If you do the performance bond and nothing gets built the original structure is still gone forever. I would rather have Hotel Black and the Auto Hotel, than a pile of cash.

I don't disagree, but there are teeth in there that would make someone think twice about demolishing before their deal on the new building was firm.

How about a hybrid then, demo permit inherent in the building permit backed by a substantial 'no build' penalty.

Wow, I knew the 4 tower development proposed was too good to be true! This is beginning to be a joke! History does repeat itself...

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?

Pete, this is where your perspective is weighted toward living in So Cal and OKC. Linking building and demo permits is common practice for urban cities.

I hear a lot of push-back against having a "big government" plan approval / building permitting process. This issue is grounded in culture, not in reality. A lot of Eastern U.S. cities (and I guess Portland) have very stringent planning processes. It's a miracle anything gets built.

Pete, this is where your perspective is weighted toward living in So Cal and OKC. Linking building and demo permits is common practice for urban cities..

I was asking for specific examples that OKC might follow.

The example I work with every day is in Cleveland, where you can't get a building permit in a historic district (basically the entire city), without first obtaining a "certificate of appropriateness." It's not a de jure linked demo and bldg permit, but it applies to both, and they have a long-standing precedent of not approving demo's on commercial corridors without first seeing the replacement.

"Certificate of appropriateness" sounds absurd but that's a strong mechanism that a lot of cities can legally use to raise the bar in the bldg permitting process. You don't have to let anyone build anything, contrary to popular opinion passing for legal expertise on OKC Talk. You just have to follow your own rules.

Here is the legal framework regarding planning in Oklahoma:
http://oklahomamunicipalleague.webs.com/Education/PlanningWorkshopMaterials/OML%20Zoning%20Subdivision%205%209%2014.ppsx

^

Okay, but since we already had plans of what was to replace Stage Center, the point is that there is no way to force someone to build anything or not change the original plans when the inevitable cost over-runs cause all types of adjustments.

In fact, it's not uncommon for projects under construction to make changes right in the middle. It happens to virtually all of them to a greater or lesser extent.


We already have a design review process of appropriateness. The point is that it's almost impossible to force a private property owner to build something whether demolition is involved or not.

We already have a design review process of appropriateness. The point is that it's almost impossible to force a private property owner to build something whether demolition is involved or not.

Under the hybrid plan discussed above no one is being forced to build anything. A developer buys a piece of property, gets a building permit, tears down whatever existing structure in in place, and builds their project. With this plan there is zero incentive to seek a quick demolition since all they have to do is get their building permit. It take a lot of variables and obstacles off the table. In cases like this project where public announcement to building permit is now being measured in years (and isn't going to happen in any way that resembles the grand plan) Stage Center would still be standing. If they got their building permit, tore down Stage Center, and THEN their plan fell apart - the 'no build' penalty kicks in (which would vary by project). The only thing anyone is being forced to do is live up to their plans or pay the price. That doesn't seem like it is asking too much.

From Steve's chat this morning.


Mark: Steve, I hate to bring up the bad sides of OKC's past, but are you concerned that the City and Clayco might realize that they will never come to a TIF agreement and the whole thing falls apart and we are left with Lake Lackmeyer for another 20 years?

Steve Lackmeyer: Can I promise this isn't a risk right now? No. And the prospect of the Stage Center site staying as it is should concern everybody who cares about downtown.

Of course this is a worst case scenario but the fact that it is even a risk right now is very concerning and highlights the need for linking building and demo permits. Pete, how real do you think the risk is of Clayco just walking away completely and building nothing?

Vintage OKC. promse big and deliver little to nothing. You can say I am negative nellie, but my comment is supported by history. People in OKC should stop falling for these grandiose promises that far to often disappoint.

If this happens, I hate to say "I told you so", but we are stupid, stupid, stupid to allow demolition before they are ready to break ground. We can always pave it though.....don't we need more surface parking downtown?

Betts, Catcher & I all tried to warn everybody.

I'm sure the OG&E building and garage will be built in some form.

The rest has always been pretty iffy.

But, the south parcel is owned by the City and can easily put out as an RFP and if they give people plenty of time to respond and don't have to compete against someone who already had a plan fully formed, then I'm sure they would get plenty of great proposals.

Of course, that land still may end up being part of the convention center, but we should know more about that by the end of the month.

Didn't the CEO, President, or Chairman of the Board (foeget which) at OGE just leave to become the new CEO at Enable? Wonder if that might change things.

Didn't the CEO, President, or Chairman of the Board (foeget which) at OGE just leave to become the new CEO at Enable? Wonder if that might change things.

