It wouldn't be Class A office space. That said, just about every single city but OKC is developing high-rise apartments now.

Interesting. I hadn't heard about that in Hobart yet.

If I'm not mistaken, the jump between four and five floors differentiates between stick-built and steel or concrete. Fire safety is largely the issue. The cost differential is substantial and results in a ceiling that is hard to jump across.

Curious. Why do you think that is? Besides the current economy, OKC's downtown housing market seems robust. Does it have to do with our large glut of empty lots and lack of continuous density? Roght now, it seems building up past 5 stories isn't yet thr standard. Or maybe developers are keeping eye on the current stock of under construction apartments to see how the market fares once they're all completed? What do you think? How do we compare to the other cities building highrise housing.

I do think the preponderance of parking, vacant, or otherwise untilized lots (entire blocks or superblocks-in-waiting, even) is a huge factor. Our stubbornness to retain these is an even bigger factor.

However, I don't know. Part of me just thinks developers in OKC simply aren't aggressive or bullish enough. There's a big void that someone with financial backing could step into. I read Lackmeyer's recent article (two months ago?) that some developers including Richard McKown, possibly downtown's most visionary developer, were concerned by the current "fast" pace of development. Even expressing concern at the prospect of well-funded national developers becoming involved.

I don't actually understand why OKC can't make this work. Some dude pitched the Bricktown Towers proposal and we laughed him out of town. High-rise towers are becoming an established development category in cities like Dallas, Houston, Austin, Kansas City, St. Louis, Louisville, Indianapolis, Cleveland, Columbus, Pittsburgh, Minneapolis, Des Moines, Nashville, New Orleans, Little Rock, Youngstown (albeit all historic restoration), Phoenix/Tempe (Valley Metro route), Denver, Portland, Charlotte, Providence, Milwaukee, Grand Rapids, suburban Detroit, and who knows where else. That's just among cities that "you wouldn't expect." All of these cities (idk about Prov and Mil, but fuzzy recollection says yes) are doing new high-rise apartments. Apartments are commonly spec. Sometimes for-sale units can provide a nice boost of equity to get the project off the ground, and a partial mix should be easier to meet pre-sale targets.

Then there are your "usual suspects" for skyscraper development; I was in Toronto two weeks ago, and their current building boom has to be at least 100 new high-rises, many between 700-1000 feet tall. There were so many going up that I'm thinking a lot of speculative lending was involved. You can tell that as a proven urban market, it's become a huge target for banks looking to get equity out the door ASAP.

OKC is unique for downplaying the feasibility of high-rise development. The city has also become a place where only special interests (oil companies, their banks, their lawyers, their hedge funds, etc) have the ability to tap into this kind of development. That's really not even the fault of the Chamber junta. Downtown development has been mystified ever since they discovered oil here.

The only point I'm making is that for lack of true private, mixed-use (how else can I say a non-oil project?) towers, OKC is missing out on riding the current economic wave. This wave of economic expansion will pass and OKC likely will rebound locally, but national banks won't be as exuberant either. It's a bad time for private sector downtown development to slow down by this much.

Downtown OKC still has so much vacant land there probably isn't as much pressure to go vertical as there is in other cities. It does make me angry though when people act like OKC isn't ready for high-rise residential when similar-sized and smaller markets are getting lots of it.

One thing that really hurts OKC is A) not a lot of out of state developers with big pockets are invested here and B) the local economy is out of sync with the national economy. Right now is a great time for the national economy but low crude oil prices will likely put a damper on what banks will finance here. Of course crude will go up and the local economy will improve but it might come at a time when the national economy is struggling, so banks won't be able to finance what they would otherwise be able to. OKC gets stuck in a lose-lose situation.

I've wondered if the Novare Group has considered Oklahoma City for one of their "Skyhouse" residential towers. They are popping up everywhere. In fact, they just recently opened in Raleigh.
Current Skyhouse Development by Novare Group




(http://novaregroup.com/current-developments/)

One thing that I feel is probably holding CBD residential back is the availability of all that low-rise apartment/townhouse space down the street in Deep Deuce. Why go through the hassle of building a tower if you can plop suburban style crap downtown and still turn a dollar? And why live in a tower when you can live in a suburban style apartment, right downtown?

