I think a more accurate assessment is as follows:


OG+E Tower at Stage Center site
MAYBE a second (probably residential) tower on same parcel (would likely demand TIF)
TBD on south parcel, likely new RFP
TBD on REHCO site, no guarantee of high rise
TBD on Cox site

I think it is entirely possible that the Cox site could be targeted for construction of a new arena, though that parcel is large enough to accommodate an arena AND considerable other development. I know the thought of a new arena wouldn't be popular right now, but I think such a movement is likely within the next decade, and Cox will be in use until at least 2020.

The Cox site will be in high demand for most anything; like Urbanized cites, possibly a new arena--then the City retires or downsizes the Peake to complement the convention center-conference hotel complex. The two arenas in the CBD does allow OKC more options; hence why you see so many parking garages now being constructed.

The OG&E substation that Mayor Cornett wanted the city to move at a cost of $30 million now looks like peanuts in comparison to some of the other alternatives. The cost of land in the core has skyrocketed since the original MAPS' rollout. We're on the verge to really cement the developmental stages as a true 'Big League City.'

We are now victims of our own success.

Does the NBA have any requirements for new arenas that the Peake does not meet or cannot be retrofitted with? If not, then there is no need to build a new arena. A lot of people don't understand that the wave of new arena construction in the '90s and '00s was specifically because of new NBA requirements, or because cities wanted to move suburban arenas downtown, and not simply because the previous facilities were aging. The Peake is compliant with current NBA standards and is downtown. Therefore, I don't see the need for a new arena until the NBA requires a feature that the Peake doesn't have and cannot be retrofitted with. Squandering the Cox site on a new arena that isn't necessary, in my opinion, would be a huge failure.

I think the Cox Center site is important to create a mixed use, pedestrian-oriented cohesive urban development that has a real wow factor. I am thinking something along the lines of the 6th St Mall in Denver but more vertical. Imagine that, right across from the Peake and integrated with MBG. In my opinion, the Cox Site is OKC's chance to do right what it did wrong in Lower Bricktown.

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.

That is the kind of hard-hitting analysis we've come to expect from you, Spartan. I don't have the credentials, experience, inside contacts or insight that you do, but I'm going to out on a limb and say that the south half of this parcel will either be developed or it won't.:)

As it stands now it looks pretty certain that at least one tower will be built and that in itself would be a huge improvement over a Stage Center that needed so many repairs and upgrades that it was not economically feasible to repurpose it. As for the rest of the site, I'm willing to have a little patience and wait and see what happens. The market will ultimately decide what is built here and with oil prices low it seems to make sense to wait until prices recover a bit before proceeding.

I think a more accurate assessment is as follows:


OG+E Tower at Stage Center site
MAYBE a second (probably residential) tower on same parcel (would likely demand TIF)
TBD on south parcel, likely new RFP
TBD on REHCO site, no guarantee of high rise
TBD on Cox site

I think it is entirely possible that the Cox site could be targeted for construction of a new arena, though that parcel is large enough to accommodate an arena AND considerable other development. I know the thought of a new arena wouldn't be popular right now, but I think such a movement is likely within the next decade, and Cox will be in use until at least 2020.

If we need a new arena, fine.

Putting it on the Cox site eliminates one of the best possible elements of redeveloping the cox site. A direct line of site and walkable transportation between the entrance to the Intermodal Hub and the Glass tube in the MBG that bisects a sort of town square.

Maybe we can build the arena on top of 4 Towers!!! That way we'd be able to have our cake and eat it to. And we could light up the towers and the support arches and make it a world spectacle…seriously…who else has an Arena in the sky? (99.9% kidding)

Has anyone seen the OG&E substation lately; it looks as though they have already started the move to dismantle it.

I totally agree with Bchris this time (yes, throw me to the fire), there's no reason to even think about replacing the Peake at this moment, we actually didn't even finish retrofiting it like the original plans had stated. I say, we first build in all of the amenities that were cut from the original plan (which WOULD make the Peake for sure a top 5 facility if it isn't one already) and then we keep shelling in and retrofitting it as necessary. The bones of the facility are excellent and I don't see that changing in any NBA model.

What 'could' change is the number and type of suites and possibly their location (say, closer to the floor), that 'could' necessitate a new arena but we could do a Seattle Coliseum-to-Key Arena type of retrofit (where they lowered the floor of the arena then somewhat rebuilt the seats); in which our building would still be far superior to even think about building another. During said retrofit, the team could play temporarily in Norman and/or Tulsa - but again, this would be some 20 years from now and that's IF the NBA model changes suites - anything else could be done without significant down-time of the existing building.