Pete Delaney. He's probably just the CEO of both right now.

Pete Delaney. He's probably just the CEO of both right now.

Delaney resigned from OGE on Thursday of last week.

JTF OGE Energy names Sean Trauschke as CEO; Enable Midstream CEO resigns | News OK (http://newsok.com/oge-energy-names-trauschke-as-ceo-enable-midstream-ceo-resigns/article/5424259) he didn't resign but announced he was retiring in a year or so.

He was supposed to retire in 2016. My understanding is that the CEO of Enable was effectivly forced out on Monday, the transition process at OGE was already underway so last Thursday Delaney ressigned and took the job Monday at Enable.

My only reason for brining it was if the new CEO also wants to relocate the company.

He was supposed to retire in 2016. My understanding is that the CEO of Enable was effectivly forced out on Monday, the transition process at OGE was already underway so last Thursday Delaney ressigned and took the job Monday at Enable.

My only reason for brining it was if the new CEO also wants to relocate the company.

Since Pete is retaining his position of Chairman of the Board for OGE I dont think you will see an major differences in the operation of the company.

Since Pete is retaining his position of Chairman of the Board for OGE I dont think you will see an major differences in the operation of the company.

Good point.

^

Okay, but since we already had plans of what was to replace Stage Center, the point is that there is no way to force someone to build anything or not change the original plans when the inevitable cost over-runs cause all types of adjustments.

In fact, it's not uncommon for projects under construction to make changes right in the middle. It happens to virtually all of them to a greater or lesser extent.


We already have a design review process of appropriateness. The point is that it's almost impossible to force a private property owner to build something whether demolition is involved or not.

What do you not get? If the commission doesn't like the plans, they don't grant the certificate of appropriateness. They don't physically force the developer to pick up a shovel and hammer but what more can you do?

You are becoming the Tea Party of urban design rights... communities often exercise their right to have design review control. OKC is not one of these communities.

You are becoming the Tea Party of urban design rights... communities often exercise their right to have design review control. OKC is not one of these communities.

Tone it down.

Furthermore, you don't seem to be following my points.

I'm not saying that a demo permit and design approval shouldn't be wed, I'm saying it wouldn't make a darn bit of difference in solving the 'problem' that was put forth for this idea to resolve: That either nothing gets built on this site for quite some time or what does get built will be significantly different from what was proposed.

And you clearly aren't following the points I made in other threads if you think I am against more design control or tighter restrictions on demolitions.

Could someone post or repost the drawing comparing the heights of the new proposed buildings and the buildings that are already downtown. I can't seem to find where it was posted before.

Tone it down.

Furthermore, you don't seem to be following my points.

I'm not saying that a demo permit and design approval shouldn't be wed, I'm saying it wouldn't make a darn bit of difference in solving the 'problem' that was put forth for this idea to resolve: That either nothing gets built on this site for quite some time or what does get built will be significantly different from what was proposed.

And you clearly aren't following the points I made in other threads if you think I am against more design control or tighter restrictions on demolitions.

Well I apologize if I misunderstood your position to be something against design review controls. My frustration stems from discerning that on one hand out existing ordinances aren't good enough (this is what we say when a development is going through the process), and on the o ther hand that any potential improvements aren't feasible (when we talk about changes to the process).

It's damned if you do damned if you don't.

Could someone post or repost the drawing comparing the heights of the new proposed buildings and the buildings that are already downtown. I can't seem to find where it was posted before.

OG&E Energy Center - OKCTalk (http://www.okctalk.com/showwiki.php?title=OG%20E%20Energy%20Center&page=8#post832429)

I agree Spartan. We seem to be caught in our own progress trap where the current process isn't producing the desired outcome but there is no political will to change it because doing so might prevent something from being built. Never mind that what doesn't get built falls in the undesirable bucket anyhow.

Thanks Teo9969 but that's not the drawing or chart I was looking for. I know it was in the newspaper and I thought maybe someone posted on OKC Talk awhile back. Hopefully somebody can find it. Thanks again.

I agree Spartan. We seem to be caught in our own progress trap where the current process isn't producing the desired outcome but there is no political will to change it because doing so might prevent something from being built. Never mind that what doesn't get built falls in the undesirable bucket anyhow.

We need urban design standards that lift everyone up, rather than break everything down. There's a line to walk there.

I still have this saved in a tab on my phone.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/9322497/Photos/r960-c79cfac30c9f834871940b731996186b.jpg

it's been a while since we talked about the actual construction topics on this one....anyone have any updates on where we stand as far as seeing something happen here?

Clayco and the City are still trying to reach agreement on TIF funds.