One thing that I feel is probably holding CBD residential back is the availability of all that low-rise apartment/townhouse space down the street in Deep Deuce. Why go through the hassle of building a tower if you can plop suburban style crap downtown and still turn a dollar? And why live in a tower when you can live in a suburban style apartment, right downtown?

New towers are generally more expensive and draw a different demographic than the ones popping up all over downtown. The question is whether there is a market that will pay the price. OKC has not had a big history of hi-rise living and banks get nervous financing things that are unproven and expensive to build.

Generally, towers can offer better security with access centralized and controlled in a single area. Views are generally better in higher level apartments. There are other amenities for a tower that would be attractive for those that can afford it. Generally, the market you describe is different than the hi-rise resident so they don't necessarily compete.

The option is to do a cheap tower with lower priced housing competing in the same market as those currently getting built, but then everyone would complain that is was a crappy building.

I'd say there are several reasons we haven't got much high rise residential yet.

--We started from scratch. OKC didn't really have much in the way of urban amenities or an urban population even 10 years ago.
--We had a ton of empty lots. 4-5 story residential is cheaper to build. You only go higher than that once you've got less empty space.
--People are still feeling out the market. There's a lot of new residential coming online within the next year. They want to see how stable rental rates are.
--The market crash in '08 stalled a lot of development. Current low oil prices make people cautious as well.
--Normal OKC developers have no real experience with high rise development. It is unfamiliar territory for them.

As a result, OKC is lagging behind other cities in high rise residential. I think once it gets going, we'll see a real boom. But that's not going to happen without either a lot of public funding or somebody taking a risk on us. Nobody is going to take a risk until they see how 1) we absorb all the new housing that is opening, and 2) how the oil market goes. Personally I think local developers still have at least one more round of LEVEL-type apartment development to eat up a bunch of empty parking lots out there, before they will want to take a risk with high rise development. The good news of that is, right now I think we're growing a very healthy downtown. These developments aren't big gambles, it's good growth, and we're getting a massive improvement in street life. Obviously I want more skyscrapers, but the fact that it is taking longer to get them should not be that surprising.

You have to have a decent population not only within the entire city and metro, but within downtown and people wanting to live downtown.
OKC is a mid-sized city population speaking, how many of it's peers have multiple high rise residential towers now, and how many have been built within the last few years + ones that are planned now?

I feel population is the one key factor we are missing in this discussion. Developers aren't going to build a bunch of high rise towers if the population and demographics aren't there.

I'd say there are several reasons we haven't got much high rise residential yet.

--We started from scratch. OKC didn't really have much in the way of urban amenities or an urban population even 10 years ago.
--We had a ton of empty lots. 4-5 story residential is cheaper to build. You only go higher than that once you've got less empty space.
--People are still feeling out the market. There's a lot of new residential coming online within the next year. They want to see how stable rental rates are.
--The market crash in '08 stalled a lot of development. Current low oil prices make people cautious as well.
--Normal OKC developers have no real experience with high rise development. It is unfamiliar territory for them.

As a result, OKC is lagging behind other cities in high rise residential. I think once it gets going, we'll see a real boom. But that's not going to happen without either a lot of public funding or somebody taking a risk on us. Nobody is going to take a risk until they see how 1) we absorb all the new housing that is opening, and 2) how the oil market goes. Personally I think local developers still have at least one more round of LEVEL-type apartment development to eat up a bunch of empty parking lots out there, before they will want to take a risk with high rise development. The good news of that is, right now I think we're growing a very healthy downtown. These developments aren't big gambles, it's good growth, and we're getting a massive improvement in street life. Obviously I want more skyscrapers, but the fact that it is taking longer to get them should not be that surprising.

This.

Once some of these parking lots and empty space gets absorbed and developed, I wouldn't be surprised to see developers start going more vertical. Thinking about Charlotte, most of their downtown is already built out with Deep Deuce style development, so there is a lot more pressure to maximize usage on the remaining empty lots so that is why you are seeing so much high-rise being built. It's also a tested market.

I think a lot of people do underestimate what OKC is capable of supporting. I get frustrated when people like Steve of all people say things like being worried about the market's ability to absorb the housing currently under construction.

