Which building is the tower crane going to be for?

The Hotel.

I'm amazed how fast the construction is taking off!

Crane is up!
17870

I was slightly surprised going home the other night that the crane was visible from south of I-44.

I was slightly surprised going home the other night that the crane was visible from south of I-44.

This area is somewhat of a high point; from here south there is a gradual slope.

The four rows of columns (last photo) are for the parking garage.

This project is changing almost daily now.

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/oak021923a.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/oak021923b.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/oak021923c.jpg

I can't remember, is this project getting any kind of subsidies?

I can't remember, is this project getting any kind of subsidies?

No.

They asked but the city declined.

No.

They asked but the city declined.

Wow. That's unfortunate. This is exactly the kind of game-changing retail investment that will raise OKC's profile and quality of life.

I remember when we handed out money to Bass Pro Shops, lol. NOT a game changer and clearly never would be.

Unless you are a big-box retailer, an employer or are in/near downtown, the city isn't interested.

Even Uptown was turned down when they wanted help building a parking structure.

Wow. That's unfortunate. This is exactly the kind of game-changing retail investment that will raise OKC's profile and quality of life.

I remember when we handed out money to Bass Pro Shops, lol. NOT a game changer and clearly never would be.

Why is it unfortunate? Incentives should be used for projects that aren't viable without them. The fact that this IS viable without incentives is a pretty good sign for OKC.

BassPro got incentives because Clay Bennett was involved with Bass Pro thru Gaylord Entertainment at the time.

Why is it unfortunate? Incentives should be used for projects that aren't viable without them. The fact that this IS viable without incentives is a pretty good sign for OKC.

BassPro got incentives because Clay Bennett was involved with Bass Pro thru Gaylord Entertainment at the time.

Also speaks to how vibrant this particular area is. The idea Strawberry Fields could need significant subsidies and this project is on its own speaks very highly to the value of the area from Founders to Penn Square to Belle Isle/Classen Curve to Nichols Hills Plaza.

\
BassPro got incentives because Clay Bennett was involved with Bass Pro thru Gaylord Entertainment at the time.

link?

link?

Not to go too far into the ditch ,but, I kinda recall it was the Gaylords were opposed to Bass Pro because they had an ownership position in Academy Sports & Outdoors?

Not to go too far into the ditch ,but, I kinda recall it was the Gaylords were opposed to Bass Pro because they had an ownership position in Academy Sports & Outdoors?

The Gaylords (Bennett's wife) owned 33% of Bass Pro through Gaylord Entertainment. They sold the final 13% in 2007.

https://www.nashvillepost.com/business/finance/gaylord-cuts-bait-with-bass-pro/article_6c5754db-e1b7-5ea1-9ac1-896b32bda52c.html#:~:text=Gaylord%20is%20selling%2 0its%20stake,with%20the%20Grand%20Ole%20Opry.

For full disclosure I can't verify they owned 33% at one time, but they certainly owned 13%.

Pete what do you estimate the altitude your drone is at when you take typical pictures like these? And does anyone ever question what you are doing?

The Gaylords (Bennett's wife) owned 33% of Bass Pro through Gaylord Entertainment. They sold the final 13% in 2007.

https://www.nashvillepost.com/business/finance/gaylord-cuts-bait-with-bass-pro/article_6c5754db-e1b7-5ea1-9ac1-896b32bda52c.html#:~:text=Gaylord%20is%20selling%2 0its%20stake,with%20the%20Grand%20Ole%20Opry.

So for a guy named "Just the Facts" you infer a lot and try to stretch things that aren't factually and directly connected. Nowhere does that say they got incentives because Bennett's wife owned Bass Pro...you are implying something, and it is going directly against your username. Please change it, or find some actual facts to support your claim ��

I would argue that 50th and Penn is near downtown. It is smack dab in the middle of the inner city and it is the city's most important retail destination.

As to JTF's point, I agree that this is financially viable. But, could it have been kickstarted sooner with incentives? Could there have been more added to the development with incentives? We don't know that.

My point was that this particular development is going to be raising the retail profile of the city, making it an even more important retail destination. And, making OKC a better place to live for prospective transplants. The lack of amenities like this in the past cost OKC corporate relocations. For those reasons, this would seem to be a great candidate for that kind of investment from the city.

It's funny after 30 years and billions in public and private investment, downtown is still the only place where incentives are "needed".

IMO, it's a simple case of creating a huge pot of money through TIF's, setting a precedent by giving dozens of developments free money, and then the entire thing becoming an endless circle.