A new TIF has been proposed to help feed this project and the convention hotel and garage. I suspect that the Clayco negotiations can only go so far under the location for those are resolved.

Was told they have sent out notices to land owners for land valuations. The key word I believe is "blighted".

Funny how land across the street from 1 of 6 finalist for the International Urban Park of the Year award, cattie-corner to a $750 million corporate headquarters, and next door to OKC's prize elementary school is 'blighted'. By that standard is there not a single un-blighted plot of ground in all of OKC?

That's what I was looking for. Thanks so much.

Funny how land across the street from 1 of 6 finalist for the International Urban Park of the Year award, cattie-corner to a $750 million corporate headquarters, and next door to OKC's prize elementary school is 'blighted'. By that standard is there not a single un-blighted plot of ground in all of OKC?

In the town hall meeting about TIF's, it was mentioned that one city defined a mall as blighted because it didn't have a Nordstrom.

You can get around the blight requirement for TIF's for virtually anywhere, which is one of the reason it's been abused.

In the town hall meeting about TIF's, it was mentioned that one city defined a mall as blighted because it didn't have a Nordstrom.

You can get around the blight requirement for TIF's for virtually anywhere, which is one of the reason it's been abused.

So all of OKC is blighted then. I shouldn't have been surprised considering we had to pay an outlet mall to locate here.

So all of OKC is blighted then. I shouldn't have been surprised considering we had to pay an outlet mall to locate here.

I believe Pete was noting what OTHER cities have done also and how easy it is to get a blighted definition to skew TIFs. However, your continued sniping at OKC is noted. Someday, I hope you actually see something positive here instead of just taking pot shots.

I believe Pete was noting what OTHER cities have done also and how easy it is to get a blighted definition to skew TIFs. However, your continued sniping at OKC is noted. Someday, I hope you actually see something positive here instead of just taking pot shots.

Please Rover. I am not the one saying the most prime piece of real estate is blighted. I am arguing it's not blighted. Honestly, you might want to find a new hobby.

Please Rover. I am not the one saying the most prime piece of real estate is blighted. I am arguing it's not blighted. Honestly, you might want to find a new hobby.

The irony!!! Im sure this will get deleted, but JTF telling anyone to find a new hobby when I can't come in here and see a page without his black cloud floating around it is laughable. Maybe you both should find new hobbies so people can come on here and enjoy it again.

I, for one, enjoy the contributions of all people that are passionate enough about Urban Planning in OKC to come on this forum and participate.

The more people that care and are aware - the more we can improve.

OkieNate - there is an ignore feature.

I, for one, enjoy the contributions of all people that are passionate enough about Urban Planning in OKC to come on this forum and participate.

The more people that care and are aware - the more we can improve.

I agree. Those that only want an echo chamber would render this forum useless.

OkieNate - there is an ignore feature.

I don't want to censor you because I have seen informative and wise ideas from you. Just wish you'd go back to that...

Please Rover. I am not the one saying the most prime piece of real estate is blighted. I am arguing it's not blighted. Honestly, you might want to find a new hobby.

But just to clarify where people may have gotten confused:

So all of OKC is blighted then. I shouldn't have been surprised considering we had to pay an outlet mall to locate here.
I'll be honest, I picked up on the facetious nature of your post and I'm sure others did as well, but that can be easily overlooked without verbal tone to communicate your intention. Otherwise it comes off as well, "continued sniping." Remember that we all converse on this board through the realm of text. Sometimes it's easier to leave out literary devices that require tone to decipher... although the board would certainly be less entertaining...Carry on!

So all of OKC is blighted then. I shouldn't have been surprised considering we had to pay an outlet mall to locate here.

If you look at all of the new developments that has or is locating there because of the outlet mall, I'd say the infrastructure upgrade was well worth it.

But just to clarify where people may have gotten confused:

I'll be honest, I picked up on the facetious nature of your post and I'm sure others did as well, but that can be easily overlooked without verbal tone to communicate your intention. Otherwise it comes off as well, "continued sniping." Remember that we all converse on this board through the realm of text. Sometimes it's easier to leave out literary devices that require tone to decipher... although the board would certainly be less entertaining...Carry on!

That is one of the draw backs of message boards. To understand what I was saying one had to read the 10 previous posts. What makes this a little frustrating is that I was actually defending OKC against those who try to use 'blight' loophole to pocket taxpayer money, but Rover came along and took it out of context (which he always does by the way) and we get side tracked into this kind of stuff.

Maybe I should take my own advice and put Rover on ignore. Then I wouldn't get sucked into this non-sense.