You have to have a decent population not only within the entire city and metro, but within downtown and people wanting to live downtown.
OKC is a mid-sized city population speaking, how many of it's peers have multiple high rise residential towers now, and how many have been built within the last few years + ones that are planned now?

I feel population is the one key factor we are missing in this discussion. Developers aren't going to build a bunch of high rise towers if the population and demographics aren't there.

This is an entirely different discussion, but OKC needs more warm bodies downtown than about anything else right now. This is very evident if you spend a lot of time in downtown's bars and restaurants on Sunday-Tuesday nights when fewer people from the burbs are driving in.

One thing that I feel is probably holding CBD residential back is the availability of all that low-rise apartment/townhouse space down the street in Deep Deuce. Why go through the hassle of building a tower if you can plop suburban style crap downtown and still turn a dollar? And why live in a tower when you can live in a suburban style apartment, right downtown?

Low rise does not equal suburban and high rise does not equal urban. Deep Deuce to Midtown is beginning to feel more urban than the CBD. High rises are not needed to create an urban environment and low rises does not impede creating one.

So should we just remain this thread "Mystery tower discussion"?

The last 3 pages of posts are all constructed this way.

So should we just remain this thread "Mystery tower discussion"?

The last 3 pages of posts are all constructed this way.

http://sd.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk/i/keep-calm-and-tower-on-9.png

You have to have a decent population not only within the entire city and metro, but within downtown and people wanting to live downtown.
OKC is a mid-sized city population speaking, how many of it's peers have multiple high rise residential towers now, and how many have been built within the last few years + ones that are planned now?

I feel population is the one key factor we are missing in this discussion. Developers aren't going to build a bunch of high rise towers if the population and demographics aren't there.


This argument made sense 5 or 10 years ago. But the demand downtown now is a totally different animal from then. I think the demand is there, there is just no developer (money) to jump in first. Right now we have multiple developers sitting on the edge with their feet in the water, but no one has gone for the cannonball. Once we get that first big splash, I honestly think we will see more jumping in.

For example, literally down the street from here we have (so far) 24 of the 34 units @ the Civic already pre-bought at prices that are pretty much all $240/sq.ft. or more. It is actually mind blowing to me. Add in the fact that the location of the Civic isn't nearly as prime as say somewhere closer to BT or DD, you have impressive demand for downtown purchase-housing.

This argument made sense 5 or 10 years ago. But the demand downtown now is a totally different animal from then. I think the demand is there, there is just no developer (money) to jump in first. Right now we have multiple developers sitting on the edge with their feet in the water, but no one has gone for the cannonball. Once we get that first big splash, I honestly think we will see more jumping in.

For example, literally down the street from here we have (so far) 24 of the 34 units @ the Civic already pre-bought at prices that are pretty much all $240/sq.ft. or more. It is actually mind blowing to me. Add in the fact that the location of the Civic isn't nearly as prime as say somewhere closer to BT or DD, you have impressive demand for downtown purchase-housing.

Honestly, this project was going to be the first big splash, in my opinion. Two 26 story residential towers adjacent to a corporate HQ and potential hotel. And this is falling apart, unfortunately.

I think most developers are still filling in and feeling out via the smaller, but very decent and dense housing projects over in Deep Deuce, AA, etc. As bchris said, downtown OKC needs more bodies, but I think most developers are still lukewarm to going all in with a high rise. Of course, that was besides this project, but as stated, it's dying rather quickly.

I still think we're on the right track, the neighborhoods and districts will start fleshing together entirely over the next 5-10 years and the necessity to go up will come about.

You have to have a decent population not only within the entire city and metro, but within downtown and people wanting to live downtown.
OKC is a mid-sized city population speaking, how many of it's peers have multiple high rise residential towers now, and how many have been built within the last few years + ones that are planned now?

I feel population is the one key factor we are missing in this discussion. Developers aren't going to build a bunch of high rise towers if the population and demographics aren't there.

No. You didn't read my post.

Dallas, Houston, Austin, Kansas City, St. Louis, Louisville, Indianapolis, Cleveland, Columbus, Pittsburgh, Minneapolis, Des Moines, Nashville, New Orleans, Little Rock, Youngstown (albeit all historic restoration), Phoenix/Tempe (Valley Metro route), Denver, Portland, Charlotte, Providence, Milwaukee, Grand Rapids, suburban Detroit, and who knows where else. That's just among cities that "you wouldn't expect."