The Peake is in the perfect location to capitalize on downtown NOW and as the city grows up around it. The Building itself has great bones that I don't see the NBA changing. There are still amenities that were scaled back that we could easily add back in without disrupting the NBA schedule; this likely would ensure the Peake remains a top 5 facility. Any other changes to seating or concourse amenities could easily be worked out. Other than an NBA standard for suite requirements/location, I don't see any change to the model that could't be worked in (and even suite changes could be worked into the existing building ala the Seattle Coliseum model, executed far far better in OKC of course).

That is the kind of hard-hitting analysis we've come to expect from you, Spartan. I don't have the credentials, experience, inside contacts or insight that you do, but I'm going to out on a limb and say that the south half of this parcel will either be developed or it won't.:)

As it stands now it looks pretty certain that at least one tower will be built and that in itself would be a huge improvement over a Stage Center that needed so many repairs and upgrades that it was not economically feasible to repurpose it. As for the rest of the site, I'm willing to have a little patience and wait and see what happens. The market will ultimately decide what is built here and with oil prices low it seems to make sense to wait until prices recover a bit before proceeding.

What happens when this 1 small tower is in need of repairs 30-40 years from now?

If that's really why Stage Center met its demise. What I meant by "Either they will build it or they won't" is that clearly OG+E has indicated that they won't build it... But the cult of the "mystery tower" remains amongst us.

What happens when this 1 small tower is in need of repairs 30-40 years from now?

If that's really why Stage Center met its demise. What I meant by "Either they will build it or they won't" is that clearly OG+E has indicated that they won't build it... But the cult of the "mystery tower" remains amongst us.

I think it is pretty safe to assume that it won't be designed by an egomaniac more concerned about his legacy than his building's utility.

I think the development will end up with 2 towers. The OG&E HQ's and one other speculative tower. I feel this is a "reasonable expectation". My perception is that 4 towers is a little "over ambitious" at this time.

Someone is going to build something on the stage center site besides the OG&E building. I think that is pretty much 100%. The question is who and what and when? They want the pyramid effect off the Devon tower so I don't see how anything less than 25-30 stories will have that effect.

The sooner the better and the taller the better IMO. Devon tower is great but it sure makes the skyline look out of balance.

We should have answers very soon.

As I mentioned, they should be submitting the final plans in the next few weeks.

I think it is pretty safe to assume that it won't be designed by an egomaniac more concerned about his legacy than his building's utility.

You must not know very many architects lol...

Someone is going to build something on the stage center site besides the OG&E building. I think that is pretty much 100%. The question is who and what and when? They want the pyramid effect off the Devon tower so I don't see how anything less than 25-30 stories will have that effect.

The sooner the better and the taller the better IMO. Devon tower is great but it sure makes the skyline look out of balance.

Hopefully so. Clayco originally wanted to build two office towers, but I always thought they should just build one and go a little bit taller. Maybe since they aren't developing the south parcel they will go that route?

Regardless, even if they go with a 17 story tower just for OG&E, that will be quite a bait and switch but at least it will be better than Lake Lackmeyer.

I think it is pretty safe to assume that it won't be designed by an egomaniac more concerned about his legacy than his building's utility.

Some of those egomaniacs that do exactly what you describe are geniuses - Frank Lloyd Wright, for one... :)

Some of those egomaniacs that do exactly what you describe are geniuses - Frank Lloyd Wright, for one... :)

Please name me one pf FLW's that wasn't functional. SC was barely functional at the beginning and became less and less so.

Please name me one pf FLW's that wasn't functional. SC was barely functional at the beginning and became less and less so.

Not sure I understand your request. What my reply meant was that FLLW was an egomaniac, a genius, and he was probably more concerned about his legacy than his buildings' utility, and by utility I mean - windows leaked, roofs leaked, the furniture was uncomfortable, etc. His buildings were functional, but that's about it, and some of them barely so, yes, but modifications were sometimes made and things repaired/improved over the years to make them more livable/functional.

Any updates on this?

Steve mentioned in his most recent chat that OG&E and the city were getting close to a deal.

Not sure I understand your request. What my reply meant was that FLLW was an egomaniac, a genius, and he was probably more concerned about his legacy than his buildings' utility, and by utility I mean - windows leaked, roofs leaked, the furniture was uncomfortable, etc. His buildings were functional, but that's about it, and some of them barely so, yes, but modifications were sometimes made and things repaired/improved over the years to make them more livable/functional.

I worked in a FLW building for two years and loved it. There were no serious structural problems and I found it not only functional, but unique. I had floor-to-ceiling windows in my office. It was great.

^^^^^^
Corbin?

Any updates on this?

Steve mentioned in his most recent chat that OG&E and the city were getting close to a deal.