Rover's got good stuff to say. You two just can't stand each other so if you talk about the same topic, you always end up arguing.

I still have this saved in a tab on my phone.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/9322497/Photos/r960-c79cfac30c9f834871940b731996186b.jpg

Someone should put these into the diagram on skyscraperpage.com !


And to all the mudslingers, the differing's of opinions are what make forums such an interesting place to "discuss" things (hopefully like grown-ups). Spartan and I had quite a stint of this sort of back-and-forth for quite some time, but we have both moved on and can discuss things like adults. The key point to remember in any forum like this is that your opinion (like anything else in the world) is NOT the only one and just because it's yours, doesn't make it the all-knowing opinion. Sometimes those off-the-wall crazy comments help to balance out those on the other end of the spectrum. So while some people might look at JTF and do a facepalm (and I'm quite often one of them), that doesn't mean that he doesn't bring something to the conversation. There may be plenty viewers that aren't necessarily participators that feel the same way about Rover, Pete, Me, etc.

Personally, I've started to roll my eyes when I see something come from Lackemeyer these days. Mostly that's because we've already discussed something quite a bit by the time it makes it to the Jokelahoman. But he's also able to get that information to a much higher percentage of the population than we ever can hope to. So his contribution to the discussion is immeasurable from that perspective.

I don't always practice this, but a good rule of thumb....write the reply 2 or 3 times before you hit submit.....and don't do it as soon as you read the message above. You'll be amazed at how your tone and content change after that.

Perhaps if we knew the other towers would be built as proposed.

I believe Pete was noting what OTHER cities have done also and how easy it is to get a blighted definition to skew TIFs. However, your continued sniping at OKC is noted. Someday, I hope you actually see something positive here instead of just taking pot shots.

Definitely remember Kerry Decker when he lived here in OKC; he was my inspiration about the future of our city. Met him at the old downtown library at a makeshift transportation meeting where many of us (Hot Rod, David, Rob & others) were fascinated about the potential for the Street Cars return to OKC. Remember his ambassadorship for OKC on other forums like Oregon Live (Portland Forest Dragons AFL) & Seattle Times (Supersonics NBA).

Now, JTF does post some positive things; he brings us those thought-provoking questions. His experiences in other places has brought him a new brand of his vision for OKC--definitely understand his position. My parents taught me to weight the good in people.

Appreciate the "posters' hunger" for OKC to catch up with the other cities developmentally, the potential is there. You must realize that our city was growth neglected for so long; it will not be a FedEx overnight moment to preserve, fix & develop Oklahoma City.

They need to spray the new downtown pond for mosquitoes.

They need to spray the new downtown pond for mosquitoes.

For a second I thought you were referring to the Myriad Gardens. XD

Anybody know when we can expect to find out more about this? Are things still happening behind the scenes or is this project pretty much stalled out?

Anybody know when we can expect to find out more about this? Are things still happening behind the scenes or is this project pretty much stalled out?

I'd anticipate that we won't hear anything until the convention center issue is decided. Remember that now they're considering the south parcel as a site for the convention hotel, and it's the expected choice. That really alters ClayCo's position as far as the 4 theoretical towers go. My guess is they try to resolve all of that with one big deal.

I'd anticipate that we won't hear anything until the convention center issue is decided. Remember that now they're considering the south parcel as a site for the convention hotel, and it's the expected choice. That really alters ClayCo's position as far as the 4 theoretical towers go. My guess is they try to resolve all of that with one big deal.

True, but I thought the north parcel was happening independent of the south parcel?

True, but I thought the north parcel was happening independent of the south parcel?

Yeah but I bet this still affects TIF negotiations.

I won't hold your breath to see too much in the way of TIF for the Clayco project, just because they will be under pressure to get the CC project as much additional funding as possible. A deal with both Clayco and REHCO is just a creative vehicle for doing so.

I'd guess that they're going to try to work out one deal that wraps up all of it together. That's at least what I'd do.

Imagine something like this:

North site:
OG&E tower with a small TIF award
Residential tower with a larger TIF
ClayCo parking garage #1

South site:
ClayCo/convention center/convention hotel parking garage #2
ClayCo/Omni Convention Hotel tower mirroring the OG&E design with substantial TIF award (instead of office tower #2)
Possible Future Residential tower #2 if/when/maybe

The whole project would be taken care of in one big stroke.

I think this is very much a case of the powers that be wanting as much TIF money as possible for the convention hotel and parking structure and also trying to figure out how to integrate the hotel with the Clayco development to the north.

I'm still 98% sure the CC and the hotel will go on the REHCO / south Clayco sites.