It was pointed out by someone else that Raleigh also belongs on this list. I also forgot Salt Lake.

This isn't just LA, but also Louisville, Lexington, and Little Rock. The country is in the midst of a high rise boom that is missing OKC.

No. You didn't read my post.

Dallas, Houston, Austin, Kansas City, St. Louis, Louisville, Indianapolis, Cleveland, Columbus, Pittsburgh, Minneapolis, Des Moines, Nashville, New Orleans, Little Rock, Youngstown (albeit all historic restoration), Phoenix/Tempe (Valley Metro route), Denver, Portland, Charlotte, Providence, Milwaukee, Grand Rapids, suburban Detroit, and who knows where else. That's just among cities that "you wouldn't expect."

It was pointed out by someone else that Raleigh also belongs on this list. I also forgot Salt Lake.

This isn't just LA, but also Louisville, Lexington, and Little Rock. The country is in the midst of a high rise boom that is missing OKC.

Probably a dumb question but I don't get back to OKC very often, has anything been built over 10 stories since Devon? I'm sure something has but nothing is coming to mind.

Is the Parkside Building over 10 stories? That is the only thing that has been built in the CBD since Devon. Everything else has been smaller infill projects, which OKC still needs lots of given the fact there is still so much empty space in the core.

Spartan, TU 'cane, and Anonymous are all correct. Right now the nation is in the midst of a high-rise boom and OKC is missing out on it. There are several reasons but I think the biggest ones are the amount of empty space available for low-rise development and the fact that urban living in its entirety is still a very new thing in OKC and banks are being cautious about financing that first big splash into the untested market that is luxury high-rise living.

OKC is also far from being the only city in which urban living is new.

The rags-to-riches story basically describes every downtown from the 1970s to now.

OKC is also far from being the only city in which urban living is new.

The rags-to-riches story basically describes every downtown from the 1970s to now.

Not sure I completely agree. First, not many downtowns were in as dire of a situation was OKC was pre-MAPS. While urban renewal wasn't unique to OKC, few cities destroyed as much of their urban fabric as this city did. The city started without much to work with and is essence building a downtown from scratch. Secondly, though MAPS was passed in 1993, the ball didn't really get rolling on development until after the arrival of the new millennium and the first wave of development in Bricktown was suburban in style and not on the level of what other cities were building at the same time. OKC has only been really serious about urban development for the past decade and most of the housing currently available downtown came online only within the past 5-7 years. At current growth rates, I would say OKC needs another 5-10 years before there starts to be more pressure to go vertical unless somebody wants to take a risk and go all in. If oil surges and growth picks up, it can get there faster.

Pete, how much longer is this going to drag on before we hear something one way or the other?

Pete, how much longer is this going to drag on before we hear something one way or the other?

I was actually going to revive this thread this morning but decided against it.

Last we heard, some "progress" was being made in the discussions, correct?
Have we heard anything since? Has the demolition across the street sparked any fervor to get this project going sooner? Are we to expect any serious revisions?

Knowing anything would be great at this point, considering we've had a shallow pond and construction fence sitting around the site for months now. Reflecting the sentiment on this thread, I know I'd be thrilled to see dueling cranes right across the street from each other.

I was going to post this in the convention center thread but decided to post it here. With the south parcel now being officially dead, is the city any closer to a deal on the north parcel?

All I know is the City is now negotiating directly with OG&E instead of Clayco.

I suspect the influence of Pete Delaney -- former head of the Chamber and big-time local power broker -- is being brought to bear.

Well if this project isn't a bait and switch.

Draw some pretty pictures of three towers, get everyone's hopes up. Now we'll be lucky to see one of those towers.

All that was ever relatively certain was the OG&E tower. The apartment building on the north parcel was always very iffy and the south parcel was always pie in the sky.

I'd like to see the city use the south parcel for the convention center, and then work a deal with ClayCo/OG&E to put a parking garage and 3 towers on the north parcel. We could have OG&E HQ, a residential tower, and a convention hotel. Have the 3 towers and the convention center use similar architectural elements and it would all look great.

A sort of a convention district. I like it if this location must be, but still prefer the E Central Park sites.