It's funny after 30 years and billions in public and private investment downtown is still the only place where incentives are "needed".

IMO, it's a simple case of creating a huge pot of money through TIF's, setting a precedent by giving dozens of developments free money, and then the entire thing becoming an endless circle.

Bass Pro was among the first recipients. I remember reading the articles about the city largesse at the time and shaking my head. Remember, the argument for the incentive then was to "kick start" retail in Bricktown. A large boat and tackle shop was going to "kick start" retail?

The city has better people working in retail development now and the Chamber is much more sophisticated than it used to be. But, few people who understood retail believed Bass Pro would kick start anything.

Bass Pro was among the first recipients. I remember reading the articles about the city largesse at the time and shaking my head. Remember, the argument for the incentive then was to "kick start" retail in Bricktown. A large boat and tackle shop was going to "kick start" retail?

The city has better people working in retail development now and the Chamber is much more sophisticated than it used to be. But, few people who understood retail believed Bass Pro would kick start anything.

The Bass Pro deal even went to the State Supreme Court because MAPS dollars were spent on it. It not that Bass Pro wasn't a good idea, it was just executed poorly. Bass Pro should have directly fronted the canal and not separated from it by a large parking lot.

Looking the OAK site plan, developers have clearly gotten better at that aspect.

The Bass Pro deal even went to the State Supreme Court because MAPS dollars were spent on it. It not that Bass Pro wasn't a good idea, it was just executed poorly. Bass Pro should have directly fronted the canal and not separated from it by a large parking lot.

Looking the OAK site plan, developers have clearly gotten batter at that aspect.

The planning aspect of the Oak for the Penn Square Mall area will attract more people to the area which will benefit all.

It not that Bass Pro wasn't a good idea, it was just executed poorly.

Gonna have to disagree with you there. Bass Pro was not the type of retail investment to spur other retail to follow. It was a one and done.

It does not draw the type of high-end shopper that other retailers covet. As a result, it did not serve as a retail driver to Bricktown. It drew its own crowd and that's it.

It would have been more appropriate to locate it elsewhere in the metro.

Why is it unfortunate? Incentives should be used for projects that aren't viable without them. The fact that this IS viable without incentives is a pretty good sign for OKC.

BassPro got incentives because Clay Bennett was involved with Bass Pro thru Gaylord Entertainment at the time.
Because it shows favoritism. I actually agree with you in theory but the fact the city gives some out and not others is bullsh!t.

Did OAK ask for incentives?

Did OAK ask for incentives?

Yes.

Maybe this shows the city is getting better at its discretion for projects and whether they need TIF or not to succeed. The fact that OAK asked is only par for the course, since as Pete mentioned, this is what everybody does. The fact that the city denied them COULD be an indicator that the city believed the project didn't need TIF to be built and therefore didn't get any.

Downtown, has yes, received LOTS of TIF but I still believe NONE of it would be there without it. Could the city do better, YES! The city could demand better development downtown in return for TIF. Hopefully, the Dream project is a game changer not only adding upscale urban density to the city center but now the city can be even more demanding with TIF (such as demanding sidewalks, landscaping, and lighting in the urban core for every project, underground parking for CBD and shoulder projects if they have parking, height standards for the various zone areas, etc), as opposed to TIF just being part of the financing for a downtown project's bottom line. TIF should add/enable, no longer should seed (that's Urban Renewal's job).

Anyway, I hope TIF is approved because this will benefit the city and there likely will be the need to move/reconstruct city utilities to build the underground garage. This IS the type of development we need TIF so that it is fully executed; and given the existing downtown TIF expires in 2026 and TIF itself only returns the added value (not the full), I support continued use for downtown until a certain density is reached (then we tighten it further, and so on).

Back to OAK, didn't the city have to pay to move utilities in order for the street reconfiguration? It may not be TIF but the city did appear to contribute rather than the developer doing all of this on its own.

Because it shows favoritism. I actually agree with you in theory but the fact the city gives some out and not others is bullsh!t.

But what about all of the well established locally owned businesses that never received the benefit of socialized risk that are forced to compete against "incentivized" new comers?

Favoritism is an inherent facet of an interventionalist economic system. Surly, there has to be some parameters in place, or, at least, there should be. There definitely is an arbitrary element to all of it, but it seems it was decided a while ago that it was the only way we could attract expansion of national or regional entities to the market, It was felt that investing in ourselves wasn't enough and that we had to publicly assist the businesses. That was largely a result of a perceived weakness in the market and I don't remember anyone arguing that it should be universal and in perpetuity. I'm not sure why that should be the case and would be surprised if that position was politically tenable, though that may be where we are.

