say I told you so, but it will never bring back that theater.

Remember, demolition and what is to be built afterwards are completely separate things.

A demolition permit does not require anything to be built; could never be enforced anyway.


It sucks, but that's the way it is. If there is to be indignation, it should be focused on the ease of obtaining demo permits in the first place, but there is no way to control what will happen after that.

It sucks, but that's the way it is. If there is to be indignation, it should be focused on the ease of obtaining demo permits in the first place, but there is no way to control what will happen after that.

Why does it seem like other cities don't have these issues near to the extent that OKC does? Also, it seems like bait-and-switch is a much bigger problem here than it is in other cities. A developer shows an elaborate rendering like what we saw from Clayco that gets everyone excited, and then scales it back piece by piece between the proposal and groundbreaking. First the talk was that the south proposal may not happen, then the residential component in its entirety gets called into question. Now, there is talk that the main OG&E tower might be scaled back?

I think an ordinance needs to be passed to require projects need to be shovel ready before demolition occurs. There is no way you could 100% enforce it but maybe it would cut down on these types of scenarios which seem to come up time and time again.

Why does it seem like other cities don't have these issues near to the extent that OKC does?

Because you/we don't pay attention to other cities in this same way.

It's not a unique problem to OKC, although if you were to argue we are worse about this than many, you'd could point to the large amount of power and influence concentrated in too few hands.

Because you/we don't pay attention to other cities in this same way.


Having lived in other cities, I can say without a doubt bait-and-switch is a much bigger issue in OKC than about anywhere else, going all the way back to the Pei Plan. In terms of demolition before being shovel ready, I am not sure. I can say that three hours south, in DFW, complexes on the scale of the original Clayco proposal are going up by the dozens. It's pretty disheartening. I hope Clayco at least pulls through on the north parcel. I am worried that something more along the lines of the original concept that everyone hated (12-15-story OG&E HQ and no residential) is what is going to end up being built.

Is there any timeline on when we can expect a TIF agreement to be reached?

Having lived in other cities, I can say without a doubt bait-and-switch is a much bigger issue in OKC than about anywhere else, going all the way back to the Pei Plan. In terms of demolition before being shovel ready, I am not sure. I can say that three hours south, in DFW, complexes on the scale of the original Clayco proposal are going up by the dozens. It's pretty disheartening. I hope Clayco at least pulls through on the north parcel.

Not fair to compare OKC to a city 5X the size with the Dallas reference.

And while I have no doubt that it is your impression this sort of thing happens less frequently in comparable cities, I can assure you it happens all the time.

Having lived in other cities, I can say without a doubt bait-and-switch is a much bigger issue in OKC than about anywhere else, going all the way back to the Pei Plan. In terms of demolition before being shovel ready, I am not sure. I can say that three hours south, in DFW, complexes on the scale of the original Clayco proposal are going up by the dozens. It's pretty disheartening. I hope Clayco at least pulls through on the north parcel. I am worried that something more along the lines of the original concept that everyone hated (12-15-story OG&E HQ and no residential) is what is going to end up being built.

Is there any timeline on when we can expect a TIF agreement to be reached?

Here we go with this again.

Remember, demolition and what is to be built afterwards are completely separate things.

A demolition permit does not require anything to be built; could never be enforced anyway.


It sucks, but that's the way it is. If there is to be indignation, it should be focused on the ease of obtaining demo permits in the first place, but there is no way to control what will happen after that.

The only control I can think of is to build in a simple high dollar deposit. If it doesn't get built within a specific time frame, then they lose their money. I'm sure there's legality issues with this scenario.

Having lived in other cities, I can say without a doubt bait-and-switch is a much bigger issue in OKC than about anywhere else...

Living in other cities does not prove much. It's anecdotal. Making sweeping generalizations without providing evidence doesn't contribute much. Deals fall through and projects are scaled down all the time all over the country. Does it happen more in OKC than other cities? I don't know. That's a question worth researching.

Living in other cities does not prove much. It's anecdotal. Making sweeping generalizations without providing evidence doesn't contribute much. Deals fall through and projects are scaled down all the time all over the country. Does it happen more in OKC than other cities? I don't know. That's a question worth researching.

I admit I was wrong to make a sweeping generalization. Sorry for anybody who was offended by it.

However, looking back over OKC's history, many of the most exciting projects were scaled back, some to the point where they had little resemblance to the original proposal i.e. Lower Bricktown. I am very excited about the Clayco project and while I have hope that if will in fact get built, at least on the north parcel, I am disheartened at the possibility that it may become another bait-and-switch. I know in other cities, while deals may fall through and projects may get scaled down, there is also plenty that does get built as proposed. In OKC we are starting to see this more often with the smaller projects like the Metropolitan and the Steelyard (compare this to the bait-and-switch that was Legacy at Arts Quarter). The jury remains out on the larger projects that are just starting to be proposed here.

One reason I was so excited about the original Clayco proposal is it is a very high-quality proposal, and not the minimalism that some developers try to get away with in OKC. It also will bring a style of architecture to the OKC skyline that is currently missing here. While it has its problems from an urban perspective (just ask JTF), it represents a significant raising of the bar for development in OKC if it actually gets built.