I was told the City is close to presenting something to the City Council for approval.

As in, within the next month or so.

Well, I guess that's good news given where we're at.
Potential bad news is the revisions that have supposedly been made.

Time will tell... It's hard not to speculate that with 499 starting that these guys want to get started too and keep pace.

Well, I guess that's good news given where we're at.
Potential bad news is the revisions that have supposedly been made.

Time will tell... It's hard not to speculate that with 499 starting that these guys want to get started too and keep pace.

Have you heard anything regarding what revisions have taken place?

Have you heard anything regarding what revisions have taken place?

Not aware of any revisions other than regarding the public incentives.

Have you heard anything regarding what revisions have taken place?


Not aware of any revisions other than regarding the public incentives.

Past few pages, I thought part of the new package they're proposing would include potential design revisions. We had a discussion about a few pages back, I thought? One rumor was that we'd see a tower similar to the first proposal.

Here, just so I'm not too crazy. Again, all minor speculative rumors and opinions. Perhaps I was making something out of nothing based upon what I thought I recalled:



One of the big reasons Clayco gave for needing the TIF was that they were planning to build the office tower on top of the parking garage and that was a more expensive proposition than what 499 is doing.

However, they have since changed their plans and only a tiny bit of the parking will be under the office tower.



So I assume it's back to the low rise 10 story building for OG&E. What a waste of prime real estate IMO.



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.



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.

I honestly don't know if they plan any changes to what they had previously proposed but they already have design approval for the office tower and parking garage so they would have to resubmit any changes.

I think at this point, even if they went back to the original Rainey Williams proposal that received a lot of criticism it would still be better than Lake Lackmeyer. Hopefully they build the tower as pictured in the Clayco rendering as that will do a lot to bring some diversity to OKC's skyline.

Either Lake Lackmeyer or Lake OKC Talk... I don't see it as an insult as much of an honor lol.

Rather fond of Rainey Swamp mysself.

I think at this point, even if they went back to the original Rainey Williams proposal that received a lot of criticism it would still be better than Lake Lackmeyer. Hopefully they build the tower as pictured in the Clayco rendering as that will do a lot to bring some diversity to OKC's skyline.

I kind of like the Rainey Swamp sitting there as a stark reminder of what not to do when someone comes to the city with vague plans and promises. I believe I said at the time that an empty piece of land makes us much more willing to settle for something mediocre than an existing iconic landmark. I desperately wanted to be wrong.

Ya, I agree that Rainey Williams should take CREDIT for the lake that exists where Stage Centre once stood. World Class development I might add.

He promised, and delivered.

I'm hearing that the office tower is going to come in around 20 stories (rather than the 25 most recently proposed) and that the residential tower -- which be a later phase after the first building and parking -- would be 22 vs. 26.

Pete, would they have to get design reapproval if they do in fact come in slightly smaller?

Disappointing that this will likely end up scaled down, but anything will be better than what is currently there. This is the exact reason why demolition permits and building permits need to be tied together.

Pete, would they have to get design reapproval if they do in fact come in slightly smaller?

Yes, they would.

Disappointing that this will likely end up scaled down, but anything will be better than what is currently there. This is the exact reason why demolition permits and building permits need to be tied together.

Agreed... not because it was Stage Center but so that we don't have a lake sitting on every open site that has been torn down.

Disappointing that this will likely end up scaled down, but anything will be better than what is currently there. This is the exact reason why demolition permits and building permits need to be tied together.

I would rather have a temporary lake that can be easily developed than a permanent mistake. Build good urbanism or sell to someone that will.

What would be cool is a 10 story apartment/condo building built to the sidewalk and incorporate that pond into a private courtyard.

What would be cool is a 10 story apartment/condo building built to the sidewalk and incorporate that pond into a private courtyard.

Like. It would be cool to make the pond into something that would actually add to the urban fabric. Maybe build the residential tower facing the park and the office tower on the other side with the parking between them on Sheridan with retail at street level.

Regardless, given what will be proposed, there is no reason NOT to have both the office tower and apartment tower facing the park with the parking in the back. Is there any way to petition the DDRC to require this? Doing so would be the matter of a simple land use reconfiguration and there would be no additional expense for the developer.

I would rather have a temporary lake that can be easily developed than a permanent mistake.

Which is what we had before. Luckily, it turned out to not be permanent.

I am still curious what the deal with OG&E is? Like.. do they need new space or not? Have things changed? Downsized? You don't go from needing to have 20+ stories of Spec-A space to not caring suddenly.


Construction was supposed to be underway nearly 6 months ago.