I agree with JTF. A development like this coming to market without a public component is a sign of strength, not incompetency or mismanagement.

All development outside of the middle of the core has happened without any TIF other than the Dell campus and that was relatively small ($28 million out of $1.8 billion TIF to date and counting).

There have been some incentives for Costco and Von Maur but that was through different programs other than TIF. There are also big job incentives both from cities and the state.


I'll make my point again: Why is it that we need TIF incentives in the only place where there have been billions in public investment and billions in private investment without TIF dollars? Most private development in the core has happened without any TIF, so why does the "but for" argument keep getting traction?

Two big problems with these incentives: 1)It becomes very easy for developers to claim the need and they know exactly how much to ask for given the ample public information about what others have received; and 2) it's unfair to those who get turned down or just elect to invest more of their own money then have to compete with projects that get tens or even hundreds of millions in free incentives. Every single hotel, apartment complex, condo complex, restaurant, entertainment facility and office building is competing directly against those that already exist and those to be built in the future.

You now see the same small number of developers asking for and receiving TIF over and over again. They know exactly how to play the game. And now we have the former head of the Alliance (who is truly the gatekeeper of all this money) working for developers to help them get as much public money as possible.


As per the Oklahoma constitution, TIF is meant to prime the pump in 'blighted' areas. The obvious question is when is the bloody pump primed and when does an area stop being blighted? How many more decades and billions in tax dollars need to be spent?

There are some good applications for TIF like First National Center. But why are we still giving free money to developers in the core, especially because everything is rapidly appreciating and most of them are making huge profits? These are questions that need to be answered by an objective third party; someone other than the very small group of people that are doling out billions in tax dollars. If you had a job to do and there were billions being directed to you in the pursuit of your goals, how objective would you be in evaluating the legitimate need for that money?

I've posted before that I've heard from developers who politely get told 'no' by the Alliance which is not subject to open meeting laws and thus we never know who has made a request, what the original ask is, etc. All we see is the rubber stamp by OCURA and City Council after they have already met in private and been briefed. And both groups have provided approval 100% of the time -- so that is not true public oversight.

And if you get a 'no' in an informal meeting with the head of the Alliance, that's the end of the line. The only exception I can think of is the Wheeler District which lobbied for years and then finally went directly to City Council.

Pete, I think this is where we will disagree a bit. Downtown and in the core, we encourage density and height. Since this is the oldest part of the city/metro, it is clear that incentives will always be necessary for most urban development until a certain critical mass is reached. Urban Renewal tore so much down such that land still doesn't justify urban development in most of the downtown core, even on par with our smaller sister Tulsa - yet we make it happen with TIF.

Now I do agree with everyone that we need to remove the favoratism from the equation and I think that is happening. TIF seems to be more centered on the development and making it a success (underground parking, taller heights, density) and enhancing/rebuilding city utilities and services; rather than being part of the development bottom line. This is a positive in my opinion and (again) is why I think we should continue with allowing downtown TIF until that critical mass is reached.

^

Then why does most downtown development happen without any TIF at all?

And regarding density and infrastructure, what could be more costly in that regard than this very project, OAK? They have to completely relocate a section line road, put in a new road, and demolish streets, businesses and homes. And the density will be as high as anything downtown. AND this project will generate way more sales tax (the only form of income for the city) than just about anything downtown.

The reason projects like this get told 'no' by the Alliance is that the entire entity was formed with Larry Nichols as the driver (he still chairs the Alliance and OCURA) and all he cares about is downtown. It has nothing to do with actual benefits and return to the city, otherwise OAK would be the very first in line, as would Chisholm Creek and the Wheeler District.

TIFs were allowed by the Oklahoma Constitution in 1990. Before the Alliance was formed in 2011, $400 million in TIF districts had been established. Since the Alliance, we are now at $1.8 billion with no end in sight.

A strong argument can be made -- and it has been made in other communities -- that TIFs create a huge slush fund where powerful people allocate tax money to rich developers. And it's all done without any sort of public vote, which is exactly why it's become so huge here in OKC. We have to vote on General Obligation Bonds and School Bonds but TIF is all decided by a very small group of people.

This is a positive in my opinion and (again) is why I think we should continue with allowing downtown TIF until that critical mass is reached.

I agree with a lot of your points and I definitely believe there has been value in some TIF arrangements and incentives historically. The idea that it should be guided by a goal of achieving critical mass makes sense. But what constitutes "critical mass" and who gets to set that bar?