With the convention center site now wrapped up, do you see this start to progress, especially since OGE is now the one doing the negotiation?

I think everything else can now start to move forward again.

There was a lot in limbo until this decision was made.

Is nobody else disappointed that the CC project can hold up so much development in downtown?

We could have just picked this site at the very first since it was the one suggested by the mayor at the outset.

It seems like everyone on here wanted the cc delayed to be the last thing Maps addressed...well, we got the wish.

They did take their time, but I believe they gave it due diligence. It did hold up any possible land transactions for a short time in the four areas, but I don't think it hurt any development in the long run IMO. There is good and bad in each of the choices, time will tell. It will clean up the blighted area By Shields.

The oddest thing to me about the whole site selection process is how wrong the city was in thinking that Rehco would sale them their property at a price the city could afford.
You would certainly think that Nichols, Howard and others involved would have had discussions about it prior to that site being selected. A lot of time and money was wasted because of the apparent misunderstanding and miscommunication between the parties involved.

it's going to be very interesting to see what Rehco does with their "100 million dollar" piece of property now and how long it sets empty...

it also wasted a lot of money because the city paid for 'studies' from consultants and also the lost time and marginal revenue from proposed towers and future proposals.

Sure many of us wanted the cc to be last, but that was mainly because in the original MAPS 3 docket the cc was pitched as opening last, after all the other projects. Some certain somebody with a name beginning with N like a certain inner suburb's name, got behind the cc committee and wanted it first, and he wanted it in the REHCO lands, and he wanted other projects to defer. Well, luckily the civic process proves larger than one person with a big building and the original location pitched in MAPS 3 (also the mayor's preferred site under the C2S master plan) has been approved by the civic voted city council - but we surely paid the price on all ends.

Hopefully we learn from those lessons and don't allow one person or a system of closed door people to dictate civic process in future projects. To me, the only saving grace is that hopefully with the due process the city has a better design for the cc and its environs.

Also, as was said - the streetcar committee has already provided a route, if there are changes to have it abut the cc then those dollars for the rail extension or movement should come from the CC budget or a funding source (such as bonds) other than the MAPS 3 streetcar budget.

Just learned some new, pretty solid info on this project...

1. Clayco is completely out on the south parcel. Will probably be put back out to RFP in the near future.
2. A new proposal will soon be submitted to the various bodies and then ultimately for approval by City Council. Should be coming in the next 2-3 weeks.
3. The proposal will be for two new towers and a parking structure -- pretty much the plans we've seen.
4. The office building for OG&E will be built first but the status of the apartment tower is less firm. I suspect they will ask for TIF for those projects separately and (hopefully) build the apartments at a later date.

Just learned some new, pretty solid info on this project...

1. Clayco is completely out on the south parcel. Will probably be put back out to RFP in the near future.
2. A new proposal will soon be submitted to the various bodies and then ultimately for approval by City Council. Should be coming in the next 2-3 weeks.
3. The proposal will be for two new towers and a parking structure -- pretty much the plans we've seen.
4. The office building for OG&E will be built first but the status of the apartment tower is less firm. I suspect they will ask for TIF for those projects separately and (hopefully) build the apartments at a later date.

Good to hear. I am excited to see this finally starting to move forward again.

I am really hoping the south parcel ends up being developed into housing, similar to what Milhaus proposed. Like many of us here, I was wooed by the pretty renderings Clayco put out but when it comes to urban design and complementing the park, the Milhaus proposal would have been a slam dunk.

If given enough time, I think you'd see lots of great proposals for that south parcel.

Milhaus could easily partner with others to do a mixed use project and there were lots of others interested that just didn't have time to put together a meaningful proposal.

If given enough time, I think you'd see lots of great proposals for that south parcel.

Milhaus could easily partner with others to do a mixed use project and there were lots of others interested that just didn't have time to put together a meaningful proposal.

The second statement is what really excites me. The last RFP was so hurried - this time when it's not as hurried we'll get to really see who's interested and what they propose.

Any idea how big of towers we're looking at for OG&E and the apartment building?

Any idea how big of towers we're looking at for OG&E and the apartment building?