In OKC we are starting to see this more often with the smaller projects like the Metropolitan and the Steelyard (compare this to the bait-and-switch that was Legacy at Arts Quarter).

The Legacy was 10 years ago. Since that time, we've added Level, Mosaic, Maywood Apartments, The Edge, Lift, Metropolitan, the Steelyard and a ton of other projects that have all been built almost exactly as planned.

The Legacy also happened under the regime of the old OCURA and much has changed since.

I admit I was wrong to make a sweeping generalization. Sorry for anybody who was offended by it.

However, looking back over OKC's history, many of the most exciting projects were scaled back, some to the point where they had little resemblance to the original proposal i.e. Lower Bricktown. I am very excited about the Clayco project and while I have hope that if will in fact get built, at least on the north parcel, I am disheartened at the possibility that it may become another bait-and-switch. I know in other cities, while deals may fall through and projects may get scaled down, there is also plenty that does get built as proposed. In OKC we are starting to see this more often with the smaller projects like the Metropolitan and the Steelyard (compare this to the bait-and-switch that was Legacy at Arts Quarter). The jury remains out on the larger projects that are just starting to be proposed here.

One reason I was so excited about the original Clayco proposal is it is a very high-quality proposal, and not the minimalism that some developers try to get away with in OKC. It also will bring a style of architecture to the OKC skyline that is currently missing here. While it has its problems from an urban perspective (just ask JTF), it represents a significant raising of the bar for development in OKC if it actually gets built.

You're referencing two projects over the past 18 years... one of which hasn't even begun yet.

When you compare this to larger cities, of course they're going to have more projects in their pipeline than we do, but that doesn't mean that their projects are not getting scaled back as well. It would be interesting to see ratio of scaled back projects:total proposed projects vs. larger cities as well as comparable cities.

The only control I can think of is to build in a simple high dollar deposit. If it doesn't get built within a specific time frame, then they lose their money. I'm sure there's legality issues with this scenario.

Right, it's hard to go about this without simply doing more talking and throwing books at people without any bite. That's the problem, you can have ordinances and bylaws, etc. but if those aren't enforced, or, even being enforced or not but lack any type of significant penalty or ramification, then developers (and destroyers alike) will continue exactly what they're doing however they want.

Remember, demolition and what is to be built afterwards are completely separate things.

A demolition permit does not require anything to be built; could never be enforced anyway.


It sucks, but that's the way it is. If there is to be indignation, it should be focused on the ease of obtaining demo permits in the first place, but there is no way to control what will happen after that.

If the demo permit was inherent in the building permit, like I have suggested a hundred times, Stage Center would still be standing. Then when Clayco got their act togethet the City could decide if the trade is worth it.

The self loathing on this board is gross. We don't even sniff the level of Chicago or any city in New Jersey. It's government, it's fundamentally flawed by nature. OKC does a pretty good job all things considered. People just don't agree with everything gets done do so they bemoan, whine, and complain about the whole system because they aren't getting their way. Go for it it is your right after all. To "fix" it there are 3 options

(Fix is in quotations because "fixing" it is truly a matter of opinion and viewpoint. We're debating how a city should tear a building and fund a new one, not debating should you be allowed to shoot people who annoy you.)

3 options.
1. Make a ton of money and buy influence.
2. Vote, and convince others to vote with you.
3. Go work for the city and build influence within it.

If the demo permit was inherent in the building permit, like I have suggested a hundred times, Stage Center would still be standing. Then when Clayco got their act togethet the City could decide if the trade is worth it.

Building permits don't guarantee anything and in the end, you can't force anybody to build anything after something is demolished.

Building permits don't guarantee anything and in the end, you can't force anybody to build anything after something is demolished.

No, but it gets us a lot closer to an actual structure before any permanent activity takes place. My plan is the only one I have seen proposed that would still have a standing Stage Center, and wouldn't be holding up progress on the new development.

No, but it gets us a lot closer to an actual structure before any permanent activity takes place.

This.

There is no way to force a developer to build after demolition, but there are ways to make scenarios where deals fall through after demolition a lot less likely, therefore saving structures in instances that a deal does die.

No, but it gets us a lot closer to an actual structure before any permanent activity takes place.

We have specific building designs for this project and have for a long time.

So how exactly would what you're proposing make any difference in the situation we're discussing?


Also, are you aware of any other city requiring what you propose?

Also, are you aware of any other city requiring what you propose?

JTF City

We have specific building designs for this project and have for a long time.

So how exactly would what you're proposing make any difference in the situation we're discussing?


Also, are you aware of any other city requiring what you propose?

Any one can draw up plans but the fact is they don't have enough financing. To my knowledge, no city is doing this yet. Also, my plan doesn't require anyone to do anything. In fact, it is removing a step from the process. Where it would come into play is if the deal falls through. Under this scenario it would just be a 'no harm no foul' deal. Clayco walks away and existing structures remain.

I don't trade my used car in first and then go try and buy a new one. I do both at the same time, lest something happens and I end up without a car.

The best way to protect against a demolition that does not ultimately result in construction that I can think of would be the requirement of some sort of performance bond for demolitions. If a building does not appear in the promised/alotted time, property reverts to OCURA at fair market value or below, less fees, paid for by bond. Anything left over could be used to provide incentive for new developer. Just spitballing here, but seems possible.