Intuitively, you would think critical mass would just become apparent when the developers stopped asking for it, but I think we know that's not going to happen under the current approach. It may not be so much that we need to cut back on incentives, but elevate the conditionals, and, based on Pete's insight, maybe review the process by which it is awarded. Sounds like we only know when it gets awarded, not when it doesn't or why.

There is a bill right now working its way through the state legislature that would require all TIF districts to be put to a public vote.

There is a bill right now working its way through the state legislature that would require all TIF districts to be put to a public vote.

Well, I guess that's one way to do it. lol.

It could probably be improved just by making the whole process transparent and public. At least that might force some accountability if necessary.

It could probably be improved just by making the whole process transparent and public. At least that might force some accountability if necessary.

The Alliance was formed with the express purpose of operating outside the public eye.

The claim was that secrecy is needed to conduct negotiations but that's ridiculous if you look at 99% of the projects that end up getting funded. Why does it has to be a secret that Developer X wants X dollars to build an apartment complex or office building or anything else? Why do they need to secretly meet with City Council in groups just under quorum so there doesn't have to be a public process or even notification?

It's just a way to quietly shift hundreds of millions of tax money to private developers without any sort of real watchdog. Try overspending on a bloody state park restaurant and you get every journalist in the state all over you.

There is a bill right now working its way through the state legislature that would require all TIF districts to be put to a public vote.

I believe this is just for when the state creates a TIF, not municipalities. I think its in response to the state creating a TIF to try to get Panasonic without local authorities being aware of it.

What's the bill that would force a public vote on it? I'm just curious who would be voting on it: municipal, county, state? I would assume it would be limited to the tax district affected, but this is the state legislature, so who knows what they dreamed up.

I can see why developers would want some secrecy for competitive reasons, but anyone should expect to give up some level of secrecy when asking for public assistance. I imagine their concern may be that someone would swoop in a propose something similar without using incentives, but that is exactly what we should want to happen. Otherwise, how do we really know that it can't be don't with the public absorbing the risk?

I don't want to think about why city officials and/or appointees would want secrecy, but that's probably where we'd find the best argument for it not being secret.

Anything coming out of the legislature is inherently a bad idea of it involves municipal governance. Dumb and frightening bunch.

...I imagine their concern may be that someone would swoop in a propose something similar without using incentives, but that is exactly what we should want to happen...

Their concern is that another local municipality (or a city within the region) might take what could be learned in public discussion and poach the business for themselves by upping the ante with their own incentive package.

Also, in many cases the companies are privately held. Few if any privately held companies would agree to have detailed financials added to the public record (as is their right). Many would walk from the negotiation the minute they learned that sharing their financials publicly is a prerequisite.

^^^^ which is why this practice should be federally banned.

^^^^ which is why this practice should be federally banned.

When pigs fly......

When pigs fly......
What we could call TIF? Socialism? Welfare? It’s okay as long as corporate is placed in front of those words?

What we could call TIF? Socialism? Welfare? It’s okay as long as corporate is placed in front of those words?

I mean, aren't you in another thread saying Oklahoma should have given close to a billion to a company that is already asking for more from the state that just gave them over $1 billion?

I mean, aren't you in another thread saying Oklahoma should have given close to a billion to a company that is already asking for more from the state that just gave them over $1 billion?
I’m also in this thread saying OAK should’ve been given incentives since this is probably one of the nicest developments in the entire state let alone the city along with First National.

Yes, I am also advocating for Oklahoma to spend billions to lure companies like the one going to Kansas after being given almost a billion dollars and is now asking for more. Do I like that reality? No. Choose your battles.

PS, I’m also not an anti socialist nor am I against welfare. I was not using those words in a derogatory way. If there’s anything else I can clear up do tell.

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/oak022423a.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/oak022423b.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/oak022423c.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/oak022423d.jpg

Few if any privately held companies would agree to have detailed financials added to the public record (as is their right). Many would walk from the negotiation the minute they learned that sharing their financials publicly is a prerequisite.

I'm not sure if public disclosure of detailed financials, like P&Ls and shareholder equity, would be necessary to gain a little more transparency in the process. I get why that would be of concern to a privately held entity, but some sort of public disclosures should at least be expected if an entity is asking for public assistance. In other words, if they want to stay private, stay private.

What we could call TIF? Socialism? Welfare? It’s okay as long as corporate is placed in front of those words?

"Economic Interventionism" if you want to steer clear of some of the more taboo -isms.