Let's not start this again :)

LOL, I'm just curious and anxious

Just hope and pray they are not less than 25 stories. They are going for the pyramid effect off the Devon tower from what I have heard but anything less than 25 stories just will not give that. In fact, they really should go for 30-35 stories but we all know that isn't gonna happen. 3-4 towers between 25-30 stories would be just fine IMO.

Then if we could get a few more (25-35) towers on the RHECO site the skyline might start looking like a real mid sized city should. Then go for the gold with a SuperTall and a 40 story at the Cox site and throw in several mid-tall towers at the cotton seed site and we enter the big leagues of skylines.

I would say this is not so far fetched within 20 years.

I assume the design will be as previously shown.

Just learned some new, pretty solid info on this project...

1. Clayco is completely out on the south parcel. Will probably be put back out to RFP in the near future.
2. A new proposal will soon be submitted to the various bodies and then ultimately for approval by City Council. Should be coming in the next 2-3 weeks.
3. The proposal will be for two new towers and a parking structure -- pretty much the plans we've seen.
4. The office building for OG&E will be built first but the status of the apartment tower is less firm. I suspect they will ask for TIF for those projects separately and (hopefully) build the apartments at a later date.

Is the apartment tower separate from the two towers mentioned in #3?

Is the apartment tower separate from the two towers mentioned in #3?

No.

Just learned some new, pretty solid info on this project...

1. Clayco is completely out on the south parcel. Will probably be put back out to RFP in the near future.
2. A new proposal will soon be submitted to the various bodies and then ultimately for approval by City Council. Should be coming in the next 2-3 weeks.
3. The proposal will be for two new towers and a parking structure -- pretty much the plans we've seen.
4. The office building for OG&E will be built first but the status of the apartment tower is less firm. I suspect they will ask for TIF for those projects separately and (hopefully) build the apartments at a later date.

Thank you very much for the update Pete.

So a new proposal could be a formality to simply re-introduce the project, or it could contain revisions, small or large.
I wonder how this will impact the first tower? I assume if they are confident the market will turn around and they can make money by the time the second tower is completed, otherwise, they may just go all in on the first.

I think most of us really only care about this single tower rising, if anything to at least feel something of value added where Stage Center was torn down.

How long ago was Stage Center torn down? For some reason I feel like its been a full 2 years.

TIF for the apartment tower I think is more then fair as it is the first residential high rise and would provide comps for future towers. Helps break the ice

I think they are going to ask for TIF for the parking garage and the apartment tower.

I believe the design will be much like what was proposed, but the apartment tower has always been a bit nebulous, probably on purpose.

I think they are going to ask for TIF for the parking garage and the apartment tower.

I believe the design will be much like what was proposed, but the apartment tower has always been a bit nebulous, probably on purpose.

Are they going to be apartments or will there be some condos to buy as well? Or unknown at this point?

I think most of us really only care about this single tower rising, if anything to at least feel something of value added where Stage Center was torn down.

I certainly don't feel this way. I want to see two towers on this site.

The apt tower probably isn't happening. Either they will do it or not. We tore down Stage Center, a unique landmark, for developers to sit on the site.

Total indictment on the sophistication level of our downtown development practices.

The apt tower probably isn't happening. Either they will do it or not. We tore down Stage Center, a unique landmark, for developers to sit on the site.

Total indictment on the sophistication level of our downtown development practices.


One would think of the word "SCAMMED" if you just came along and read about this.

I think this will start to move forward...

Should see an agreement reached soon, then they should be under construction not long after.

I have a friend that works with OG&E and he said that they only want to build a 17 story tower.
I'm not sure if this is true or not, but that would be extremely disappointing.
Especially compared to the initial Clayco plans of 4 towers.

17 floors is what they planned to take in the proposed tower, then there would be 9 floors of spec space.

One would think of the word "SCAMMED" if you just came along and read about this.

Is there any reason to think this entire thing wouldn't happen again tomorrow under the same circumstances?

so this is good news, we still get the OGE tower and two towers on the s parcel AND we get the REHCO lands properly developed. Just think, in 5 years we could have MGB surrounded with high rises on 3 sides. 5-10 years after that with the removal of Cox Convention Center, we could tower the other face and then have a proper urban oasis surrounded by towers. ..

Wow, amazing but totally the best move for Oklahoma City!