I am still curious what the deal with OG&E is? Like.. do they need new space or not? Have things changed? Downsized? You don't go from needing to have 20+ stories of Spec-A space to not caring suddenly.


Construction was supposed to be underway nearly 6 months ago.

Remember that at first it was just going to be Rainey Williams building for OG&E and the renderings showed a 17-story building.

Then, Clayco got involved and there was going to be about 8 floors of spec office space for other tenants.

Now, it looks like this deal is directly with OG&E (big suprise!) and they will have little to no extra lease space.

Remember that at first it was just going to be Rainey Williams building for OG&E and the renderings showed a 17-story building.

Then, Clayco got involved and there was going to be about 8 floors of spec office space for other tenants.

Now, it looks like this deal is directly with OG&E (big suprise!) and they will have little to no extra lease space.

Surely they can go to Target execs and say, "we'll build you two floors and give you free electricity"! That'd be a win win for everyone...except OGE, lol.

No kidding. Why downsize it when I thought it was supposed to have a few floors of retail with office above?

big disappointment, as I was hoping they'd increase the floor count and heights to mitigate the south block not being built.

I would rather have a temporary lake that can be easily developed than a permanent mistake. Build good urbanism or sell to someone that will.

What would be cool is a 10 story apartment/condo building built to the sidewalk and incorporate that pond into a private courtyard.

Kerry, I HAVE to disagree with you on this (and I often agree with you, at least in principle). Your idea above doesn't make any sense to me in a downtown core/urbanism environment such as Stage Center/CBD expansion area. Seriously, you want to keep the pond as a private courtyard for a 10 story apartment building? That just screams NW Expressway suburban 'highrise' elitism to me and I'm shocked to hear this proposal idea from you.

I would think you'd say you want a 10 story apartment block (or multiple buildings) fronting Hudson to the sidewalk, with parking below, a retail courtyard above parking where the lake exists today, and higher rise(s) office along and fronting Sheridan and Walker streets; a much higher density version of Edge but with office on the other side. Were you having an off night or do you care to explain how your idea would fit in a CBD expansion area (particularly when a larger pond and public amenities already exists in the TRUE world-class park on the other side of Hudson)?

Friendly public-service announcement: You all pretty much cheered on the Stage Center's demolition.

Friendly public-service announcement: You all pretty much cheered on the Stage Center's demolition.

Not all of us, Spartan. :)

Not all of us, Spartan. :)

Agreed. They built the township on Coney Island for the orchard fields.

Agreed. They built the township on Coney Island for the orchard fields.

Sleep, Plupan. LOL

They are coring on south side of the block. Anyone know why?

They are coring on south side of the block. Anyone know why?

better bump the mystery tower thread!!!11!

!!!!!!!!!11!11111!!!!!!!!!!!

Clayco defaulted on the terms of the agreement that named them as conditional redeveloper for that parcel.

So, they either need to get an extension from OCURA (which has not happened) or a new redeveloper would have to be found through a similar RFP process.


Or I should say, those are the only two things that should happen and should also being taking place in public meetings with formal notice given.

Kerry, I HAVE to disagree with you on this (and I often agree with you, at least in principle). Your idea above doesn't make any sense to me in a downtown core/urbanism environment such as Stage Center/CBD expansion area.

I think if I took the time to fully explain what I envision you would agree with me.

I just think your idea could work better at many different areas near the inner-outer boundary of the city, not at the designated CBD-expansion area.

I think if I took the time to fully explain what I envision you would agree with me.

For some reason I read this in Donald Trump's voice. Lol. Sounds like his vague, "Trust me, you'll really, really like what I will do. You'll really agree with me. I am really successful and classy..." responses.

For some reason I read this in Donald Trump's voice. Lol. Sounds like his vague, "Trust me, you'll really, really like what I will do. You'll really agree with me. I am really successful and classy..." responses.

I'm going to start reading all of JTF's posts in trumps voice.

"We're gonna build a big beautiful airport in okc. It's gonna be the pride of okc and a shimmering signal of hope for all. We'll make Texas pay for it as well, it's time to make Oklahoma great again."

OMG. This is too funny.

I'm going to start reading all of JTF's posts in trumps voice.

"We're gonna build a big beautiful airport in okc. It's gonna be the pride of okc and a shimmering signal of hope for all. We'll make Texas pay for it as well, it's time to make Oklahoma great again."

A HUGE airport, with direct flights to CHINA.

A HUGE airport, with direct flights to CHINA.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDrfE9I8_hs

I parked last night over between Rex Elementary and the old SC site. It's been a few weeks since I've parked there and it seem like I saw a bunch of new stakes and utility flags along the western boundary of the SC site all the way to the side walk. Is this something that's happened recently ?