Their concern is that another local municipality (or a city within the region) might take what could be learned in public discussion and poach the business for themselves by upping the ante with their own incentive package.

Also, in many cases the companies are privately held. Few if any privately held companies would agree to have detailed financials added to the public record (as is their right). Many would walk from the negotiation the minute they learned that sharing their financials publicly is a prerequisite.

The opposite of this happens. Businesses pit municipalities against each other to raise their incentives (see Costco's threat to build in Edmond, which was never going to happen).

And we are talking about TIF here and I'm not aware of anyone ever asking for TIF and then seriously considering building their development outside of OKC. They have a specific property in mind by the time get to the ask point because they have to submit a project budget. Just look at the long list of developments that get TIF... They are all downtown; it's not like they would be considering Moore.

Private companies don't have to reveal detailed financials. They just submit a budget for their project. Anything they submit for TIF ultimately becomes public information.

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/oak022423a.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/oak022423b.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/oak022423c.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/oak022423d.jpg

Pretty impressive how fast things are moving on this site.

Seems like that's how things go, at least with big projects with real money and experience behind it. A looooooooong period of hearing about it way too soon here before anything visible actually starts happening. Then another long period of just seeing dirt moving around. Means something to some people with knowledge of such things, but just looks like dirt to me. Then a period of go go go as things go vertical and then another period of seemingly nothing happening when everything is happening in the interior before finally opening.

^

Planning, engineering and site work are always long processes on big projects.

Once something starts to go vertical, visually things start to change on a daily basis.

Seems like that's how things go, at least with big projects with real money and experience behind it. A looooooooong period of hearing about it way too soon here before anything visible actually starts happening. Then another long period of just seeing dirt moving around. Means something to some people with knowledge of such things, but just looks like dirt to me. Then a period of go go go as things go vertical and then another period of seemingly nothing happening when everything is happening in the interior before finally opening.

That is because once they start construction the clock on the construction loan starts ticking. Got to get it done so it starts producing income.

Pretty impressive how fast things are moving on this site.

even moreso since the projects approved for TIF haven't even applied for permits let alone submitted final renderings. ......

It's pretty cool to see the crane from my front yard!

This project was announced years ago. Let's not make it seem like this has been on a speedway. We saw almost 4 years of posts with updates to renderings, but not much else.

I am glad they are moving quickly now!

This project was announced years ago. Let's not make it seem like this has been on a speedway. We saw almost 4 years of posts with updates to renderings, but not much else.

I am glad they are moving quickly now!

To be fair, it wasn't announced 4 years ago.

We found out about it and started posting long before there was anything official.


It takes a damn long time with something as complicated as this (dozens of individual properties of all types and on a large scale) let alone having to deal with approvals for completely relocating a section-line road. They also expanded the footprint and continue to buy houses to the west for perhaps even more development.

To be fair, it wasn't announced 4 years ago.

We found out about it and started posting long before there was anything official.


It takes a damn long time with something as complicated as this (dozens of individual properties of all types and on a large scale) let alone having to deal with approvals for completely relocating a section-line road. They also expanded the footprint and continue to buy houses to the west for perhaps even more development.

I know. Just saying this to those who compare it to the Dream hotel project. It is different. Especially in this fragile day and age where rates are increasing quickly, and building materials, as well. 3 buildings at 26 stories is harder and more expensive to plan and build than most projects OKC has seen.

Also, there was a thing called Covid in the middle that stopped the world.

This project was announced years ago. Let's not make it seem like this has been on a speedway. We saw almost 4 years of posts with updates to renderings, but not much else.

I am glad they are moving quickly now!

Probably hard for people who have never been involved in a development project, let alone anything this complex, to understand, but easy to criticize. Most on here could never orchestrate anything this complicated, but it doesn’t stop them from snarking on those who do.

Pete, given your experience, what’s the chance OKCTalk could sponsor a Saturday seminar that informs your audience on how different types of developments happen, financing, etc. Might be eye opening and help people appreciate why things happen how and when they do. Maybe guest speakers from financiers, developers, city personnel, architects, etc. would volunteer.

^
People know the complexity of projects like this because we start documenting things in the early planning stages and then provide updates every step of the way.

And because most have never lived anywhere else or at least never followed commercial development in detail in other cities, there is this false narrative about how things taking time and often getting scaled back from an initial concept is somehow unique to OKC, or at least much 'worse' here.

It's the internet... People love to criticize anything and everything even when they know better and no matter how much hard information is provided.

It's a million times worse on social media which is why I stopped reading the comments on any OKCTalk post years ago.